So, I figured since I'm all always away right before the trade deadline (I am this year too, I'm writing this post before I leave), I never really give my opinions on anything that happens around that time. So...I thought that it would be fun to look back on the trades that the Phillies and the Nationals have made in the past three years and reminisce on the good old times...
2011: The Phillies trade for Hunter Pence from the Astros. Back story: Pence had just made a terrific throw from left field in the All-Star Game to help to NL to a win. His name had been linked to the Phillies in trade rumors before, and that moment made notice him. When the rumors intensified, I got really excited and I was so stoked when the trade finalized. It turned out to be a pretty good deal too...although Pence would be traded at the deadline the very next year. But it was a great year with Pence and I will always remember him as the most awkward player ever... :)
2012: This was the year the Phillies blew up their outfield by trading Pence and Victorino. At the time, I was annoyed, because I was attached to the team, and they had been so successful the year before, but in reality I know now that trading both of these guys was the best for the team and I am now prepared for any trades that may happen this year. I also am pretty sure that this year was the year the Nats traded for Kurt Suzuki...which was not a bad move, because none of their catcher can stay on the field.
2013: I cant really remember what happened last year (oops). Must not have been anything major.
2014: Who knows?
~TBC
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Bring back the old Home Run Derby!
So, I was less than impressed by the Home Run Derby this year. I didn't watch the whole thing because it went really late (#eastcoastprobs) but I was the most bored watching it that I had been in years (well, since I started watching it...) I think that the problem was that the new bracket format put in place this year. Here's why...
First of all, 7 outs vs 10 outs. By lowering the number of outs that the hitters have in each round, MLB is essentially decreasing the chance that any particular player will be able to start a hot streak by 30%. This is clearly evident by the fact that the highest round score was 10 in the first round by Jose Bautista. The main draw of this event is every home run hit, and by implementing a change that lowered the number of home runs substantially, some of the excitement is drained out of the event.
Also, the bracket form itself severely inhibits the flow of the event. Because the league are now separated until the final round, there is a higher chance that the final two, or even the winner, will not be the best home run hitter in the event. When the leagues are pooled together, the two players with the highest numbers of home runs will always advance. Although this usually results in the American League killing the National League, it make for a more entertaining event and thus should be the format followed in future years.
Finally, adding an extra player to each leagues team did absolutely nothing but extend the already tedious first round. If MLB thought that having more players would cause more excitement, they were sorely mistaken, as I was done with the derby by the end of the first round, in part because so many of the hitters failed to hit even 5 home runs.
So those are my thoughts on the new home run derby format. Better luck next year, I guess?
~TBC
First of all, 7 outs vs 10 outs. By lowering the number of outs that the hitters have in each round, MLB is essentially decreasing the chance that any particular player will be able to start a hot streak by 30%. This is clearly evident by the fact that the highest round score was 10 in the first round by Jose Bautista. The main draw of this event is every home run hit, and by implementing a change that lowered the number of home runs substantially, some of the excitement is drained out of the event.
Also, the bracket form itself severely inhibits the flow of the event. Because the league are now separated until the final round, there is a higher chance that the final two, or even the winner, will not be the best home run hitter in the event. When the leagues are pooled together, the two players with the highest numbers of home runs will always advance. Although this usually results in the American League killing the National League, it make for a more entertaining event and thus should be the format followed in future years.
Finally, adding an extra player to each leagues team did absolutely nothing but extend the already tedious first round. If MLB thought that having more players would cause more excitement, they were sorely mistaken, as I was done with the derby by the end of the first round, in part because so many of the hitters failed to hit even 5 home runs.
So those are my thoughts on the new home run derby format. Better luck next year, I guess?
~TBC
Monday, July 14, 2014
What makes a star?
Heyyy, I'm back with more random babbles. I'm very sorry that I didn't post anything last week but I was away pretty much the entire week (yes, I'm making excuses).
Anyway, the other day I was thinking about how some player are recognized as stars even if they have an average year (say 6 on a scale of 1-10) and how others are ignored even if they have several very solid seasons (let's say 8 on the same scale).
For example, let's compare these players (they will remain nameless for now) (also note, I meant to write this earlier so the stats I found are a couple of weeks old):
Player A (Career Stats): .269/52 HR/ 191 RBI/ 1208 AB
Player B (Career Stats): .273/43 HR/127 RBI/ 1043 AB
If you look at the stats, these players appear to be very similar. Except for the fact that one is a star and one is not. See, player A is the vastly underrated Josh Donaldson of Oakland. Player B is Bryce Harper. Both are early draft picks (although Harper was first overall and Donaldson was 48th) , many baseball fans on the east coast have never heard of Donaldson while basically ever baseball fan ever knows of Harper and has since he was a teenager. So why? why, out of these two very similar players only one is famous?
First thing: Career track record and reputation. Harper was a mega-prospect, a star since before he was drafted. Donaldson was not. Donaldson emerged as a legitimate major league player in 2012, Harper has been dubbed the next Babe Ruth since 2010. Basically, Harper has enough buzz surrounding him that even though he has been injured a lot recently, he is still hyped to be one of the best players in baseball.
Also, Harper plays in a bigger baseball market than Donaldson, so he has more national exposure than Donaldson. Although Oakland has the best record in baseball, the Bay Area is dominated by the Giants. Harper plays in the rapidly growing Washington market and is on the east coast (which for some reason means more coverage automatically...I don't know).
Basically, that's two reasons why the perception of these two players is so different. I thought that this was an interesting issue with the All-Star Game tomorrow (because,all the starters are never the most deserving...) Enjoy Donaldson in the Home Run Derby tonight folks!
~TBC
Anyway, the other day I was thinking about how some player are recognized as stars even if they have an average year (say 6 on a scale of 1-10) and how others are ignored even if they have several very solid seasons (let's say 8 on the same scale).
For example, let's compare these players (they will remain nameless for now) (also note, I meant to write this earlier so the stats I found are a couple of weeks old):
Player A (Career Stats): .269/52 HR/ 191 RBI/ 1208 AB
Player B (Career Stats): .273/43 HR/127 RBI/ 1043 AB
If you look at the stats, these players appear to be very similar. Except for the fact that one is a star and one is not. See, player A is the vastly underrated Josh Donaldson of Oakland. Player B is Bryce Harper. Both are early draft picks (although Harper was first overall and Donaldson was 48th) , many baseball fans on the east coast have never heard of Donaldson while basically ever baseball fan ever knows of Harper and has since he was a teenager. So why? why, out of these two very similar players only one is famous?
First thing: Career track record and reputation. Harper was a mega-prospect, a star since before he was drafted. Donaldson was not. Donaldson emerged as a legitimate major league player in 2012, Harper has been dubbed the next Babe Ruth since 2010. Basically, Harper has enough buzz surrounding him that even though he has been injured a lot recently, he is still hyped to be one of the best players in baseball.
Also, Harper plays in a bigger baseball market than Donaldson, so he has more national exposure than Donaldson. Although Oakland has the best record in baseball, the Bay Area is dominated by the Giants. Harper plays in the rapidly growing Washington market and is on the east coast (which for some reason means more coverage automatically...I don't know).
Basically, that's two reasons why the perception of these two players is so different. I thought that this was an interesting issue with the All-Star Game tomorrow (because,all the starters are never the most deserving...) Enjoy Donaldson in the Home Run Derby tonight folks!
~TBC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)