Production vs. Efficiency.

Pretty good article which I think may have indirectly led me to change my mind regarding Edgar Martinez's HOF credentials, from nay to yea:

"What baffles me is the argument that Edgar Martinez isn't a Hall-of-Famer because he was a designated hitter. It's like not voting for Greg Maddux because he didn't rush for enough yardage. It's a total non sequitur -- it's an invented reason that makes no sense. A reprise of the facts from above:

The rules of baseball have, since 1973, required that every team in the American League fill a position known as 'the designated hitter'

Edgar Martinez was the best designated hitter in the history of the sport"

I think you obviously have to be more productive as a DH than as a gold glove shortstop.

I'm not sure how many people are disqualifying Martinez solely because of his position, but it's a clear handicap compared to players who made an impact in the field.


"There are 19 players who finished their careers with a batting average over .300, an on-base percentage over .400, and a slugging percentage over .500. Two of them played for the Rockies, pre-humidor. Two of them might never make the Hall of Fame because of scandal. Three of them will make the Hall of Fame unless they're caught up in a scandal. The rest are super-inner-circle-gold-star Hall-of-Famers. Jimmie Foxx. Mel Ott. Stan Musial. Those types."

Batting average and on-base percentage reflect a player's efficiency.

HOF entrants tend to amass stats over a long career.

I think that's the crux of the argument, rather than the pro-DH vs. anti-DH.


At first glance, I don't think Martinez's scoreboard stats are enough to put him in the HOF: .312, 309 HRs, 1,261 RBIs.

Runs scored: 1,219, which ranks him 160th all-time.

Willie Randolph had more runs scored.

160th on the list surrounds Martinez with good players, but not HOF types.


RBIs: 1,261, which ranks him 121st all-time. Some HOFers had fewer, lots of non-HOFers had more.

Harold Baines had 400 more RBIs.

Jeff Kent had 300 more RBIs and played the field.


But then I thought about it a little more. In terms of overall production, Martinez is a rare batter who gets a lot of walks and a lot or extra-base hits, who gets a lot of runs scored and a lot of RBIs.

Runs Created: 1,631, 58th all-time. (Problem is, I can't quite figure out the Bill Freakin' James definition of Runs Created.)

162-game averages: .312/.418/.515, 24 HRs, 41 doubles, 96 runs, 99 RBIs.


In any case, my observation is that Martinez probably belongs in the HOF, even though his production stats don't really make his induction a slam dunk.

Raise your hand if you're very fat.

The team, the time.

"But for those perhaps uncertain over whether to part with their millions, the owners have listed some less obvious perks that would come with a share of the Queens ball club.

¶ Access to Mr. Met, the team mascot, although the degree of access is not entirely spelled out. It definitely means you, as a part-owner, can schmooze with Mr. Met at Citi Field. It’s less clear whether you could get him to come to your child’s birthday party without a fee."

Mike Lupica doesn't like it when his predictions are proven incorrect.

"There is this idea that the government failed with the Barry Bonds case because Bonds in the end did no jail time."

Yes.


"And there is the idea that the government wasted money, because that is always such a big concern in the sports section."

There are lots of ideas.

With regards to Barry Bonds, lot of observers opined, yes, it was a waste of government resources from the start.

The general public opinion -- not a particularly important litmus test, necessarily, but certainly more valid than the vague "this idea" or "the idea" -- has starkly tilted towards this viewpoint.

Speaking for myself, I think the Constitutional violations are more worrisome than Barry Bonds's tainted HR records.


"But the reason that Bonds only took a fall on one felony — obstruction of justice — is because the guy who knew everything about what Bonds took and when he took it and how much of it he took refused — to the end — to testify."

Sure.

But you knew that when you were guaranteeing Bonds jail time.

It's hard to believe, but Mike Lupica likely knows less about U.S. jurisprudence than he does about U.S. baseball.


"Maybe you think that Bonds won something on Friday when he got probation and home confinement and 250 hours of community service.

But I don’t, whether the prosecution covered itself in glory or not."

