P.S. For the purposes of this exercise, assume that Eckersley will not intentionally walk the hitter you choose to send to the plate, even if it's the guy I'd have up there ... Bonds. Barold Bonds.

Ichiro! No plate music for Ichiro! tho. Just the sound of the wind whistling thru the grass, crickets chirping, and a creek gently burbling in the distance.

I just dont see Ichiro! as a 'needs plate music' kinda guy.

And on a completely different tangent. I have to say. Seeing the QOTD's show up shortly after midnight (as opposed to just after I get into the office in the morning) is a little ummm... odd.

Its not wednesday if I havent gone to sleep on tuesday yet, dagnabit!

:)

jsoh, it's not even Wednesday yet here where I'm posting from! I'm waiting until after midnight TO time on a purely pro forma basis.

it's not even Wednesday yet here where I'm posting from!

Is that so? You obviously must be caught in some sort of transdimensional flux capacitance field which retards the flow of time in your immediate environs.

I smell a business opportunity here. With my detailed knowledge of the future, you should be able to translate that information into concrete monetary gains. We could be raking in the gold-pressed latinum in no time!

(ok. um. uh. nap time, i think)

Or you've stepped into a movie starring the great Michael J. Fox.

I'm a little confused. The only way a walk doesn't help is if Buhl is the on-deck hitter, and in that case Eckersley simply will be ordered to issue an intentional pass. Is Buhl on deck or is it somebody else?

http://www.bluejayscheerclub.com
You didn't say "no fictional characters" this time, so in that case I have to go with Jack Bauer. I am convinced that, that man can do anything at any time. But there would have to be certain provisions in place for me to select Jack. For example if my death would cause the end of the world, or destroy a large percentage of the population of LA, then yes, I would select Jack because he simply CAN NOT fail. Of course, if it is only my life on the line, Jack sometimes fails for the sake of drama so he can later lament failing and avenge my death in later seasons.

If it is indeed simply my life on the line, then I will have to settle for "Real" players, and in that case, since I've never seen Babe Ruth play and Barry appears to hit homeruns as if he uses a jedi mind trick to tell the pitcher what to throw, I gotta take Bonds, Barry Bonds.

And since this might be the last thing I hear, I might as go out with a laugh and see him walk up to "It's Raining Men".

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000161/
Who do you tell to grab a bat?

Salma Hayek.

Henderson and Brock steal home while Eck gawks at her.

I'm resisting the temptation to take Barry Bonds and there are many other worthy candidates out there. Of course, due to Eckersley's phenomenal success against righties, they would have to bat left. In my lifetime there have been several lefty hitting machines including Mr Bonds, Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, and George Brett. I entrust my life to Mr Brett who always seemed to come up with the dagger hits when it really mattered. Give me the 1980 George Brett please Mick. I don't believe Bonds has reached Brett's status in terms of the ability to will a team (all be it not a great team in 1985) to a championship, nor has he reached Brett's capacity for the game breaker. He has gaudy stats to be sure, probably the best statistically of all time, but it's my life and I want Mr Hemorrhoids.

I don't even want to ask which bat Hayek grabs in Lucas' scenario. ;)

Another good choice in that vein (as Lucas dragged the conversation towards beautiful actresses) would be, circa 1988: Michelle Pfeiffer. That was the year I was (at the impressionable age of fourteen) rather impressed with her acting, among other things, in two films: Dangerous Liaisons and Married to the Mob. A year later, she was exceptional in The Fabulous Baker Boys.

On a more serious note, if a walk won't do, one could do worse than asking Vlad Guerrero to get a hit--but I'd probably opt for Bonds, Ted Williams, or the Babe.

Here at Nootka, it's raining cats and dogs. I want the 1993 Paul Molitor at bat with Roberto Alomar on deck. Play Peggy Lee, "Is that all there is?" just to put my life in perspective.

