The Kid calls it a career

[stevew]

1. One of the best players we'll ever see.
2. I don't think he was on the juice.
3. I now feel very old.

[Sweed]

Lebron?

[spleen1015]

Too bad he suffered all of those injuries.

Hell of a player.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Yeah, I'm sad :(

[PilotMan]

I am with you Steve.

My best memories are of him having a 2-HR game here in Cincinnati. And another where he hit a homerun and threw a guy out at the plate from deep centerfield playing in the metrodome.

I am feeling very emotional about the whole thing.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Sidney Crosby is done already? So Colin White has his name on the Cup more times than Sidney Crosby does? I'm not sure how I feel about this.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Oh.

[RedHawk00]

very sad day, i was living and growing up during his time in Seattle, no one could wear 24 on a baseball team because every kid wanted to. and millions of kids everywhere got to point to Griffey and say, but he wears his hat backwards and he isn't a catcher, so I can!

[korme]

One of the most complete 5-tool players ever, in his prime. It says something when my brother and I grew up as die hard Reds fans but he still had a Griffey (Mariners) poster hanging over his bed.

[korme]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0804/mlb.ken.griffey.years/images/1.jpg


http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0804/mlb.ken.griffey.years/images/2..jpg


http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0804/mlb.ken.griffey.years/images/4.290769.jpg


http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0804/mlb.ken.griffey.years/images/3.orioles4%282%29.jpg

[dawgfan]

Great player - too bad about the injuries. He's my age, so he was the perfect guy to root for as an M's fan. Real flair for the dramatic throughout his career. No question he had a huge impact on the long-term viability of the M's in Seattle, and it's only a slight exaggeration to say that Safeco is the "House that Junior built".

I just wish he'd called it a career after the end of last season - riding off into the sunset on the shoulders of his teammates would've been the ideal end to his career...

[korme]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0804/mlb.ken.griffey.years/images/5.ll.jpg


http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0804/mlb.ken.griffey.years/images/7.005909342Final.jpg


http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0804/mlb.ken.griffey.years/images/7.05921323.jpg


http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0804/mlb.ken.griffey.years/images/8.51960359.jpg

[dawgfan]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0804/mlb.ken.griffey.years/images/3.orioles4%282%29.jpg
What a catch. I'm betting many people don't realize that the M's miracle '95 season was done with Griffey only playing 72 games because of him breaking his wrist on this catch.

[korme]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0804/mlb.ken.griffey.years/images/9.GRIFFEY_.jpg


http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0804/mlb.ken.griffey.years/images/10.50980026.jpg


http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0804/mlb.ken.griffey.years/images/11.jpg


http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0804/mlb.ken.griffey.years/images/12.jpg

[Tasan]

As a Rangers fan, I hated the man, but as a baseball fan in general, I loved getting to see him. Farewell Ranger killer.

[Lathum]

Best player I have ever seen play and someday will tell my son I got to watch him play much the way my Dad told me about how he saw Satchel Paige pitch.

Baseball is awesome.

[JS19]

He was the best. A shame with all the injuries and how some people may doubt how great of a player he was because of them. I'll never forget watching as a youngster the '95 Divisional Series against the Yanks.

[Tasan]

I remember thinking after those 45 HR in 1993 that this 23 year old had a real good shot at breaking the all time HR record. Its a shame his injuries didn't let him really get a shot at it.

[MikeVic]

One of my favourite athletes in any sport. I started watching baseball with the two Blue Jays World Series, so he got my attention fast as a young kid. Mariners became by 2nd favourite team (even before the Expos) because of him and Randy Johnson. There are only a handful of players I can think of that, if I found out were juicing, would ruin baseball for me forever... and he's one of them.

[molson]

His post Mariners-career (original run) turned out to be just as long as his post-Mariners career. Kind of unreal. Sometimes it feels like he wasn't even in the league since 1999.

And ya, it definitely makes me feel old. I remember getting his Upper Deck rookie card in middle school, a million years ago.

[molson]

Dola-

Also looking back, wow did he take a below-market contract to play for the Reds. That first year with the Reds, when he should have been the highest paid player ever, he made less than Larry Walker, David Cone, Mo Vaughn, Raul Mondesi, and Shawn Green.

[Chief Rum]

Always liked Griffey, even when he was on the M's. Hated Arod. Hated The Unit. Hated Buhner. Tolerated Martinez. Liked Griffey. Go figure.

Thanks for the memories, Junior.

[DrAFTjunkie]

His Upper Deck rookie card was like a golden ticket when I was a kid. It dethroned the Donruss Canseco rookie card. Still, neither were as cool as Billy "fuckface" Ripkin.

[korme]

Dola-

Also looking back, wow did he take a below-market contract to play for the Reds. That first year with the Reds, when he should have been the highest paid player ever, he made less than Larry Walker, David Cone, Mo Vaughn, Raul Mondesi, and Shawn Green.

One of the few players that would take a paycut to play for their hometown teams. Griffey was as selfless as he was talented.

[Crapshoot]

A great great player, and one of the most enjoyable guys around. Shame his day got upstaged. There will be some idiot who doesn't vote for Griffey on the 1st ballot of the HOF, but won't change the fact that this guy was one of the 30-40 best players of all time.

[Lathum]

A great great player, and one of the most enjoyable guys around. Shame his day got upstaged. There will be some idiot who doesn't vote for Griffey on the 1st ballot of the HOF, but won't change the fact that this guy was one of the 30-40 best players of all time.

30-40?

Are you including pitchers?

I say top 10 position players of all time.

[Crapshoot]

30-40?

Are you including pitchers?

I say top 10 position players of all time.

Yup. At CF, Mays and Mantle (and perhaps Speaker) were better, and Griffey's equivalence is probably DiMaggio. Without running the rest, I'd extrapolate that out (while accepting that CF is more of a premium position than RF) and 30-40 seems right. I'd be curious to see where WAR and other numbers come out.

[sterlingice]

Definitely one of the best ever and, like others, feel that it's a shame that he suffered injuries or he could have rewritten some of the record books, giving Bonds a run run for his steroid money.

SI

[Ramzavail]

"It's never iffy, if it's Griffey"

I'd take DiMaggio over Griffey. I think a better equivalence is Duke Snider.

[SteveMax58]

Definitely one of the best ever and, like others, feel that it's a shame that he suffered injuries or he could have rewritten some of the injury books, giving Bonds a run run for his steroid money.

SI

Was he an avid sportsmed book reader in his spare time? ;)

[RedHawk00]

i might still have one of his chocolate bars in the baseball card stash somewhere. one of the greatest moments of my life was being able to see Edgar hit that double to score Griffey, i was out in left field bleachers with my younger brother... definitely a game I will never forget.

[oykib]

I'd take DiMaggio over Griffey. I think a better equivalence is Duke Snider.


Crazy talk. Griffey had twice the career of Duke Snider. Also, Dimaggio doesn't even approach Griffey unless you give him extra credit for the years he missed
during the war. Even with them, It's pretty even. And I'd give Griffey the bonus for playing in a more difficult era.

[spleen1015]

#5 all time in HR.. with the way he played defense?

Top 10 all time most definitely.

[sterlingice]

Was he an avid sportsmed book reader in his spare time? ;)

D'oh, fixed :D

SI

[sterlingice]

#5 all time in HR.. with the way he played defense?

Top 10 all time most definitely.

I'm having a hard time placing him historically right now and I'm going to have to think on things. Fangraphs had a brief article up this morning about it and had this excellent graph:

More On Ken Griffey Jr.’s Career | FanGraphs Baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/more-on-ken-griffey-jr-s-career/)

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/griffeysad.png

Now, I'm still not sold on using WAR as a be-all-end-all metric. Again, I think it puts too much weight on substandard fielding metrics but the author makes an excellent statement: "I don’t think anything quite sums up both the greatness and the disappointment of Ken Griffey Jr’s career as this graph"

I need to think more on where I would rank him all time and I'm sure many will try to do just that in the coming days.

SI

[sterlingice]

If you go just on WAR, he's the 36th best position player of all time right behind that 1800s duo of George Davis and Roger Connor. Huh?

It has him at -39.1 fielding and -2.6 positional for his career. Yeah, that's a load of bunk.

SI

[lighthousekeeper]

Crazy talk. Griffey had twice the career of Duke Snider. Also, Dimaggio doesn't even approach Griffey unless you give him extra credit for the years he missed during the war. Even with them, It's pretty even. And I'd give Griffey the bonus for playing in a more difficult era.

Too bad there isn't a statistic that scores how simlar a player is to other players. We could even give it a funky name like "Similarity Score". Then we'd really know who the closest match is.

[I know...similarity scores definitely has flaws, as does career Runs Created (namely, the era adjustment), but this is still an interesting comparison]:

career runs created:
Griffey 1994
DiMaggio 1569
Snider 1477

[chesapeake]

The best game I ever went to was the classic against the Yankees in August of '95 where, with the M's down by 1, Vince Coleman works his way on and steals 2nd and 3rd, scoring on a base hit to tie it up. Then Griffey comes up and hits a 2-run bomb with the crowd going wild to win it. That win sparked the comeback against the Angels which led to their first playoff appearance.

How that team, with the talent it had, never even made the World Series confounds me to this day. It had 3 first-ballot HoFers plus Edgar Martinez.

