IF Canseco hits 500HRs is he a HOFer?
Desponded1
If Canseco gets to career # 500 in homeruns, is that enough for him to get into
the HOF ?
Chris Dial
Desponded1 wrote in message
<199805171116...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>If Canseco gets to career # 500 in homeruns, is that enough for him to get
into
>the HOF ?
Yes. Ask Eddie Murray.
CDial
--Eli--
Chris Dial
Well, when you get 3,000 hits AND 500 home runs then you know you're headed for
Cooperstown. I think if Canseco stays healthy for three more years he'll have a
great shot at 500. And yes, he should definitely go to the Hall if he eclipses
that mark.
>
>
> CDial
--
"I've got to save the wee turtles!..."
"Help! Save me from the wee turtles! They were too quick for me!"
Chuck
Canseco will not get 500 HRs. Period.
chuck
Chuck
With all due respect, what are you smoking? Canseco has not played a full
season since 1991. Even if he stays healthy for the next three years -- a
major long shot at best -- he would need 149 HRs over the 1998-2001
four-season stretch, and average of over 37 per year -- which he has
achieved exactly three times. And at ages 33-37 over that stretch, that
ain't too likely to happen.
chuck
--Eli-- wrote in message <355F37A4...@flash.net>...
>
>
>Chris Dial
>
>> Desponded1 wrote in message
>> <199805171116...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> >If Canseco gets to career # 500 in homeruns, is that enough for him to
get
>> into
>> >the HOF ?
>>
ches...@feist.com
In article <199805171116...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
despo...@aol.com (Desponded1) wrote:
>
> If Canseco gets to career # 500 in homeruns, is that enough for him to get
into
> the HOF ?
>
'90 World Series, I say no.
Jerry Weaver
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
jmac
The chance that Canseco could get to 500 is about the same
as somebody like David Wells pitching a perfect game (or going
on a diet)
Chris Dial
jmac wrote in message <355E7F...@newsguy.com>...
>The chance that Canseco could get to 500 is about the same
>as somebody like David Wells pitching a perfect game (or going
>on a diet)
Nice try!
CD
BostonFred
I always wondered the same about Dave Kingman. He holds the major league
record for homers hit in a final season (36?) and wound up with 442 or
thereabouts for his career. Between playing another year or two and perhaps
getting more at-bats in some of his earlier years, it's not inconceivable that
he could have reached 500.
Even if we don't consider his terrible relationship with the baseball writers,
I think he would NOT have been elected to the HOF. Can anyone tell me if he
received any votes at all when he was eligible?
David B.
Well? Is he?
Zen Bitz
David B. wrote:
>
> Well? Is he?
Nope. Just immortal.
--
**********************************************
* PLEASE BEFORE READING THIS PAGE, *
* DOUBLE CLICK ON HIGHLIGHTED SUBJECT AREA *
* TO VIEW LETTER IN FULL SCREEN *
**********************************************
Remove BRAIN to email Remove BRAIN to email Remove BRAIN to
Ben Hitz -- Do not reply Directly -- Dept. of Biochemistry
*** http://tincan.bioc.columbia.edu/Home/ben.home/ ***
Douglas T. Massey
In article <6jnkcn$q4g$1...@eve.enteract.com>,
"Chuck" <cha...@enteract.com> writes:
> With all due respect, what are you smoking? Canseco has not played a full
> season since 1991. Even if he stays healthy for the next three years -- a
> major long shot at best -- he would need 149 HRs over the 1998-2001
> four-season stretch, and average of over 37 per year -- which he has
> achieved exactly three times. And at ages 33-37 over that stretch, that
> ain't too likely to happen.
Who says he has to retire at the age of 37?
With the DH in place and his apparent proficiency at that spot, there's
no real reason -- apart from injury -- why he can't play for six more
years. Can he average 25 homers a year from ages 33-40? Sure.
Would he want to stay in baseball that long? If he's chasing 500 home
runs, I think so . . .
What's the Favorite Toy say?
Doug
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
___, IBM Microelectronics Division, Burlington, Vermont
\o ASICs Product Development Engineering |>
| Phone: (802)769-7095 t/l: 446-7095 fax: x6800 |
/ \ E-mail: mas...@btv.ibm.com |
. Doug's Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~masseyd (|)
James Weisberg
In article <35603E...@BRAINburrito.bioc.columbia.edu>,
Zen Bitz <hi...@BRAINburrito.bioc.columbia.edu> wrote:
>David B. wrote:
>> Well? Is he?
>
>Nope. Just immortal.
Now that's a scary thought! Can you imagine Ozzie Guillen
as the last immortal? Not Christopher Lambert. Not Sean Connery.
Not Adrian Paul. Not even the Kurgan dude.
Man. What a crappy world that would be....
--
World's Greatest Living Poster
David Andrew Leonardo Marasco
In article <6jpojv$f...@tekka.wwa.com>,
In that case, "There can be only none!"
David Marasco mar...@nwu.edu http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~dmarasco
"An object at rest cannot be stopped." - The Tick
Stephen Shauger
Douglas T. Massey wrote:
>
27%
That is with a birthday to the nearest month (instead of year)
adjustment.
I have these on my page . . .
http://www.math.tamu.edu/~shauger/favtoy.html
Stephen Shauger
David Grabiner
bosto...@aol.com (BostonFred) writes:
Yes, three votes in 1992, which was nowhere near the minimum 5% to stay
on the ballot.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
Lurker Below
On Mon, 18 May 1998 13:12:08 -0500, Stephen Shauger <sha...@tamu.edu>
wrote:
>Douglas T. Massey wrote:
>27%
>http://www.math.tamu.edu/~shauger/favtoy.html
I love how all these wonderful statisical tools ignore people like
Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire who have taken their power numbers to new
highs in their early to mid-thirties. Aaron would not _have_ the
career record if he hadn't 'come on strong in 'the late stages' of his
career and you can look in the paper and see what McGwire is doing at
a similar point in his career.
All that said, if Canseco should somehow get 500 HRs, he is a mortal
lock.
Jason Kassa
When people name the best pitcher ever, the names Maddux, Clemans, Koufax,
Young, Johnson keep coming up. As far as best career by a pitcher goes I
would think that Lefty Grove would be a lock. Is there something about him
that I don't know? Is he just not that popular? I never heard of him
before I really started to research old players. Why isn't he as praised
for his contributions to the game as these other pitchers? Anyone?
Ted Frank
In article <35608920...@news.inlink.com>,
Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>I love how all these wonderful statisical tools ignore people like
>Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire who have taken their power numbers to new
>highs in their early to mid-thirties.
"People like Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire" is a bit of an overstatement,
since the only people like them in the history of baseball have been
Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire.
Aaron didn't get any better: he just moved to a better ballpark for
hitting home runs. McGwire was always a good home run hitter (he has the
rookie record, remember), he just had trouble staying healthy and played
in a poor ballpark for home runs until recent changes to the Oakland
stadium.
Expecting Canseco to suddenly regain his form is somewhat unrealistic.
A one in four chance of 500 isn't so irrational: he'll need to do better
than be a dh who hits .240 with 25 home runs to stick around.
>All that said, if Canseco should somehow get 500 HRs, he is a mortal
>lock.
I would imagine that's true for anyone with 500, though there was once a
time when they said that about 400.
--
http://www.radix.net/~moe
you don't win friends with salad
Gary S. Simon
If Ozzie Guillen gets 500 HR, he's not Ozzie Guillen.
Larry Gene Gariepy, Jr.
Chuck wrote:
>
> With all due respect, what are you smoking? Canseco has not played a full
> season since 1991. Even if he stays healthy for the next three years -- a
> major long shot at best -- he would need 149 HRs over the 1998-2001
> four-season stretch, and average of over 37 per year -- which he has
> achieved exactly three times. And at ages 33-37 over that stretch, that
> ain't too likely to happen.
>
Hold on there, Chuck. I don't quite follow your logic. First you say
that Canseco needs to stay healthy for the next four seasons to have a
shot at 500, and then you say that he can't hit 37 homeruns anymore
because he hasn't in all those seasons when he was hurt? That doesn't
make sense. I think there is plenty of data to support an argument
that Canseco can still hit 40 HRs in a season where he stays healthy.
But first, I would like to point out some stuff that should go on
Canseco's Hall of Fame application that everyone seems to be missing.
Everyone looks at Canseco and thinks homerun hitter, and rightly so.
However, I think it is terribly unfair to call him a one-dimensional
player. He is one-and-a-half dimensional, at least (I'm a math grad
student, don't argue :) ). Has everyone forgotten what kind of a
player Canseco was ten years ago? He was called the best all-around
player in baseball by some, and the best all-around offensive player
by those who couldn't turn their heads and ignore his defensive play
(which was not legendarily offensive as people categorize it today).
He won the Rookie of the Year award in 1986, and quickly followed with
an MVP in 1988 when he did the 40-40 thing. He played on three World
Series teams, and won a ring in 1989. He also has 175 career stolen
bases, which granted is about 9 million fewer than Rickey Henderson
will have when (if) he retires, but is still 90 more than Kingman had.
It looks like he will probably make it to 200, and slow people rarely
make it that far. So it is not fair to say that, if Canseco does make
it to 500, that it is the only significant thing he has done in his
career. It clearly is not.
However, his .268 lifetime average and inability to draw walks mean
people focus on his homeruns. And why not? He gets paid to hit
homeruns, no question. But what we should realize, is that the guy is
an EXCEPTIONAL homerun hitter. Yes, he has been injured every
freaking year, and he has still managed to keep pace with Barry Bonds
(they both debuted in 1986) and top 350 HRs. That is amazing. His
career AB/HR ratio is tremendous, better than a few guys you may have
heard of, like Aaron, Griffey, that Bonds fellow (and Kingman). In
fact,
it is like #11 or #12 all-time (not sure because both
majorleaguebaseball.com
and totalbaseball.com seemed to have stopped updating their career
statistics tables after 1996). His career slugging percentage is in
the top 40 of all-time. So to put it simply, Canseco is not just a
homerun hitter, he is a prime specimen of a homerun hitter. He isn't
at McGwire's level, but he is just a rung or two down the ladder from
him. And quite a bit better than Kingman.
Now, I said I would argue that Canseco can hit 40 HRs if he is
healthy. I should actually be asking you why he couldn't. He has
averaged better than 1 HR every 15 AB for his career, so if he gets
600 AB, there you go, 40HR. That's probably because he was a lot
better at the beginning of his career right? No. Over the past five
or six seasons that have seen him go down with injuries at midseason
like clockwork, he has continued to maintain that pace. In 1996 with
Boston, he hit 28 HR's in 96 games, clearly on a pace to hit 40.
Also, contrary to what you said, Canseco has played an entire season
healthy since 1991. He was unfortunate enough to have his only
healthy year be the year of the strike, but he cannot be faulted for
that. He played 111 games that year, as many as the other healthy
people. And he hit 31 HRs, again clearly on a pace to hit 40, and in
fact he was 4th in the league. Sure, he hasn't been on a pace to hit
40 every year, but he is looking good in that respect this year (not
so good in other respects).
As far as his prospects for the Hall of Fame are concerned, this could
very well be his last season to prove that he still has it. If he can
hit .260, with 35-40 HRs, 100 RBIs, and steal 30 bases as a bonus, he
shouldn't have trouble finding a DH job for several more years
(someone has to replace Paul Molitor in Minnesota right? Sorry, I
meant North Carolina...). If he can't beat the injury rap this year,
then he may be washed up.
So to finally get back to the point, what if he makes it to 500?
Well, I'd say the ROY, MVP, World Series ring, the 40-40 thing, and a
good pile of SB for a homerun hitter should be worth a ticket. He
should compare pretty favorably to Reggie Jackson in a lot of respects
(duck). If he doesn't make 500, then I'd bet that we might see
someone eclipse Dave Kingman's record of 442 HRs without a HoF invite.
Long windedly,
Larry
Bob Timmermann
most beloved
players ever. Sandy Koufax has "mystique." He peaked and then faded
before he could
become mediocre.
However, Lefty Grove had two problems which kept him from being
remembered as the
greatest pitcher ever (although you can argue that he was very easily.)
1. He was forced to spend a couple extra years pitching in the IL in
Baltimore because
his owner Jack Dunn, wanted to get more money from him. If he had
pitched those years in the majors, his record would be even more
impressive.