Just a little sidebar from Brett's 1980 season, he hit 24 HR, and struck out 22 times. Oh, he also batted .390 (.400 most of the season) and had 118 RBI in 117 games. I realize RBI are no measure of anything other than people getting on in front of you, but nonetheless more than 1 RBI/GP is pretty eyepopping as is more than 1 HR/K. Someone was talking about Hillenbrand having more extra base hits than strikeouts. An accomplishment to be sure, but it can ring hollow if you don't have the rest of the package. Brett had everything going for him that year.

westcoast dude, I know you've got awful weather out there, but Bob Buhl is on deck not Robbie Alomar. Eckersley has promised to pitch to Molitor though, despite Mr Buhl's .089 lifetime average. (:

Maybe an Eckersley/Molitor matchup would produce a game-winning bunt, as it did once in real life. You never know, Rickey's got wheels. (;

I think I'd have to go with Willie Mays- great power, good eye and could leg it out if he had to.

I've heard stories of Mays where he would set up the pitcher in the first couple innings by intentionally looking bad on a pitch to strike out (providing it wasn't an essential at-bat) just so that later in the game in an important situation the pitcher would try the same pitcher (though that wouldn't work today as the starter would have been well out of the game by then).

It was hard to choose, Ted Williams and Lou Gehrig were my next choices.

With Eck on the mound, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned a certain swaggering outfielder on the Dodgers (though Sean, curiously, mentioned the exact year I'm thinking about, but was perhaps too occupied with Michelle Pfeiffer to make the connection). So allow me, since I happened to be at the game which turned him into a legend: Kirk Gibson.

Ted Williams.

But this question got me thinking... If he doesn't have protection and isn't going to be walked, I'm going to want the biggest Junk ball hitter I know and thats Vlad Guerrero.

I'm sure Mick has fond, fond, fond memories of the 1980 George Brett, when Goose Gossage tried to slip a 99-MPH fastball near the shoulders past Brett, hands-down the best high-ball left-handed hitter I've ever seen. (Note the "seen," those you want to mention that Ruth fellow.)

I think I'll vote for the 1980 Brett too. Runnerup choice: Ty Cobb batted left.

I'd go for Cobb. Highest lifetime batting average, type of guy who'd want to kill the pitcher and everyone on the opposing team. Just who you want on your side when your life is at stake. 1980 Brett would be runner up as that guy always seemed to get a hit when needed.

Well correct me if i'm wrong but wouldn't a great singles hitter be all you needed.What with Ricky and Lou and 3rd and 2nd I'd trust thier speed to save the day.So I'd go with Former speaker of the house Tip O'neil.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/carewro01.shtml
My initial reaction was Brett, but upon some sober second thought, Rod Carew in 1977 also rates consideration COMN. Carew was a hitting machine with comparable numbers that year...more strikeouts, but 239 hits! I'm leaning towards Brett, primarly because memories of his 1985 ALCS still hurt.

Gotta be Ichiro. I'm convinced if he had played in Ty Cobb's era, he would have a .500 lifetime average.

i think i'd go with ichiro too.

I don't know about Ichiro - maybe if it was a tied game, but not if he needs to drive 2 guys in and an infield hit won't do.

I like me some Ruth in this situation.

I really don't know how anyone could not take Bonds in this situation, so I'm assumiming that he is not available.

Thus, I've got to go with Alomar, Roberto. He did it before against Eckersley, and I honestly believe that he was the best clutch hitter I have ever seen. Not that there is such a thing as a clutch hitter :)

Loaiza signed with the Nats for $2.9M. Had he had his fluke season in 2004 instead of 2003, he'd have signed one of those ridiculous Jaret Wright 3/$27M contracts.

I think I'll go with Mr. Gwynn. And I ain't talkin' about Chris.

A single between third and short will do nicely. I'm assuming the left fielder has a left fielder's arm.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ranking-the-relievers/
I'd probably go with Ted Williams, but I'd be fearfull that Carlos Tosca would be managing the grim reapers, and would signal for Randy Johnson to come on to negate Teddy's left handed bat, so maybe you need a switch hitter? Mickey Mantle? I don't know who's the greatest switch hitter of all time?