[Ramzavail]

Crazy talk. Griffey had twice the career of Duke Snider. Also, Dimaggio doesn't even approach Griffey unless you give him extra credit for the years he missed
during the war. Even with them, It's pretty even. And I'd give Griffey the bonus for playing in a more difficult era.

Joe Dimaggio is the 2nd greatest right handed hitter of all time (behind Rogers Hornsby) - you are too busy looking at "total" stats, without diving into the real stats. Dimaggio's hitting ability and his power/lack of strikeouts, puts Dimaggio's well above Griffey.

Since, you are so into "total" stats, add 2800 ABs to Duke Snider and see how close he comes to Griffey's "total" stats. I think the AVG,OBP,SLG, OPS, OPS+ fall in closer with Duke Snider than Joe Dimaggio.

and how is Griffey playing is a "more difficult" era? The expansion era with smaller ball parks?

[Tasan]

If you go just on WAR, he's the 36th best position player of all time right behind that 1800s duo of George Davis and Roger Connor. Huh?

It has him at -39.1 fielding and -2.6 positional for his career. Yeah, that's a load of bunk.

SI

I'm guessing most of that negative is his later years where he was almost a liability out there.

[ISiddiqui]

I like Griffey, Jr. and all, but Top 10 all time?! REALLY? Are we talking Top 10 Centerfielders?

[cartman]

I remember going to a Rangers game back in '94 or '95. A bunch of family was in from out of town, so we went as a group. The game went into extra innings, and it was a weeknight. We decided to stay to the bitter end. Griffey came up with men on the bases in the top of the 14th. The crowd started derisively chanting "Junior... Junior...". He proceeded to launch a bomb into the upper deck home run porch. Game ended about 1:30am. Had to be at work at 6am. Good times.

[oykib]

Joe Dimaggio is the 2nd greatest right handed hitter of all time (behind Rogers Hornsby) - you are too busy looking at "total" stats, without diving into the real stats. Dimaggio's hitting ability and his power/lack of strikeouts, puts Dimaggio's well above Griffey.

Since, you are so into "total" stats, add 2800 ABs to Duke Snider and see how close he comes to Griffey's "total" stats. I think the AVG,OBP,SLG, OPS, OPS+ fall in closer with Duke Snider than Joe Dimaggio.

and how is Griffey playing is a "more difficult" era? The expansion era with smaller ball parks?

As a fellow Yankee fan, I love Joe D. But this era has integration, better scouting, and specialists. It's much harder to dominate now than it was then. I give all the WW2 players extra credit for the years they missed. But Griffey was a far better player than Snider. I'd also put him equal to Joe D.

[Lathum]

I like Griffey, Jr. and all, but Top 10 all time?! REALLY? Are we talking Top 10 Centerfielders?

IMO in the prime of his career he was one of the ten best players ever, and certainly the best I ever saw in 30 years of watching baseball.

If you want to factor in longevity and injuries into the equation and say he didn't have one of the top ten careers that's fine, but in the prime of his career there weren't many better, ever.

[Ramzavail]

As a fellow Yankee fan, I love Joe D. But this era has integration, better scouting, and specialists. It's much harder to dominate now than it was then. I give all the WW2 players extra credit for the years they missed. But Griffey was a far better player than Snider. I'd also put him equal to Joe D.

How do you explain the similarities (Snider/Griffey) in AVG OBP OPS OPS+?

[ISiddiqui]

IMO in the prime of his career he was one of the ten best players ever, and certainly the best I ever saw in 30 years of watching baseball.

If you want to factor in longevity and injuries into the equation and say he didn't have one of the top ten careers that's fine, but in the prime of his career there weren't many better, ever.

One can't ignore he played two decades, regardless of how many want to assume he stopped playing in 2000.

And assuming that you want to disqualify Barry Bonds because of steroid usage, just about everyone agrees that Bonds started after 1998... and therefore you either didn't watch the Pirates/Giants during that same era (until 1998, of course).

And then again, if are talking prime of careers in the last 30 years, Barry Bonds may finish second to Albert Pujols (though Bonds did have the ridiculous steals numbers).

[Chief Rum]

The best game I ever went to was the classic against the Yankees in August of '95 where, with the M's down by 1, Vince Coleman works his way on and steals 2nd and 3rd, scoring on a base hit to tie it up. Then Griffey comes up and hits a 2-run bomb with the crowd going wild to win it. That win sparked the comeback against the Angels which led to their first playoff appearance.

How that team, with the talent it had, never even made the World Series confounds me to this day. It had 3 first-ballot HoFers plus Edgar Martinez.

Well, sparked the winning from the M's side anyway.

Meanwhile, the Angels lost the heart of their team in Gary Disarcina near the start of August this year, which sparked the losing from their side.

[Lathum]

I am eliminating Bonds and IMO Jr. was better than Pujols, especially if you factor in Jr. played an amazing defensive CF while Pujols plays 1B.

And again, I'm not disputing the back end of his career loses him some points, but when I watched him play in his prime I have never seen anyone better on both sides of the ball.

[ISiddiqui]

I think its an interesting comparison... Griffey, Jr. was more valuable defensively in his first decade, but Pujols is far superior offensively in his first decade (look at OPS+ and RC/G for two example measures).

[Logan]

I'm less surprised by top 10 all-time than I am that he was called The Kid all these years and I didn't know it.

[Ksyrup]

Well, sparked the winning from the M's side anyway.

Meanwhile, the Angels lost the heart of their team in Gary Disarcina near the start of August this year, which sparked the losing from their side.

Really?

Gary Disarcina had 6 seasons of over 400 PAs in his career, and his OPS+ was over 65 in just one of those years. SIXTY-FIVE! Meanwhile, the ONE year in the midst of that stunning run of anti-productivity, he plays in less than 100 games and happens to have an OPS+ of 108 when he gets hurt, and he's "the heart of the team"? What in the name of David Eckstein is going on around here?!

[Chief Rum]

Really?

Gary Disarcina had 6 seasons of over 400 PAs in his career, and his OPS+ was over 65 in just one of those years. SIXTY-FIVE! Meanwhile, the ONE year in the midst of that stunning run of anti-productivity, he plays in less than 100 games and happens to have an OPS+ of 108 when he gets hurt, and he's "the heart of the team"? What in the name of David Eckstein is going on around here?!

Obviously, you were not paying attention to the Angels that year.

Disar was the leader of that team and having a very good year, both at the plate and in the field. In early August of that season, he slid into second, trailing his hand over the base as he did so. His thumb hit the base bad and he broke it and was out for the season. At that point in time, the Angels were 13 games up on the Mariners.

After losing Disar, they pretty much almost immediately started losing. The Disar injury was the spark to the greatest collapse in Angels history, and this was a franchise with quite a number of tragedies/bad finishes in their history to that point (and after).

I wouldn't expect you to know any of this, since no one east of the Mississippi bothered to pay any attention to the West Coast at that time.

Oh yeah, that hasn't really changed.

I'll send you a PM when you need to start paying attention.

[Chief Rum]

P.S. Don't question me about MY franchise history and I won't do the same to you.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Without his grittiness, the season was lost.

[stevew]

I'm going to out white-guy the other team.

[MrBug708]

He was the captain of that team and once he went down, my grandfather told me that they were gonna fade. Sure enough, they did. They weren't the same club after that injury

[Chief Rum]

Without his grittiness, the season was lost.

Heh...look, I'm sure it seems silly, just looking at the numbers, but only people watching that team had any idea how important that injury was to the course of the Angels' season. 1995 was a bitter year for Angels fans, a year when we had thought we had finally shaken the tragic history and were on the cusp of having a great team (GA, Edmonds, Salmon young stars, with Finley, Langston, Chili Davis, Lee Smith, a young Troy Percival, etc.).

There were many better baseball players than Disar on that team. But to a man, everyone on that team swore by him. He was as close to a Derek Jeter clubhouse popularity type as the Angels had had to that point.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I was making a good-natured poke. I can't speak to the season in particular, but don't dismiss your point out-of-hand. I believe that intangibles, while generally overrated (sometimes wildly) do in fact matter.

[Ksyrup]

Obviously, you were not paying attention to the Angels that year.

Disar was the leader of that team and having a very good year, both at the plate and in the field. In early August of that season, he slid into second, trailing his hand over the base as he did so. His thumb hit the base bad and he broke it and was out for the season. At that point in time, the Angels were 13 games up on the Mariners.

After losing Disar, they pretty much almost immediately started losing. The Disar injury was the spark to the greatest collapse in Angels history, and this was a franchise with quite a number of tragedies/bad finishes in their history to that point (and after).

I wouldn't expect you to know any of this, since no one east of the Mississippi bothered to pay any attention to the West Coast at that time.

Oh yeah, that hasn't really changed.

I'll send you a PM when you need to start paying attention.

You're right. Much in the same way the Twins trade for Shannon Stewart was the real reason the Twins made a miraculous comeback to win the AL Central in 2003, Gary Freaking Disarcina was the only thing that separated the Angels from winning the AL West in 1995. Gotcha.

And don't worry - I won't question your revisionist knowledge of the history of YOUR franchise any time soon. My guess is the Angels' dependency on guys like Gary Disarcina to play 150 games a year is mostly to blame for why the team spent a good chunk of his career in or near last place, not the other way around.

[Ksyrup]

There were many better baseball players than Disar on that team. But to a man, everyone on that team swore by him. He was as close to a Derek Jeter clubhouse popularity type as the Angels had had to that point.