2. Grove was short-tempered and not universally liked. It's not like he
was Alex
Johnson, but he was not exactly warm and fuzzy.
--
Bob Timmermann
South Pasadena CA
Jonathan Bernstein
Ted Frank (m...@Radix.Net) wrote:
: I would imagine that's true for anyone with 500, though there was once a
: time when they said that about 400.
It's still basically the case. We have two guys who hit 400 and didn't
make it. Evans is a special case: he was ruined by the glut of 3Bs that
played with him. Kingman is an even more special case; he's practically
an ideal version of someone who is as bad a HOF prospect as possible with
his HRs. If Kingman wasn't a jerk to sportswriters (read: HOF voters); if
he had happened to have played for better teams; if he was just as bad a
fielder, but looked better doing it...any of those things would have made
him a serious HOF candidate.
Of course, this will change rapidly once Coors and the 90s offensive
levels get into the system.
JHB
beer
>However, Lefty Grove had two problems which kept him from being
>remembered as the
>greatest pitcher ever (although you can argue that he was very easily.)
>1. He was forced to spend a couple extra years pitching in the IL in
>Baltimore because
>his owner Jack Dunn, wanted to get more money from him. If he had
>pitched those years in the majors, his record would be even more
>impressive.
>2. Grove was short-tempered and not universally liked. It's not like he
>was Alex
>Johnson, but he was not exactly warm and fuzzy.
>--
>Bob Timmermann
>South Pasadena CA
3. he pitched at a time when runs scored were at a high, leaving him with a
career ERA of 3.06. His ERA+ is 148 (highest of all time according to total
baseball 2nd ed)
Montreal Expos - 1994 Champs!
Marty
David B. (nospamd...@cysource.com) wrote:
: Well? Is he?
Ozzie Guillen, 500 HR. Ozzie Guillen, HoF.
ROTFL!!!
This thread is a joke right?
-right
marty
Bjjp2
>When people name the best pitcher ever, the names Maddux, Clemans, Koufax,
>Young, Johnson keep coming up. As far as best career by a pitcher goes I
>would think that Lefty Grove would be a lock. Is there something about him
>that I don't know? Is he just not that popular? I never heard of him
>before I really started to research old players. Why isn't he as praised
>for his contributions to the game as these other pitchers? Anyone?
>
>
>
Although he's not nearly as overlooked as Grove, I'm starting to get the same
feeling about Tom Seaver. I was appalled to see Nolan Ryan listed ahead of him
on some list of all time great right-handers a while back. I don't know if
this is still the case, but at one time Seaver had the largest differential
ever between his winning percentage and those of his (generally lousy) teams.
Michael J. Sacks
On Mon, 18 May 1998, David B. wrote:
> Well? Is he?
If he can do it by the time he's 45 years old, then, surprisingly enough,
I have to say yes.
However, I have to say the chances of Guillen hitting 500 HR are only
slightly better than Ty Cobb making a comeback and hitting 500 HR from the
grave (which he could if he wanted too!).
Mike Sacks
Gary Huckabay
In article <6jq58k$9...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>In article <35608920...@news.inlink.com>,
>Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>Aaron didn't get any better: he just moved to a better ballpark for
>hitting home runs. McGwire was always a good home run hitter (he has the
>rookie record, remember), he just had trouble staying healthy and played
>in a poor ballpark for home runs until recent changes to the Oakland
>stadium.
Perhaps, but McGwire is most definitely a better hitter than he
was earlier in his career. His entire swing has been broken down
and reconstructed. And God, is it frightening. I swear, the entire
world seems to stop when he's at the plate. If I'm over at a friend's
doing something, we switch back and forth to the Cardinal game and
everything stops. My wife comes in from her office when she hears his
name announced on the TV.
McGwire's changed things. There are phrases that didn't used to
exist because of his late-career surge. Phrases like "Only 468 feet."
>Expecting Canseco to suddenly regain his form is somewhat unrealistic.
>A one in four chance of 500 isn't so irrational: he'll need to do better
>than be a dh who hits .240 with 25 home runs to stick around.
What's he got, about 350?
I think he can get 500, but he'll have to lose a bit of the bulk. He
doesn't look as heavy as he used to, and judging strictly on the basis
of his steals, it looks like he's got a bit of his speed back. Canseco
will unfortunately be remembered as a one dimensional player. But in
his early career, he was a pretty fair defender and had a little bit of
speed.
I really think that the HR off his head could cost him the HoF. It
changed perceptions -- for good.
If he can get to 500, and make one or two more world series appearances,
he's a lock. Anything short of that, and I expect he could watch Joe
Carter inducted from a South Florida bar in about ten years.
--
* Gary Huckabay * http://www.baseballprospectus.com * http://www.sacbee.com *
*"Pontificating * http://www.baseball1.com * http://www.stathead.com *
* Dork." * http://www.scoresheet.com * http://sj.znet.com/~boness *
* * http://www.snpp.com * http://www.best.com/~spaceman *
Nelson Lu
In article <6jsh4k$l6a$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Gary Huckabay <ez02...@dogbert.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>Perhaps, but McGwire is most definitely a better hitter than he
>was earlier in his career. His entire swing has been broken down
And yet, despite is great start, he's not the MVP, IMO. Thus far that honor
has to go to Chipper Jones. Ivan Rodriguez is also beating both of them. I
don't expect Rodriguez's hitting to last, but Jones' might.
===============================================================================
GO ANAHEIM ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
Gregg Rosenberg
Nelson Lu (n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <6jsh4k$l6a$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
: Gary Huckabay <ez02...@dogbert.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
:
: >Perhaps, but McGwire is most definitely a better hitter than he
: >was earlier in his career. His entire swing has been broken down
:
: And yet, despite is great start, he's not the MVP, IMO. Thus far that honor
: has to go to Chipper Jones. Ivan Rodriguez is also beating both of them. I
: don't expect Rodriguez's hitting to last, but Jones' might.
Interesting connection to Vlad and the BP guys here. Vlad's 1997
predictions were for the "breakout" season Chipper seems to be
having now. It "corrected" itself in its prediction for this year.
One way to look at that is that Vlad was wrong both years. A more
interesting way to look at it, given the uncertainty in predicting
"breakout" years, is to play horseshoes. I wonder how well Vlad does
in predicting "breakout" years if you give it a *two* year window.
Is Vlad significantly better at predicting *which* players will have
breakout years than it is at predicting the exact year it will happen?
That is, when it predicts a "breakout" year, does it do significantly
better if you allow a "hit" to count as having the breakout year in
either of the next two years? Does it do any better than other methods?
Given the difficulty of the task, I'd consider even meeting this
watered-down criteria to be an accomplishment.
--Gregg
Terry May
Re: "IF Canseco hits 500HRs is he a HOFer?", n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU pitched
the following on 19 May 98 @ 18:22:09:
n> And yet, despite is great start, he's not the MVP, IMO. Thus far
n> that honor has to go to Chipper Jones. Ivan Rodriguez is also
n> beating both of them. I don't expect Rodriguez's hitting to last,
n> but Jones' might.
Of course, Jones is not competing against Rodriguez, since they play in
different leagues.
Why do you think Jones deserves it over McGwire?
... Atlanta Braves - 1995 World Series Champions!
--
Terry May - Las Vegas, NV
Nelson Lu
>Why do you think Jones deserves it over McGwire?
Positional considerations: Jones' performance over a replacement level 3B
thus far is (slightly) more than McGwire's performance over a replacement level
1B.
Lurker Below
On 18 May 1998 16:21:40 -0400, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
>In article <35608920...@news.inlink.com>,
>Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>>I love how all these wonderful statisical tools ignore people like
>>Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire who have taken their power numbers to new
>>highs in their early to mid-thirties.
>"People like Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire" is a bit of an overstatement,
>since the only people like them in the history of baseball have been
>Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire.
Actually, the article I read that pointed that out said that Griffey
has done much the same thing only somewhat earlier in his career
(dramatically increased his HR totals).
>Aaron didn't get any better: he just moved to a better ballpark for
>hitting home runs. McGwire was always a good home run hitter (he has the
>rookie record, remember), he just had trouble staying healthy and played
>in a poor ballpark for home runs until recent changes to the Oakland
>stadium.
He's hitting them _a lot_ more frequently (about once every 5 ABs at
Busch, not exactly HR heaven) and much further (never had a 500 footer
before last year, I think).
>Expecting Canseco to suddenly regain his form is somewhat unrealistic.
>A one in four chance of 500 isn't so irrational: he'll need to do better
>than be a dh who hits .240 with 25 home runs to stick around.
Another poster points out that Canesco has not fallen _out_ of form,
he's just been injured. He says he's been hitting a dinger about every
15 ABs. So really, he just needs to figure out how McGwire has managed
to stay healthy and apply it to himself.
>>All that said, if Canseco should somehow get 500 HRs, he is a mortal
>>lock.
>I would imagine that's true for anyone with 500, though there was once a
>time when they said that about 400.
Special cases.
Lurker Below
On 19 May 1998 18:22:09 GMT, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>In article <6jsh4k$l6a$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
>Gary Huckabay <ez02...@dogbert.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>Perhaps, but McGwire is most definitely a better hitter than he
>>was earlier in his career. His entire swing has been broken down
>And yet, despite is great start, he's not the MVP, IMO. Thus far that honor
>has to go to Chipper Jones. Ivan Rodriguez is also beating both of them. I
>don't expect Rodriguez's hitting to last, but Jones' might.
What _is_ it that you have against McGwire? Do you _still_ think the
trade and the signing were bad things for the Cardinals? Do you still
pine for the sight of Dmitri Young playing 1B for the 'Birds?
Nelson Lu
In article <356269eb...@news.inlink.com>,
Yes. Have you checked how Young is playing lately? Don't tell me he's
$9.5 million worse than McGwire...
Ted Frank
In article <356267d...@news.inlink.com>,
Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>On 18 May 1998 16:21:40 -0400, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
>>>I love how all these wonderful statisical tools ignore people like
>>>Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire who have taken their power numbers to new
>>>highs in their early to mid-thirties.
>
>>"People like Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire" is a bit of an overstatement,
>>since the only people like them in the history of baseball have been
>>Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire.
>
>Actually, the article I read that pointed that out said that Griffey
>has done much the same thing only somewhat earlier in his career
>(dramatically increased his HR totals).
Huh? That's not the same thing at all. You *expect* someone in his
early 20's hitting 30 HR to dramatically increase his HR totals, because
players peak around the ages of 26 to 28.
You don't expect a Jose Canseco whose peak years are well behind him to
rediscover his ability to hit 40 HR a season. Unless he signs with Colorado.
Is Canseco really hitting a home run every 15 AB? He's only got 6 right
now, iirc, though he may have been hurt and I missed it.
Greg Ioannou
>Is Canseco really hitting a home run every 15 AB? He's only got 6 right
>now, iirc, though he may have been hurt and I missed it.
According to the Jays' Web site, as of May 19 Canseco has 13 HRs in 162 ABs,
or one every 12 ABs. I'm suspicious of the 13 HRs -- he must have belted a few
while I wasn't paying attention.
Greg Ioannou
gr...@e-mend.com
Lurker Below
On 20 May 1998 10:30:26 -0400, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
>In article <356267d...@news.inlink.com>,
>>>"People like Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire" is a bit of an overstatement,
>>>since the only people like them in the history of baseball have been
>>>Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire.
>>Actually, the article I read that pointed that out said that Griffey
>>has done much the same thing only somewhat earlier in his career
>>(dramatically increased his HR totals).
>Huh? That's not the same thing at all. You *expect* someone in his
>early 20's hitting 30 HR to dramatically increase his HR totals, because
>players peak around the ages of 26 to 28.
Griffey went from a 'write him down for 20' HR guy to a 'write him
down for 40+' HR guy over a two season span. He had never hit more
than 22 before 92 and has not hit less than 45 in a 'full season
(non-stirke and no long DL stints)' since 93 (FYI - he hit 27 in 92).
Increase I buy as 'normal', doubling I do not.
>You don't expect a Jose Canseco whose peak years are well behind him to
>rediscover his ability to hit 40 HR a season. Unless he signs with Colorado.
If the info in the below referenced message is correct, he simply
needs to stay healthy and find a regular job as a DH.