At any rate in the real world Studes has a nice little article on analyzing relievers in high leverage situations in Hard Ball Times.(Comm).Jason Frasor is the best Jay in this metric.

I'm going with my theory that the answer to everything is "one of those Indians that looked good for a couple years before having it all cut short" and say I'd like the 1936 Hal Trosky

.....Hopefully the next question is who do you want catching...

Mick, what happens if the score is tied? Do I end up in purgatory or limbo? Calling George Carlin for a description of the difference...

Anyways, you could probably do worse than Ted Williams circa 1941.

Do I end up in purgatory or limbo? Calling George Carlin for a description of the difference...

Oh yeah, there's a hell alright. There's also a heck. It's not as severe as hell, but we got a heck and a hell.

P.S. For the purposes of this exercise, assume that Eckersley will not intentionally walk the hitter you choose to send to the plate

Well, that basically makes it a no-brainer. Bonds, obviously.

My second choice would have to be Ichiro, who can put the bat on any pitch the Eck can muster and get a basehit through the infield, which is good enough for Rickey to score from 2nd. Vlad can do so as well, but the Eck kills righties, so it's 1980 Brett, followed by 2004 Ichiro. Hey, anybody know if Eck had a good pickoff move? Brock and Rickey better get decent leads and better not get picked off.

Well, that basically makes it a no-brainer. Bonds, obviously.

See. I dont really view that as a no-brainer for Bonds. The problem with Bonds (and something thats been hashed-out previously) is that he's too selective.

Eck's not the kind of guy who'd go out and try to pump gas past Barry. Which as Troy Percival will tell you, doesnt work. He's gonna work him, and try to get him to bite on some crap out of the zone.

The odds of which suggests that Bonds is gonna walk. Which means that you get Buhl to save your hide.

If we stay with contemporaries, then if my first choice of Ichiro! is busy dealing with a Mothra infestation or something, then I'll go with Vlad.

I'm not comfortable putting my life in the hands of someone like Bonds, who evidently is so careless with his own that he'll ingest whatever his trainer happens to supply with him.

I'm going to go with Teddy Ballgame on this one.

Wow, righteous indignation is the enemy of coherent sentence structure, evidently. That should be "supply him with", not "supply with him".

who evidently is so careless with his own that he'll ingest whatever his trainer happens to supply with him

A trainer whom he trusted and who had been his close friend for many years. Besides, at the moment, there is still only circumstantial evidence to suggest that what Bonds was given wasn't flaxseed oil and arthritis balm...

I'd also pick the '41 Splinter, but I'd love to see Reggie Jackson stride to the plate to the strains of "Papa Was A Rollin' Stone."

The trash-talk between Eck and Mr. October in their primes would be breathtaking. And oh, how the winner would taunt the loser.

I'll go with Anthony Keith Gywnn of the San Diego Padres of Anaheim.

He got contact with every swing. It was scary.

Don't know if you're one of us, Lee, but one of the first things us evil lawyers learned in law school was that so-called "circumstantial evidence" is evidence. And with good reason.

Mickey Mantle? I don't know who's the greatest switch hitter of all time?

You got it on your first guess. Yes, it's Mantle, and there's not really an argument to be made, except perhaps from the families of Frank Frisch and Pete Rose Sr. But those would be short arguments.

fyi (for techies): An interesting initiative by the web search companies to reduce the incentive to spam comments with links.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kurkjian_tim&id=1969362
INTANGIBLES ALERT! INTANGIBLES ALERT!

Apparently Derek Jeter is the best baserunner in the game today, at least in the opinion of Mr. Kurkjian.

John Sickels has a fine summary on Tim Stauffer. Here's a discussion topic: compare and contrast Stauffer, Josh Banks and Shaun Marcum as prospects.

I know we visited this topic very recently, but the Kurkjian Opinion now is coloured permanently, for me anyway, by this foray into Kurkjian math.

Mike, as topics for discussion, those guys make me verklempt. They're each and everyone like buttah!

seeing as how a walk is no good with bob buhl on deck, the opposing pitcher is likly to give an intentional pass. I think it was Tony Gwynn who once hit a Greg Meddux intentional ball for a double so he's my choice.