If Jeter hit like Disarcina, they'd be talking about how much of a Don Mattingly Clubhouse Presence he was on maybe 2 WS teams, while just coming close a few other years.

[Ksyrup]

FWIW, I don't completely discount intangibles, either, but suggesting that the loss of a career .630 OPS SS hitting way over his head for 2/3 of a season was the reason his team lost 13 or so games in the standings is preposterous. If that truly was the case, then that team didn't deserve to win anything, because it was filled with a bunch of mental basket cases who weren't strong enough to win anything.

[Marmel]

Obviously, you were not paying attention to the Angels that year.

Disar was the leader of that team and having a very good year, both at the plate and in the field. In early August of that season, he slid into second, trailing his hand over the base as he did so. His thumb hit the base bad and he broke it and was out for the season. At that point in time, the Angels were 13 games up on the Mariners.

After losing Disar, they pretty much almost immediately started losing. The Disar injury was the spark to the greatest collapse in Angels history, and this was a franchise with quite a number of tragedies/bad finishes in their history to that point (and after).

I wouldn't expect you to know any of this, since no one east of the Mississippi bothered to pay any attention to the West Coast at that time.

Oh yeah, that hasn't really changed.

I'll send you a PM when you need to start paying attention.

CR, I usually like what you have to say about baseball, but you are way off on this one, no matter if it is your team or not. It's nice to be able to point to that injury and blame the collapse on it, but c'mon....

When the 78 Sox blew a 14 game lead, and the 69 Cubs blew a 10 game lead, and even throw the 2004 Yankees 3-0 postseason lead over the Sox in here, it wasn't because one mediocre player got injured. It wasn't for any particular reason other than baseball is a beautifully fucked up game that can mess with the head of even the greatest players ever.

[Glengoyne]

I like Griffey, Jr. and all, but Top 10 all time?! REALLY? Are we talking Top 10 Centerfielders?

This is the clarification I was looking for.

I agree with the WAR graph above summing up how great and how disappointing Griffey's career was.

[Matthean]

I'm less surprised by top 10 all-time than I am that he was called The Kid all these years and I didn't know it.

I remember The Kid nickname, but it kid of threw me for a loop to be reminded that he's actually older than I am.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[MrBug708]

FWIW, I don't completely discount intangibles, either, but suggesting that the loss of a career .630 OPS SS hitting way over his head for 2/3 of a season was the reason his team lost 13 or so games in the standings is preposterous. If that truly was the case, then that team didn't deserve to win anything, because it was filled with a bunch of mental basket cases who weren't strong enough to win anything.

Generally speaking, the loss of an all star during an important stretch run, is often hard to replace. Chief isn't saying that was the only reason they lost their lead, but it was the first and biggest domino that started the collapse.

[Crapshoot]

Heh...look, I'm sure it seems silly, just looking at the numbers, but only people watching that team had any idea how important that injury was to the course of the Angels' season. 1995 was a bitter year for Angels fans, a year when we had thought we had finally shaken the tragic history and were on the cusp of having a great team (GA, Edmonds, Salmon young stars, with Finley, Langston, Chili Davis, Lee Smith, a young Troy Percival, etc.).

There were many better baseball players than Disar on that team. But to a man, everyone on that team swore by him. He was as close to a Derek Jeter clubhouse popularity type as the Angels had had to that point.

This is absurd logic - this is the kind that says Derek Jeter was a defensive star, "because I saw it with my eyes" (10 years of evidence notwithstanding - though he has improved recently). The my team argument is patently ridiculous - are you the oracle of Angles knowledge?

[rowech]

Griffey's career is going to be one of the toughest ever for baseball to judge. He was no doubt the best player of the 90s (unless you want to give Bonds some sort of benefit of the doubt)

On the flip side, he aged horribly, mostly due to injury.

It's not totally the same but how can Mickey Mantle be the first player that doesn't come to mind as a comparison? (lose the drinking aspect and it fits pretty well)

Frank Robinson is another one that had a similar path.

[Ksyrup]

Generally speaking, the loss of an all star during an important stretch run, is often hard to replace. Chief isn't saying that was the only reason they lost their lead, but it was the first and biggest domino that started the collapse.

Generally speaking, the loss of an "All-Star" who was 7th on his team in OPS+ among regulars really doesn't amount to a hill of beans when compared to a double-digit lead with 40+ games left. Even if you award him the maximum number of Derek Jeter Clubhouse Presence Points available.

But let's look at some facts...Disarcina was injured on August 3rd. On August 20th - nearly 3 weeks later!!! - the Angels were at their largest peak playoff probability (they had a 99.988% chance of making the playoffs on that date) and were 9.5 games ahead of the Rangers and 12.5 ahead of the Mariners in the West, and 12 ahead of the Yankees in the Wild Card. It's at this point they actually started their slide (or within a game or two - they went 12-26 the rest of the way after August 20th).

I guess his loss was so stunning that it took them 17 days to realize they should start losing because he wasn't playing.

[Ramzavail]

Griffey's career is going to be one of the toughest ever for baseball to judge. He was no doubt the best player of the 90s (unless you want to give Bonds some sort of benefit of the doubt)

On the flip side, he aged horribly, mostly due to injury.

It's not totally the same but how can Mickey Mantle be the first player that doesn't come to mind as a comparison? (lose the drinking aspect and it fits pretty well)

Frank Robinson is another one that had a similar path.

well F-Robbie barely played CF, but yes Mantle is probably a better comparision (I still think Duke Snider is a good one), at least better than Joe DiMaggio.

[ISiddiqui]

It's not totally the same but how can Mickey Mantle be the first player that doesn't come to mind as a comparison? (lose the drinking aspect and it fits pretty well)

While Mantle was injured a lot, he didn't exactly age "horribly". From the age 30, his OPS+ were 195 at 31 (though 65 games), 178, 137, 170, 150, 142. Pretty good numbers.

Interestingly, I noted while going through baseball reference that Griffey, Jr. never lead the league in OPS+, amazingly. The closest he came was 2nd in 1997.

Frank Robinson is another one that had a similar path.

Not sure if Robinson works either. At 37, he had a 150 OPS+ year, at 38 it was 141, and then only played a few games at age 39 and 40.

Griffey, Jr. is kind of a strange case among Hall of Fame players in rapid decline.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Interestingly, I noted while going through baseball reference that Griffey, Jr. never lead the league in OPS+, amazingly (even though he's 16th all time). The closest he came was 2nd in 1997.


What am I doing wrong? I see him as tied for 107th.

Career Leaders &amp Records for Adjusted OPS+ - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/onbase_plus_slugging_plus_career.shtml)

[ISiddiqui]

Crud... I misread it... I saw Active and not Career... have to edit.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Even if you cut him off at 2001 (before the continuing injury issues) he has a career OPS+ on par with Lance Berkman.

[korme]

The argument that Griffey isn't in the top 20 greatest of all-time also says to that defense that Mickey Mantle wasn't one of the best ever, or Sandy Koufax.

[ISiddiqui]

The argument that Griffey isn't in the top 20 greatest of all-time also says to that defense that Mickey Mantle wasn't one of the best ever, or Sandy Koufax.

Which argument says Mickey Mantle isn't one of the Top 20 of all time?!

And since Sandy Koufax isn't one of the Top 20 players of all time, I could get behind that.

[Alan T]

I think this is one of these cases where all of you are right even though you are arguing with each other. Griffey in his peak was probably one of the best all around talents of any player to have played the game. The biggest problem for him was that peak did not last as long as other hall of famers. From 1991 through 1998, his career was very strong compared to other hall of fame 8 year-spans. Probably not the best, but arguably you could say top 20. The beauty about Griffey Jr was that he started it so young and the great thing was the promise of what could happen if he kept it going, the records he -could have- broken.

As we now know, he didn't age well, and yes it does effect his overall career. He actually aged very similarly to my favorite player of all time Dale Murphy. Murphy was easily one of the better players in the league for a 6 year span in his prime (Even though he of course was no where near Griffey's talent level), but once he hit age 31, his body fell apart and so did his game. Griffey ran into the same problem in his career and just like Murphy, his career is going to be viewed on the entire sum and not on the promise he once had.

Even factoring in the last decade where he played injured and only a shadow of his former self, he still had one of the 50 best careers of all time, and I'll echo what many others have said in this thread, it was a pure pleasure getting to watch him play in his prime. I loved how much fun it appeared that he was having out there, it didn't seem just like a job to him he looked like he was fully enjoying himself when he was playing. Something that I will never forget!

[Alan T]

Dola,

And I'll add to my last comment that probably one of the reasons why Dale Murphy is still my all time favorite player and why I like Griffey Jr so much is partially due to the way their body did break down. Maybe it is just synical of me, but in this era where I suspect almost everyone of using steroids, part of me says that a player like Griffey or Murphy if they had been using would have been able to overcome the injuries faster, and kept their peak longer. So because they did suffer so greatly as they got older just makes me feel that they did play the game with pure ability and no enhancers. Maybe it is wishful thinking, but at least for these two players it is what I'll believe forever.

[dawgfan]

Yeah, this is mostly an argument about peak value vs. total value, with a bit of natural talent arguments thrown in.

Griffey was a tremendous talent with a remarkable start to his career. That FanGraphs chart posted earlier really showcases that - he was on a pace to be one of the top 5-10 position players the game had ever seen, but his body betrayed him (and he probably wasn't helped by all those games played on the Kingdome turf).

[JediKooter]

He's one of the last current players that was in the Majors when I was still in high school. Man these players are getting old.