>Is Canseco really hitting a home run every 15 AB? He's only got 6 right
>now, iirc, though he may have been hurt and I missed it.
See Message-ID: <3561216D...@cs.dartmouth.edu> for a long (90
line) defense of poor Jose by another poster.
Sean Lahman
Lurker Below wrote:
>
> On 20 May 1998 10:30:26 -0400, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
>
> >In article <356267d...@news.inlink.com>,
>
> >>has done much the same thing only somewhat earlier in his career
> >>(dramatically increased his HR totals).
>
> >Huh? That's not the same thing at all. You *expect* someone in his
> >early 20's hitting 30 HR to dramatically increase his HR totals, because
> >players peak around the ages of 26 to 28.
>
> Griffey went from a 'write him down for 20' HR guy to a 'write him
> down for 40+' HR guy over a two season span. He had never hit more
> than 22 before 92 and has not hit less than 45 in a 'full season
> (non-stirke and no long DL stints)' since 93 (FYI - he hit 27 in 92).
> Increase I buy as 'normal', doubling I do not.
The point is that Griffey was only 22 when he started hitting 40
homers. That's due to physical maturation. Most players past 30 tend
to lose some of their physical skills, not increase them.
--
Sean Lahman / se...@baseball1.com
The Baseball Archive - http://www.baseball1.com
Lurker Below
On 20 May 1998 07:36:21 GMT, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>In article <356269eb...@news.inlink.com>,
>Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>>What _is_ it that you have against McGwire? Do you _still_ think the
>>trade and the signing were bad things for the Cardinals? Do you still
>>pine for the sight of Dmitri Young playing 1B for the 'Birds?
>Yes. Have you checked how Young is playing lately? Don't tell me he's
>$9.5 million worse than McGwire...
What's attendance like in that wonderful baseball town of Cincinnati?
Fans leave here in St. Louis _after_ McGwire's 'last AB' when the
Cardinals are getting blown out. He puts fannies in the seats. Is
Dmitri's glove still clanking in the night? Can Dmitri carry a team on
his back like McGwire does? Does Dmitri change the whole complexion of
a game the way McGwire does?
There's something very inspiring about watching a guy _on your team_
put dents in signs a hundred feet above dead centerfield. Lankford
says it. Jordan says it. Gant says it. Hell, it even seems to have
rubbed off on _David Howard_ (hitting wise).
With the injuries to Alan Benes, Morris and Osborne, I shudder to
think where this team would be with Dmitri in place of Mark (and
Dmitri would be on the bench here anyway, since _Mabry_ would be
starting at 1B since Jordan is healthy).
Colin T. William
On Wed, 20 May 1998, Lurker Below wrote:
> What's attendance like in that wonderful baseball town of Cincinnati?
> Fans leave here in St. Louis _after_ McGwire's 'last AB' when the
> Cardinals are getting blown out. He puts fannies in the seats.
There's also the issue of all those people coming early for batting
practice. That's gotta be a fair chunk of extra concession revenue...
Colin
Sean Forman
On Wed, 20 May 1998, Lurker Below wrote:
> On 20 May 1998 07:36:21 GMT, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
> What's attendance like in that wonderful baseball town of Cincinnati?
> Fans leave here in St. Louis _after_ McGwire's 'last AB' when the
> Cardinals are getting blown out. He puts fannies in the seats. Is
> Dmitri's glove still clanking in the night? Can Dmitri carry a team on
> his back like McGwire does? Does Dmitri change the whole complexion of
> a game the way McGwire does?
> There's something very inspiring about watching a guy _on your team_
> put dents in signs a hundred feet above dead centerfield. Lankford
> says it. Jordan says it. Gant says it. Hell, it even seems to have
> rubbed off on _David Howard_ (hitting wise).
> With the injuries to Alan Benes, Morris and Osborne, I shudder to
> think where this team would be with Dmitri in place of Mark (and
> Dmitri would be on the bench here anyway, since _Mabry_ would be
> starting at 1B since Jordan is healthy)..
Nobody is going to trade Dmitri Young for Mark McGwire straight up.
Without a doubt Young is the better player, but would you trade, Dmitri
Young, Andy Benes, Eric Ludwick, TJ Mathews, Blake Stein, and say Rod Beck
or Roberto Hernandez for Mark McGwire, which is pretty much what the
Cardinals did. They might have kept Benes anyway, but the money to
McGwire could have helped them there. Or they could have used it to get a
3Bman like Palmer. I still might have done it, but to look at it as a
Young for McGwire swap is wrong.
later,
sean
Sean Forman Program Of Applied Mathematics U. Of Iowa
"It's the Curie's. We must flee!!!" -- The Simpsons
AAA Pitching reports @http://soli.inav.net/~sforman/Baseball.html
Nelson Lu
In article <3562f4b4...@news.inlink.com>,
Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>On 20 May 1998 07:36:21 GMT, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>>Yes. Have you checked how Young is playing lately? Don't tell me he's
>>$9.5 million worse than McGwire...
>
>What's attendance like in that wonderful baseball town of Cincinnati?
There is no evidence that McGwire himself is responsible for all of the
attendance. Rather, it should be noted that the Cardinals' competitiveness
in general over the last few years should be credited. If McGwire were
playing for a horrible team, you wouldn't see him bringing that many people
into the seats. (See, e.g., Oakland, where the team had horrible attendance
with him, and how Florida's attendance hasn't increased since the arrival of
Mike Piazza, who was a better player last season and probably will be a better
player this season.)
>Fans leave here in St. Louis _after_ McGwire's 'last AB' when the
>Cardinals are getting blown out. He puts fannies in the seats. Is
>Dmitri's glove still clanking in the night? Can Dmitri carry a team on
>his back like McGwire does? Does Dmitri change the whole complexion of
>a game the way McGwire does?
In fact, McGwire can't "carry a team on his back" either. Nobody in baseball
can. In the maximum case, the most valuable player in the league helps his
team to 9-10 additional wins a year. That's not "carrying a team on his back,"
in my opinion.
The question, again, is whether the difference between McGwire and Young is
worth the big salary difference -- and don't forget that the Cardinals had to
give up T. J. Mathews, Eric Ludwick, and Blake Stein (who has looked great
thus far) to get McGwire. I am pretty sure that McGwire is *not* worth the
salary difference between him and Young.
James Weisberg
In article <6jv3n9$t9a$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
Nelson Lu <n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>There is no evidence that McGwire himself is responsible for all of the
>attendance. Rather, it should be noted that the Cardinals' competitiveness
>in general over the last few years should be credited. If McGwire were
>playing for a horrible team, you wouldn't see him bringing that many people
>into the seats.
Why not look at the attendance the Cards pull on road games
against horrible teams? I don't know how many people attended
last night's Phils game, but those that did evidently gave Mark
a standing ovation. I think that's fairly indicative that he is
a draw on the road. And when the Cards were playing the Cubs at
Wrigley last, people showed up very early to watch his batting
practice.
I would have to say that some players do affect attendance,
and McGwire may prove to be one of them.
--
World's Greatest Living Poster
Terry May
>> What _is_ it that you have against McGwire? Do you _still_ think
>> the trade and the signing were bad things for the Cardinals? Do
>> you still pine for the sight of Dmitri Young playing 1B for the
>> 'Birds?
n>
n> Yes. Have you checked how Young is playing lately? Don't tell
n> me he's $9.5 million worse than McGwire...
I wonder how many fans Young draws to the ballpark.....
... (^:b Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Neagle, Millwood d:^)
Lurker Below
>On Wed, 20 May 1998, Lurker Below wrote:
>> What's attendance like in that wonderful baseball town of Cincinnati?
>> Fans leave here in St. Louis _after_ McGwire's 'last AB' when the
>> Cardinals are getting blown out. He puts fannies in the seats.
>There's also the issue of all those people coming early for batting
>practice. That's gotta be a fair chunk of extra concession revenue...
Not to mention all those #25 jerseys and other McGwire paraphenalia
that they sell.
Lurker Below
>On Wed, 20 May 1998, Lurker Below wrote:
>> What's attendance like in that wonderful baseball town of Cincinnati?
>> Fans leave here in St. Louis _after_ McGwire's 'last AB' when the
>> Cardinals are getting blown out. He puts fannies in the seats. Is
>> Dmitri's glove still clanking in the night? Can Dmitri carry a team on
>> his back like McGwire does? Does Dmitri change the whole complexion of
>> a game the way McGwire does?
>> There's something very inspiring about watching a guy _on your team_
>> put dents in signs a hundred feet above dead centerfield. Lankford
>> says it. Jordan says it. Gant says it. Hell, it even seems to have
>> rubbed off on _David Howard_ (hitting wise).
>> With the injuries to Alan Benes, Morris and Osborne, I shudder to
>> think where this team would be with Dmitri in place of Mark (and
>> Dmitri would be on the bench here anyway, since _Mabry_ would be
>> starting at 1B since Jordan is healthy)..
>Nobody is going to trade Dmitri Young for Mark McGwire straight up.
>Without a doubt Young is the better player, but would you trade, Dmitri
>Young, Andy Benes, Eric Ludwick, TJ Mathews, Blake Stein, and say Rod Beck
>or Roberto Hernandez for Mark McGwire, which is pretty much what the
>Cardinals did.
That's laughable Sean. They had Benes _signed_ after the McGwire
signing. Only the greed of Scott Boros kept him away. And the Cards
_did_ get Jeff Brantley who is perfect in save opportunities this
season, if I am not mistaken, for Dmitri. More like Mark McGwire, Jeff
Brantley and David Howard for Young, Ludwick, Mathews, Stein and Beck
(the extra McGwire money signs Beck) and cash.
>They might have kept Benes anyway, but the money to
>McGwire could have helped them there. Or they could have used it to get a
>3Bman like Palmer.
Why? Gaetti has been more than adequate.
>I still might have done it, but to look at it as a
>Young for McGwire swap is wrong.
Nobody is (except perhaps you). It was a matter of who is playing
position X.
Sean Lahman
Lurker Below wrote:
> Not to mention all those #25 jerseys and other McGwire paraphenalia
> that they sell.
Which are licensed by MLB Properties. The Yankees get as much of the
money from those jerseys as the Cards do.
Lurker Below
On Wed, 20 May 1998 11:29:15 -0400, Sean Lahman <se...@baseball1.com>
wrote:
>Lurker Below wrote:
To go from ~20 HR a year to 45+ HR a year is _more_ than physical
maturation would normally allow for. If he had gone from the 30 that
Ted Frank postulated to 45+, I would agree, but doubling your output,
no.
I think you are going to see a greater number of players increase
their numbers later in their careers due to better conditioning
regimens and better tools for study. Look at McGwire, Gwynn, Ryan,
Clemens. I don't believe that it will be the norm, but I do believe it
will be more common (and is more common) than you do.
Lurker Below
On Wed, 20 May 1998 16:07:02 -0400, Sean Lahman <se...@baseball1.com>
wrote:
>Lurker Below wrote:
>> Not to mention all those #25 jerseys and other McGwire paraphenalia
>> that they sell.
>Which are licensed by MLB Properties. The Yankees get as much of the
>money from those jerseys as the Cards do.
Did they sell as many #25 Oakland jerseys as they do #25 Cardinals
jerseys?
11 minutes from post to reply. Good to know that I'm propagating well.
And _you_ are quick on the draw.
Don Malcolm
So far this season, the Cards are ranked 11th out of 16
NL teams in road attendance. Nevertheless, it's true that
McGwire could indeed have an impact on attendance later in
the year as he gets closer and closer to the HR record, as
most of us expect him to.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The BBBA home page---the web site baseball deserves
http://www.backatcha.com
This week in Thoughts Out of Season: the Year-End Projection
System Rides Again!; "the Trade"; Wells' perfect game up close
Ted Frank
In article <35633620...@news.inlink.com>,
Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>>The point is that Griffey was only 22 when he started hitting 40
>>homers. That's due to physical maturation. Most players past 30 tend
>>to lose some of their physical skills, not increase them.
>
>To go from ~20 HR a year to 45+ HR a year is _more_ than physical
>maturation would normally allow for.
>If he had gone from the 30 that
>Ted Frank postulated to 45+, I would agree, but doubling your output,
>no.