Y'see, Mick, I had to go look up verklempt on dictionary.com. My grandmothers would not have been pleased.

So, anyways, I gather this topic doesn't enthrall. I'll try harder next time, maybe throw in a free chicken soup recipe for the best answer.

My point, made obliquely, was all about the risk of drafting a pitcher, college or high school, early in the first round. There are a few- Mark Prior being a good example- who clearly have such overpowering stuff that they will succeed unless they are hurt. But most, like Stauffer, are in the grey zone. Stauffer's stuff sounds like it is no better, at best, than Banks (2nd round 2003) or Marcum (3rd round). His performance has been pretty comparable, although he has been advanced more quickly through the Padres' system.

I actually agree with Kurkjian here. From the many games I've watched, Derek Jeter is definitely the best baserunner in the league. Of course, this is just from my point of view, but I think people have to stop getting over this whole "moneyball vs. intangibles" thing. You know, if you'd ask JP, he'd probably tell you that intangibles are VERY important. Also, from what I've seen, there isn't anyone better... and it's not an "intangibles" thing, it's an actual skill that some guys are better at than others. Jeter's better than most, if not all.

I'm not going to give the exact statistic, but at some point in Jeter's career, he had not been thrown out at any base besides 1st for a certain LONG amount of consecutive games or attempts. I'm just citing this offhand, so don't crucify me over it, but I know he had a rediculously long streak that proved how good a baserunner he was... let me track it down.

So, anyways, I gather this topic doesn't enthrall.

Not at all, Mike. I thought you were intentionally mocking the Mike Myers "Coffee Talk" character from SNL -- what was her name? Linda Friedman? So I fired off a couple of catchphrases from the gag.

Jeter's at 86% on the basepaths from 2000 forward. That's actually rather tangible.

That said, I understand James W's point. Jeter has quite the combination of unrelenting media coverage and a self-consciously "running hard" approach (hence Buck's quote in the Kurkjian piece).

I'd probably go with Ichiro. As for stridin' to the plate, it would come down to "Girls Girls Girls" by Motley Crue or "Welcome to the Jungle" to get those fans pumped.

Ichiro or Rogers Hornsby actually. The last player to bat over .410.

Mike, there's no doubt that Jeter's media coverage definitely gets annoying. But I think it gets equally annoying when people start to forget that he's actually a pretty darn good ballplayer. There are two extremes in this situation (Jeter worshippers and Jeter despisers), and then there's the happy median that views Jeter as a pretty good player who's been entertaining to watch over the years.

Mike D:

Don't know if you're one of us, Lee, but one of the first things us evil lawyers learned in law school was that so-called "circumstantial evidence" is evidence. And with good reason.

Nope, I'm actually a mechanical engineer/applied mathematician. You're right, of course, but the fact that there is still no concrete proof that Barry took steroids at least allows those of us (such as myself) who would really like to believe he didn't to continue doing so, for the time being anyways. :)

Actually Mike D, my apologies. There really wasn't much of a point to it. Simply to poke a little fun at the whole "Moneyball vs. Intangibles" argument. I'd agree with Kurkjian on this one; Jeter is one of the smarter, and most focused ball players today. I also still think he's overrated, but what can you do about that?

Does RotoWorld have a hidden agenda against JP that I haven't heard about yet? This kind of caught me off guard:

"Tigers signed LHP Doug Creek to a minor league contract and invited him to spring training.
Creek, one of the first relievers to be overpaid by Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi, has a 5.19 ERA in 267 innings as a major leaguer. He spent last year pitching for Triple-A Memphis. The Tigers don't figure to carry him."

Which is odd because I don't remember Creek making any more than maybe $600,000 or $700,000.

Rotoworld also ragged on the Hillenbrand trade, than went on to praise Paul DePodesta for re-signing Cesar Izturis (former Jay that JP traded) to a 3 year extention at $10 million over the life of the contract. Hardly a steal for a player who stunk for two years and was still below average in his breakout year.

Is there a Rotoworld conspiracy I haven't heard about?

