The stache

Just like they drew it up.

Since May 1st, Brauny is doing a pretty darned good job with the stick. 80 games 254 AB 39 runs 78 hits 19 2B 2 3B 11 HR 37 RBI 17 BB 59 K 7/8 SB Hitting .306 slashing .359 OBP/.525 SLG/.884 OPS. OPSing .816 now on the season. I'll take it.

At what park did he hit that double that went further than all but 2 of his homeruns? No kidding. I didn't know the Polo Grounds got rebuilt.

For the love of God, please stop, already! You're like a broken record. People repeatedly tell you that we didn't have the resources to add a top arm, and yet still you persist with that narrative. "I wanted a big move". And what is your obsession with Tanner Roark? You whine about Jordan Lyles, but think Tanner Roark is a "needle mover"? You think he's that much better than Lyles? Here's a comparison of the two, 2017-2019 K:BB ratio: Roark 2.76:1 (420 K: 152 BB) Lyles 2.74:1 (233 K:85 BB) FIP Roark 4.20 Lyles 4.76 WHIP Roark 1.335 Lyles 1.451 BB/9 IP Roark 2.9 Lyles 3.1 Roark is only slightly better than Lyles in these metrics. This year, Roark has been marginally above league average as a pitcher. His ERA+ is 107, but below league average (99) the last three years. His WHIP this year is pretty bad, 1.423. He's giving up 9.7 hits and 3.1 BB per 9 innings pitched. And last year, he led the National League with 15 losses. The Nationals were were 13-18 in his 31 appearances, and 69-62 when he did not take the mound. And it didn't cost the A's much? They sent their second round pick from 2018, Jameson Hannah, to Cincy. #50 overall. Hannah's going to be a pretty good player, I think. He's from Flower Mound, the city I live in, and there was a good deal of buzz around his possibly being a first round draft pick. He's a young, toolsy outfielder with outstanding speed. The A's will only have to pay about $1.1 million for the remainder of the season, as the Reds also sent $2.1 M in cash. But giving up a 21 year old second rounder is a pretty steep price for what will, essentially, be a two month rental. His 2018 salary is $10 million. I don't see the A's coughing up the kind of money he'll be looking for. Roark wasn't going to be a difference maker for the Brewers.

I agree completely. I know it's a rather long post, but if you go back and re-read the whole thing, you'll see I not only alluded to regular season performance being a part of a team's success, I awarded points to teams for division titles won.

Too long. Over two hours, for sure, including generating a spreadsheet to use in Excel. But it's not atypical for the kind of stuff I think about that's not readily available from BBR or Fangraphs. I enjoy it.