Griffey, as a 22-year-old, had 39 doubles and 27 home runs; he easily
would have had 30 home runs, but he missed 20 games with injury that year.
How many 22-year-olds with 70 XBH a year don't substantially improve their
home run totals? It's not at all unusual for someone that young slugging
.535 to raise their SLG close to 100 points as they reach their peak.
The dejanews archives don't go back that far, but people on rsbb were
talking of Griffey as someone who would hit 400-500 home runs before he
started hitting 45 home runs a year in 1993.
That more players are increasing their home run totals now is because of
the new ballparks, which have, with the exception of Comiskey and Robbie,
been hitters' parks. Camden Yards replaced Memorial; Jacobs Field
replaced the old gigantic park in Cleveland; the National League added
Coors; the A's park has been converted into something with more home
runs; the new ballpark in Arlington is much better for hitters. Not
because of some magical property that makes 30-year-olds more likely to
have career peaks.
To repeat: Griffey's improved performance is a sign of development. It's
not a harbinger that a Canseco is going to reach new career highs.
(Canseco does have 13 HR, 5 against Texas.)
Sean Forman
On Thu, 21 May 1998, Lurker Below wrote:
> On 20 May 1998 16:58:16 -0400, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
>
> >In article <35633620...@news.inlink.com>,
> >Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>
> >>>The point is that Griffey was only 22 when he started hitting 40
> >>>homers. That's due to physical maturation. Most players past 30 tend
> >>>to lose some of their physical skills, not increase them.
> Again, this will probably change due to improved training techniques,
> both skills wise (videotape comes to mind) and health wise (improved
> weight and flexibility training).
Of course all the creatine they've been ingesting hasn't seemed to hurt
either.
later,
sean
Sean Forman Program Applied Mathematics U. Of Iowa
"When I hear their banjo music at the beginning, I have a
sudden burst of happiness." --Sylvia speaking of CarTalk
Sean Forman
IIRC, Brantley has been pitching back to back yet this year, and they've
had to be very careful with his use.
> >They might have kept Benes anyway, but the money to
> >McGwire could have helped them there. Or they could have used it to get a
> >3Bman like Palmer.
> Why? Gaetti has been more than adequate.
Thus far, but he's playing on borrowed time.
> >I still might have done it, but to look at it as a
> >Young for McGwire swap is wrong.
> Nobody is (except perhaps you). It was a matter of who is playing
> position X.
And also who is not playing in other positions for the Cardinals.
Terry May
Re: "If Ozzie Guillen gets 500 HR, is he a HoFer?", just...@delphi.com
pitched the following on 20 May 98 @ 23:29:34:
j> He'll never get 500 HR....he's stuck behind Walt Weiss.
j> No playing time, see.
Okay, if Walt Weiss gets 500 HR, is he a HoFer?
Spike White
Nelson Lu (n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: (See, e.g., Oakland, where the team had horrible attendance
: with him, and how Florida's attendance hasn't increased since the arrival of
: Mike Piazza, who was a better player last season and probably will be a better
: player this season.)
Mike Piazza was a better player last season than who? MacGuire? And
he'll probably be a better player again this season?
--
Spike White | | Dilbert and Drew Carey
Tivoli Systems | spike...@tivoli.com | -- separated at birth?
Austin, TX | '87 BMW K75S (motorcycle)|
Disclaimer: The guys down the hall disagree with everything I say. Guess
who speaks for the company!
David Marc Nieporent
In <3562f4b4...@news.inlink.com>,
Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> claimed:>>Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>>>What _is_ it that you have against McGwire? Do you _still_ think the
>>>trade and the signing were bad things for the Cardinals? Do you still
>>>pine for the sight of Dmitri Young playing 1B for the 'Birds?
>>Yes. Have you checked how Young is playing lately? Don't tell me he's
>>$9.5 million worse than McGwire...
>What's attendance like in that wonderful baseball town of Cincinnati?
>Fans leave here in St. Louis _after_ McGwire's 'last AB' when the
>Cardinals are getting blown out. He puts fannies in the seats.
Clearly. That's why Oakland led the league in attendance every year in
recent years, right?
>Is Dmitri's glove still clanking in the night? Can Dmitri carry a team on
>his back like McGwire does? Does Dmitri change the whole complexion of
>a game the way McGwire does?
Again, clearly, this explains why the Athletics kept running away with
their division in recent years.
>There's something very inspiring about watching a guy _on your team_
>put dents in signs a hundred feet above dead centerfield. Lankford
>says it. Jordan says it. Gant says it. Hell, it even seems to have
>rubbed off on _David Howard_ (hitting wise).
It inspired the As, certainly.
>With the injuries to Alan Benes, Morris and Osborne, I shudder to
>think where this team would be with Dmitri in place of Mark
But no matter how many times you misinterpret it, that's not what Nelson's
saying and it isn't the right comparison. It's McGwire versus Dmitri plus
all the people traded for McGwire plus all the other people they could
have for the price of McGwire.
> (and
>Dmitri would be on the bench here anyway, since _Mabry_ would be
>starting at 1B since Jordan is healthy).
Only if LaRussa is an idiot. Oh, yeah, I forgot.
--
David M. Nieporent "Mr. Simpson, don't you worry. I
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu watched Matlock in a bar last night.
2L - St. John's School of Law The sound wasn't on, but I think I
Roberto Petagine Appreciation Society got the gist of it." -- L. Hutz
Ted Frank
In article <356393b2...@news.inlink.com>,
Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>>>Ted Frank postulated to 45+, I would agree, but doubling your output,
>>>no.
>
>>Griffey, as a 22-year-old, had 39 doubles and 27 home runs; he easily
>>would have had 30 home runs, but he missed 20 games with injury that year.
>>How many 22-year-olds with 70 XBH a year don't substantially improve their
>>home run totals? It's not at all unusual for someone that young slugging
>>.535 to raise their SLG close to 100 points as they reach their peak.
>
>because I don't believe that more than _doubling_ is normal over a two
>year span, especially from 20 HRs to 45 HRs.
Why not doubling over a three-year span? He had 20 HR as a 20-year-old also.
And 16 as a 19-year-old.
Juan Gonzalez went from 4 to 27 to 43 around the same time; Frank Thomas
from 7 to 32 to 24 to 41.
Yeah, Griffey isn't normal. That's because 20-year-olds tend not to hit
20 home runs. Most people only hit 20 home runs closer to their peak, so
they have less room for improvement. A 20-year-old with 20 HR has a lot
of time to improve before they hit their peak, and so *is* going to
double that production. That's why people are so excited about Andruw
Jones and Ben Grieve and Alex Rodriguez -- because they're so good now
and show such promise of improvement.
Where Canseco is unusual is that he hit 33 HR as a 21/22-year old, and
then *didn't* improve substantially. Injuries slowed him down. Sure, if
he can play 150 games, and has a good season, he can hit 40, especially
in an expansion year. He's got to do it for a while. Even with the home
runs, the low OBP plus the below-average defense only makes him an
average outfielder at the moment. And he's not going to get better.
David Marc Nieporent
In <6jva1i$1...@tekka.wwa.com>, James Weisberg <chad...@news.wwa.com> claimed:
>Nelson Lu <n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>There is no evidence that McGwire himself is responsible for all of the
>>attendance. Rather, it should be noted that the Cardinals' competitiveness
>>in general over the last few years should be credited. If McGwire were
>>playing for a horrible team, you wouldn't see him bringing that many people
>>into the seats.
> Why not look at the attendance the Cards pull on road games
>against horrible teams? I don't know how many people attended
>last night's Phils game, but those that did evidently gave Mark
>a standing ovation. I think that's fairly indicative that he is
>a draw on the road. And when the Cards were playing the Cubs at
>Wrigley last, people showed up very early to watch his batting
>practice.
Neither of which has *anything* to do with the claim that he brings
extra fans to the ballpark.
> I would have to say that some players do affect attendance,
>and McGwire may prove to be one of them.
As Nelson noted, and as I pointed out in another post, look at the As and
then try to make that claim with a straight face.
Larry Gene Gariepy, Jr.
Ted Frank wrote:
> [snip]
> Huh? That's not the same thing at all. You *expect* someone in his
> early 20's hitting 30 HR to dramatically increase his HR totals, because
> players peak around the ages of 26 to 28.
>
> rediscover his ability to hit 40 HR a season. Unless he signs with Colorado.
>
> now, iirc, though he may have been hurt and I missed it.
You missed it. The homeruns that is, not Canseco being hurt.
Year HR AB ratio
94 31 429 13.84
95 24 396 16.50
96 28 360 12.86
97 23 388 16.87
98 14 166 11.86
---------------------------------
total 120 1739 14.49
So yes, Canseco is still very capable of hitting a homerun every 15 AB.
Hence, he is not "rediscovering" anything. If he stays healthy, he is
merely making good on the potential he showed us ten years ago.
It took me all of 20 seconds to looks these stats up on the ESPN
website.
I'm not sure why you are arguing about Canseco when you don't appear
to know much more about him than the fact that he's been injured a lot.
I'm not trying to be nasty or anything, but you are making yourself look
a little foolish when you say things like "He's only got 6 right now"
when it's very easy to just look it up.
I can't be very hard on you, though. Goodness knows I've done my fair
share
of arguing when I didn't know what I was talking about. :)
Larry
Lurker Below
On Wed, 20 May 1998 23:47:31 -0500, Sean Forman
<for...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 May 1998, Lurker Below wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 May 1998 11:29:12 -0500, Sean Forman
>> <for...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 20 May 1998, Lurker Below wrote:
>> That's laughable Sean. They had Benes _signed_ after the McGwire
>> signing. Only the greed of Scott Boros kept him away. And the Cards
>> _did_ get Jeff Brantley who is perfect in save opportunities this
>> season, if I am not mistaken, for Dmitri. More like Mark McGwire, Jeff
>> Brantley and David Howard for Young, Ludwick, Mathews, Stein and Beck
>> (the extra McGwire money signs Beck) and cash.
>IIRC, Brantley has been pitching back to back yet this year, and they've
>had to be very careful with his use.
It's _still_ not as one-sided as you made it look. And Acevedo seems
to be a steal.
>> >They might have kept Benes anyway, but the money to
>> >McGwire could have helped them there. Or they could have used it to get a
>> >3Bman like Palmer.
>> Why? Gaetti has been more than adequate.
>Thus far, but he's playing on borrowed time.
And Howard and Mabry are still here if he falters.
>> >I still might have done it, but to look at it as a
>> >Young for McGwire swap is wrong.
>> Nobody is (except perhaps you). It was a matter of who is playing
>> position X.
>And also who is not playing in other positions for the Cardinals.
And who is not?
Young _wouldn't_ be playing first unless Mabry was playing third and
Gaetti _won_ the job in Spring Training. Palmer was never a real
possibility. Andy Benes would be nice, but the McGwire deal and his
signing had no impact on that. Not making the McGwire deal and signing
would mean that Mabry would be the 1B and Vince Coleman would be the
6th OF.
Lurker Below
On 21 May 1998 01:20:46 -0400, niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Marc
Nieporent) blathered:
>In <3562f4b4...@news.inlink.com>,
>Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> claimed:
>>On 20 May 1998 07:36:21 GMT, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>>>Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>>>>What _is_ it that you have against McGwire? Do you _still_ think the
>>>>trade and the signing were bad things for the Cardinals? Do you still
>>>>pine for the sight of Dmitri Young playing 1B for the 'Birds?
>>>Yes. Have you checked how Young is playing lately? Don't tell me he's
>>>$9.5 million worse than McGwire...
>>What's attendance like in that wonderful baseball town of Cincinnati?
>>Fans leave here in St. Louis _after_ McGwire's 'last AB' when the
>>Cardinals are getting blown out. He puts fannies in the seats.
>Clearly. That's why Oakland led the league in attendance every year in
>recent years, right?
A bad small market team in a crummy facility with another team within
line of sight? Hah!
>>Is Dmitri's glove still clanking in the night? Can Dmitri carry a team on
>>his back like McGwire does? Does Dmitri change the whole complexion of
>>a game the way McGwire does?
>Again, clearly, this explains why the Athletics kept running away with
>their division in recent years.
There has to enough talent to take advantage of the situation and you
know that. G.H. Ruth could not have helped the recent Athletics 'run
away' with their division.