Which is odd because I don't remember Creek making any more than maybe $600,000 or $700,000.

Which is about $600,000 ot $700,000 more than he was worth...

Does RotoWorld have a hidden agenda against JP that I haven't heard about yet?

I'd say it's more likely that you have a hidden agenda against Cesar Izturis. The "praise" of DePodesta amounted to "This seems like a good deal for the Dodgers." and "he's proven to be durable, so there's very little risk here." And below average? Maybe if you insist on your shortstop hitting like an outfielder... Izturis hit .288/.330/.381 with Dodger stadium as his home park (PF 95), while the league averages for shortstops were .267/.318/.390.

Which is about $600,000 ot $700,000 more than he was worth...

Whether that's true or not, what relevance did Ricciardi giving him that much money have to do with him signing with Detroit? Since when is a little more than half a million "overpaying" in the LOOGY market? It's barely a ripple. Rotoworld brought up Ricciardi's name in such an irrelevant, Griffin-esque manner, which really had no substance whatsover with the actual point. I don't think too many people associate overpaying relievers with Ricciardi, nor do most people even realize Creek was a member of the Jays for all of 1 or 2 months. It seems like something someone with a vendetta would bring up.

As for Creek, he was a league average LOOGY.

2000
4.60 ERA, 60.2 IP, .755 OPS, 10.83 K/9, 7.32 H/9, 107 ERA+, 12.9 VORP

2001
4.31 ERA, 62.2 IP, .747 OPS, 9.48 K/9, 7.38 H/9, 104 ERA+, 8.2 VORP

He had a bad 2002 season, which lowered his value, but had he been a FA after 2001, his salary would have easily broke over $1 million, so signing him to a deal in the $700,000 range in hopes that he gives similar output to his 2000-2001 campaign was not unreasonable at all. JP's other option would have been to get a Kershner like player for the minimum, for the great significant savings of around $400,000. I'm sure that would have been enough to get that 5-tool stud on the FA market.

Not that I'm defending the signing as great or anything, just something that doesn't deserve a totally out of left-field jab that Rotoworld felt was necessary.

Schoeneweis on the other hand....

And, if you feel like it, add in what "striding to the plate music"

Sheesh. It occurs to me that most of you--da yoot of today--may never have been to a Major League ballgame where music *isn't* "blaring from the loudspeakers". Let me tell you, it's really nice. (And you can converse with any companions present.) When did this start anyway? I'm not even sure that there were ballpark speakers at Wrigley Field in the late 1940's, when I watched my first games. You could often hear some announcer in the press-box, making announcements (re pinch-hitters, etc.), but certainly no incessant and excessively loud sound system deafening the spectators. Hell, you could even hear the players if you were close enough, or Charley Grimm swearing at the umps. (I'm actually afraid to go to an NBA game these days because of this non-stop noise.) An organist came along a few years later, as I recall, and sporadically tootled away during the games (if organists actually tootle).

A very nice single-fold scorecard/program was available for 10 cents so that identifying players was no problem (it was even part of the fun).

I'm old, eh?

I'd say it's more likely that you have a hidden agenda against Cesar Izturis. The "praise" of DePodesta amounted to "This seems like a good deal for the Dodgers." and "he's proven to be durable, so there's very little risk here." And below average? Maybe if you insist on your shortstop hitting like an outfielder... Izturis hit .288/.330/.381 with Dodger stadium as his home park (PF 95), while the league averages for shortstops were .267/.318/.390.

Oh, please. First off, to suggest a slap singles hitter's numbers were effected by any stadium is ridiculous. Is Dodger stadium holding back the power he's never shown in his entire life? I must have missed that. Secondly, the league average OPS for SS last year, according to BP, was .734. Izturis was at .711. Since .711 is below .734, that would equate to below average (his OPS+ was 88, also indicating below average). I won't even begin to describe his 2002 and 2003 seasons, which were cow dung quality.