Good morning, Brewers fans. Last night, after the Brewers got blown out by the then last place Reds, I made a post to my Facebook page about the game, and alluded to Milwaukee's inability to sustain success as being my ultimate source of frustration as a Brewers fan. As I waited for responses from friends that still live in Wisconsin, and follow the team as religiously as I do, this thought crossed my mind: when was the last time the Brewers made back-to-back playoff appearances? Of course, I knew that answer right away: the 1981 and 1982 seasons. After losing the '82 Series to the Cardinals, it took 26 years for the Brewers to even get back to the post season again. While we have made three trips to the playoffs in the last eleven years, and this is clearly a step in the right direction, merely getting into the post season is not enough. Ultimately, the Brewers play to win the World Series, and the front office attempts to do this by maximizing their window for success: that means building a young, talented, and controllable team within the budgetary constraints established by ownership. Each post season appearance provides the Brewers another opportunity to win it all. This, obviously, is not a revelation. I then began looking outside of Milwaukee as a means of comparing how the Brewers have performed relative to the other (now) twenty-nine teams in the Major Leagues. Not only recently, but since the Brewers came to be as the Seattle Pilots expansion team in 1969. How have the Brewers, as a smaller market franchise, compared to teams with a similar profile, as well as the big market teams. I first decided to look at all the teams, and document their most recent run of consecutive years in the post season. Teams with the most recent occurrences of back-to-back post season appearances are listed first. If they have appeared in more than two consecutive seasons, I've indicated this, as well. If that particular franchise won the World Series in a listed season, I've bolded it in blue. If they won the American or National League pennant, I've bolded it in green. If they reached their respective League Championship Series, I've bolded it in red. Much of what I found was expected, but some things began to surprise me. Most recent consecutive post season appearances by franchise Los Angeles Dodgers (2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013) Chicago Cubs (2018, 2017, 2016, 2015) Boston Red Sox (2018, 2017, 2016) New York Yankees (2018, 2017) Cleveland Indians (2018, 2017, 2016) Houston Astros (2018, 2017) Colorado Rockies (2018, 2017) Washington Nationals (2017, 2016) New York Mets (2016, 2015) Toronto Blue Jays (2016, 2015) St. Louis Cardinals (2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011) Kansas City Royals (2015, 2014) Texas Rangers (2016, 2015) Pittsburgh Pirates (2015, 2014, 2013) Oakland A's (2014, 2013, 2012) Detroit Tigers (2014, 2013, 2012, 2011) Atlanta Braves (2013, 2012) Cincinnati Reds (2013, 2012) Philadelphia Phillies (2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007) Tampa Bay Rays (2011, 2010) Minnesota Twins (2010, 2009) Los Angeles Angels (2009, 2008, 2007) San Diego Padres (2006, 2005) San Francisco Giants (2003, 2002) Arizona Diamondbacks (2002, 2001) Seattle Mariners (2001, 2000) Baltimore Orioles (1997, 1996) Milwaukee Brewers (1982, 1981) Chicago White Sox (have never appeared in the playoffs in back-to-back seasons; won the World Series in 2005) Miami Marlins (have never appeared in the playoffs in back-to-back seasons; won the World Series in 1997 and 2003) Clearly, back-to-back playoff appearances are not the only indication of sustained success. For instance, while the Giants have not been in the playoffs for consecutive years since 2002 and 2003, they made it to the playoffs in 2010, 2012 and 2014, and won the World Series in all three years. But it's a good place to start, because while good teams can fall short of expected results for a myriad of reasons, reaching the post season indicates a successful campaign. Those strings of consecutive seasons likely indicate a strong core, and a front office that is able to deal with adversity. Though I have the White Sox and Marlins listed below the Brewers, as they have never appeared in the playoffs in back-to-back seasons, they have each recently won at least one World Series, Chicago winning in 2005, and Miami most recently in 2003. That raised another question for me: the Brewers last made it to the Series in 1982. What is each team's most recent Series appearance? I then compiled a list (bold blue indicating they won a World Championship in that year): Most recent World Series appearance Boston Red Sox, 2018 Los Angeles Dodgers, 2018 Houston Astros, 2017 Chicago Cubs, 2016 Cleveland Indians, 2016 Kansas City Royals, 2015 New York Mets, 2015 San Francisco Giants, 2014 St. Louis Cardinals, 2013 Detroit Tigers, 2012 Texas Rangers, 2011 New York Yankees, 2009 Philadelphia Phillies, 2009 Tampa Bay Rays, 2008 Colorado Rockies, 2007 Chicago White Sox, 2005 Miami Marlins, 2003 Los Angeles Angels, 2002 Arizona Diamondbacks, 2001 Atlanta Braves, 1999 San Diego Padres, 1998 Toronto Blue Jays, 1993 Minnesota Twins, 1991 Cincinnati Reds, 1990 Oakland A's, 1990 Baltimore Orioles, 1983 Milwaukee Brewers, 1982 Pittsburgh Pirates, 1979 Seattle Mariners have never appeared in the World Series Washington Nationals have never appeared in the World Series This got me thinking further. Should a team that makes the post season on a regular basis, but doesn't win the World