>>There's something very inspiring about watching a guy _on your team_
>>put dents in signs a hundred feet above dead centerfield. Lankford
>>says it. Jordan says it. Gant says it. Hell, it even seems to have
>>rubbed off on _David Howard_ (hitting wise).
>It inspired the As, certainly.
I refer you to 1987-90 when the extra inspiration would have meant
something given the talent level.
>>With the injuries to Alan Benes, Morris and Osborne, I shudder to
>>think where this team would be with Dmitri in place of Mark
>
>But no matter how many times you misinterpret it, that's not what Nelson's
>saying and it isn't the right comparison. It's McGwire versus Dmitri plus
>all the people traded for McGwire plus all the other people they could
>have for the price of McGwire.
No matter how many times _you_ misinterpret it, they weren't going to
_get_ anybody else for the price of McGwire. No Beck. No Palmer. None
of these fanciful additions were going to show up if they don't pay
McGwire (who is getting below-market value). _And_ they got something
for Dmitri, a reliever who hasn't blown a save all year long (yes, I
know about the back to back game thing).
>> (and Dmitri would be on the bench here anyway, since
>>_Mabry_ would be starting at 1B since Jordan is healthy).
>Only if LaRussa is an idiot.
Only if defense matters any.
>Oh, yeah, I forgot.
Yeah those division titles, league championships and World Series ring
don't prove anything.
Nelson Lu
In article <3563e4fa...@news.inlink.com>,
Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>No matter how many times _you_ misinterpret it, they weren't going to
>_get_ anybody else for the price of McGwire. No Beck. No Palmer. None
>of these fanciful additions were going to show up if they don't pay
>McGwire (who is getting below-market value). _And_ they got something
>for Dmitri, a reliever who hasn't blown a save all year long (yes, I
>know about the back to back game thing).
If they had offered Benes just half a million more, he'd have been theirs to
keep. They were that close. And don't tell me that the Cardinals couldn't
be using Mathews, Ludwick and Stein *now* (Ludwick's multiple freak injuries
not withstanding).
And *maybe* the Cardinals wouldn't have gotten anybody else for money that
they would have saved if they had not traded for and then signed McGwire.
OTOH, the McGwire signing is going to make it that much harder for them to
resign Lankford, DeShields, and Clayton -- not to mention Alan Benes and Matt
Morris, when they become arbitration eligible in a couple years.
gbr...@melbpc.org.au
>
>And *maybe* the Cardinals wouldn't have gotten anybody else for money that
>they would have saved if they had not traded for and then signed McGwire.
>OTOH, the McGwire signing is going to make it that much harder for them to
>resign Lankford, DeShields, and Clayton -- not to mention Alan Benes and Matt
>Morris, when they become arbitration eligible in a couple years.
They've *already* resigned Lankford, Clayton is gone (plenty of cover
at SS in the minors); and I think having McGwire will make it *easier*
to sign DeShields AND Jordan (ask either if having McGwire around is
making life easier for them). De Shields may even be expendable if
one of Kennedy, Butler, Ordaz or Polanco can play 2B.
If Pagnozzi and Gaetti retire after this year, their money + Benes +
Clayton probably adds up to about the same as Lankford + Jordan +
DeShields.
I'll be happy if Alan Benes and Matt Morris are off the DL and
pitching in a couple of years the way things are going at the moment.
(I hope LaRussa burns in hell for fragging Morris' arm last year)
David B.
David Marc Nieporent wrote in message <6k0dje$k...@pluto.njcc.com>...
>In <3562f4b4...@news.inlink.com>,
>Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> claimed:
>>Fans leave here in St. Louis _after_ McGwire's 'last AB' when the
>>Cardinals are getting blown out. He puts fannies in the seats.
>
>Clearly. That's why Oakland led the league in attendance every year in
>recent years, right?
C'mon. You're being obstinate, right? You really don't think McGwire draws
lots and lots of fans? There are two problems with your response about
Oakland's attendance. Lurker cited the first one: Oakland ain't exactly a
hot baseball town in a great situation to draw fans, with or without
McGwire. (For all we know, their attendance would've been halved without
McGwire, although that's doubtful, because of reason #2 I disagree with
you).
Second, McGwire's production was up again before the trade to St. Louis.
But the Myth of McGwire, the thing that's drawing all those people to the
ballpark, is exponentially bigger than it was even a year ago! Before he
was traded to the Cardinals, he was on a good HR pace, but lots of people do
that early and fizzle. McGwire sustained it and made a reasonable run at
the record, and in the process began banging out awe-inspiring HRs that made
people want to be a part of it. Maybe this isn't coming through outside
Missouri, although I doubt it, given the massive national media onslaught
about McGwire's exploits. But fans are going to the ballpark to see him...
and they'll keep going to the ballpark to see him. The folks that attend 30
games a year might not go to additional games. But the people who see
1-2 games a year are probably going to see 5-6. And some of the ones who
might not go to see any are probably lined up to buy a ticket for an
upcoming homestand right now.
>>There's something very inspiring about watching a guy _on your team_
>>put dents in signs a hundred feet above dead centerfield. Lankford
>>says it. Jordan says it. Gant says it. Hell, it even seems to have
>>rubbed off on _David Howard_ (hitting wise).
>
>It inspired the As, certainly.
Again, the Myth of McGwire is relatively new. If you don't believe major
leaguers can be inspired with confidence by such things, it's a fundamental
disagreement.
David B.
Paul G. Wenthold
Lurker Below wrote:
>
> On 20 May 1998 10:30:26 -0400, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
>
> >In article <356267d...@news.inlink.com>,
>
> >>>"People like Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire" is a bit of an overstatement,
> >>>since the only people like them in the history of baseball have been
> >>>Henry Aaron and Mark McGwire.
>
> >>Actually, the article I read that pointed that out said that Griffey
> >>has done much the same thing only somewhat earlier in his career
> >>(dramatically increased his HR totals).
>
> >Huh? That's not the same thing at all. You *expect* someone in his
> >early 20's hitting 30 HR to dramatically increase his HR totals, because
> >players peak around the ages of 26 to 28.
>
> down for 40+' HR guy over a two season span. He had never hit more
> than 22 before 92 and has not hit less than 45 in a 'full season
> (non-stirke and no long DL stints)' since 93 (FYI - he hit 27 in 92).
> Increase I buy as 'normal', doubling I do not.
>
HE WAS 20 YEARS OLD!!!! The fact that he was even hitting
20 HR in the majors at 20 is a pretty good indication
of huge things on the way.
Massive power increases for young, developing players
are not out of the ordinary.
paul
--
Invention is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% inspiration,
and 2% butterscotch ripple --- Willie Wonka
David B.
Terry May wrote in message <3128_o...@lvdi.net>...
Re: "If Ozzie Guillen gets 500 HR, is he a HoFer?",
>Okay, if Walt Weiss gets 500 HR, is he a HoFer?
If Walt Weiss gets 500 HR, *I'M* a HoFer!!
David B.
CrafRusO
OU>Re: "If Ozzie Guillen gets 500 HR, is he a HoFer?", just...@delphi.com
OU>pitched the following on 20 May 98 @ 23:29:34:
OU> j> He'll never get 500 HR....he's stuck behind Walt Weiss.
OU> j> No playing time, see.
OU>Okay, if Walt Weiss gets 500 HR, is he a HoFer?
OU>... (^:b Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Neagle, Millwood d:^)
OU>--
OU> Terry May - Las Vegas, NV
Hell, I say that if they TOTAL 500 HRs, we can put them both in!
Russ Craft
--
This message comes from NaSCOM, the official internet server of NaSPA, THE
Network and System Professionals Assocation, with over 40,000 members in 72
countries. Contact http://www.naspa.net for free trial membership or
X116 or fax (414) 768-8001 or (414) 768-8000 x116 voice.
James Weisberg
In article <6k0f7l$l...@pluto.njcc.com>,
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> Why not look at the attendance the Cards pull on road games
>>against horrible teams? I don't know how many people attended
>>last night's Phils game, but those that did evidently gave Mark
>>a standing ovation. I think that's fairly indicative that he is
>>a draw on the road. And when the Cards were playing the Cubs at
>>Wrigley last, people showed up very early to watch his batting
>>practice.
>
>Neither of which has *anything* to do with the claim that he brings
>extra fans to the ballpark.
Huh? How does people lining up at Wrigley and assembling in
the streets *outside* Wrigley to see McGwire's batting practice
not have anything to do with bringing extra fans to the ballpark?
My God man, there were fans with huge McGwire placards out in
the bleachers! And no one threw any of his home run balls back!
>> I would have to say that some players do affect attendance,
>>and McGwire may prove to be one of them.
>
>As Nelson noted, and as I pointed out in another post, look at the As and
>then try to make that claim with a straight face.
Because McGwire didn't hit 58 home runs there.
Greg Ioannou
Canseco has 14 HRs in 45 games, which works out to 51 on the season, if he can
stay healthy (so far, so good!). If he can keep this up for the rest of this
season, he'll be at 416 HRs at the end of 1998.
If he can stay healthy and anywhere near this productive for two more seasons
(a very big if indeed), that would put him over 500 HRs by the end of the 2000
season, at which point he'll be 36 years of age. Them's HOF numbers in this
guy's opinion.
Meanwhile, has anyone else noticed that Canseco, with 12 stolen bases, is
among the league's leaders in that category? He stole 40 in 1988, but hasn't
really been a base-stealing threat since then. Another indication that he's
playing injury-free for the first time in very many years?
Greg Ioannou
gr...@e-mend.com
Sean Lahman
Greg Ioannou wrote:
> Canseco has 14 HRs in 45 games, which works out to 51 on the season,
> if he can stay healthy (so far, so good!). If he can keep this up for
> the rest of this season, he'll be at 416 HRs at the end of 1998.
>
> If he can stay healthy and anywhere near this productive for two more
> seasons (a very big if indeed), that would put him over 500 HRs by the
> end of the 2000 season, at which point he'll be 36 years of age.
> Them's HOF numbers in this guy's opinion.
I agree. If Canseco hits fifty homeruns in each of the next three
seasons, he belongs in the HOF. (duh!)
Let's see what the Brock5 system projects for Canseco. Just for kicks,
let's start by looking at how the rest of his career projects if we
prorate his 98 numbers for a full season:
Year G AB R H 2b 3B HR RBI BB BA OBP SLG
1998 162 581 91 140 28 0 49 112 81 .241 .334 .542
1999 140 494 78 130 26 0 38 101 56 .264 .338 .547
2000 151 528 72 125 25 0 38 100 66 .238 .322 .500
2001 147 508 62 118 23 0 33 89 59 .233 .312 .472
2002 79 250 27 55 11 0 15 41 30 .222 .304 .444
----------------------------------------------------------
Tot 2128 7821 1250 2040 383 13 524 1551 966 .261 .342 .514
That gets him over the 500 mark, and he'd probably get to go to
Cooperstown. Whipping out the similarity score tool, the five most
similar players are Williw Stargell, Willie McCovey, Dale Murphy, Mike
Schmidt, and Harmon Killebrew. That's four guys in and one out.
On the other hand, maybe it makes sense to give weight to the thirteen
years he's played in the big leages than to the first six weeks of this
season. Let's look at how Brock5 projected him before this season
started.
Year G AB R H 2b 3B HR RBI BB BA OBP SLG
1998 118 426 80 117 24 1 28 81 67 .275 .373 .533
1999 125 444 71 117 24 0 26 78 54 .264 .343 .493
2000 131 461 67 116 23 0 24 74 62 .252 .340 .458
2001 135 471 62 115 23 0 23 71 59 .244 .328 .439
2002 71 225 27 53 10 0 10 31 29 .236 .323 .413
----------------------------------------------------------
Tot 2030 7485 1227 1988 375 15 462 1443 946 .266 .348 .504
Of the two possibilities presented here, the second is much more
likely. So that raises the question, does Canseco get in with 462
homers (and say 200 steals) ?
Whipping out the similarity score tool, the five players that this
version of Jose Canseco is most similar to are Murphy, Stargell, Joe
Carter, Duke Snider, and Jim Rice. That's two who are in, and three who
aren't. I have to say Canseco probably misses the HOF with these
numbers, despite the 462 homers.