[DanGarion]

Too bad the best story I ever heard of him was him being a dick. Back in the minors some kids were waiting by the team bus asking for autographs. One kid hands Griffey the 1st Beckett that he was featured on the cover, heads into the bus and the bus leaves.

[oykib]

How do you explain the similarities (Snider/Griffey) in AVG OBP OPS OPS+?


Griffey was a 10-time gold glove award winner and is 12th in Total bases, 31st in Runs scored, and 14th in RBI. He's also 6th in extra base hits. oh, and he's 5th in home runs-- he hit 220 more than Snider. And Snider didn't lose any time to army service.

It's not even close.

[Chief Rum]

You're right. Much in the same way the Twins trade for Shannon Stewart was the real reason the Twins made a miraculous comeback to win the AL Central in 2003, Gary Freaking Disarcina was the only thing that separated the Angels from winning the AL West in 1995. Gotcha.

KSyrup, you should learn better to read what I was saying before getting up off your rocker.

Well, sparked the winning from the M's side anyway.

Meanwhile, the Angels lost the heart of their team in Gary Disarcina near the start of August this year, which sparked the losing from their side.

I never said Disar was the sole reason they fell apart that year. I said he was just the spark. They were rolling until he got hurt. Then they started losing, and eventually had the worst collapse in club history, and one of the worst in baseball history. His loss was a definite contribution to that.

And don't worry - I won't question your revisionist knowledge of the history of YOUR franchise any time soon. My guess is the Angels' dependency on guys like Gary Disarcina to play 150 games a year is mostly to blame for why the team spent a good chunk of his career in or near last place, not the other way around.

The Angels have not always been a well run franchise, and this period in particular was a very poor one because Jackie Autry had taken over the club's daily operations from Gene Autry and was more interested in protecting her inheritance for when the old crooner was about to pass away than she was in keeping the Angels competitive, so she pinched pennies like fellow Anaheim Stadium tenant Georgia Frontiere of the Rams. They made bad free agent decisions and didn't put enough money or emphasis into developing their farm system, and J. Autry treated the Angels like a small market club.

So you're right, there weren't many better SSs around in the Angels organization than Disar, and yes, lack of depth did hurt the Angels that year and in other years (although three of the last four Angels teams Disar played the majority of games for finished in 2nd place, so they didn't always finish in last like you say).

But in my mind, that only says even more how important Disar was to that 1995 team. Regardless of why the depth was poor, the fact that Disar's replacement wasn't even anywhere near as good as him only underlines my point that Disar's loss contributed sharply to the Angels' collapse.

[Chief Rum]

If Jeter hit like Disarcina, they'd be talking about how much of a Don Mattingly Clubhouse Presence he was on maybe 2 WS teams, while just coming close a few other years.

I only equated Disar's locker room presence and the fact he was essentially the team captain and emotional leader at that time to Jeter. Jeter, of course, is a far, far better player than Disar and always has been.

Not entirely sure what the relevance is of the point you're trying to make here.

[Chief Rum]

FWIW, I don't completely discount intangibles, either, but suggesting that the loss of a career .630 OPS SS hitting way over his head for 2/3 of a season was the reason his team lost 13 or so games in the standings is preposterous. If that truly was the case, then that team didn't deserve to win anything, because it was filled with a bunch of mental basket cases who weren't strong enough to win anything.

I said his loss sparked the collapse. His loss was not entirely responsible for the collapse. It took many players on that team to do that.

Please, if you're going to be an asshat, at least read my posts before responding.

[Chief Rum]

CR, I usually like what you have to say about baseball, but you are way off on this one, no matter if it is your team or not. It's nice to be able to point to that injury and blame the collapse on it, but c'mon....

When the 78 Sox blew a 14 game lead, and the 69 Cubs blew a 10 game lead, and even throw the 2004 Yankees 3-0 postseason lead over the Sox in here, it wasn't because one mediocre player got injured. It wasn't for any particular reason other than baseball is a beautifully fucked up game that can mess with the head of even the greatest players ever.

Sorry, Marmel, you fell into the same trap as KSyrup. Please read my post before responding.

I agree with the general point that it is extremely rare for the loss of just one player (and especially a mediocre one) to be entirely or mostly responsible for a team-wide collapse.

My entire point was that the Angels' slide, emotionally in the locker room and on the field in actual results, really started after Disar got hurt on August 3.

[Chief Rum]

Generally speaking, the loss of an all star during an important stretch run, is often hard to replace. Chief isn't saying that was the only reason they lost their lead, but it was the first and biggest domino that started the collapse.

I don't even know if it was the biggest domino, but it was definitely the first.

Thanks, Bug, for correctly reading my post and getting my point. You're in rare company at this point in the thread (sadly).

[Chief Rum]

This is absurd logic - this is the kind that says Derek Jeter was a defensive star, "because I saw it with my eyes" (10 years of evidence notwithstanding - though he has improved recently). The my team argument is patently ridiculous - are you the oracle of Angles knowledge?

Actually, eyewitness testimony is significantly accepted in courts of law around the country. If a judge and jury will accept it, I hardly think you're in a position to disparage this form of evidence.

I don't claim to be an oracle. But I am an Angels fan, I was an Angels fan during that season and I have not had any major head injuries since 1995 which would deprive me of my ability to recall how that season went.

You look at a page on the Internet to try to understand something that is at best a mediocre facsimile of what happened on the field. I was actually there, and watched it with my own eyes.

If you think my memory is faulty, my eyes are bad or if I am flat lying, then say that. But I hardly think you can otherwise argue you know more about it than I do, and it's unlikely any regular poster on this board has as much knowledge ready at hand about that 1995 Angels' season than I do. I would think you would no more want to question that than I would want to question your memories of any individual Giants' season. I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know more than you do about that.

[Chief Rum]

Generally speaking, the loss of an "All-Star" who was 7th on his team in OPS+ among regulars really doesn't amount to a hill of beans when compared to a double-digit lead with 40+ games left. Even if you award him the maximum number of Derek Jeter Clubhouse Presence Points available.

But let's look at some facts...Disarcina was injured on August 3rd. On August 20th - nearly 3 weeks later!!! - the Angels were at their largest peak playoff probability (they had a 99.988% chance of making the playoffs on that date) and were 9.5 games ahead of the Rangers and 12.5 ahead of the Mariners in the West, and 12 ahead of the Yankees in the Wild Card. It's at this point they actually started their slide (or within a game or two - they went 12-26 the rest of the way after August 20th).

I guess his loss was so stunning that it took them 17 days to realize they should start losing because he wasn't playing.

Funny thing about facts and stats like that. You can make them say what you want. Or you can patently ignore other facts that don't suit your argument. I like to think if I were you, and I found facts that went against my argument, I would be man enough to admit to them and back off or at least amend my point. But regardless, I am not you, and you chose to ignore some important facts.

Like these.

--On the morning of August 3, the day Disar would get hurt, the Angels were 56-34, good for a .622 WP. They were 11 games up on TEX, 12 games up on SEA. Their 11 game lead was the biggest they had all season long. The only reason their playoff probability was higher later was because A) it was later in the season, and B) neither the M's nor the Rangers really had gotten rolling at that point (the M's were playing better, but not to the level they would reach in SEP, and the Rangers actually only played a little better than the .500 ball they were at on Aug 3 the rest of the season). The Yankees actually endured a long losing streak in late August, and did their amazing run to a playoff spot almost entirely in SEP.

--From August 3 on, the Angels had a record of 22-33, a .400 WP. No need to resort to higher math here. With a healthy Disar, .622 WP. Without, .400 WP. Was the loss of Disar alone responsible for that? Of course not. But I have taken pains to point out that his injury was the spark that got that rolling. It would seem hard to argue that, given the above results.

--From August 3-August 20, the Angels went 10-8 against two .500-ish teams in the Rangers and Royals, two very bad teams in the Twins and White Sox, and a Yankees team mired in its season worst 8 game losing streak--the last one they had before Torre, Bernie Williams and Derek Jeter led them back to the WC with a torrid September. So while the Angels didn't immediately go into the tank, they certainly didn't dominate after Disar got hurt either. Prior to Disar's injury, they went 17-3 after the All Star break, and the loss they suffered the night Disar got hurt broke a season best eight game winning streak.

But in any case, I never made the point that Disar's loss was the sole reason for the collapse, so even if the Angels did play extremely well, it's nonetheless a fact that they played great until he got hurt, and rather poorly after that, which supports my only initial point--that Disar's loss sparked--and was the starting point of-- the eventual collapse they suffered (in which the entire team had a hand by the time the end of the season rolled around).

[Chief Rum]

One last point, and this isn't something you'll find at Baseball Prospectus or in the Baseball Reference. Every season, every team has a story, a flow to it. If you don't believe that, you're not fan enough to notice, IMO (this is a general "you, the reader" not targeted at anyone specific). This is especially true in baseball, with games nearly every day for six months. It's very easy to carry results forward from one game to the next when you barely have time to forget about one game before you're playing another.

It's one of those refreshingly human aspects of sports that are difficult to measure with stats, and reminds me that the players on the field are more than just walking numbers.

The Angels of 1995 had a feeling of being cursed at that time. It wasn't as well known as the goat curse in Chicago or the Curse of the Bambino in Boston, but the franchise already had a long history of tragedy and collapse at that point.