Series, still be considered successful? Yes, I believe so, and I would assume most on our forum agree. Only one team can win the Series every year. A 162 game season is a marathon, and so much can go wrong to derail a team over the course of the season. Injuries can truly decimate a team's chance to win it all. But a team that consistently makes the post season should be considered as having a successful run. If they consistently go deep into the playoffs, even more so. This, I believe, is the truest measure of a team's success. Not just making the playoffs, not just winning the World Series (though that is clearly the main goal). Winning divisions, making the playoffs, and making deep runs in the post season-everything should be considered. Think about a team like the Atlanta Braves of the 1990s. The Braves franchise had fallen on hard times, with a combined record of 251-392 between 1987-1990 (.390). In 1991, the franchise turned it all around. From 1991 to 1999, they made the post season eight times in nine years (and they didn't make it in 1994 because the post season was cancelled by the strike). Their rotation featured three future Hall of Famers in Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz, and by 1995, their high powered offense featured future Hall of Famer Chipper Jones at third, and another likely Hall of Famer, Fred McGriff, held down first base. Over this nine year span, the Braves went 860-532, good for a whopping .618 winning percentage. On a 162 game basis, this means they averaged 100 wins a season for nearly a decade. They won only one World Series (in 1995, beating the Indians), but they won eight division titles, made it to the World Series five times, and the NLCS three other times. So, I decided to compare all the franchises in baseball since Milwaukee joined the Major Leagues in 1969 (as the Seattle Pilots, moving to Milwaukee for the 1970 season), and weighed the amount of success each team has had in this last half century. I devised a point scoring system: 10 points awarded for a World Series Championship 6 points awarded for an American or National League pennant (they made it to, and lost the World Series) 3 points awarded for an American or National League Championship Series appearance 1 point awarded for any other post season appearance This system is not perfect, of course, and some will argue that a team should get additional points for winning their division, as opposed to just securing a Wild Card spot. I would agree with this, and I will include this in my assessment at the next step. I've tried to award more points for more heavily-weighted accomplishments. Simply making the playoffs, while an achievement in and of itself, is not as hard as it once was. With the implementation of the Wild Card game, ten of the thirty teams in the Majors will reach the post season in 2019. Getting to the League Championship Series should represent an increased point total beyond just making the playoffs, as should winning the AL or NL pennant. Finally, winning the World Series is the ultimate prize, and should receive the highest point total. Note: A team is only rewarded at one level, per season; ie a team will not get 1 point for making the post season, and another 3 for making it to the ALCS or NLCS. Point totals by Major League team, 1969 to 2018. Team name, Total points (total playoff appearances), (WS wins (x10) + WS losses (x6)+ LCS appearances (x3) + other (x1)): New York Yankees, 118 points (25 appearances), (70 + 24 + 15 + 9) Oakland A's, 75 points (19 appearances), (40 + 12 + 15 + 8) St. Louis Cardinals, 75 points (16 appearances), (30 + 24 + 18 + 3) Los Angeles Dodgers, 74 points (19 appearances), (20 + 30 + 18 + 6) Boston Red Sox, 73 points (17 appearances), (40 + 12 + 15 + 6) Atlanta Braves, 61 points (20 appearances), (10 + 24 + 18 + 9) Baltimore Orioles, 55 points (12 appearances), (20 + 18 + 15 + 2) Philadelphia Phillies, 54 points (12 appearances), (20 + 18 + 12 + 4) Cincinnati Reds, 54 points (11 appearances), (30 + 12 + 9 + 3) San Francisco Giants, 52 points (11 appearances), (30 + 12 + 6 + 4) New York Mets, 48 points (9 appearances), (20 + 18 + 9 + 1) Kansas City Royals, 45 points (9 appearances), (20 + 12 + 12 + 1) Pittsburgh Pirates, 44 points (12 appearances), (20 + 0 + 21 + 3) Toronto Blue Jays, 35 points (7 appearances), (20 + 0 + 15 + 0) Detroit Tigers, 35 points (8 appearances), (10 + 12 + 12 + 1) Minnesota Twins, 35 points (11 appearances), (20 + 0 + 9 + 6) Houston Astros, 34 points (12 appearances), (10 + 6 + 12 + 6) Cleveland Indians, 30 points (11 appearances), (0 + 18 + 6 + 6) Los Angeles Angels, 29 points (10 appearances), (10 + 0 + 15 + 4) Chicago Cubs, 29 points (10 appearances), (10 + 0 + 15 + 4) Miami Marlins, 20 points (2 appearances), (20 + 0 + 0 + 0) Chicago White Sox, 18 points (5 appearances), (10 + 0 + 6 + 2) Texas Rangers, 18 points (8 appearances), (0 + 12 + 0 + 6) Arizona Diamondbacks, 17 points (6 appearances), (10 + 0 + 3 + 4) San Diego Padres, 15 points (5 appearances), (0 + 12 + 0 + 3) Milwaukee Brewers, 14 points (5 appearances), (0 + 6 + 6 + 2) Colorado Rockies, 10 points (5 appearances), (0 + 6 + 0 +4) Seattle Mariners, 10 points (4 appearances), (0 + 0 + 9 + 1) Tampa Bay Rays, 9 points (4 appearances), (0 + 6 + 0 + 3) Washington Nationals, 7 points (5 appearances), (0 + 0 + 3 + 4) Now, I am going to take an extra step, and award one additional point per division title won. Greatness in the regular season should count for something, agreed? If team A wins 100 games, and