Here is Rotoworld's entire quote for the Izturis extension:

"Izturis receives a $300,000 signing bonus and will earn $2.05 million this year, $3.1 million in 2006 and $4.15 million in 2007. There's a $5.85 million with a $300,000 buyout. In addition, Izturis' salary would rise by $150,000 in any season after he wins a Gold Glove. This seems like a good deal for the Dodgers. If Izturis kept hitting like he did last year, he could have made at least $12 million in his arbitration years. Even if he slips, he wasn't going to do much worse than $10 million. He turns 25 in February and he's proven to be durable, so there's very little risk here."

If Ricciardi signed a player of Izturis' calibre to that amount, would the outlook be this rosey? Yeah, right.

How does Izturis present "very little risk" for 10 million over 3 years, but Hillenbrand, presumably a one year pick-up for the Jays at around what Izturis will make annually, is some sort of idiocy by Ricciardi? Hillenbrand has been league average before, he probably will again. Izturis never has. He's been awful and below average in his entire career. How does Izturis present very little risk when he was coming off an OPS below .600 a year ago at this time?

If Russ Adams has a .711 OPS next year, some people will call it a mediocre year (which it should be considered). When Izturis does it, it's worth 3 million a year? In what planet?

Rotoworld also ragged on the Hillenbrand trade, than went on to praise Paul DePodesta for re-signing Cesar Izturis (former Jay that JP traded) to a 3 year extention at $10 million over the life of the contract. Hardly a steal for a player who stunk for two years and was still below average in his breakout year.

He posted ok numbers in a pitcher's park, and is one of the bext defensive players in MLB at a tough position. Not that age is any guarantee of future improvements (see Rivas, Luis) but Izturis is only 24. If he continues on a normal growth curve, he should reach something like .350/.450 in a few years time, which is above average for his position.

Givem that he was arbitration eligible this year, there's nothing outrageous about his contract. Jack Wilson profiles as a very similar player with one extra year of experience, and he picked up a 2-year contract for 8MM.

What should be criticized is the Dodgers wasting 2 years of Cesar's arbitration clock, which is what really drove his salary up this year. Izturis should have been in the minors for 2002/2003 learning how to hit instead struggling in the majors while his arbitration meter was running.

http://www.athleticsnation.com/story/2005/1/18/221430/506
COMN for an interesting inverview with Billy Beane over at Althetics Nation.

My favorite quote:

"Understand that attendance percentage is basically based on winning. Everything you can do to make sure that any dip in your performance in a year, you minimize that. Because when you put together back to back to back losing seasons, then you've created a very apathetic situation that's very difficult to recover from. If you're worried about what a couple of sportswriters say and let them make the decisions for you, you're an absolute coward and a fool."

Well, the logical thing... Teddy and Bonds and Ruth and Mantle were maybe all a little too selective. (Although Mickey and the Babe sure did have a flair for the dramatic...) Which has me thinking either Ty Cobb or George Brett (I thought about Joe Jackson too, but youneverknow which team Joe's betting on)....

That's the logical thing. On the other hand, it occurred to me that had I have ever seen a ballplayer provide his team with exactly what they needed exactly when they needed it, again and again and again? Sure - Paul Molitor in 1993. And then I thought of something even better. And it's all over, folks. Victory is guaranteed.

I want the Carl Yastrzemski from the last two weeks of September 1967.

It's possible that no one - ever, and I mean ever - in the long and storied history of the game - has been better than Yaz was in those last two weeks.

Scott, I've been as much of a JP apologist as anyone around here, but whatever the reasons he's had himself a pretty unimpressive offseason and as such it's not just the Richard Griffins of the world who are inclined to take pot shots. C'est la vie.

First off, to suggest a slap singles hitter's numbers were effected by any stadium is ridiculous.

You may want to review the first table of this article. Parks absolutely do affect singles rates. Not to mention that this particular "slap singles hitter" managed 45 extra-base hits in 2004.

Of course, Izturis is considered a "defensive wizard," while Hillenbrand is, uh ... not.

Give me Mickey Mantle. If there is any player i'd pay to go back in time and see its Mickey. My moneys on Mantle lining a double into right center.