The Lyman Bostock and Donnie Moore tragedies come to mind. Coming within a game of reaching the 1982 and 1986 WS, only to lose, particularly 1986. The bus crash in 1992. The ridiculous decision to let Nolan Ryan go in 1979 (although that wasn't a curse, that just flat stupidity).

Here is an excerpt from a history of the Angels in Wikipedia (so take it FWIW; I can attest to its accuracy).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Los_Angeles_Angels_of_Anaheim

1995: The Collapse
Main article: 1995 California Angels season
See also: 1995 American League West tie-breaker game

In 1995, the Angels suffered the worst collapse in franchise history. In first place in the AL West by 11 games in August, the team again lost key personnel (particularly shortstop Gary DiSarcina) and went on an extended slide during the final stretch run. By season's end, they were in a first-place tie with the surging Seattle Mariners, prompting a one-game playoff for the division title. The Mariners, managed by Lou Piniella and led by pitching ace Randy Johnson, laid a 9–1 drubbing on the Angels in the playoff game, clinching the AL West championship and forcing the Angels and their fans to endure yet another season of heartbreak and bitter disappointment.

The Curse of the Cowboy?

Given the clubs's inability to win a pennant thus far, the postseason disasters of 1982 and 1986, the 1995 collapse, and tragedies such as Bostock's murder and Moore's suicide, it was suggested that there must be a "curse" on the Angels. Since there did not appear to be a single defining moment when things started to go downhill, or one where "the baseball gods" might have been offended, some suggested that it was Autry who was the cause, a grand life seeing all its good luck evened out in his ownership of a baseball team. The idea of a "Curse of the Cowboy" did not take hold, however, due to the great affection Autry engendered as a public figure, and the idea would diminish with the sale of the team and its later postseason success.

To some extent, the idea of a different curse did take hold, however. Prior to the Angels' World Series victory in 2002, some had theorized that the team did not have success because its stadium, The Big A, was supposedly built upon an ancient Native American burial ground (although Anaheim city historians have not been able to either confirm or debunk the theory).

"Heck, people were talking about it in spring training. We were standing around the outfield one day and everyone was concerned about the stadium being cursed because it was built on an ancient Indian burial ground. We were going to go get an exorcist or a Catholic priest or something to get rid of the curse. I'm like, "I don't want to be on an Indian burial ground."

— Ben Weber, former Angel pitcher, in 2002



All this sort of stuff was weighing on the Angels' minds when the losing started in 1995. There was tremendous pressure on them--that 1995 team was easily the best team they had put together since the 1986 AL West champs, and there had been a lot of poor results and suffering since then. Plus, all of the players, to a man, absolutely adored Gene Autry, and everyone knew he was in poor health (he would pass away in 1998). Every year, it was "we have to win one for The Cowboy before he passes away.

If you believe that the pressure of the Curse of the Bambino (real or not) had an effect on the 1970s Red Sox that failed to win a title, or the 90s and early 2000s teams before 2004, or the Cubs in 2003 or in 2008 with their long, sad history, or that the 2007 collapse of the Mets affected their 2008 season, that that pressure can effect players and how they perform, can lead them to choke, then you can understand the Angels had a less publicized but similar situation going on in 1995 and in general after the 1986 Henderson at bat in the ALCS. They didn't remove that stigma until 2002. When they lost Disar, it felt like "oh man, here it comes...". Even though he was the 7th best OPS+ among the regulars and was playing over his head, it was the sort of loss that gets into players' heads in situations like these and begins to haunt them.

That's a story, a very real aspect of the season, you won't find looking at a page of game results or scanning the season ending player stats.

[Ksyrup]

my only initial point--that Disar's loss sparked--and was the starting point of-- the eventual collapse they suffered (in which the entire team had a hand by the time the end of the season rolled around).

Which isn't true, even based on the facts you posted. They had their biggest lead based on games left in a season (a 9.5 game lead means more with only 38 games left than 11 games up with 56 games left) almost 3 weeks after he went down. All you're doing is looking back at a season concluded and trying to connect the dots to make sense of an historic collapse. I understand that's human nature, but it doesn't fit here.

Sure, they missed their starting SS, no matter how good or bad he was. They obviously didn't have a spare starting SS or 2 sitting around on the roster. But this team would have slid out of the playoffs - or at best, backed into the playoffs and gotten taken out quickly - with or without Disarcina. An injury cannot "spark" a complete team collapse. That's just silly.

[Chief Rum]

Which isn't true, even based on the facts you posted. They had their biggest lead based on games left in a season (a 9.5 game lead means more with only 38 games left than 11 games up with 56 games left) almost 3 weeks after he went down. All you're doing is looking back at a season concluded and trying to connect the dots to make sense of an historic collapse. I understand that's human nature, but it doesn't fit here.

They were losing their lead at this point. They never had a bigger lead than the 11 game lead they had in and around Disar's injury. I'm pointing out that they were losing ground to the teams behind them, which is relevant to the point I was making. You're pointing out that the later lead would be harder for them to blow--which is irrelevant.

Sure, they missed their starting SS, no matter how good or bad he was. They obviously didn't have a spare starting SS or 2 sitting around on the roster. But this team would have slid out of the playoffs - or at best, backed into the playoffs and gotten taken out quickly - with or without Disarcina. An injury cannot "spark" a complete team collapse. That's just silly.

Maybe, maybe not. The season came down to a one game playoff. Disar alone might have ensured they made the playoffs. They only needed to win one game they lost.

As for that last, honestly, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm amazed that you can make a summary judgment on my statement when you pretty much know nothing about how things went down that year. Bad things can and do lead to other bad things happening. And there is no doubt that Disar's injury was the first such bad event to take place in what would become an epic collapse.

[Ksyrup]

Looking back on it 15 years later, I see how you can come to that conclusion. I'd be interested in knowing what other "bad events" took place after his injury (aside from the team sucking). Injuries happen all the time. You only assign importance to them after the fact once you connect the dots between the injury and the start of a losing streak. Doesn't mean they were related. If the pitching staff's ERA rose 2 runs a game over the last 50 games, I'm not sure how his injury was really relevant (even if he was Ozzie Smith in the field). Stuff like that.

I just see this as trying to put together a story of the season to make some logical sense of something that is nonsensical. The reality is, his loss had little to do with the collapse. It didn't help, sure, but it's not like the team collectively said, "Oh shit, we lost Gary Disarcina! We're the Angels and bad shit like this always happens to us! We're DOOOOOOOOMED!" And like I said earlier, if they did - they deserved to lose.

[korme]

Feud aside, I wiki'd Lyman Bostock (didn't know the story), and ummm... that crazy sunuvabitch who killed him got released after 7 months in a psych ward? And he's been living a normal life since 1980? WTF????

[TroyF]

Looking back on it 15 years later, I see how you can come to that conclusion. I'd be interested in knowing what other "bad events" took place after his injury (aside from the team sucking). Injuries happen all the time. You only assign importance to them after the fact once you connect the dots between the injury and the start of a losing streak. Doesn't mean they were related. If the pitching staff's ERA rose 2 runs a game over the last 50 games, I'm not sure how his injury was really relevant (even if he was Ozzie Smith in the field). Stuff like that.

I just see this as trying to put together a story of the season to make some logical sense of something that is nonsensical. The reality is, his loss had little to do with the collapse. It didn't help, sure, but it's not like the team collectively said, "Oh shit, we lost Gary Disarcina! We're the Angels and bad shit like this always happens to us! We're DOOOOOOOOMED!" And like I said earlier, if they did - they deserved to lose.

I really see both sides to this. On one hand you can say he wasn't a great player and the injury didn't cost them the division title.

I'd agree with that line of reasoning. But on the other hand, single events can be devastating to a team. A team leader in the clubhouse going down could easily have started some sort of slide.

I'll never forget the 1992 Minnesota Twins. Up one game on the A's with a 60-40 record. Take a 4-2 lead into the ninth inning at the dome. Up steps the immortal Eric Fox with two men on. BOOM. One of his 5 career home runs and the Twins fell 5-4.

After the game the Twins finished the year up at 30-32.

Was the Fox HR the only determining factor that cost the Twins that year? Hell no. They had other issues. But if you ask me to point to one moment the season went to hell, I'll tell you it was that Fox HR. I still think it was the start of everything else that happened.

Hey, we are all baseball fans, right? We are allowed to be dramatic at times. Comes with the territory. :)

[Ksyrup]

Except, again, that's just revisionist history building a story that fits the ending. How many countless teams have been in 1st place and had a gut-punch game end in that fashion and go on without losing a bunch of games? If we're talking solo sports or individuals, absolutely I can buy that the psychology of it could wreck someone. But collectively, I don't buy that an entire team could be so mentally affected that they collectively perform poorly over a stretch of games. I don't buy that the Angels had this history of doom and gloom and that in 2002, they just happened to overcome it. They lost a bunch, and then they won. It happens. Just like the Yankees won a bunch (when they, not so coincidentally, had the best talent in the majors and minors for decades on end), and lost a few times. None of that has jack squat to do with present day. It's all after the fact story-building.

[chesapeake]

Even in retirement, Griffey finds a way to make Angels fans suffer just a little bit more.

Ksyrup, the Angels had a long history of doom and gloom prior to fnally winning the World Series. Go wiki Donnie Moore.

[dawgfan]

Actually, eyewitness testimony is significantly accepted in courts of law around the country. If a judge and jury will accept it, I hardly think you're in a position to disparage this form of evidence.
Funny thing about you mentioning this - I was listening to a radio interview of the guys that wrote the recent book "The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us" and they were talking a lot about how human memory works and how fallible it is.

