MLB: The 2017 Season

[Bob Green]

Cardinals win two of three with the Cubs to improve to 21-15 remaining in 1st Place in the NL Central.

[accfanfrom1970]

Cardinals win two of three with the Cubs to improve to 21-15 remaining in 1st Place in the NL Central.

It was fun watching Wainwright pitch well, Rosenthal blow 100 mile fastballs past batters,
see vets like Molina and Carpenter carry the team, and watch newcomers like Sierra contribute.

[Blue in the Face]

Tough break for early MVP candidate Freddie Freeman, who got plunked on wednesday and will miss 10 - 12 weeks with a fractured wrist (though he won't need surgery). He's been on an absolute tear, going back to the middle of last season. Through May last year he had a .338 obp, .419 slg, .757 ops. Since then he's been .436/.668/1.104, and so far this year he's leading the majors with a 1.209 ops and tied with Aaron Judge for the HR lead with 14. His team may be too far gone for it make any real difference on their post-season chances, but it's a shame to see such a great season derailed.

[Olympic Fan]

Okay, this weekend essentially marks one-fourth of the season. A few teams are already there, most have a game or two to go.

Obviously, a long way to go, but I think we've played a substantial segment of the season.

As a Yankee fan, I am thrilled how well the Baby Bombers have played, although I know how fragile it is. As of today, we have the second best record in all of baseball ... yet we lead the Orioles by just 1.5 games and surging Boston by 4. On the other hand, the Nationals have almost the same record (just slightly worse) and have an eight-game lead in the NL East.

As it stands today:

AL East: Yankees (24-14) lead Baltimore by 1.5 and Boston by 4.0. I think it's going to be a great race down to the wire and the two losers will be in the wild card hunt.
AL Central: Twins (20-17) lead Detroit and Cleveland by 1.0. Surprise leader, but I still like the Indians in the long run.
AL West: Houston (29-12) leads Texas by 7.5. The Rangers were off to a horrible start, but they've won nine straight to finally get over .500. Don't know if they can catch the Astros (which have the best record in baseball), but I suspect they'll be in the wild card race to the end.

NL East: Nationals (25-15) lead the Mets by 8.0). The collapse of the other NL East teams makes this a cakewalk for the Nats.
NL Central: Brewers (24-18) lead the Cards by 1.0 and the Cubs by 2.0. Another shocker. Got to believe the Cubs and Cards end up fighting it out.
NL West: Rockies (26-16) lead the Dodgers and Diamondbacks by 2.0. The Giants have collapsed. Still got to like LA in the West, but the Rockies could hang tough. I don't believe Arizona can hang.

[duke74]

NL East: Nationals (25-15) lead the Mets by 8.0). The collapse of the other NL East teams makes this a cakewalk for the Nats.

I see no end in sight for my Metsies' death spiral. Turning into a cursed year on many levels. Thank God for DBR and minutes discussions.

[CDu]

It's a long season, but the Cubs are starting to show their first signs of life. A three-game sweep of the Giants, with all three starts showing strong starting pitching. They've won 4 of their last 5 (and 7 of their last 9), with strong starts from their starting pitching in 6 of the 7 wins.

Thankfully for Cubs fans, the division hasn't gotten away from them while they struggled out of the gates. Milwaukee has been surprisingly good, but the Cubs find themselves in first place (just barely ahead of the Brewers and Cardinals) as we close in on the 1/3 point in the season.

[Olympic Fan]

ESPN's Tim Kurkjian ran a poll today to pick the first greatest players whose last names started with K.

I have not problem with the bottom of his list -- No. 3 Al Kaline, No. 4 Harmon Killebrew. No. 5 Ralph Kiner

But I do object to the order of the top two -- No. 1 Sandy Koufax and No. 2 Clayton Kershaw.

Koufax, a great player, continues to be one of the most overrated stars in baseball history. He was a great player for four years -- during their greatest pitching era (huge strike zones, high mounds, etc.) and pitching in the most favorable pitcher park in baseball history.

For their careers, Kershaw has a better ERA (2.35 TO 2.76), a better strike out rate (9.8 to 9.3 per 9), a MUCH better ERA-plus (160 to 131), a better WHIP, a better FIP and a better winning percentage.

Koufax won three Cy Young Awards and finished third once. Kershaw has also won three Cy Youngs -- but also two seconds, a third and a fifth place finish. Koufax finished in the top 10 of the Cy Young vote four times -- Kershaw has finished in the top five seven times -- and is currently the frontrunner to win it again this year.

