I have another one. How do you argue with people who trash Adam Dunn for his Ks and low average?

What's your opinion of Josh Willingham?

Willingham is winning me my NL Fantasy League. He crushed minor league pitching for two years, and his current line is indicative of what to expect of him the next few years. As long as his fielding holds up, he's a good player.

 

Hey Al, who do you think will have the biggest impact in terms of helping their team, rookie wise, down the stretch?

The easy answer is Cole Hamels, because he's got a million dollar arm and the Phils desperately need pitching. Jon Papelbon is having an impact in Boston as the closer. The Mets are looking at Alay Soler and (eventually) Mike Pelfrey to shore up their pitching staff. And of course the Dodgers have a half dozen rookies. But Hamels is the big one.

 

What are your feelings on Barry Bonds, him passing Ruth's 714, him still going after Aaron's 755 and his apparent personality turnaround in the media?

 

What about the pace Pujols was on before getting injured?

I don't really have strong opinions about Barry Bonds. Him, Roger Clemens and other players the media overexposes don't hold my interest as much as the game itself.

 

I don't think Pujols was going to challenge the home run record. Remember he's still 48 home runs away from the single season record. He would STILL need to top his career high of 46 home runs to set the record. Pujols is a once in a generation hitter though. He's as much fun to watch at the plate as anyone in my lifetime.

 

I have another one. How do you argue with people who trash Adam Dunn for his Ks and low average?

I point out his OBP, walks and raw power. I don't understand it, because I attended a Reds/Phillies game last season.* Adam Dunn's two home runs and five RBIs just about single-handedly won the game for the Reds. One of those home runs landed in the second deck. Right now, Griffey is getting some high-profile clutch hits. The reason he gets good pitches in the first place is that Adam Dunn hits behind him. Same thing with David Ortiz in Boston.

 

*Here's the game I'm referencing, thanks to Retrosheet.

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B05120PHI2005.htm

What should we make of the resurgance of Jermaine Dye? Here's a guy who had some star power and really hadn't been the same after having his season ended in the postseason a few years back. When he was signed by the White Sox during the 2004 offseason, a lot of people questioned the move. Since then, he's revived his career and is currently part of the most potent 3-4-5 hitters in the bigs.

What should we make of the resurgance of Jermaine Dye? Here's a guy who had some star power and really hadn't been the same after having his season ended in the postseason a few years back. When he was signed by the White Sox during the 2004 offseason, a lot of people questioned the move. Since then, he's revived his career and is currently part of the most potent 3-4-5 hitters in the bigs.

He moved to a good hitters' park. Simple as that.

An Arizona relief pitcher got busted for using HGH and claims to have named names so who do you think is on that list?

An Arizona relief pitcher got busted for using HGH and claims to have named names so who do you think is on that list?

I don't know and quite honestly, I don't really care.

Keep or drop Juan Pierre on my fantasy team. Is he worth it for the stolen bases or should I just get some slugger to take his place?

Jesus, you still have him on your team? You have GET on base before you can think about STEALING any more.

Yeah, I've been trying to sucker another team into trading for him for about a month now but that's been fruitless for me.

I'm not really adept at fantasy advice. It depends how much you need the steals. Expect a .320 OBP or so, he's been underperforming. Pierre's an odd player in that he's better in poor run scoring ballparks.

Aside from Moneyball what are some good baseball books.

Yeah, I've been trying to sucker another team into trading for him for about a month now but that's been fruitless for me.

;; Don't mean to steal Al's thunder, but as he says, Pierre's not really performing well. Best you could do would be to try packaging Pierre with another player and making a "big play" deal. Its not the greatest scenario, but if there isn't a lot of depth in the league, you might not get anything back for Pierre.

 

Another idea is to use Pierre and another "all-star" calibre player to gain some few great players in return. Best example I could think of (but isn't really that good), is you had like Glavine and Pierre, you could trying to trading for say Vernon Wells and Pat Burrell. Not that's a very likely deal, but its an idea of what you need to do.

 

With that said, anything else we should use PMs for if you need anymore help. Or I guess start another thread for fantasy advice. Either or.

 

And since this thread is about asking Al, some questions.

 

Al do you think we should just give up on trying to ban steriods in baseball (as well as other sports)? I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but at this point I'm almost tempted to say let them do it, but have a governing commission deal with how much a player can inject into his body because the stupidity of all these players doing this is getting beyond itself.

 

Also, what's the best stat to judge a players full ability. OBP or OPS?

 

And finally, do you think the Tigers can realistically make the WS? I know its earily still, but I figured I'd ask anyways.

My team is actually really deep. There are a couple of teams that don't understand the ups/downs of a baseball player and constantly dump good players when they go into a slump. I got Jermaine Dye, Magglio Ordonez, Carlos Guillen and Roger Clemens this way. I even have Sheffield and Pujols on the DL and it hasn't even made a dent in my team's power numbers. But people don't like to trade. I offered Ordonez to almost every team in the league and didn't see any counter-offers on him.

Aside from Moneyball what are some good baseball books.

I'm sorry it took several days to respond, I've been very busy lately.

 

Lawrence Ritter's The Glory of Their Times is an excellent read. Ritter interviewed two dozen former players from the period around 1900-25 or so about their playing days, and transcribed the interviews.

 

Alan Schwartz's The Numbers Game is a good companion piece to Moneyball, and a more even-handed account of the statistical revolution. Schwartz also covers other figures from Henry Chadwick to Earnshaw Cook.

