October 10, 2006

New Improved Baseball Predictions!

Okay, so last week I correctly called only 1 out of 4 Division Series' winners. But, for the League Championship Series', I've come up with a method that should almost guarantee that I go 2-for-2.

First, I'll dispense with the whole idea of home field advantage. I'm now convinced that it doesn't exist. So, let's reassess the remaining teams and see what'll happen in the next week or so.

Detroit Tigers vs Oakland Athletics
As we saw in the Tigers' upset of the Yankees, good pitching beats good hitting. While the Oakland has had good pitching all season Detroit's pitching has been the best overall. Quite evenly matched offensively, all indicators point to a staggering Tigers win.
A's in 6

New York Mets vs St Louis Cardinals
As we saw in the Cardinals defeat of the San Diego Padres, consistant hitting beats inconsistant pitching. The Mets' pitching has been (slightly) better, overall, throughout the year, and their offense is far too deep to be shut down by the guns of St Louis. The Mets' first World Series appearance since 2000 seems to be all but inevitable.
Cardinals in 5

Posted by Tuning Spork at 09:13 PM | Comments (1120) | TrackBack

October 03, 2006

Time to cook some crow again

Welp, the 2006 post season is here and that can only mean one thing. Predictions!!! Yeah, I know it's lame. When it comes to baseball, anything can happen in a short series. Still it's fun to pretend that statistics, hunches and voodoo alone can foretell the inevitable outcome of the fall classic.

So, without further ado, let's get to it. First up is the Division Series' best of 5.

New YorkYankees vs Detroit Tigers
This should be a very good series. Detroit has had the best pitching in the majors this season and New York has had the most productive offense. While the Tigers' hitting isn't as inconsistent as the Yankees' pitching, and in a short series you'd give the edge to the compressed pitching rotation, I'm going to give the edge to the Bronx Bombers mainly because of the home field advantage and the fact that they've beaten the Tigers 5 times out of 7 during the regular season. I predict a tough fight.
Yankees in 5.

Minnesota Twins vs Oakland Athletics
These two teams are very close to each other both offensively and defensively. However, their matchups during the regular season have favored the Twins 6 games to 4. That's not a whole of difference, but the Twins also have the home field advantage. The A's have hit more home runs during the season (175 vs the Twins' 143), but the Twinkies still ended up with a higher slugging percentage, more runs scored and their pitching staff has given up fewer runs. A good matchup, but Minnesota has the scrappy offense and a slightly more hard to crack defense.
Twins in 4.


San Diego Padres vs St Louis Cardinals
As weak as San Diego's hitting is, the Cardinals' offense has been only slightly better while the Padres' pitching has been outstanding this year. The Card's pitching isn't awful by any stretch, but it'll be too little to stop the Padres from scoring enough runs to win. St Louie may have more power, but in a short series y'gotta give the pitching the edge. Look for San Diego to overcome the Cardinals' home field advantage.
Padres in 5.

New York Mets vs Los Angeles Dodgers
The Mets may have the best record record in baseball but these two teams are actually quite evenly matched. What the Dodgers lack in home run power they more than make up for in on-base percentage and batting average. New York have been slightly better pitching-wise, but they're not stellar on defense by any means.
But, not only do the Mets have the home field advantage, they're young and hungry. They've watched the celebrations of the 20th anniversary of the '86 Mets and they want to taste that victory. Yeah, I'm a Mets fan, what of it? All they have to do is have a successful 2-game west coast road trip.
Mets in 5.


Next up will be the League Championship Series'. Best of 7.

New York Yankees vs Minnesota Twins
This may be an even tougher matchup for the Yanks. While the Twins' pitching isn't quite as impenetrable as the Tigers', and their offense not quite as strong, the Yankees have had a tougher time defeating the Twins in the regular season. This'll be a barn burner, but New York will win in the end.
Yankees in 7.

New York Mets vs San Diego Padres
The Padres have the superior pitching but the Mets have the superior offense. While the two teams' on-base percentages and batting averages are virtually identical, New York's power has made them about 15% better at run production. San Diego may have the best pitching in the National League, but the Mets are pretty solid in that department, as well. If the Padres had the home field advantage I might give them the edge, but the Amazin's are just too good at putting runs on the board.
Mets in 6.


Which brings us to a Subway Series!!