Scott, I've been as much of a JP apologist as anyone around here, but whatever the reasons he's had himself a pretty unimpressive offseason and as such it's not just the Richard Griffins of the world who are inclined to take pot shots. C'est la vie.

I'm with you, I haven't been too impressed with Ricciardi this off-season either, but I don't think that justifies bashing him when the situation doesn't call for it. Creek is hardly a black mark on Ricciardi's resume, or a signing that is worth using as a pot shot.

You may want to review the first table of this article. Parks absolutely do affect singles rates. Not to mention that this particular "slap singles hitter" managed 45 extra-base hits in 2004.

I have no stat to back this up, but wouldn't a bigger park be an advantage for hitter's like Izturis (and Ichiro)? A bigger field means more room for balls to drop.

Every team except the Jays and a few others play on grass. Unless there is something distinctly different with LA's grass, I don't see how a single's hitter would be at a disadvantage in LA over a place like Boston or New York or anywhere else.

Ichiro is not a slap hitter who would benefit from a bigger park. He pads his BA with infield and bunt singles, plus those choppers up the middle that get under about 34 gloves on the way to the outfield. But he also hits a lot of crisp line drives, far more often than he bloops one in front of an OF. In fact, I rarely recall Ichiro dumping one in the OF field with any sort of regularity.

Nice QOTD. How about Carlos Beltran circa October 2004? He was absolutely on fire at the plate.

I have no stat to back this up, but wouldn't a bigger park be an advantage for hitter's like Izturis (and Ichiro)? A bigger field means more room for balls to drop.

Plausible in theory, but it doesn't appear to be true for these two...

Izturis, 2004, Home: .270/.307/.342 (330 AB)
Izturis, 2004, Road: .306/.352/.418 (340 AB)

Suzuki, 2004, Home: .338/.385/.399 (346 AB)
Suzuki, 2004, Road: .405/.443/.508 (358 AB)

I don't see how a single's hitter would be at a disadvantage in LA over a place like Boston.

Two reasons, Scott. One, there is less foul territory in Boston than in LA. This benefits singles hitters as well as power hitters. Two, the Green Monster. Warning track power can often amount to doubles power in Boston.

As for Creek, the point isn't whether or not he was overpaid. It's just that he was a bad pitcher. Was one before he was signed, and was one after.

you trail by one with two down in the bottom of the ninth. You have runners -- Rickey Henderson and Lou Brock, actually -- on second and third and you can pick one hitter, from any team, any era, to stride to the plate to take his whacks against a masterful Dennis Eckersley. A walk does you no good, as the only other hitter available to you is Bob Buhl. Who do you tell to grab a bat?

NO ICHIRO! An infield single does me no good here. I want a line-drive hitter, not a guy who hits dribbles. (Yeah, I do like Ichiro, but if the shoe fits...)

Anyway, I don't see why this matters. As JDC said, Eck is going to walk whoever I pick and pitch to Bob Buhl. Strike one, strike two, strike three, game over.

If Eck "has" to pitch to my guy, he's not going to actually pitch to him - he's going to give him nothing. That's why I'm picking the best bad-ball hitter I've ever seen - Vladimir Guerrero.

You may want to review the first table of this article. Parks absolutely do affect singles rates.

I may be reading it incorrectly, but it looks like parks influence singles rates much less than they affect anything else though. According to that chart singles are less affected by park than are HRs, Doubles, Triples, Walks or even Strikeouts. I dont know, do people generally adjust walks and strikeouts for park effcet?

That's why I'm picking the best bad-ball hitter I've ever seen - Vladimir Guerrero.

I sure never saw him play (I don't know if you would have either), but I've always heard that Yogi Berra was one of the best, if not the best bad-ball hitter ever. Who else besides these two would be called great bad-ball hitters....I seem to recall Roberto Clemente being referred to in that way, but I may be wrong.