takes their division, and team B wins 89 games, and gets a wild card, at this point, each team has earned one point. But wouldn't winning a division typically represent a greater achievement? There are exceptions, of course. If the Yankees win 105 games, and the Red Sox win 100, and Boston's 100 wins is the second best win total in the American League, they are penalized for playing in a very strong division. I believe this phenomenon is somewhat rectified by the sheer strength of the team. A Red Sox team that wins 100 games will likely progress deeper into the playoffs than a division winner that only won 89 games. The team winning their division will now receive an additional point, slightly raising their overall rank. Total division titles, by team for the period 1969-2018 New York Yankees, 18 Los Angeles Dodgers, 17 Atlanta Braves 18 Oakland A's, 16 St. Louis Cardinals, 14 Cincinnati Reds, 12 Philadelphia Phillies, 11 Minnesota Twins, 10 Cleveland Indians, 10 Boston Red Sox, 10 Baltimore Orioles, 9 Los Angeles Angels, 9 Pittsburgh Pirates, 9 Houston Astros, 8 Texas Rangers, 8 San Francisco Giants, 8 Chicago Cubs, 7 Kansas City Royals, 7 Detroit Tigers, 7 New York Mets, 6 Toronto Blue Jays, 6 Chicago White Sox, 6 San Diego Padres, 5 Washington Nationals, 5 Arizona Diamondbacks, 5 Milwaukee Brewers, 4 Seattle Mariners, 3 Tampa Bay Rays, 2 Miami Marlins, 0 Colorado Rockies, 0 Next, I am making an adjustment for the 1994 season, which was ended by the strike. Teams that would have made the playoffs, were there any, will receive one additional point, each. There would have been three division winners, and one wild card. In the American League, the Yankees, White Sox and Rangers would have been division winners, and the Indians would have won the Wild Card spot. In the National League, the Reds, Expos and Dodgers would have won their divisions, with the Braves getting the Wild Card nod. +1 point New York Yankees Chicago White Sox Texas Rangers Cleveland Indians Cincinnati Reds Montreal Expos (Washington Nationals) Los Angeles Dodgers Atlanta Braves To total everything New York Yankees 137 (118 + 18 +1) Los Angeles Dodgers 92 (74 + 17 + 1) Oakland A's 91 (75 + 16) St. Louis Cardinals 89 (75+14) Boston Red Sox 83 (73 + 10) Atlanta Braves 80 (61 + 18 + 1) Cincinnati Reds 67 (54 + 12 + 1) Philadelphia Phillies 65 (54 + 11) Baltimore Orioles 64 (55 + 9) San Francisco Giants 60 (52 + 8) New York Mets 54 (48 + 6) Pittsburgh Pirates 53 (44 + 9) Kansas City Royals 52 (45 + 7) Minnesota Twins 45 (35 + 10) Detroit Tigers 42 (35 + 7) Houston Astros 42 (34 + 8) Toronto Blue Jays 41 (35 + 6) Cleveland Indians 41 (30 + 10 +1) Los Angeles Angels 38 (29 + 9) Chicago Cubs 36 (29 + 7) Texas Rangers 27 (18 + 8 + 1) Chicago White Sox 25 (18 + 6 +1) Arizona Diamondbacks 22 (17 + 5) Miami Marlins 20 (20) San Diego Padres 20 (15 + 5) Milwaukee Brewers 18 (14 + 4) Seattle Mariners 13 (10 + 3) Washington Nationals 13 (7 + 5 + 1) Tampa Bay Rays 11 (9 + 2) Colorado Rockies 10 (10) So, these point totals will show us which teams in the Major Leagues, from 1969 to 2018, have been the most successful. The Yankees are clearly still the class of baseball, even when their dynasty years of the DiMaggio and Mantle eras fall outside the period considered. However, one last adjustment needs to be made, because obviously, not every team in baseball has been around since 1969. So, I've taken the total points and divided it by the number of seasons each team has played from 1969 forward. This gives me an average yearly score: Yankees 137 / 50 = 2.74 Dodgers 92 / 50 = 1.84 A's 91 / 50 = 1.82 Cardinals 89 / 50 = 1.78 Red Sox 83 / 50 = 1.66 Atlanta Braves 80 / 50 = 1.60 Cincinnati Reds 67 / 50 = 1.34 Philadelphia Phillies 65 / 50 = 1.30 Baltimore Orioles 64 / 50 = 1.28 San Francisco Giants 60 / 50 = 1.20 New York Mets 54 / 50 = 1.08 Pittsburgh Pirates 53 / 50 = 1.06 Arizona Diamondbacks 22 / 21 = 1.05 Kansas City Royals 52 / 50 = 1.04 Toronto Blue Jays 41 / 42 = 0.98 Minnesota Twins 45 / 50 = 0.90 Detroit Tigers 42 / 50 = 0.84 Houston Astros 42 / 50 = 0.84 Cleveland Indians 41 / 50 = 0.82 Miami Marlins 20 / 26 = 0.77 Los Angeles Angels 38 / 50 = 0.76 Chicago Cubs 36 / 50 = 0.72 Texas Rangers 27 / 50 = 0.54 Tampa Bay Rays 11 / 21 = 0.52 Chicago White Sox 25 / 50 = 0.50 San Diego Padres 20 / 50 = 0.40 Colorado Rockies 10 / 26 = 0.38 Milwaukee Brewers 18 / 50 = 0.36 Seattle Mariners 13 / 42 = 0.31 Washington Nationals 13 / 50 = 0.26 As low as Milwaukee's average score is, if this analysis had been done just a year earlier, the Brewers would have challenged the Nationals for the lowest score; 14 points over 49 years would have given them a .2857 score, with the Nationals at .2653. My frustration comes from the knowledge that, even in the past eleven years, whenever the Brewers have made the playoffs, the next season represented a substantial step backwards. In 2008, Milwaukee went 90-72. In 2009, they fell to 80-82, missing the playoffs. In 2011, Milwaukee went 96-66. In 2012, they fell to 83-79, missing the playoffs. In 2018, Milwaukee went 96-67. So far, the Brewers are 53-50. We are currently 1.5 games back of the wild card. While I believe the Brewers are still trending up with the Craig Counsell era-in his fourth season, the Brewers are 308-281 (.523) overall, and 235-192 over the past three seasons (.550)-I am hoping that we are able to achieve sustained success in the form of multiple deep playoff runs in the next few years. Is this ownership and front office the group to get it done? Time will tell.