Lurker Below
On 21 May 1998 08:52:59 GMT, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>In article <3563e4fa...@news.inlink.com>,
>Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>>No matter how many times _you_ misinterpret it, they weren't going to
>>_get_ anybody else for the price of McGwire. No Beck. No Palmer. None
>>of these fanciful additions were going to show up if they don't pay
>>McGwire (who is getting below-market value). _And_ they got something
>>for Dmitri, a reliever who hasn't blown a save all year long (yes, I
>>know about the back to back game thing).
>If they had offered Benes just half a million more, he'd have been theirs to
>keep.
Which part of 'Benes signed with the Cardinals' don't you understand?
If they had offered him the half million _4 hours earlier_, he'd be
their's to keep.
>?They were that close. And don't tell me that the Cardinals couldn't
>be using Mathews, Ludwick and Stein *now* (Ludwick's multiple freak injuries
>not withstanding).
Stein perhaps.
>And *maybe* the Cardinals wouldn't have gotten anybody else for money that
>they would have saved if they had not traded for and then signed McGwire.
>OTOH, the McGwire signing is going to make it that much harder for them to
>resign Lankford,
News Flash!!!!! Lankford signed. _At below market_. In part to stay
and play with McGwire.
>DeShields, and Clayton
With Ordaz and Adam Kennedy waiting in the wings, Clayton will _not_
be a Cardinal next year. And with Howard there and Butler waiting in
the wings, DeShields is not likely to be signed. Gaetti is in his swan
song, Brantley will be gone in favor of Looper after next year, Gant's
contract _will_ run out. All of which frees up money to sign Alan
Benes, Matt Morris, Brian Jordan (if he doesn't leave so he can play
centerfield), etc. Lamping and Jocketty have this thing set up well
(except for Gant's contract and not offering Andy Benes a half million
more 4 hours earlier).
Lurker Below
On 21 May 1998 01:48:37 -0400, niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Marc
Nieporent) wrote:
>In <6jva1i$1...@tekka.wwa.com>, James Weisberg <chad...@news.wwa.com> claimed:
>> Why not look at the attendance the Cards pull on road games
>>against horrible teams? I don't know how many people attended
>>last night's Phils game, but those that did evidently gave Mark
>>a standing ovation. I think that's fairly indicative that he is
>>a draw on the road. And when the Cards were playing the Cubs at
>>Wrigley last, people showed up very early to watch his batting
>>practice.
>Neither of which has *anything* to do with the claim that he brings
>extra fans to the ballpark.
You might want to look at this article from PostNet (St. Louis
Post-Dispatch On-Line) -
http://www.stlnet.com/postnet/home.nsf/NewsBriefing/86256421005F483E8625660B0023079E
>> I would have to say that some players do affect attendance,
>>and McGwire may prove to be one of them.
>As Nelson noted, and as I pointed out in another post, look at the As and
>then try to make that claim with a straight face.
And as I pointed out in another post, the A's are a totally different
situation.
Greg Ioannou
>Whipping out the similarity score tool, the five players that this
>version of Jose Canseco is most similar to are Murphy, Stargell, Joe
>Carter, Duke Snider, and Jim Rice. That's two who are in, and three who
>aren't. I have to say Canseco probably misses the HOF with these
>numbers, despite the 462 homers.
Or, more fairly, two who are in (Stargell and Snider), one who isn't but who
placed 4th in last year's voting (Rice), one not yet eligible (Murphy), and
one still playing (Carter).
Greg I.
MBarn66408
if reggie jackson is in for hitting 500 hrs.canseco will be in
Nelson Lu
In article <35646455...@news.inlink.com>,
Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>Which part of 'Benes signed with the Cardinals' don't you understand?
>If they had offered him the half million _4 hours earlier_, he'd be
>their's to keep.
If they had offered him more money, it would not have come down to the final
seconds. It's that simple.
>With Ordaz and Adam Kennedy waiting in the wings, Clayton will _not_
>be a Cardinal next year. And with Howard there and Butler waiting in
>the wings, DeShields is not likely to be signed. Gaetti is in his swan
If Howard becomes the Cardinals' 2B because McGwire's contract tied up money,
then the Cardinals will regret it. Howard has never shown any ability to hit
before, and I doubt that he would start now.
>song, Brantley will be gone in favor of Looper after next year, Gant's
>contract _will_ run out. All of which frees up money to sign Alan
>Benes, Matt Morris, Brian Jordan (if he doesn't leave so he can play
>centerfield), etc. Lamping and Jocketty have this thing set up well
>(except for Gant's contract and not offering Andy Benes a half million
>more 4 hours earlier).
But that's money that would have been free anyway if they had not resigned
McGwire. Signing McGwire meant that they lost some of the money that would
have also been free to sign some other players.
Ken Emery
In article <6k1e0l$4c7$1...@supernews.com>, David B. wrote:
>
>David Marc Nieporent wrote in message <6k0dje$k...@pluto.njcc.com>...
<snip>
>>Clearly. That's why Oakland led the league in attendance every year in
>>recent years, right?
>
>C'mon. You're being obstinate, right? You really don't think McGwire draws
>lots and lots of fans? There are two problems with your response about
>Oakland's attendance. Lurker cited the first one: Oakland ain't exactly a
>hot baseball town in a great situation to draw fans, with or without
>McGwire. (For all we know, their attendance would've been halved without
>McGwire, although that's doubtful, because of reason #2 I disagree with
>you).
Well in 1990 they did draw over 2.9 million fans which at the time
was pretty darn good (and still is).
>Second, McGwire's production was up again before the trade to St. Louis.
No, his production right before the trade to St. Louis stunk. He hadn't
hit a HR for something like 60 AB's and wasn't getting any other hits.
He then continues this for another week as a Cardinal and then gets
absolutely red hot for the rest of the year and this year. I do have
to say that those 3 HR games really help though.
One question, how many HR's has Mark hit on the road? I know he had something
like his first ten at home and none on the road this year.
>But the Myth of McGwire, the thing that's drawing all those people to the
>ballpark, is exponentially bigger than it was even a year ago! Before he
>was traded to the Cardinals, he was on a good HR pace, but lots of people do
>that early and fizzle. McGwire sustained it and made a reasonable run at
>the record, and in the process began banging out awe-inspiring HRs that made
>people want to be a part of it. Maybe this isn't coming through outside
>Missouri, although I doubt it, given the massive national media onslaught
>about McGwire's exploits. But fans are going to the ballpark to see him...
>and they'll keep going to the ballpark to see him. The folks that attend 30
>games a year might not go to additional games. But the people who see
>1-2 games a year are probably going to see 5-6. And some of the ones who
>might not go to see any are probably lined up to buy a ticket for an
>upcoming homestand right now.
I'm not so sure about this. I think you will get folks who don't normally
go to come to a game or two and that is probably most of the increase.
bye,
ken emery
Sean Lahman
Lurker Below wrote:
>
> (David Marc Nieporent) wrote:
>
>
> >Neither of which has *anything* to do with the claim that he brings
> >extra fans to the ballpark.
>
> You might want to look at this article from PostNet (St. Louis
> Post-Dispatch On-Line) -
> http://www.stlnet.com/postnet/home.nsf/NewsBriefing/86256421005F483E8625660B0023079E
Actually, you should read the article again, 'cause it doesn't support
your case. I quote...
McGwire is not the only reason the Cardinals averaged nearly
4,800 more fans per game through the opening quarter of the
season.
The weather for the season's early games was more inviting
than the chilly temperatures last spring, when one game was
canceled because of snow.
The Cardinals also got off to a better start this year,
keeping the opening day enthusiasm alive.
Special promotions, such as Sunday's giveaway of the team's
alternate "Sunday" caps to fans 15 and under, have drawn
more people to the ballpark, [director of ticket sales
Kevin] Wade said.
"Beanie Babie Night this Friday will probably sell out,"
he said.
Don Malcolm
Sean Lahman wrote:
>
> Lurker Below wrote:
> >
> > (David Marc Nieporent) wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Neither of which has *anything* to do with the claim that he brings
> > >extra fans to the ballpark.
> >
> > You might want to look at this article from PostNet (St. Louis
> > Post-Dispatch On-Line) -
> > http://www.stlnet.com/postnet/home.nsf/NewsBriefing/86256421005F483E8625660B0023079E
>
> Actually, you should read the article again, 'cause it doesn't support
> your case. I quote...
[snip]
> "Beanie Babie Night this Friday will probably sell out,"
> he said.
You know, I really should know better by now....but what the
hell, let's ask anyway.
--Just what the hell *is* a "Beanie Babie," anyway?
(Calling Eric Roush...)
--------------------------------------------------------------
The BBBA home page---the web site baseball deserves
http://www.backatcha.com
This week in Thoughts Out of Season: the Year-End Projection
System Rides Again!; "the Trade"; Wells' perfect game up close
CrafRusO
< snip >
DM>You know, I really should know better by now....but what the
DM>hell, let's ask anyway.
DM>--Just what the hell *is* a "Beanie Babie," anyway?
DM>(Calling Eric Roush...)
DM>--------------------------------------------------------------
DM> The BBBA home page---the web site baseball deserves
DM> http://www.backatcha.com
DM> This week in Thoughts Out of Season: the Year-End Projection
DM>System Rides Again!; "the Trade"; Wells' perfect game up close
Hey, if you're privileged enough not to know, I won't inflict that
knowledge upon you. Count your blessings and remain happily ignorant.
(This isn't a slam, there are some things manking would be better off
not knowing.) :-)
David B.
Sean Lahman wrote in message <356477...@baseball1.com>...
>> You might want to look at this article from PostNet (St. Louis
>> Post-Dispatch On-Line) -
>>
http://www.stlnet.com/postnet/home.nsf/NewsBriefing/86256421005F483E8625660B
0023079E
>
>Actually, you should read the article again, 'cause it doesn't support
>your case. I quote...
<snip the short portion of the article which deals with mitigating factors
but does NOT rule out McGwire's impact on ticket sales>
Hey now, you're not playing fair. The part of that article you snipped is
the ONLY part of the article in which anyone with the team says anything to
support your cause. I can see why you wouldn't quote the rest of it.
Here's some more, for those who don't feel like following the link:
<QUOTE>
(Co-owner Drew) Baur has estimated that McGwire's pursuit of the home run
record was worth 5,000 fans a game for the team, which was out of contention
and facing dwindling crowds.
Baur thinks the "McGwire effect" this year will not be truly measurable
until late in the season, when other factors affecting ticket sales can be
filtered out.
If the McGwire-inspired crowds continue at the same pace through the summer,
the Cardinals will draw about 390,000 more fans this season than last.
At an average ticket price of $10 - a figure that represents a rough average
of the loge, terrace, upper terrace and bleacher seats - the extra
attendance would generate $3.9 million and cover nearly 40 percent of
McGwire's salary. McGwire is even helping other teams pull in fans.
In Pittsburgh, where the Pirates are near the cellar in record and
attendance, his presence generated some sorely needed excitement.
According to press accounts, nearly half of the 10,329 fans who bought
tickets to the game May 5 were in the stadium 90 minutes before game time to
watch McGwire take batting practice.
<END QUOTE>
St. Louis draws more fans than you'd expect given their record, because it's
a great baseball town. But McGwire is packing them in above and beyond what
you'd expect given the Cardinals under-achieving play this season.
DavidB.
Lurker Below
On 21 May 1998 18:34:20 GMT, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>In article <35646455...@news.inlink.com>,
>Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>>Which part of 'Benes signed with the Cardinals' don't you understand?
>>If they had offered him the half million _4 hours earlier_, he'd be
>>their's to keep.
>If they had offered him more money, it would not have come down to the final
>seconds. It's that simple.
Oh gee, that $100,00 a year was such a big thing against the numbers
already in the contract over the length of the contract.
Scott Boros broke that deal and you know it.
>>With Ordaz and Adam Kennedy waiting in the wings, Clayton will _not_
>>be a Cardinal next year. And with Howard there and Butler waiting in
>>the wings, DeShields is not likely to be signed. Gaetti is in his swan
>If Howard becomes the Cardinals' 2B because McGwire's contract tied up money,
>then the Cardinals will regret it. Howard has never shown any ability to hit
>before, and I doubt that he would start now.
Howard is not going to _become_ the Cardinals 2B _because_ of the
McGwire signing. If he proves able to handle the job on a regular
basis, he might get it (he is _less_ likely to do so with David Bell
gone), but Butler is the current favorite _if_ DeShields leaves.