There's been a lot of research into human memory in the last few decades, much of it led by Elizabeth Loftus (one of my profs at Washington - she's since moved on to Cal - Irvine) which shows that our memories are not some unchangeable, static thing that can be accessed like data on a hard drive - it's malleable and highly susceptible to suggestion and revision. And they made the point that eye-witness testimony shouldn't be considered as strong a piece of evidence as it is, that in fact, they would trust a wealth of circumstantial evidence a lot more than a single eye-witness testimony.

Having taken a class on memory from Loftus myself back in college, I already knew that memory is a lot less reliable than we tend to think it is, but that interview with those authors really reinforced that point for me.

I could also go further into how the human brain is wired to want to create stories around events to create a narrative (regardless of whether those events really are related or not), but I know how strongly you feel about the Angels and I know I'm unlikely to change your mind.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

As a Sox fan, I can tell you that the "Curse of the Bambino" was two parts handy way to blame mismanagement/the dice not falling your way and one part marketing phenomenon.

[Chief Rum]

I could also go further into how the human brain is wired to want to create stories around events to create a narrative (regardless of whether those events really are related or not), but I know how strongly you feel about the Angels and I know I'm unlikely to change your mind.

I am sure you're right that you won't change my mind, but I wouldn't mind hearing your perspective all the same. Unlike KSyrup or some others here, you are also intimately connected to the other primary team in that race and will have more experience to draw on with which to comment on the Angels.

[Ksyrup]

Even in retirement, Griffey finds a way to make Angels fans suffer just a little bit more.

Ksyrup, the Angels had a long history of doom and gloom prior to fnally winning the World Series. Go wiki Donnie Moore.

Uh, right. I'm not in California so I've never heard of Donnie Moore. That story never made it past Arizona, I guess. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention I lived in Atlanta in the 80s, before he ever put on an Angels uniform.

[Ksyrup]

I am sure you're right that you won't change my mind, but I wouldn't mind hearing your perspective all the same. Unlike KSyrup or some others here, you are also intimately connected to the other primary team in that race and will have more experience to draw on with which to comment on the Angels.

Oh all the arguments you could use, that's about the lamest of them all.

[Ksyrup]

If anything, I'd argue that your intimacy with the team is precisely the reason why you continue to stick to the convenient story, instead of look at the facts objectively.

[jeff061]

You only say that cause he argued the shit out of you.


Sore loser.

[Ksyrup]

You only say that cause he argued the shit out of you.


Sore loser.

What? That because I'm not a fan of the team, I can't possibly know or interpret what happened? Look, you guys can continue to stick to the story, I'll just look at the facts. That team didn't start fading for 2.5 weeks after his injury. A 12 game lead with 56 games is not as big a lead as a 9.5 game lead with 38 games. Not to mention a 12 game lead in the WC with 38 games left. It's simply a convenient demarcation to point at to make sense of something that otherwise defies belief. There most be some trigger for what happened, and that's the most convenient thing to point to. I get that. But please, just recognize that's all it is.

[jeff061]

Fuck dude. Stop using facts. Clearly you are out of your league here.



/heavy enough?? ;)

[Ksyrup]

Ah, page breaks and stuff.

[Chief Rum]

Oh all the arguments you could use, that's about the lamest of them all.

I don't understand why you got to be dickish. Look, sorry I dared to have an opinion different than yours. Can we be friends now?

[Chief Rum]

If anything, I'd argue that your intimacy with the team is precisely the reason why you continue to stick to the convenient story, instead of look at the facts objectively.

The facts back up my story.

[Rizon]

Is this the Griffey Jr thread or did something get mixed up here?

[dawgfan]

I am sure you're right that you won't change my mind, but I wouldn't mind hearing your perspective all the same. Unlike KSyrup or some others here, you are also intimately connected to the other primary team in that race and will have more experience to draw on with which to comment on the Angels.
It doesn't have anything to do with my being a fan of the Mariners - it has to do with having a lot on instruction on human psychology and how the brain works, and applying that to how we view baseball and things like perceived cause and effect and "clutch" and "chemistry" and the like.

First off, know this - the human brain is predisposed to taking events that appear related and creating a narrative around those events to "explain" them. Sometimes there is a narrative that helps explain events. But sometimes, the events (if they are connected at all) are really just random variation or "luck". Except, people don't like hearing that - they want to think that everything happens for a very specific reason. They want to think that a pitcher that is on a hot streak has learned a new pitch, or got a motivational talk from a mentor that has stuck with him. Those things may be true, but it may also be true that he's just in a run of good luck - line drives and grounders that were finding gaps previously are now being hit right at fielders and turned into outs. A hitter that's been struggling may similarly see bad luck turn to good luck, those balls that were hit right at people now finding gaps, or maybe he's enjoying better weather and seeing his warning-track fly ball outs now carry just a little farther and over the wall for home runs.

Now, I'm not going to dispute the idea that clubhouse chemistry exists. There's no question that some clubhouses are a lot more fun and positive and great than others. The question is how much that actually affects on-field performance. Because of the difficulty in teasing out all of the variables that can affect performance and the reality that you need large sample sizes to prove effects, it's a daunting task to try to measure clubhouse chemistry as a real effector on athletic performance.

I'm not going to argue that losing Disarcina didn't negatively impact the psyche of that Angels team, especially given the history of that franchise up to that point. The question is how much any change in the attitude of that clubhouse affected on-field performance, i.e. how much does mental state trump talent.

I get that fans of the franchise felt like it was cursed, and maybe some of the players felt that too. But we're also talking players in the Major Leagues, the highest level of baseball in the world. I'm a little skeptical that they had psyches that were so fragile that losing Disarcina sparked a mental collapse that led to them blowing that huge division lead.

It's easy to write that story, but we should be aware that we as humans are susceptible to wanting to write those stories and believe them, regardless of whether they are actually true or not.

[chesapeake]

Uh, right. I'm not in California so I've never heard of Donnie Moore. That story never made it past Arizona, I guess. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention I lived in Atlanta in the 80s, before he ever put on an Angels uniform.

I wasn't trying to be patronizing; rather, pointing out that the Angels -- although not the Cubs or Sawx -- had a long and well-publicized history of failure. Although that 1986 loss and Donnie Moore's subsequent suicide were the certainly the lowest points, their whole history was one of failure. Much of it centered on Gene Autry, a beloved figure and popular owner, who owned the team for almost 40 years and won a grand total of 3 division titles and no pennants. This was frequently mentioned in the Seattle press, being another AL West city.

As for whether DiSarcina's injury was the beginning of the end, I don't have a dog in that hunt. My team won; CR's team lost. Neener-neener.

Can we talk about Griffey again? He's better than any Angel that ever played the game, that's for sure.

[Ksyrup]

I don't understand why you got to be dickish. Look, sorry I dared to have an opinion different than yours. Can we be friends now?

I'm not trying to be a dick. I honestly think the argument that because you're a big fan of a team, your interpretation of what occurred is more legitimate is...uh...not the best argument. That's separate and apart from your opinion on the underlying discussion. I respect that your opinon on that is different than mine. But the idea that your opinion means more or you have some special insight because you lived it as a fan of the team (as opposed to the opinion of a big baseball fan on the other coast who follows both leagues very closely) - I don't agree with that.

[stevew]

True story.

One of my friends put a hole in the head of his Donnie Moore Starting Lineup after the dude offed himself.

[Ksyrup]

I wasn't trying to be patronizing; rather, pointing out that the Angels -- although not the Cubs or Sawx -- had a long and well-publicized history of failure. Although that 1986 loss and Donnie Moore's subsequent suicide were the certainly the lowest points, their whole history was one of failure. Much of it centered on Gene Autry, a beloved figure and popular owner, who owned the team for almost 40 years and won a grand total of 3 division titles and no pennants. This was frequently mentioned in the Seattle press, being another AL West city.

As for whether DiSarcina's injury was the beginning of the end, I don't have a dog in that hunt. My team won; CR's team lost. Neener-neener.

Can we talk about Griffey again? He's better than any Angel that ever played the game, that's for sure.

I know all about the Angels story. My point is none of it means anything. It's not connected. If it was, 2002 wouldn't have happened. What's the explanation? Oh, they finally summoned the courage to break the string of bad luck that haunted them for decades! No. They lost some painful games for a long time, and then they won. It's a nice story to weave together when discussing the history of the franchise, but none of it is connected in a cause-and-effect way. Donnie Moore didn't haunt the dreams of the Angels' 25 man roster for 45 days in 1995 and cause them to lose. And the loss of Disaarcina, while I'm sure it didn't help either on the field or in the clubhouse, didn't spark a sudden inability to win games. It looks and feels that way in hindsight, because the story makes sense and with their history, another ill-timed injury coincided with a slide, but he didn't matter that much.

It's just like the Twins this year. When Nathan went down, you'd think they lost 3/4ths of the team in a plane crash or something. Most statistical observers concluded that at best, the guy was worth 3 victories. And of course, they really haven't lost a beat without him there. And you don't hear anything about it now. But what if they struggled the first 2 months? Guess how many articles would have been written about how the loss of Nathan killed this team. Why? Because that narrative would have fit the storyline everyone saw coming back in March. It really wouldn't have mattered if the bullpen was the culprit, either - then it would have been "reliever depth and veteran presence" that they lacked. HUMAN NATURE.