This is the team's 50th season, going back to the Pilots. We have appeared in a grand total of one World Series, and that was 37 years ago. So, while the 7th most wins in the last 2.5 years of baseball might make for fun talk at the sports bar, it means squat in the overall context of baseball success. We've had no measurable success. None. Even when we've made it to the playoffs, the next year, we've missed them entirely. 90 wins in 2008, our first playoff appearance since 1982? The next year, we're below .500 at 80-82. Yay, Brewers! 2011 comes along, and we're 96-66. We make it to the NLCS, and lose to the Cardinals. The next season? We're a couple games above .500 at 84-78. No playoffs. Last year, a game from the World Series, and a 96-67 record. This year? Time will tell, but given the massive implosion of our bullpen, and the front office's refusal to supplement our pitching staff with....anybody....I'm not holding my breath. We're 53-49, and we just lost our ace for the next month and a half. Our manager is continually pissing games away, of late, with boneheaded decisions. And there's nobody to hold his feet to the fire. Fans keep coming. The owners keep making money. But we should be thankful for getting to the playoffs a few times, right? If this team is ever going to have it, and by that I mean winning a World Championship, or (gasp) two, there needs to be some real accountability, from ownership, on down. That includes the media asking tough questions. Afraid of "losing access"? Tough crap. When one group of journalists gets booted by the organization for asking the tough questions, the next group in should ask the same tough questions. If they get booted, as well, Brewers ownership will finally realize that they're either going to have to face the music, or they'll lose coverage completely. If Tom and the gang continue to acquiesce to the whims of Counsell and upper management, this team will never be a winner.