>>song, Brantley will be gone in favor of Looper after next year, Gant's
>>contract _will_ run out. All of which frees up money to sign Alan
>>Benes, Matt Morris, Brian Jordan (if he doesn't leave so he can play
>>centerfield), etc. Lamping and Jocketty have this thing set up well
>>(except for Gant's contract and not offering Andy Benes a half million
>>more 4 hours earlier).
>But that's money that would have been free anyway if they had not resigned
>McGwire. Signing McGwire meant that they lost some of the money that would
>have also been free to sign some other players.
Like who?
And remember, McGwire is signed at below market, Lankford signed at
below market in part because of McGwire.
Gant's contract is a bigger detriment to this team financially than
McGwire's.
Nelson Lu
In article <35647c14...@news.inlink.com>,
Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>
>And remember, McGwire is signed at below market, Lankford signed at
>below market in part because of McGwire.
McGwire is not signed at below market, IMO. If the hypothesis that
$1 million = 1 win holds, McGwire should contribute more than 9.5 win per
season to be worth his salary cost. I don't see it happening.
>Gant's contract is a bigger detriment to this team financially than
>McGwire's.
Perhaps. That doesn't make the signing of McGwire the right one to do. It's
not a bad trade/signing, but I think the Cardinals would have been better off
keeping their young pitchers and Dmitri Young.
Nelson Lu
In article <6jvft1$oc0$1...@tivoli.tivoli.com>,
Spike White <spike...@tivoli.com> wrote:
>Nelson Lu (n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: (See, e.g., Oakland, where the team had horrible attendance
>: with him, and how Florida's attendance hasn't increased since the arrival of
>: Mike Piazza, who was a better player last season and probably will be a better
>: player this season.)
>
>Mike Piazza was a better player last season than who? MacGuire? And
>he'll probably be a better player again this season?
Of course Piazza was better last season; it wasn't even close. Piazza's
estimated value above replacement was 109.7; McGwire's was just 61.0. McGwire
wasn't even the top at his position -- Jeff Bagwell was. In terms of PRC/27,
Piazza was at 11.66; McGwire was 9.36.
And I believe it's probable that Piazza will finish higher than McGwire this
year, too.
Lurker Below
On Thu, 21 May 1998 14:49:44 -0400, Sean Lahman <se...@baseball1.com>
wrote:
>Lurker Below wrote:
>> (David Marc Nieporent) wrote:
>> >Neither of which has *anything* to do with the claim that he brings
>> >extra fans to the ballpark.
>> You might want to look at this article from PostNet (St. Louis
>> Post-Dispatch On-Line) -
>> http://www.stlnet.com/postnet/home.nsf/NewsBriefing/86256421005F483E8625660B0023079E
>Actually, you should read the article again, 'cause it doesn't support
>your case. I quote...
Quoting out of context are we?
> McGwire is not the only reason the Cardinals averaged nearly
> 4,800 more fans per game through the opening quarter of the
> season.
> The weather for the season's early games was more inviting
> than the chilly temperatures last spring, when one game was
> canceled because of snow.
> The Cardinals also got off to a better start this year,
> keeping the opening day enthusiasm alive.
> Special promotions, such as Sunday's giveaway of the team's
> alternate "Sunday" caps to fans 15 and under, have drawn
> more people to the ballpark, [director of ticket sales
> Kevin] Wade said.
> "Beanie Babie Night this Friday will probably sell out,"
> he said.
Not going to quote from the McGwire fans quoted in the article? Not
going to use the quote that says that McGwire related increased
attendance will pay for 40% of his new contract?
To anybody out there that cares about this anymore, read the whole
article at the listed URL and come to your own conclusions. Don't let
Sean's out of context quoting of items favourable to his POV sway you.
The article itself is fairly evenhanded and one gets the impression
that they (the P-D and the Cardinals) believe that McGwire increases
ticket sales slightly.
But, as I said before, read it for yourself.
David B.
Nelson Lu wrote in message <6k1uug$2s5$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
>In article <6jvft1$oc0$1...@tivoli.tivoli.com>,
>Spike White <spike...@tivoli.com> wrote:
>>Nelson Lu (n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>>: (See, e.g., Oakland, where the team had horrible attendance
>>: with him, and how Florida's attendance hasn't increased since the
arrival of
>>: Mike Piazza, who was a better player last season and probably will be a
better
>>: player this season.)
<Snip evidence that Piazza is better than McGwire. >
I agree, and I say "so what?" These fans who are coming out to see McGwire
aren't coming out because they think McGwire is the best player in the game.
They're not even coming out because they think the Cardinals have a better
chance of winning. They're coming out because they want to see McGwire
launch one of those prodigious home runs into the upper deck, because if he
DOES break the HR record this year, they can say they were a part of it.
It's about reputation, and McGwire's reputation is more awe-inspiring than
Piazza's... even more awe-inspiring than his own reputation when he was with
the A's. That's why I don't think your two examples (A's attendance with
McGwire and Marlins attendance with Piazza) apply. McGwire since the middle
of last year is unique in today's game, in terms of drawing power.
DavidB
Gary Huckabay
In article <35633620...@news.inlink.com>,
Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>
>To go from ~20 HR a year to 45+ HR a year is _more_ than physical
>maturation would normally allow for. If he had gone from the 30 that
>Ted Frank postulated to 45+, I would agree, but doubling your output,
>no.
Staying away from causality, Griffey's jump didn't strike me as
surprising. I doubt there's enough in the historical record to
get statistical significance, but was anyone really surprised?
First, he didn't double his output. At age 22, he hit 27 HR in
565 AB. At age 23, he hit 45 in 583. Power jumps of that
magnitude aren't by any means unheard of at those ages, particularly
in times like these, where league levels of offense can bounce
around like a gapper in a Klesko/Reimer/Grieve outfield.
>I think you are going to see a greater number of players increase
>their numbers later in their careers due to better conditioning
>regimens and better tools for study. Look at McGwire, Gwynn, Ryan,
>Clemens. I don't believe that it will be the norm, but I do believe it
>will be more common (and is more common) than you do.
Ah, the Tony Gwynn conditioning regimen.
"Upsize it and add bacon."
You make a good point, though. I don't like to deal with causality,
but I think a large part of the offensive explosion is due to superior
conditioning and training; hitters had more 'attainable headroom' in
their performance than pitchers, and such a move was the result thereof.
Subjectively, this year's umpiring has been much more hitter-hostile
than in recent years. The high pitch is still a ball, but the outside
corner has expanded yet ANOTHER inch, and the inside pitch, a ball for
many years, appears to be called a strike more.
Then again, Frank Thomas and Mike Bordick are within 50 OPS points of
each other. Maybe someone angered Xochipilli or something.
--
* Gary Huckabay * http://www.baseballprospectus.com * http://www.sacbee.com *
*"Pontificating * http://www.baseball1.com * http://www.stathead.com *
* Dork." * http://www.scoresheet.com * http://sj.znet.com/~boness *
* * http://www.strikethree.com * Judd Apatow is God. *
Sean Lahman
Lurker Below wrote:
>
> Not going to quote from the McGwire fans quoted in the article? Not
> going to use the quote that says that McGwire related increased
> attendance will pay for 40% of his new contract?
Well geeze, I'll post the whole damn article if that makes you feel
better. I was illustrating that the article suggested several other
reasons why attendance was up. I'm not the one who listed the link to
support the idea that McGwire is selling an extra 5000 tickets a game.
> To anybody out there that cares about this anymore, read the whole
> article at the listed URL and come to your own conclusions. Don't let
> Sean's out of context quoting of items favourable to his POV sway you.
You don't know my point of view, because I haven't said anything about
it yet. And the quote's not at all out of context. It's the whole
freaking point of the article.
> But, as I said before, read it for yourself.
Please do.
Sean Lahman
> >support your case. I quote...
>
> factors but does NOT rule out McGwire's impact on ticket sales>
>
> Hey now, you're not playing fair. The part of that article you
> snipped is the ONLY part of the article in which anyone with the team
> says anything to support your cause. I can see why you wouldn't
> quote the rest of it.
It's not _MY_ case, I'm just pointing out what the article said. The
article quoted the Cardinals thmeselves talking about a lot of factors
that were affecting attendance, including the weather, promotions, and
even riverboat casinos. If you interpret the article as supporting the
premise that McGwire's presence alone has boosted ticket sales by 5000 a
game, that's your perogative.
> St. Louis draws more fans than you'd expect given their record,
> because it's a great baseball town. But McGwire is packing them in
> above and beyond what you'd expect given the Cardinals under-achieving
> play this season.
Attendance has been very steady in St Louis throughout the 90s (if you
acknowledge the dip caused during the strike seasons).
Year Attendance Per Game
1990 2,573,225 31,768
1991 2,448,699 30,231
1992 2,418,483 29,858
1993 2,844,977 35,123
1994 1,866,544 34,566
1995 1,748,709 24,288
1996 2,659,251 32,830
1997 2,614,857 32,685
1998 2,750,000 34,000 <--- projection from your article
If you check Dejanews, you'll find a game-by-game analysis of the Cards
1997 attendance I posted on 11/12/97 (link below, if you're
interested).
http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=289029252&CONTEXT=895780173.1947926643&hitnum=1
StL 1997 Total Att Games Average
Pre-trade 1,786,981 54 33,092
Post-trade 864,916 27 32,034
Attendance actually dropped after McGwire arrived, even though you'd
expect this late-season chase of Maris would have caused some
excitement. He certainly didn't have any impact last year.
I'm no more excited over speculation that attendace is up 5000 per game
than I am at projections that McGwire's on a pace to hit 75 homeruns.
It's a long season, and when all of the other factors (weather, day of
the week, opponents) even out, then we'll see.
PHSpiegel2
"David B." <nospamd...@cysource.com> wrote:
[quoting from Post-Dispatch article]
>If the McGwire-inspired crowds continue at the same pace through the summer,
>the Cardinals will draw about 390,000 more fans this season than last.
That would put the Cardinals' 1998 attendance at about 3.1 million, if I'm not
mistaken. Interesting because McGuire has a clause in his contract that pays
him $1 for every fan the Cardinals draw over 2.8 million.
- Peter (phspi...@aol.com)
Nelson Lu
In article <356490...@baseball1.com>,
Sean Lahman <se...@baseball1.com> wrote:
>I'm no more excited over speculation that attendace is up 5000 per game
>than I am at projections that McGwire's on a pace to hit 75 homeruns.
>It's a long season, and when all of the other factors (weather, day of
>the week, opponents) even out, then we'll see.
Better yet, *even* if it's up 5,000 a game and *solely* because of McGwire,
that in fact shows that he's not worth the money -- 5,000 a game goes to
about 800,000 over the season. Even if the Cardinals make a profit of $7 per
fan (which I doubt), that's an addition of $5.6 million -- significantly less
than McGwire's salary.
Lurker Below
On 21 May 1998 19:28:05 GMT, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>In article <35647c14...@news.inlink.com>,
>Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>>And remember, McGwire is signed at below market, Lankford signed at
>>below market in part because of McGwire.
>McGwire is not signed at below market, IMO. If the hypothesis that
>$1 million = 1 win holds, McGwire should contribute more than 9.5 win per
>season to be worth his salary cost. I don't see it happening.
Then you need a lesson in Economics. The Albert Belle and Sammy Sosa
contracts established 'market value' for hitters of this ilk and both
make more than McGwire (and Sosa is not anywhere near the player
McGwire is).
_And_ McGwire is on his way (see another thread) to a season we've not
seen since Teddy Ballgame and maybe the Babe himself.
>>Gant's contract is a bigger detriment to this team financially than
>>McGwire's.
>Perhaps. That doesn't make the signing of McGwire the right one to do. It's
>not a bad trade/signing, but I think the Cardinals would have been better off
>keeping their young pitchers and Dmitri Young.
King, Politte, Aybar, Ankiel, Looper, et al made the pitchers
expendible and McGwire made Young redundant.
One thing that has always irritated me about all this was the
perception that you thought this was a bad trade/signing _and_ the
fact that nobody seems to give the Cardinals credit for getting a top
reliever for Young. The trade turns into Young, Mathews, Stein and
Ludwick for McGwire and Brantley which is pretty good actually, an All
Star 1B and Rolaids Relief Award winning reliever for 4 role players.