Bad ball hitters? The Jays were full of them back in the mid-80's with George Bell, Tony Fernandez, Damaso Garcia, Alfredo Griffen, and probably a few more that escape my memory at the moment. If it is bad ball hitting I'd probably want Fernandez circa '87 when he set the record for hits by a shortstop. If I needed extra bases George Bell would be good due to his ability to hit balls off the ground or over his head if needed (or not needed as the case often was). Y'know, you can't walk off the island 8)

Manny Sanguillen could probably hit a pickoff throw to first. I know for sure I saw him swing at one!

I don't remember Sanguillen clearly, but he does have that reputation and then some.

Whether a true story or not, Manny Sanguillen famously got a hit off a pitch that allegedly bounced once, in front of the plate.

Manny claimed to have hit one that bounced twice, but that is a bit beyond the realm of believability. Of course, with Manny Sanguillen, he would swing at a pitch thrown under the plate.

I sure never saw him play (I don't know if you would have either), but I've always heard that Yogi Berra was one of the best, if not the best bad-ball hitter ever. Who else besides these two would be called great bad-ball hitters....I seem to recall Roberto Clemente being referred to in that way, but I may be wrong.

Berra reputedly would equally hack at both the ball at the shoetops and the one over his head, and was capable of hitting either out of the ballpark. I saw Clemente a fair bit towards the end of his career, and he definitely hit the one at ths shoetops, but I don't remember him going after high pitches.

BCMike, thanks for the Beane link.

I will second the thanks to BCMike.

That was one great interview. No tippy toeing and very passionate and reasoned answers.

Has to be either Babe Ruth or Ted Williams. Willy I remember ball games without all the extra noise.

#1. Tony Gwynn, but only the 1984 Gwynn before all the cheeseburgers and nachos.

#2. Ichiro Suzuki

http://www.newsfrombangkok.blogspot.com
Perhaps the best non-walking, non-striking-out, power hitter of all time: Joe Dimaggio!
Where's my prize?

BCMike, thanks for the Beane link. I read that interview plus the trilogy that you could link to through that link. Not only is he the best GM in the game today, but he's also one of the most fascinating people in baseball, and he's got the stones to trade Hudson and Mulder in the same offseason. My favourite comment was regarding clubhouse chemistry and how it's held up as this all important intangible element of a winning team. He shot that down by saying the only people that believe that are those that have never been in a clubhouse before. Then he compared it to having expert opinions about Mongolian drinking water without ever drinking it. I don't need to have been in a clubhouse to know chemistry ain't all it's cracked up to be. All I need to do is remember the Yankees circa '77 & '78, otherwise known as the Bronx Brawlers. Players fought with other players, the manager, the owner (what else is new?) and yet they won back to back World Series.

i think i'd have to pick pete rose and not just 'cuz he's had more hits. i'd put him at the plate after assuring him: "you win the game with this hit, you're in the hall".

as the cheers roar through the stadium after rose's game-winning double, i'm running out to the parking lot. trying to get as far away as possible before rose realizes i have absolutely no influence on hall of fame decisions.

In this situation, you need a pinch hitter extraordinaire. Remember, this batter has been sitting on the bench for 8 1/2 innings. So, there are two good choices:

1. Manny Mota: The finest pinch hitter of the 1970s. He would take one pitch, then drive one into left centre!

2. Tony Fernandez in his final season: The Jays have been blessed with solid pinch hitters over the past 28 years. Iorg, Leach, and C. Johnson come to mind. But I would pick Tony. Plus, I loved his intro song.
"Love will always stand alone,
But you'll always be my HERO!"
How cool is that!

Pinch-hitter extraodinaire? I gotta go with Gonzalo Marquez circ 1972. Five hits in eight pinch-hit appearances during the ALCS and World Series.

Money!

But I'd REALLY rather have a 'seasoned veteran' at the plate with the game on the line. How 'bout Tony Womack, circa October 2001? The guy had two of the biggest hits of the Diamondbacks' postseason. (my contempt for his bad glove, hacktastic abilities notwithstanding!)

And maybe after the game, we could have Joe Buck interview him with a nod to his mom. . . er, wife!

Oh, and music? We don' need no stinkin' music!

Stan and Willy, I too recall baseball games without the noise. Would we could have that again.

spb