I, too, am growing beyond frustrated with the way our media interacts with Counsell. And I voiced my displeasure to Tom. A journalist's job is to ask the tough questions, not to toe a company line. Right now, all we have are a bunch of lackeys. If the Brewers ever want to truly become winners, there needs to be some accountability. This would never fly in New York.

So, you're saying I should pick him up on my fantasy team?

I was spitballing when I suggested that Aaron might have been left off a ballot or two due to racism, based on knowledge of the hate mail Aaron received when he was about to pass Ruth. It seemed plausible that one or two voters might shun him, at least on the first ballot, for reasons beyond his worthiness. Honest question, do you have something to back this, ie statements from voters in 1982 to that effect? I can understand that thinking, and I'm not doubting you. I'd just believe that would make for fascinating reading. That being said, it still seems weird to me. If I'm given the responsibility to vote for players for the Hall of Fame, I'm not considering how other guys might vote. If a player is worthy of induction, he's going to be on the ballot long enough to get in. The threshold to remain on the ballot-5% is so low, that if you don't make that, you really shouldn't be on the next ballot. What's the rationale for not casting a ballot for Hank Aaron? "I'm going to give that spot to a player that is not as deserving, just to make sure he gets on the ballot again next year?" That seems a tad incongruous, to me. I would simply choose the ten men I felt were most deserving. And there's no guarantee that I'd even select ten guys. But there's no way I could leave Hank Aaron off my ballot, if I had a vote back then.

Oh, I have no problem with Jeter. I respect him tremendously. And now that he's retired, and I have had the chance to look at his entire career, on the field, and off-how he carried himself, and continues to represent the Yankees franchise with class-I can honestly say I love the guy. I wish like hell he'd been a Brewer. In fact, I've got one of his McFarlane figures on top of my movie collection. It's one of the first things I see every day, right next to a Gretzky and Peyton Manning. And he's a worthy first ballot guy. I'm not meaning to imply anything negative about him. But I just want some sanity to be restored in baseball. There's a difference between being a clear cut first ballot Hall of Famer, and getting in on 100% of the ballot. He is a great. He had a fantastic team around him, and the Yankees won those rings during Jeter's time as a team. But there's no denying that he thrived, playing a huge role in their winning. He played at a very high level in New York, as a friggin' Yankee. Yankees fans demand a level of excellence. A lot of other guys might have wilted in that spotlight. Jeter was unphased. But I just can't put him in that very top tier of players. Is he on par with guys like Willie Mays, Ken Griffey Jr, or Mike Schmidt? Guys that were absolutely dominant both offensively and defensively? No.