Kershaw is currently on pace to have the lowest career ERA of any starting pitcher in the post dead ball era. That record is held by Whitey Ford -- by just a shade over Koufax (2.75 to 2.76). Kershaw's career 2.35 is blowing that out of the water.

[YmoBeThere]

I'm biased as a Dodgers fan, but in watching Kershaw we are quite simply seeing the greatest pitcher to have ever walked on this planet. Yes, many will point to his post season efforts...

Agreed that Koufax's greatness was a brief period of time.

[duke74]

I'm biased as a Dodgers fan, but in watching Kershaw we are quite simply seeing the greatest pitcher to have ever walked on this planet. Yes, many will point to his post season efforts...

Agreed that Koufax's greatness was a brief period of time.

Hijack alert:

But has Kershaw ever refused to pitch on Yom Kippur? Nothing to do with his greatness as a pitcher, but as a Queens boy of the Tribe, with a father a Dodgers fan until Lucifer O'Malley took the team westward, the meaningfulness of Sandy's action to a segment of the population cannot be underestimated. To us, this superseded any performance metrics.

Back to the thread. Agree with the statements re the period of greatness...

[Deslok]

I'm biased as a Dodgers fan, but in watching Kershaw we are quite simply seeing the greatest pitcher to have ever walked on this planet. Yes, many will point to his post season efforts...

Agreed that Koufax's greatness was a brief period of time.

Pedro Martinez waves hello. Not even going far back in history to debate change in players and the game, their careers even overlapped. Nothing Kershaw has put up can come close to matching the dominance of 1999 ans 2000.

[Olympic Fan]

Pedro Martinez waves hello. Not even going far back in history to debate change in players and the game, their careers even overlapped. Nothing Kershaw has put up can come close to matching the dominance of 1999 ans 2000.

Those were two incredible years -- best illustrated by his 243 and 241 ERA plus -- that stat takes ERA and adjusts it for ballpark and era. 100 is an average pitcher in that time and place ... a 200 ERA plus means that a pitcher is twice as good as average ... Pedro was 141 and 143 percent better than the average pitcher in those two years. He actually topped 200 in four different years.

Koufax had some very low ERAs, but he was pitching in the best pitchers park in baseball in an era that was more pitcher-friendly than any time since the end of the dead ball era. Martinez pitched in the heart of the steroid era ... in tougher ballparks (even Dodger Stadium was tougher for pitchers in the 90s through now than it was in the early and mid 1960s).

Koudax's best ERA-plus seasons were 190, 186, 160 and 159. For his career, he was 131.

Kershaw's four best ERA plus seasons were 232, 202, 197 and 194 -- not as good as Pedro's peak, but all better than Koufax's best. His career ERA plus is 160 -- better than Pedros. Kershaw's career ERA of 2.35 is significantly better than Pedro's 2.93. His strike out rate, his FIP and his WHIP are all better than Pedro's.

There is something to be said for volume of innings throwing. Pedro has the most career inning 2,827, but he actually threw less innings per start that Kershaw and Koufax. I will say this for Koufax (a meager 2,324 innings in his career) -- during his four-year run of greatness (1963=66), he threw an ungodly number of innings -- topping 300 innings three times. Neither Pedro or Kershaw ever topped 250 innings in a season.

Pedro definitely belongs in the discussion -- so do Maddox and Seaver (because of the greater volume of innings there were able to pitch at a very high level), but I still agree with YmoBeThere that we're currently watching the greatest pitcher in the modern era. Another few seasons at this level and there won't be any debate.

[duke74]

RIP Jim Bunning. Still remember his perfecto on Fathers Day in 1964 v my Mets. Was almost 12 at the time.

[CDu]

Those were two incredible years -- best illustrated by his 243 and 241 ERA plus -- that stat takes ERA and adjusts it for ballpark and era. 100 is an average pitcher in that time and place ... a 200 ERA plus means that a pitcher is twice as good as average ... Pedro was 141 and 143 percent better than the average pitcher in those two years. He actually topped 200 in four different years.

Koufax had some very low ERAs, but he was pitching in the best pitchers park in baseball in an era that was more pitcher-friendly than any time since the end of the dead ball era. Martinez pitched in the heart of the steroid era ... in tougher ballparks (even Dodger Stadium was tougher for pitchers in the 90s through now than it was in the early and mid 1960s).