As far as Griffey... eh, I was never a big fan of Griffey. Great talent, sure, enjoyed watching him play and all that, but in his interactions with the public, he did himself no favors. I specifically remember one HR Derby interview he did (I think it was the year Sosa kicked ass in Atlanta) where he was interviewed on the field, and he acted like he wanted to be anywhere but there, and gave these cliche answers in such a monotonous, "somebody please get me out of here" way... unfortunately, that's the lasting memory I have of him.

[dawgfan]

As far as Griffey... eh, I was never a big fan of Griffey. Great talent, sure, enjoyed watching him play and all that, but in his interactions with the public, he did himself no favors. I specifically remember one HR Derby interview he did (I think it was the year Sosa kicked ass in Atlanta) where he was interviewed on the field, and he acted like he wanted to be anywhere but there, and gave these cliche answers in such a monotonous, "somebody please get me out of here" way... unfortunately, that's the lasting memory I have of him.
Griffey is a complicated guy. He's a superstar who could act like a diva, but he could also be as playful as anyone in the clubhouse and usually tried to involve each and every person on the team, the staff and the support crew.

He's a sensitive guy, and that's been both a blessing and a curse - he could develop difficult relationships with reporters if he felt slighted or embarrassed, but he could also give tremendous stories if he felt comfortable with the reporter.

He was tremendously giving in his off-time, and there are numerous stories of fans coming up to him and having great interactions with him. But there were also stories of not so great interactions.

One thing that's interesting to note with Griffey - he has a social anxiety issue, where he's really, really uncomfortable in crowds of strangers. Airports are not a good place for him.

I can totally respect that others have differing views on Griffey. He's not actually my favorite Mariner ever - that would be Edgar Martinez - but I can say without reservation that it was tremendously rewarding to get to watch him play, even if the last couple of years leading up to his trade to Cincinnati (and the ugly nature of how he arm-twisted that trade) weren't as much fun. It's a little bit of an exaggeration to say that Safeco is the "House that Griffey built", but it's not an exaggeration to say that he was the guy that really made the M's fun to watch, and he's the first guy that really put the Mariners on the national radar. His presence and ability were important factors in the M's staying put in Seattle and becoming a local institution after so many years of threats to move.

[Ramzavail]

Griffey was a 10-time gold glove award winner and is 12th in Total bases, 31st in Runs scored, and 14th in RBI. He's also 6th in extra base hits. oh, and he's 5th in home runs-- he hit 220 more than Snider. And Snider didn't lose any time to army service.

It's not even close.

More "total" stats again *rolls eyes*

[chesapeake]

I know all about the Angels story. My point is none of it means anything. It's not connected. If it was, 2002 wouldn't have happened.

It's just like the Twins this year. When Nathan went down, you'd think they lost 3/4ths of the team in a plane crash or something.

My feeling is that you are discounting the human aspects of the game. Baseball players have the reputation -- in my estimation, deserved -- of being the most superstitious among American athletes. Things that have nothing to do with reality have a significant effect on a clubhouse. I don't know squat about DiSarcina, so I can't speak to this specific case. Just my last two bits on that.

As for the Twins, they just lost 3 of 4 to the Mariners. No one does that and survives. Their season is over. :)

Seriously, though, it is not an apples to apples comparison. The Twins don't have 30+ years of history where they sucked eggs. Quite the contrary, actually.

[oykib]

Griffey came up as a productive regular at 19, when it was much harder to do.

Snider came up at 20 and wasn't a productive regular until 22.

Griffey was productive until 37. Snider was until he was 36. Griffey's biggest years were bigger (OPS+ of 171.170, 165,155,153, 150, 149) than Snider's (171, 170, 169, 165, 143, 140, 136). Griffey was a better fielder.

Griffey earned those extra numbers. Rate stats don't tell the stoies by themselves.

[RedKingGold]

Griffey came up as a productive regular at 19, when it was much harder to do.

Snider came up at 20 and wasn't a productive regular until 22.

There have been a lot of bad arguments in this thread, but this one absolutely takes the cake as its worst.

[Ramzavail]

Those OPS+ look pretty similar to me. All I was trying to say that Griffey/Snider is a better comparision than Griffey/DiMaggio - and you kept saying it wasn't even close. I know Griffey is/was a better player than Snider but if Willie Mays is #1 to CF, DiMaggio is #1A. IMO.

Another comparison point, both Griffey and Snider didn't fair too well in the 30's.

I still don't even know what you are even saying in your last post concerning age. But as I was saying Griffey compiled alot more "stats" than Snider just from the 2800 more ABs he got. Their AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ looks really similar to me. Whereas, Joe DiMaggio's do not, when compared to Griffey.

Certainly, I don't buy the expansion era with smaller ball parks and rarified air as being a more "difficult" era to play in. I don't buy at all the lefty specialist being an overriding factor then smaller ball parks and lower graded talent in the major leagues. Snider played with less technology, bigger ball parks, and a lower concentration of talent.

So I don't know, maybe I'm nuts, but I just see alot of similarities.

[MrBug708]

Speaking as a mostly non Angel fan these days, everyone around here will point to the injury as the beginning of the end. Sports writers, media, everyone. Until this thread, I didn't think anyone thought otherwise.

[dawgfan]

Speaking as a mostly non Angel fan these days, everyone around here will point to the injury as the beginning of the end. Sports writers, media, everyone. Until this thread, I didn't think anyone thought otherwise.
Just because people think that doesn't actually make it so.

[ISiddiqui]

if Willie Mays is #1 to CF, DiMaggio is #1A. IMO.

Mantle was a better CF than DiMaggio. Seriously, take a look at Mantle's batting numbers (for starters his career 172 OPS+). I don't think people realize just how amazing the Mick was.

DiMaggio was the better defensive CF, but probably not as much as people would think as Mantle's range factor was pretty decent.

[MrBug708]

Just because people think that doesn't actually make it so.

I didn't know anyone thought any differently :)

[molson]

I'd be willing to bet that this has been the most heated Gary Disarcina debate ever.

[Ksyrup]

My feeling is that you are discounting the human aspects of the game. Baseball players have the reputation -- in my estimation, deserved -- of being the most superstitious among American athletes. Things that have nothing to do with reality have a significant effect on a clubhouse. I don't know squat about DiSarcina, so I can't speak to this specific case. Just my last two bits on that.

As for the Twins, they just lost 3 of 4 to the Mariners. No one does that and survives. Their season is over. :)

Seriously, though, it is not an apples to apples comparison. The Twins don't have 30+ years of history where they sucked eggs. Quite the contrary, actually.

I don't deny that in a crucial moment, an individual might blow something with the presure of a situation caused by a team's history weighing heavily on his mental state. That would be a single moment in a single game. Not saying it was the case, but a Bill Buckner-type moment. Sure, I can see that. A team collectively going in the tank for almost 2 months, game after game, every 9 innings? No. That goes way beyond anything the mind can force to happen.

And the idea that the Twins have survived the Nathan injury because they have some history of success and the Angels didn't...phooey.

[Ksyrup]

Speaking as a mostly non Angel fan these days, everyone around here will point to the injury as the beginning of the end. Sports writers, media, everyone. Until this thread, I didn't think anyone thought otherwise.

Bill James has made a living disproving almost everything people thought they knew about baseball. The one thing I've learned over the past 15 years of rethinking what I learned about baseball as a kid is to not blindly accept the narrative sports writers give you because most of the time, it's just a combination of convenience and lack of understanding (or unwillingness to challenge their beliefs). And again, part of that is the fact that their job, in writing stories for the local papers, is to explain to the fans why something is happening. I'm sure that between the lack of a good explanation and the cliche/trite answers given to them by the players and coaches in the clubhouse, the Disarcina thing makes as much sense out of an impossible-to-believe situation as anything. And it's easy for the typical fan to appreciate, given the timing. But none of that makes it so.

[oykib]

Griffey came up as a productive regular at 19, when it was much harder to do.

Snider came up at 20 and wasn't a productive regular until 22.


There have been a lot of bad arguments in this thread, but this one absolutely takes the cake as its worst.


Check out this study. (http://junkcharts.typepad.com/junk_charts/2005/09/baseball_rookie.html)

It and others like it have shown that the average age of major leaguer rookies has slowly ticked up over time-- except for when expansion years have odd effects. There are fewer teenagers as we move forward in time. There are also fewer teenagers being productive regulars.

That seems to indicate that it was harder to debut as a 19 year-old and be an above average regular in 1989 than it was to debut as a 20 year-old and be a bench player in 1947.

Please explain the flaw in my logic.

[RedKingGold]

Fewer "teenagers" doesn't necessarily mean it was "harder" for Griffey to break through at 19. His development curve just had a quicker uptick.

I fail to see your correlation.

EDIT: And your study does not necessarily support your hypothesis.

[oykib]

Fewer "teenagers" doesn't necessarily mean it was "harder" for Griffey to break through at 19. His development curve just had a quicker uptick.

I fail to see your correlation.

EDIT: And your study does not necessarily support your hypothesis.

Fewer teenagers and an older average rookie age do indicate that it's harder to break into the majors at a young age. What else could it mean?

I think we'd all stipulate the fact that players want to break into the majors as soon as they can and, further, that teams want any talented players they can get their hands on.

If it were as easy as years past, you'd have just as many players being productive regulars as there were in years past.

Players just don't make it to the majors and produce like Griffey at age 19 in the modern era.