 

Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Blunders is Neyer's best work yet. Neyer covers some of the boneheaded moves in baseball history, and defends some others seen as boneheaded. For example, Neyer defends the Brock/Broglio trade, noting the Cubs' existing left fielder was pretty good (Billy Williams), and Ernie Broglio was a good pitcher at the time.

Al do you think we should just give up on trying to ban steriods in baseball (as well as other sports)? I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but at this point I'm almost tempted to say let them do it, but have a governing commission deal with how much a player can inject into his body because the stupidity of all these players doing this is getting beyond itself.

Professional sports can not give up the fight. Performance enhancing drugs are likely to be a problem from here on, and there needs to be some effort to try to eradicate them. Regretfully, I think it may take a star player in his prime getting blackballed to solve the problem.

 

Also, what's the best stat to judge a players full ability. OBP or OPS?

Win shares overall, OPS for hitters, range factor for fielding. All statistics have their weaknesses though, and I would never trust just one.

 

And finally, do you think the Tigers can realistically make the WS? I know its earily still, but I figured I'd ask anyways

Absolutely.

Some questions for the two-and-a-half-month-old season:

 

- Who have been the most surprising teams?

- The most disappointing teams?

- The most surprising player?

- The most disappointing player?

- Teams you expect to fizzle out?

- Teams you expect to stay for the duration?

- Next manager to get the boot?

- Who have been the most surprising teams?

- The most disappointing teams?

- The most surprising player?

- The most disappointing player?

- Teams you expect to fizzle out?

- Teams you expect to stay for the duration?

- Next manager to get the boot?

The most surprising teams are the ones who are in first place who weren't last year, and vice versa. I can't really add any insight into that.

 

Alexis Rios is the biggest surprise player. He's not even on the All-Star ballot! On the opposite side, Jhonny Peralta is following up his breakout season with a .222 campaign thus far.

 

I get asked about the Tigers a great deal. I don't know how good they are, or any other team. I don't really feel the need to dig deep into their rosters for any real insight. The fun of the baseball season is seeing how these storylines play out over the next three months.

 

I think Buddy Bell's the likeliest manager to get fired, given both poor performance and a change of ownership. The Royals are almost singlehandedly keeping the rest of the American League in contention.

Do you think with the new Mets style of play (power team maybe not as great pitching as in the past) that playing in Shea Stadium will hurt them more than it did in the past?

The funny thing is that while Rios isn't on the ballot, Eric Hinske is. They were supposed to platoon this year is RF, but Rios was so good that Hinske's pretty much a bench player now (and an expensive one) getting maybe a start or two a week.

Do you think with the new Mets style of play (power team maybe not as great pitching as in the past) that playing in Shea Stadium will hurt them more than it did in the past?

As opposed to the old approach that won handfuls of division titles? Despite the bleeting from the sheep in the pressbox, smallball has not been fully vindicated as the one true way to win a baseball game. There is nothing bad about having a team of really good hitters, as the Mets have compiled. But it's silly to think they're not suited for their stadum. First off, their approach has worked. They hold a 9.5 game lead. Second, their power is complemented by excellent baserunning. The Mets have stolen 73 bases as a team and have been caught 12 times. Third, they rank third in the league in runs allowed, behind only San Diego and St. Louis. Their pitching might not have a lot of big names, but it is very effective.

 

The Mets are clicking on all cylinders right now. I wouldn't be concerned about the ballpark at all.

By in the past I meant when the Mets were a good team in the late 90s/early 2000s and were not built on power like this. This is the first Met team really to be built around power (maybe the mid 80s teams). I'm not suggesting smallball (in fact I hate it) works but this style has really never been played at Shea.

 

I was just asking because Carlos Delgado is hitting .207/.304/.446 at home and .321/.392/.618 on the road. Beltran is hitting .225/.355/ .510 at home and .358/.446/.743 on the road. The team seems to struggle to score runs at home while putting up big road numbers.

By in the past I meant when the Mets were a good team in the late 90s/early 2000s and were not built on power like this. This is the first Met team really to be built around power (maybe the mid 80s teams). I'm not suggesting smallball (in fact I hate it) works but this style has really never been played at Shea.

 

I was just asking because Carlos Delgado is hitting .207/.304/.446 at home and .321/.392/.618 on the road. Beltran is hitting .225/.355/ .510 at home and .358/.446/.743 on the road. The team seems to struggle to score runs at home while putting up big road numbers.

I wouldn't sweat it, because the stadium has the same effect on the pitching. The club is second in the league in runs allowed at home, and their home record is just as good as their road record. A lot of that is just park effects.

How much stock do you put in total team defense in relation to overall success? Does a team need an good/excellent defense to succeed or is having one just an added bonus?

 

Also, should I take this 12-game Boston winning streak as them just beating on inferior NL teams, or is this an indication of how good this team really is?

How much stock do you put in total team defense in relation to overall success? Does a team need an good/excellent defense to succeed or is having one just an added bonus?

 

Also, should I take this 12-game Boston winning streak as them just beating on inferior NL teams, or is this an indication of how good this team really is?

No one has been able to quite get a grip on the effect of team defense. Sometimes a team like the Astros has an exceptional pitching performance all around, and you suspect their defense has something to do with it. Then they plummet the following year with the same infield. I do suspect that many sabermetric studies of defense that claim it is unimportant or less important are flawed in one way or another. For one thing, they usually don't count the opportunity cost of a successful play, in that not only does it take away a hit, but it takes away a subsequent at bat.

 

Both. The Phillies have been horrid all around, and the other NL East teams are fairly weak, save the Mets. But you don't win 12 straight against MLB competition of any sort unless you've done something right.

What's your take on teams owned by an individual vs. those owned by a corporation?