Koudax's best ERA-plus seasons were 190, 186, 160 and 159. For his career, he was 131.

Kershaw's four best ERA plus seasons were 232, 202, 197 and 194 -- not as good as Pedro's peak, but all better than Koufax's best. His career ERA plus is 160 -- better than Pedros. Kershaw's career ERA of 2.35 is significantly better than Pedro's 2.93. His strike out rate, his FIP and his WHIP are all better than Pedro's.

There is something to be said for volume of innings throwing. Pedro has the most career inning 2,827, but he actually threw less innings per start that Kershaw and Koufax. I will say this for Koufax (a meager 2,324 innings in his career) -- during his four-year run of greatness (1963=66), he threw an ungodly number of innings -- topping 300 innings three times. Neither Pedro or Kershaw ever topped 250 innings in a season.

Pedro definitely belongs in the discussion -- so do Maddox and Seaver (because of the greater volume of innings there were able to pitch at a very high level), but I still agree with YmoBeThere that we're currently watching the greatest pitcher in the modern era. Another few seasons at this level and there won't be any debate.

Important to note that Pedro's career numbers are dragged down by his decline phase as well as by pitching in the steroid era. Kershaw has the ERA lead in part because of home park, in part because of era, and in part because he hasn't pitched into his decline phase yet.

Kershaw may wind up the greatest. But it probably isn't fair to compare his average-based stats in his prime to Pedro's career stats.

[Olympic Fan]

Important to note that Pedro's career numbers are dragged down by his decline phase as well as by pitching in the steroid era. Kershaw has the ERA lead in part because of home park, in part because of era, and in part because he hasn't pitched into his decline phase yet.

Kershaw may wind up the greatest. But it probably isn't fair to compare his average-based stats in his prime to Pedro's career stats.

That's a fair point and Kershaw may indeed drag his career numbers down with a long, slow decline.

But still, at the same point in his career, Martinez had a much higher ERA and a higher ERA plus that Kewshaw does now. Before his first great year (1997) he had six seasons with a career era over 3.50 with an ERA plus of close to 130 -- still pretty good, but not at the level we're talking about. Over the next seven seasons, he had an ERA of about 2.25 and an ERA-plus of just over 200 (the high ERA plus is because Pedro was excelling in the heart of the steroid era).

He pitched six seasons after his peak and really didn't have a terrible decline. Two seasons under 3.00 ERA and two more under 4.00.

My point is that if you graph Pedro and Clayton, Kershaw's career track is ahead of Martinez's. It's possible that he may slump more at the end of his career, but with a normal/similar decline, he finishes his career well ahead of Martinez -- in both ERA and ERA-plus (which negates the park and era effects).

That's why I say watch him closely now. We MAY be watching the greatest pitcher in the modern era. It would be a shame for him to finish, then we look back and say "He was the greatest since the dead ball ... we should have paid more attention."

To change the subject, David Schoenfield of ESPN has an interesting note today -- through San Francisco's first 50 games, Buster Posey is batting .361 with seven home runs ... and just 11 RBIs.

He notes that's a historically low RBI production for such a productive batter. One of the examples he offers is the year Brady Anderson batted .297 ad hit 50 home runs -- and finished with "only" 110 RBIs.

Well, I've always thought the strangest season RBI total belonged to Rogers Hornsby in 1924. The Cardinals' second baseman hit .424 (the best in modern baseball history), led the league with 227 hits and had power -- 25 home runs, 43 doubles and 14 triples. Yet, he had just 94 RBIs. And Hornsby batted third all year behind Ray Blades (.311; .387 OBP) and Jimmy Cooney (.295; 330 OBP).

How did he finish with so few RBIs?

[CDu]

That's a fair point and Kershaw may indeed drag his career numbers down with a long, slow decline.

But still, at the same point in his career, Martinez had a much higher ERA and a higher ERA plus that Kewshaw does now. Before his first great year (1997) he had six seasons with a career era over 3.50 with an ERA plus of close to 130 -- still pretty good, but not at the level we're talking about. Over the next seven seasons, he had an ERA of about 2.25 and an ERA-plus of just over 200 (the high ERA plus is because Pedro was excelling in the heart of the steroid era).

He pitched six seasons after his peak and really didn't have a terrible decline. Two seasons under 3.00 ERA and two more under 4.00.