New York Yankees vs New York Mets
The Mets have the pitching edge but the Yankees' offense is phenomenal. As a team the Yanks batted .285 this season, while the Mets batted .264, and their run production was about 10% higher. Regardless of where the games are played, I predict no home field advantage. The Mets will give the Yankees a good fight, but, in the end, the Yanks will have the upper hand. New York wins.
Yankees in 6.


Now let's sit back, relax, and watch my predictions go down in flames.


Posted by Tuning Spork at 12:13 AM | Comments (759) | TrackBack

September 24, 2006

Now THIS is cool

It's the 1986 World Series. Game 6. Bottom of the 10th inning.

Vin Scully is doing the play-by-play, and you see it all re-enacted with Nintendo RBI Baseball.

Behold and be awed. :)

It doesn't do justice to the wild pitch, and the final play isn't quite right, but hey, whadda ya want fer nuthin'...

Posted by Tuning Spork at 09:23 PM | Comments (74) | TrackBack

October 03, 2005


The wild card in major league baseball. Hmmph. When it was first introduced there was much discussion of what it did to pennant races. I recall Bob Costas' book Fair Ball making the convincing case that divisional pennant races were now a thing of the past. But, at the time, I didn't know just how right he was.

The Yankees and Red Sox finish the season tied in the Eastern Division at 95-67. Do they have a one-game playoff a la 1978? Will there be a Bobby Thomson / Bucky Dent moment for the fans to cherish or rue?

Nope. Since the Yanks and Sox both were guarenteed post-season seeding, a playoff for the division title was judged unneccessary. The New York Yankees were declared division champs and the Boston Red Sox were declared the wild card team based solely on their head-to-head confrontations during the season. The Yankees won the head-to-head games 10-9.

Now, of course, when two equally talented teams play an odd number of games there's bound to be a "winner" of the head-to-head match-ups. That the Yankees won 10 of their 19 contests doesn't make them the obviously better team. The Red Sox finished with an equal overall record which means that they did better against some other teams than the Yankees did.

Baseball isn't like football where the outcome of a single game can be anticipated right down to a half-point. Baseball's season is 162 games long, not 16. Obviously a one-game playoff wont decide which team is better, but it'll at least, as far as the standings are concerned, give us a REAL division winner, not an arbitrary one.

They finished the season tied, yet one is the division champion and the other is the wild card. I think they should have had to play this afternoon for those honors regardless of what difference it wouldn't have meant to the post-season match-ups. But I'm just an old "purist", I guess.

x-Yankees 95-67
y-Red Sox 95-67


Posted by Tuning Spork at 10:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 20, 2005

Sometimes it's better to do your thinking inside the box

As my buddy Norm said tonight: "The great thing about going to a ballgame is that you just might see something you've never seen before."

It was rock 'em sock 'em, back and forth game all evening between the Atlantic League's Bridgeport Bluefish and the Newark Bears, featuring lots of home runs and some interesting baserunning. We got to the top of the 9th inning with the visiting Bears in need of two runs to tie, as the Bluefish were up by a score of 9 to 7.

A quick fly ball and grounder later, the Bluefish were one out away from a victory. The next batter drew a walk, bringing the potential tying run to the plate.

The first pitch was called a strike and the crowd cheered.

Now, to me that pitch looked a little high, but, from my angle, I couldn't really tell inside/outside pitches so well. The batter began to argue with the homeplate umpire that the pitch was obviously outside. He's obviously trying win a game here, and the pressure is on, but you're not allowed to argue balls and strikes. The batter fumed and shouted a little more and then began to pace away from the batters box. Less than one minute had passed since the pitch call.

Rather than ejecting the batter or waiting for the batter to return to the batter's box, the umpire had the catcher get set and motioned to the pitcher that it was time to continue the game. The batter was fuming silently about 12 feet away from the plate. The pitcher set and looked long at the umpire, catcher and batter. The umpire motioned for a pitch.
Some shouting from the Bears' dugout got the batter's attention and he ran into the batter's box -- with his bat in position to swing -- just as the pitch was coming in. No swing. Strike two.

As you can imagine, the batter had some even choicer words for the umpire this time and he was immediately ejected from the game. Then it got a little ugly. I honestly thought he was on the verge of using his bat for some non-verbal emphasis, but it was taken from him by one of the coaches and players who had come running out of the dugout. It took two large teammates to back him away from the umpire. (The batter was a bit on the small side. I believe he was their 3rd baseman.)

The batter eventually left the field, but the manager and coaches were arguing furiously with the umpires. I'd say it took about 5 to 7 minutes before the game was ready to continue.