David B.
Sean Lahman wrote in message <356490...@baseball1.com>...
>David B. wrote:
>>
>> Sean Lahman wrote in message <356477...@baseball1.com>...
>> >Actually, you should read the article again, 'cause it doesn't
>> >support your case. I quote...
>>
>> <snip the short portion of the article which deals with mitigating
>> factors but does NOT rule out McGwire's impact on ticket sales>
>>
>> Hey now, you're not playing fair. The part of that article you
>> snipped is the ONLY part of the article in which anyone with the team
>> says anything to support your cause. I can see why you wouldn't
>> quote the rest of it.
>
>It's not _MY_ case, I'm just pointing out what the article said.
Well, it's your case in the sense that you're the one arguing in favor of
it. Maybe you're not highly invested in it, but that's not what I meant.
>The
>article quoted the Cardinals thmeselves talking about a lot of factors
>that were affecting attendance, including the weather, promotions, and
>even riverboat casinos.
Let's look at these in context. First, they were talking about this year's
attendance, not last year's. The same article says they estimate an
increase of 5-thousand fans per game in last year's late-season attendance
because of McGwire. Maybe, maybe not. But the guy DOES own the team and is
a businessman and probably has a handle on such things if he's a GOOD
businessman--after all, he had to get his money somewhere. So is this a
hunch or did the businessman/owner do some analysis of the market? I don't
know, but I don't think you can automatically discount the statement as
drivel.
>If you interpret the article as supporting the
>premise that McGwire's presence alone has boosted ticket sales by 5000 a
>game, that's your perogative.
I interpret the article as supporting the premise that McGwire's presence
has boosted ticket sales. By 5000? No, I never said that. The co-owner of
the team said that. But the article pretty clearly spelled out a belief
that McGwire boosted attendance. It even said as much for road attendance.
So I'm not picking some off-the-wall interpretation here. You might not
agree with the conclusions, but I don't see how you can say the article did
NOT make the case for increased attendance.
>Attendance has been very steady in St Louis throughout the 90s (if you
>acknowledge the dip caused during the strike seasons).
>
>Year Attendance Per Game
>1990 2,573,225 31,768
>1991 2,448,699 30,231
>1992 2,418,483 29,858
>1993 2,844,977 35,123
>1994 1,866,544 34,566
>1995 1,748,709 24,288
>1996 2,659,251 32,830
>1997 2,614,857 32,685
>1998 2,750,000 34,000 <--- projection from your article
If you buy the projection, that would make this year a better attendance
year than '96, when the Cardinals won the division. Again, I don't know if
this much is accurate, but if the team's projection holds true, it doesn't
hurt the case for McGwire helping attendance.
>If you check Dejanews, you'll find a game-by-game analysis of the Cards
>1997 attendance I posted on 11/12/97 (link below, if you're
>interested).
>StL 1997 Total Att Games Average
>Pre-trade 1,786,981 54 33,092
>Post-trade 864,916 27 32,034
>
>Attendance actually dropped after McGwire arrived, even though you'd
>expect this late-season chase of Maris would have caused some
>excitement. He certainly didn't have any impact last year.
How can you say that? How many teams in the league average only
one-thousand fewer fans in August and September, AFTER being eliminated from
the pennant race, than they do early in the season when they're still in
contention? Geesh, I think most owners would be ecstatic if you told them
their teams would be playing poorly down the stretch and losing ground on
the leaders and obviously going nowhere...and they'd only lose one-thousand
fans a game. That's extraordinary even for St. Louis, IMO.
>I'm no more excited over speculation that attendace is up 5000 per game
>than I am at projections that McGwire's on a pace to hit 75 homeruns.
>It's a long season, and when all of the other factors (weather, day of
>the week, opponents) even out, then we'll see.
I'm not particularly excited about it either. I can wait. :-)
My point here is that no matter WHAT recent studies show about players
affecting long-term attendance, it's not out of the realm of possibility to
say McGwire's a special case. He IS the talk of baseball... I can't
remember another player who has captured so much attention for doing things
the way McGwire's done them. And the owners of the Cardinals examined the
attendance last year and clearly thought he put fans in the seats. (Enough
to pay for his contract? I don't care...I'm not in on that part of the
argument. Just enough to make the owners significantly more money.)
David B.
Gary Huckabay
In article <6k23ui$560$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
Nelson Lu <n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>In article <356490...@baseball1.com>,
>Sean Lahman <se...@baseball1.com> wrote:
>
>>than I am at projections that McGwire's on a pace to hit 75 homeruns.
>>It's a long season, and when all of the other factors (weather, day of
>>the week, opponents) even out, then we'll see.
>
>that in fact shows that he's not worth the money -- 5,000 a game goes to
>about 800,000 over the season. Even if the Cardinals make a profit of $7 per
>fan (which I doubt), that's an addition of $5.6 million -- significantly less
>than McGwire's salary.
Uh, Nelson, isn't it customary to pay things like player salaries
BEFORE counting up profits?
McGwire could well be worth the money. Unless you can get completely
accurate surveys from all patrons, and a complete disclosure of
the Cardinals' financials, you'll never know, and you'll be firing
assumptions back and forth in a neverending cycle of discourse.
Nothing wrong with that, of course.
Gary Huckabay
In article <3564921d...@news.inlink.com>,
From where I sit, Ludwick and Stein could both be significantly more
than 'role players.' As could Dmitri Young.
Unless that role is 'minor star.'
Lurker Below
On 21 May 1998 20:28:05 GMT, ez02...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu (Gary
Huckabay) wrote:
>In article <35633620...@news.inlink.com>,
>Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>>To go from ~20 HR a year to 45+ HR a year is _more_ than physical
>>maturation would normally allow for. If he had gone from the 30 that
>>Ted Frank postulated to 45+, I would agree, but doubling your output,
>>no.
>Staying away from causality, Griffey's jump didn't strike me as
>surprising. I doubt there's enough in the historical record to
>get statistical significance, but was anyone really surprised?
>First, he didn't double his output.
Yes, he did. Read my statements again. I talk about a _2_ year span. I
picked the numbers very carefully.
> At age 22, he hit 27 HR in
>565 AB. At age 23, he hit 45 in 583. Power jumps of that
>magnitude aren't by any means unheard of at those ages,
Never said they weren't. I said they weren't normal. And what Griffey
did in _sustaining_ it is even more abnormal.
>particularly in times like these, where league levels of offense
>can bounce around like a gapper in a Klesko/Reimer/Grieve outfield.
>>I think you are going to see a greater number of players increase
>>their numbers later in their careers due to better conditioning
>>regimens and better tools for study. Look at McGwire, Gwynn, Ryan,
>>Clemens. I don't believe that it will be the norm, but I do believe it
>>will be more common (and is more common) than you do.
>Ah, the Tony Gwynn conditioning regimen.
>"Upsize it and add bacon."
Gwynn is an example of 'better tools for study'. Besides, I hear that
if he didn't work out regulary, he would be as big as Kruk, McGwire
and Canseco all rolled together (I could be wrong about that though).
>You make a good point, though. I don't like to deal with causality,
>but I think a large part of the offensive explosion is due to superior
>conditioning and training; hitters had more 'attainable headroom' in
>their performance than pitchers, and such a move was the result thereof.
>Subjectively, this year's umpiring has been much more hitter-hostile
>than in recent years. The high pitch is still a ball,
A bad thing.
>but the outside corner has expanded yet ANOTHER inch,
Another bad thing.
>and the inside pitch, a ball for many years, appears to be called a strike more.
A good thing.
>Then again, Frank Thomas and Mike Bordick are within 50 OPS points of
>each other. Maybe someone angered Xochipilli or something.
I envision Bordick waving a black sword yelling, "Arioch! Arioch!
Blood and souls for my Lord Arioch!"
Nelson Lu
In article <3564921d...@news.inlink.com>,
Lurker Below <lur...@below.com> wrote:
>On 21 May 1998 19:28:05 GMT, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>>$1 million = 1 win holds, McGwire should contribute more than 9.5 win per
>>season to be worth his salary cost. I don't see it happening.
>
>Then you need a lesson in Economics. The Albert Belle and Sammy Sosa
>contracts established 'market value' for hitters of this ilk and both
>make more than McGwire (and Sosa is not anywhere near the player
>McGwire is).
Belle/Sosa's contracts don't mean that they're worth the money. Further,
is McGwire any more valuable than Gary Sheffield, entering this season? He
makes significantly more than Sheffield, IIRC.
>_And_ McGwire is on his way (see another thread) to a season we've not
>seen since Teddy Ballgame and maybe the Babe himself.
Given that Ivan Rodriguez and Chipper Jones are having better seasons, how can
you make such a statement?
>King, Politte, Aybar, Ankiel, Looper, et al made the pitchers
>expendible and McGwire made Young redundant.
Then why does it appear to me that the Cardinals are hurting as far as
pitching is concerned?
And it's not a matter of Young's "redundancy" per se; the question is, are
the Cardinals better off with Young/Mathews/Ludwick/Stein and $9.5 million?
I think they are.
Nelson Lu
In article <6k24v8$9bv$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Gary Huckabay <ez02...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>In article <6k23ui$560$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
>Nelson Lu <n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>Better yet, *even* if it's up 5,000 a game and *solely* because of McGwire,
>>that in fact shows that he's not worth the money -- 5,000 a game goes to
>>about 800,000 over the season. Even if the Cardinals make a profit of $7 per
>>fan (which I doubt), that's an addition of $5.6 million -- significantly less
>>than McGwire's salary.
>
>Uh, Nelson, isn't it customary to pay things like player salaries
>BEFORE counting up profits?
I meant -- does having an additional fan in the seat add $7 to the Cardinals'
profits, when considered by itself? If so, adding 800,000 fans gives them
an extra $5.6 million profit brought in by McGwire. Take McGwire's $9.5
million salary, and you're getting an effective $3.5 million loss by
trading for/signing McGwire.
>McGwire could well be worth the money. Unless you can get completely
>accurate surveys from all patrons, and a complete disclosure of
>the Cardinals' financials, you'll never know, and you'll be firing
>assumptions back and forth in a neverending cycle of discourse.
Correct, so all of this is conjecture anyway, but it would seem highly unlikely
to me that McGwire is making the Cardinals enough money to fit his salary,
although I can't prove that he isn't, of course.
David Andrew Leonardo Marasco
In article <199805211822...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Only 5 people in MLB history have hit more homers than Reggie.
Yeah, I'd put him in the Hall of Fame for that...
David Marasco mar...@nwu.edu http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~dmarasco
"An object at rest cannot be stopped." - The Tick
David Marc Nieporent
In <6k1g44$g...@tekka.wwa.com>, James Weisberg <chad...@news.wwa.com> claimed:
>In article <6k0f7l$l...@pluto.njcc.com>,
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>Why not look at the attendance the Cards pull on road games
>>>against horrible teams? I don't know how many people attended
>>>last night's Phils game, but those that did evidently gave Mark
>>>a standing ovation. I think that's fairly indicative that he is
>>>a draw on the road. And when the Cards were playing the Cubs at
>>>Wrigley last, people showed up very early to watch his batting
>>>practice.
>>Neither of which has *anything* to do with the claim that he brings
>>extra fans to the ballpark.
> Huh? How does people lining up at Wrigley and assembling in
>the streets *outside* Wrigley to see McGwire's batting practice
>not have anything to do with bringing extra fans to the ballpark?
Do I have to use smaller words? If McGwire was coming to Baltimore, I'd
probably go earlier than usual, so that I could see batting practice.
That doesn't mean I go more *often* than usual.
>My God man, there were fans with huge McGwire placards out in
>the bleachers! And no one threw any of his home run balls back!
So?
>>> I would have to say that some players do affect attendance,
>>>and McGwire may prove to be one of them.
>>As Nelson noted, and as I pointed out in another post, look at the As and
>>then try to make that claim with a straight face.
> Because McGwire didn't hit 58 home runs there.
He hit 52 HRs there.
--
David M. Nieporent "Mr. Simpson, don't you worry. I
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu watched Matlock in a bar last night.
2L - St. John's School of Law The sound wasn't on, but I think I
Roberto Petagine Appreciation Society got the gist of it." -- L. Hutz