How many guys can you think of since 1989, Griffey's debut season?

[timmynausea]

Fewer teenagers and an older average rookie age do indicate that it's harder to break into the majors at a young age. What else could it mean?

It could just mean that based on current GM/player development conventions, fewer guys get a crack at the majors in their teenage years. In other words, being patient with player development is the norm more so than in the past.

Still, I was pretty curious about teenage players making a dent in the modern era. So I skimmed through guys that received ROY votes. These are the guys that did so as teenagers from 1970 to present:

1970 - Cesar Cedeno, 19
1984 - Dwight Gooden, 19
1989 - Ken Griffey, Jr.
1991 - Ivan Rodriguez, 19
1996 - Edgar Renteria, 19
2003 - Jose Reyes, 19 (turned 20 the day after his debut)

Gooden was the only one of these guys to win ROY. Griffey hit .264 and finished 3rd in the AL behind Gregg Olson and Tom Gordon. Also, A-Rod got a decent amount of playing (200+ plate appearances) time when he was 18-19 but did not get a ROY vote. He was an All-Star and narrowly finished 2nd to Juan Gonzalez in the MVP race when he was 20, though.

[Lathum]

A little off topic but I am headed to the Mariners game today with a guy who works for the team and we have a suite, really looking forward to it.

[RedKingGold]

It could just mean that based on current GM/player development conventions, fewer guys get a crack at the majors in their teenage years. In other words, being patient with player development is the norm more so than in the past.

This.

Different doesn't necessarily mean harder.

[Atocep]

Fewer teenagers and an older average rookie age do indicate that it's harder to break into the majors at a young age. What else could it mean?

That teams are more conservative with their player development than they have been in the past.


I think we'd all stipulate the fact that players want to break into the majors as soon as they can and, further, that teams want any talented players they can get their hands on.

Since Griffey debuted the gap between markets has increased dramatically. Most teams now are trying to maximize the production they can get out of a player while he's under their control. Playing a guy because me might be worth 2 wins at 19 could cost you a 8 win season at 25.

[oykib]

That teams are more conservative with their player development than they have been in the past.




Since Griffey debuted the gap between markets has increased dramatically. Most teams now are trying to maximize the production they can get out of a player while he's under their control. Playing a guy because me might be worth 2 wins at 19 could cost you a 8 win season at 25.

Teams don't keep guys who would be effective regulars down in the minors to have control over them longer for more than a little while. In '89, Griffey had a 108 OPS+ in 508 plate appearances while playing above average in centerfield. No organization is keeping someone down who can do that.

Here's the link (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/leaders_20_bat.shtml) to the Baseball reference page of stat leaders through age 20. Only Griffey and A-rod appear with any regularity of position players in the past 25 years. Edgar Renteria makes a noticeable number of appearances too.

But the number of guys from earlier eras of baseball is impressive. It's moderately rare for teenagers to make the majors. But it's that much more difficult for them to do well. They did well a lot more frequently in the past.

That's also in Bill James Historical Abstract, by the way. He posits that the argument that baseball players were better in the past was bunk, partly because there were so many more effective teenagers in the past than now.

But if you look at the thru-age-20 leaderboard, do you notice how many HoFers are on the list? No GM is going to be so conservative that he keeps a hall of fame talent in the minors after the point where he can be an effective starter. If the player is that good, what are you saving his pre-arbitration years for?

[RedKingGold]

Teams don't keep guys who would be effective regulars down in the minors to have control over them longer for more than a little while. In '89, Griffey had a 108 OPS+ in 508 plate appearances while playing above average in centerfield. No organization is keeping someone down who can do that.

Here's the link (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/leaders_20_bat.shtml) to the Baseball reference page of stat leaders through age 20. Only Griffey and A-rod appear with any regularity of position players in the past 25 years. Edgar Renteria makes a noticeable number of appearances too.

But the number of guys from earlier eras of baseball is impressive. It's moderately rare for teenagers to make the majors. But it's that much more difficult for them to do well. They did well a lot more frequently in the past.

That's also in Bill James Historical Abstract, by the way. He posits that the argument that baseball players were better in the past was bunk, partly because there were so many more effective teenagers in the past than now.

But if you look at the thru-age-20 leaderboard, do you notice how many HoFers are on the list? No GM is going to be so conservative that he keeps a hall of fame talent in the minors after the point where he can be an effective starter. If the player is that good, what are you saving his pre-arbitration years for?

Have you been following Steven Strasburg at all?

[oykib]

You mean the guy that's going to be in the majors next week? The guy who spent all of two months in the minors?

[Ramzavail]

Mantle was a better CF than DiMaggio. Seriously, take a look at Mantle's batting numbers (for starters his career 172 OPS+). I don't think people realize just how amazing the Mick was.

DiMaggio was the better defensive CF, but probably not as much as people would think as Mantle's range factor was pretty decent.

I'm not against making Mantle #1B - but I don't see it as clear cut as you do.

[stevew]

Have you been following Steven Strasburg at all?


I don't believe super 2 existed in that time period(Griffey's first season)

[Ksyrup]

Teams don't keep guys who would be effective regulars down in the minors to have control over them longer for more than a little while. In '89, Griffey had a 108 OPS+ in 508 plate appearances while playing above average in centerfield. No organization is keeping someone down who can do that.

You're working with perfect knowledge of what Griffey did after the fact. A team is making its best guess that a player is going to be above-replacement level to take the chance of starting his arb/super-2 clock so early.

And Strasburg was a college pitcher (plenty older than a high school kid) who could have pitched last fall in the majors, so I'd say his MLB career has been delayed by nothing more than money considerations.

[dawgfan]

Teams are not holding prospects back for more than a few months in order to delay the start of their arbitration clocks. I hardly think that invalidates the observation that it's more rare for teenagers to be playing productive roles in the majors now than in the distant past.

[chesapeake]

And Strasburg was a college pitcher (plenty older than a high school kid) who could have pitched last fall in the majors, so I'd say his MLB career has been delayed by nothing more than money considerations.

Money was a big factor, and the key factor with regard to the precise date of the call-up. But additional issues factored into Strasburg playing in the minors.
1) He signed on the last day possible, effectively meaning he couldn't get any minor league time last year;
2) The Nats expected to mostly stink, so they didn't feel the need to rush him to the Majors; and
3) The Nats management made the conscious decision to err on the side of caution with Strasburg.

[Ksyrup]

Teams are not holding prospects back for more than a few months in order to delay the start of their arbitration clocks. I hardly think that invalidates the observation that it's more rare for teenagers to be playing productive roles in the majors now than in the distant past.

It doesn't invalidate it; it largely explains it.

If money, service time, etc., were of no consequence, then Strasburg could have pitched in September for the Nats. A bunch of good-looking prospects would get called up much earlier than they are, because the teams would have very little to lose by giving them a month tryout at the end of the year or shuttling them back and forth between the minors and majors when someone gets injured.

Jason Heyward destroyed 3 levels of baseball at the age of 19. He could have played last year in the bigs, at least the last third of the season. The only reason he was kept out of spring training this year is he was SO good, they couldn't justify keeping him down. None of the factors that kept him in the minors last year were present decades ago.

[TroyF]

It doesn't invalidate it; it largely explains it.

If money, service time, etc., were of no consequence, then Strasburg could have pitched in September for the Nats. A bunch of good-looking prospects would get called up much earlier than they are, because the teams would have very little to lose by giving them a month tryout at the end of the year or shuttling them back and forth between the minors and majors when someone gets injured.

Jason Heyward destroyed 3 levels of baseball at the age of 19. He could have played last year in the bigs, at least the last third of the season. The only reason he was kept out of spring training this year is he was SO good, they couldn't justify keeping him down. None of the factors that kept him in the minors last year were present decades ago.

I do agree with most of what you are saying, but I think there are some pretty big differences from Griffey/ARod to Heyward.

For one, Griffey and ARod were both #1 prospects in all of baseball from the time they were drafted on. (both the #1 overall pick in the draft) Heyward wasn't even the top prospect in his own organization at the start of last year. (he was drafted with the 14th pick) He was the fifth ranked prospect in baseball heading into the year.

While he tore up the minors last year, he started the year in A ball. Griffey Jr. and ARod both reached Double A at the age of 18. (one year before Heyward) Stands to reason they got called up one year before Heyward did.

I think if Harper tears up the minors, we'll see how much this plays out. Harper is as hyped as Griffey and ARod. If he were to go nuts in teh minors, I'd bet money he'll be up before he turns 20.

I think both of you guys are right, though I'd lean slightly to your side. I do think teams are being more cautious.

[Ksyrup]

You're going to have your no-doubters in any era. The guys we're talking about are mainly the ones who decades ago teams weren't afraid to throw in the fire versus now, they'll develop them beyond the point they're ready (in some cases) before they bring them up.

Strasburg was a no-brainer, and even he wasted time in the minors. They invented things for him to work on jsut to rationalize keeping him down. Needed to work from the stretch, and then he never put anyone on, or when he did, they pulled him because of pitch count. OK...?

[dawgfan]

Obviously there are some kids that are being held back a few months due to concerns about starting their arbitration clock. But if a kid is so good that he'd make a major difference right now for a team in contention, chances are high that he's going to get called up. I can't think of an example of a stud that's been held back more than a few months. There are arguments to be made that regardless of arbitration clocks and whatnot, the Nats woudn't have pitched Strasburg right away after they signed him last year.