My point is that if you graph Pedro and Clayton, Kershaw's career track is ahead of Martinez's. It's possible that he may slump more at the end of his career, but with a normal/similar decline, he finishes his career well ahead of Martinez -- in both ERA and ERA-plus (which negates the park and era effects).

That's why I say watch him closely now. We MAY be watching the greatest pitcher in the modern era. It would be a shame for him to finish, then we look back and say "He was the greatest since the dead ball ... we should have paid more attention."

To change the subject, David Schoenfield of ESPN has an interesting note today -- through San Francisco's first 50 games, Buster Posey is batting .361 with seven home runs ... and just 11 RBIs.

He notes that's a historically low RBI production for such a productive batter. One of the examples he offers is the year Brady Anderson batted .297 ad hit 50 home runs -- and finished with "only" 110 RBIs.

Well, I've always thought the strangest season RBI total belonged to Rogers Hornsby in 1924. The Cardinals' second baseman hit .424 (the best in modern baseball history), led the league with 227 hits and had power -- 25 home runs, 43 doubles and 14 triples. Yet, he had just 94 RBIs. And Hornsby batted third all year behind Ray Blades (.311; .387 OBP) and Jimmy Cooney (.295; 330 OBP).

How did he finish with so few RBIs?

It is possible that Kershaw ends up with a better ERA+. But right now he is not "well ahead" in that category. He is at 160, Pedro finished at 154. It is pointless to compare ERA as the eras were so different and Kershaw plays in LA.

Undoubtedly Kershaw is on the VERY short list of greatest of the modern era. He will have to either retire young (as he is ahead now) or maintain his greatness for that to happen.

And yes, he is definitely worth watching to see if he does it.

[Blue in the Face]

That's a fair point and Kershaw may indeed drag his career numbers down with a long, slow decline.

But still, at the same point in his career, Martinez had a much higher ERA and a higher ERA plus that Kewshaw does now. Before his first great year (1997) he had six seasons with a career era over 3.50 with an ERA plus of close to 130 -- still pretty good, but not at the level we're talking about. Over the next seven seasons, he had an ERA of about 2.25 and an ERA-plus of just over 200 (the high ERA plus is because Pedro was excelling in the heart of the steroid era).

My point is that if you graph Pedro and Clayton, Kershaw's career track is ahead of Martinez's. It's possible that he may slump more at the end of his career, but with a normal/similar decline, he finishes his career well ahead of Martinez -- in both ERA and ERA-plus (which negates the park and era effects).

How are you defining the same point in their careers?

If you look to the season in which they turned 28 (through last season for Kershaw, through 2000 for Pedro) Pedro had the edge in ERA+, 168 to 159. If you look at their first 9 seasons (through last year for Kershaw and 2001 for Pedro, so excluding his cup of coffee in 92), Pedro has the edge 169 to 159. Including this year to date bumps Kershaw up to 160, which doesn't change the comparison. So I'm not really sure what period you're looking at in saying Kershaw is ahead of Pedro.

(I'm also not sure where you're getting your pre-1997 numbers for Pedro. He had 4 seasons plus a cup of coffee, not 6, and his era was 3.4).

[weezie]

Garage/fire sale posters being printed in Detroit. Everybody but Fulmer is on the block. Every other teams wants nobody but Fulmer.

[duke74]

I'd like him back, fwiw.

[Olympic Fan]

Garage/fire sale posters being printed in Detroit. Everybody but Fulmer is on the block. Every other teams wants nobody but Fulmer.

What are the contract situations with Miggy and the two Martinez brothers (joke)? Aren't they still signed to long-term deals? They are still quality hitters and would be welcome on several contenders, but not if you have to buy them long-term.

My Yankees have their biggest lead of the season ... but it's over Boston and not slumping Baltimore. Got to be honest -- Boston scares me a lot more than the Orioles. The Red Sox have the best starting rotation in the AL, a lockdown closer and some big bats. The scary thing is that they have not started to hit and they're still just three games back. And they get David Price back off the DL today.

[gam7]

Is anyone as outraged as I am about what Hunter Strickland did today as I am? It was an absolute travesty and bastardization of the unwritten rules. Strickland is a bad baseball player, and has now proven to be a punk (to put it kindly) to boot. If I were a Giants fan, I would be embarrassed and ashamed of his actions.