Covered itself in glory?

Yuck.


"Put it another way, if you really think this was some kind of triumph for him:

Would you rather be him, or the great Henry Aaron, whose home run record Bonds broke?"

Avoiding jail time is, in fact, some kind of triumph.

He lost a long time ago in the Court of Public Opinion, but he was relatively victorious in the Court of Court.


As for who'd I'd rather be?

Sounds like a fun playground exercise for 6-year-olds.

Hmmmm ...

I'd rather be Bonds, because Bonds is younger than Aaron and, because of this, I think Bonds will live longer from this day forward and that's why I'd rather be Bonds instead of Aaron.

Balls.

Professional athletes make ridiculous amounts of money.

Albert Pujols for $24 million per year is clearly a bargain:

"Forget about what kind of shape Albert Pujols is going to be in at the back end of his ridiculous contract with the Angels.

I mean what kind of shape is he going to be in when he reaches A-Rod’s age?"

Good shape.


"Joe Buck, a St. Louis guy, is absolutely right."

There's a first time for everything.


"The real winners here are the Cardinals, who took their best shot at re-signing Pujols and then didn’t have to be the team giving Pujols a ridiculous 10-year contract.

You know who my early favorite is to win the NL Central in 2012?

The Cardinals, that’s who."

The Cardinals didn't win the NL Central last year ... or the year before that ...and, since the conclusion of last season, they have lost a HOF manager and the best player in baseball.


But, yeah, "early favorites to win the NL Central in 2012" sound like an indictment of the NL Central rather than an endorsement of the Cardinals.

Name five players from the 1962 Mets.

"Even if you weren’t alive in 1962, you know the story of the original Mets. They lost 120 games, which set a modern day record for futility that stands to this day. They were truly awful. Yet around here, they remain one of the most beloved teams of all time."

I am guessing there was some degree of excitement for fans of the displaced Giants and Dodgers.


"The original Mets were adored because they were a novelty, and because New York had lost its two National League franchises, the Dodgers and Giants, to California. It’s also safe to say they were adored by so many because they weren’t the Yankees."

So the novelty wore off long ago.


"And why do we bring this up today? Because it’s time for Mets fans to once again bask in the glow of their own inferiority. Seriously. This is the way it oughta be."

I'm going to guess that the fans of 1962 Mets weren't having nearly so much fun as this revisionist history suggests.

Casey Stengel and Choo Choo Coleman saying funny things to the press. You guys should be a stand up act.


"So that brings us into the present, and the opportunity for the Mets to basically start all over again. Cry if you want about losing Jose Reyes to the Miami Marlins. Scream at the top of your lungs about the Wilpon family and the team’s financial state. Lose sleep over what looks like a two-, three-, maybe four-year rebuilding project that has just gotten started.

Or bask in it."

Well, if you're a fan of a team, then you're a fan of a team. There are some benefits to uncrowded stadiums with empty upper decks. uncrowded parking lots, uncrowded beer lines, and uncrowded bathrooms. Satisfaction can be defined as the degree to which expectations are met and sometimes it can ultimately make one happier to have low expectations.

But the 1962 Mets were probably not particularly beloved then and definitely not particularly beloved now. It's revisionist history and myth-making.


The fundamentals of sports enjoyment don't change too much: Winning is good, losing is bad.

There's nothing more expensive than cheap labor.

"However, from a pure baseball standpoint, great as Pujols has been through the first 11 years of his career, there's no good reason to give a 10-year contract to a player who will turn 32 next month."

I can think of a few good reasons:

1) Pujols is now on your team.

2) Your team will win more baseball games.

3) Your team will bring in more revenue and increase its value.

4) You will acquire return on your investment.

The Yankees will not trade Jesus Montero.

He's a young, inexpensive player who they could have traded (with others) for Cliff Lee (I think).

Now that the investment is about to pay off, they're not going to trade him for Gio Gonzalez.

I suddenly feel hap hap happy today.

We'll take a case of gauze and twenty fungo bats.