Homer alert. I think this Brewers lineup is tantalizingly close to absolutely exploding. How delicious would it be to host the Cubbies for three games next week at Miller Park, and spank them six ways from Sunday? One thing continues to flummox me, however. And that is Craig Counsell's continued insistence on starting Tyler Saladino. His 2019 stat line might just be the worst I've ever seen. 21 games played 53 at bats 3 runs scored 4 hits 0 doubles 0 triples 0 home runs 0 RBI 1 walk 23 strikeouts .102 AVG Slash line of .120 OBP/.102 SLG/.222 OPS. And he was batting seventh tonight! Typing that out gave me a nervous twitch. Why for the love of God are we giving our opponents a free out? We could dig up Honus Wagner, stick him at short, and he'd be more productive than Saladino.

Harold Baines being in is a joke. 38.7 WAR. Are you kidding me? Nice ballplayer, but nowhere near Cooperstown worthy, imo. Whoever is on the "Today's era" committee should be removed. Baines topped out at 6.1% of the vote when it was in the hands of the BBWAA. Never a truly elite player. Finished ninth in the MVP once, tenth another time. This re-opens Pandora's Box. Braun, for comparative purposes, is at 47.3 bWAR coming into tonight. There's been no bigger Ryan Braun fan than I, but he's not Cooperstown-worthy right now. He'd need a late career resurgence to even be in the discussion, imho; and then, there's the steroids issue, and that cringe-worthy presser. But his resume absolutely blows Baines' out of the water. Braun won an MVP, was second and third in the vote in two other seasons. Five Silver Sluggers. Baines has the counting stats, and I get that a long, steady career is a feat in and of itself. But come on. I guess I'm funny. I think the Hall of Fame should be reserved for the true legends of the game. Ruth and Gehrig. Cobb, WaJo, Grove, Young, Dimaggio and Williams, Gibson, Aaron, Mantle, Mays and Clemente. Those guys. Ever since the Veteran's Committee let Chick Haffey in (thanks, in no small part to his buddy Frankie Frisch), the Hall has lost a lot of its credibility. I completely agree with you. Mariano Rivera is a no doubt hall of famer. But in the grand ole history of baseball the only player to get 100% of the vote is a relief pitcher. Come on If you were on your little league field and you had to pick your teams with all the hall of famers this years class would be the last guys picked Rivera is definitely Hall-worthy. If there were any argument to be made that he's not the greatest closer in history (I'm not saying that), it's inarguable that he'd still be one of the top two or three. When you're one of the best couple of players to ever play your position, you should be in. But I agree that his getting in on 100% of the vote is absurd. A Milwaukee baseball homer I may be, but if a guy like Hank Aaron, who broke Ruth's home run record, ending with 755 bombs in his career didn't get in on 100% of the vote, who should? You take away every home run Aaron ever hit, and he still has 3,016 hits! And that's a gross oversimplification of his greatness. You can make the argument that racism played a part with at least one or two of the voters that excluded him from their ballots (what rational argument can be made against his induction on the first try?) Ted Williams? The press hated him because he was oft a malcontent. Cobb? He was a bastard (though his character flaws were grossly overstated) Babe Ruth? Anti-Yankee bias? So, what's the argument against Stan Musial? One of the most likable guys to ever play the game. Fantastic player. Generational hitter. And he got left off of 23 freaking ballots!! WAR considers a score of 8+ to be MVP caliber. Musial had eight MVP caliber seasons. And after he retired, he was as great a goodwill ambassador as baseball's ever had. If I had a kid, and Musial were alive, I'd have let him babysit for me, and not blink an eye. He was baseball's Bart Starr. Nobody has ever said an unkind word about the man. I just don't get it. And please don't get me started on Derek Jeter, because you just know he's going to be very close to 100%. I love Jeter's intensity. Played the game the right way. Incredible hitter, but vastly overrated defensively. He should be in the Hall, no doubt, but the narrative from Yankee fans will be that Jeter is an immortal-he's not. Not even close. He's not on the same level of Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio or Mantle. He's just not.

Harold Baines being in is a joke. 38.7 WAR. Are you kidding me? Nice ballplayer, but nowhere near Cooperstown worthy, imo. Whoever is on the "Today's era" committee should be removed. Baines topped out at 6.1% of the vote when it was in the hands of the BBWAA. Never a truly elite player. Finished ninth in the MVP once, tenth another time. This re-opens Pandora's Box. Braun, for comparative purposes, is at 47.3 bWAR coming into tonight. There's been no bigger Ryan Braun fan than I, but he's not Cooperstown-worthy right now. He'd need a late career resurgence to even be in the discussion, imho; and then, there's the steroids issue, and that cringe-worthy presser. But his resume absolutely blows Baines' out of the water. Braun won an MVP, was second and third in the vote in two other seasons. Five Silver Sluggers. Baines has the counting stats, and I get that a long, steady career is a feat in and of itself. But come on. I guess I'm funny. I think the Hall of Fame should be reserved for the true legends of the game. Ruth and Gehrig. Cobb, WaJo, Grove, Young, Dimaggio and Williams, Gibson, Aaron, Mantle, Mays and Clemente. Those guys. Ever since the Veteran's Committee let Chick Haffey in (thanks, in no small part to his buddy Frankie Frisch), the Hall has lost a lot of its credibility.

So, here's something I've been thinking about. I'm going to research it tonight. Has any player in the modern era ever led the league in AVG, HR, RBI....and SB? The last NL player to even win the Triple Crown was Ducky Medwick, all the way back in 1937. So, if it's happened, it's likely been in the AL. The only player I know for a fact that's done it was Ty Cobb. But that was back in 1909, and he led the league with 9 home runs. How screwy is this season where Yelich could win the Triple Crown, and lead the league in SB, and not win the MVP? I'd put that right up there with Teddy Ballgame hitting .406, and now winning the MVP in '41. DiMaggio was great, especially during his streak, but Williams got walked 147 times, and still led the league with 37 home runs.

Off the top of my head, the only guy I can think of is Pudge Rodriguez. The Tigers experimented with it, albeit briefly, in 2007 and '08. It got some weird coverage down here in Texas. After he left the Rangers, the media had this weird fixation with him. Piazza never did it. Buster Posey has never done it, either. It's a real rarity. Interesting...also are you living in Texas as well? Nice to see another Texas Cheesehead! Yes, living in Flower Mound. Right next to a Chicago native who's a huge Cubs fan. Flies a big W flag just off his garage, too. Cheeseheads are legion. We're everywhere.

Off the top of my head, the only guy I can think of is Pudge Rodriguez. The Tigers experimented with it, albeit briefly, in 2007 and '08. It got some weird coverage down here in Texas. After he left the Rangers, the media had this weird fixation with him. Piazza never did it. Buster Posey has never done it, either. It's a real rarity.

Arcia hitting? How the hell did that happen? Did Counsell fall asleep? Edit: And he walked? What alternate universe am I in?

It seems like just yesterday that Zack Greinke was in a Brewers uniform. But, it's been seven years, now, since he left Milwaukee. Holy hell, I'm getting old. He's in a real good position to make it into Cooperstown. The guy just wins. He needs three more victories for 200, and he's at 2,558 Ks after tonight. Dude can flat rake (for a pitcher), and he's won the last five National League pitcher Gold Gloves. Fangraphs has his career WAR at 58.3. BBR at 69.4. That's an impressive resume, overall.

Ok, that's the third time you'e posted essentially the same thing. We get it.

Braun's OPS very quietly on the rise. Up to .808 now.

Come on, Brauny. Crush one.

What the hell was that?

Can someone please explain to me in PM how to ignore users, if I choose to? I see "add friend" or "add foe" options. Is designating a user a foe equivalent to ignoring them? Thank you.