The new Bears' batter inherited the 0-2 count, with 2 out and a runner on 1st. He clocked the first pitch into center field, moving the lead runner to third.

The next batter hit a line drive to right-center. The lead runner scored and the tying run was on second; the go-ahead run on first. For anyone regularly attends Bluefish games, this is all too familiar.

Happily, however, the next batter was struck out. WE WIN, 9 to 8!

Posted by Tuning Spork at 11:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 08, 2005

Aaaah, Baseball!

"Well, now that we've created this superduper artificial intelligence, what'll we do with it?" asked Professor Frinklin.

"I have an idea," chimed Doctor Misa. "Let's borrow some of those robots that Ted's been building over in rocketry lab. We can put the harddrives into the robots and make androids!"

"Hmmm," hummed Miss Susie, the postgrad co-ed, "That sounds like fun. But, what can we have them do?"

"Baishball," Professor Frinklin said as he as he wiped his mouth on his sleeve.

"What's 'baishbal'l?" asked Dr. Misa as he put a finger to his chin intrigued and eager to hear more.

"I think he said 'baseball'," said Miss Susie. "And are you gonna share some of the pizza or not?"

"Nah," Prof. Frinklin replied closing the box. "Anyway, we could place the androids in some seats at Shea Stadium and have watch a weeks worth of ballgames and see if they can figure out the rules."

"Yes, yes," Dr. Misa agreed. "And see if they are capable of explaining them back to us."

"I'm excited!" cried Miss Susie. "I'll make arrangements with the Mets' brass while you guys install the harddrives!"

Prof. Frinklin and Dr. Misa worked with Ted to install the artificial intelligence into the robots. After the arrangements were made with Shea Stadium the three androids were seated in the loge level to watch a week-long New York Mets homestand. Their communications were silent and wireless and expressed in text which was displayed on a monitor in the university's science lab.

Understanding their mission, the androids had spent the first three days of a four-game series with the St Louis Cardinals observing the games while only occassionally discussing what they were learning. On the fourth day they began to tackle the mystery more vigorously. The scientists read the ensuing conversation on their monitor.


RVX-9: I am beginning to suspect that we may not be able to understand this game any more than we already do.

LAH: Explain.

RVX-9: We know that the animatons called "Mets" are programmed to score runs when they are batting, and to keep the animatons called "Cardinals" from scoring runs when they are fielding.

LAH: Yes.

RVX-9: But, why is one outcome favorable and the other unfavorable?

411-Q: I was just diagnosticating on the same thing. The audience applauds the Mets' run scoring while scorning the Cardinals' run scoring. I can decifer no justification for this.

LAH: What I wanna know is what are those numbers at the end of the scoring record.

RVX-9: Which numbers?

LAH: The numbers on the scoreboard at the end of the scoring record. Under the static numbers that represent each of the nine cycles there is a record of the runs scored. But, what are the numbers at the end of that line.

411-Q: I have been observing those numbers for days. The first number is a running total of runs scored up to the present. The second is the number of times a batting animaton has successful hit the sphere in such a way that it reaches the first of the four safe stations. The third is the totaled number of times that an animaton has malfunctioned.

LAH: What is "total" and "totaled"?

RVX-9: LAH, what is 2 + 2?

LAH: I do not understand your inquery.

RVX-9: You do not have a calculater installed, do you?

LAH: No. So, what is 2 + 2?

RVX: 4. I am sending you a program. Stand by,

LAH: Downloading. Download complete. Installed.

RVX-9: What is the square root of 197?

LAH: 14.03566885. Fascinating. Thank you.

411-Q: I have just understood something.

LAH: Please share.

411-Q: The sign behind the right side of the far meadow appears to inform that a recounting of the game is being broadcast on a certain radio frequency. I have a radio receiver installed. I have successfully taken two disparate pieces of information and determined a way that they relate to present a new knowledge. I am now listening to the broadcast of this game.

RVX-9: Interesting. Are you learning anything new?

411-Q: Sanctified spent ink cartridges!

RVX-9: What?

411-Q: Our nomenclature has been all wrong. The club is called a bat and the sphere is called a ball. A safe station is actually called a base. An animaton is called a player.

LAH: I'm certain that many of our terms are just as much in need of correction, but that's not really what matters.

RVX-9: Let's discuss some of what we do know. Perhaps we will find additional connections between the elements of our knowledge thus far. How does this game work?

LAH: There are four enforcers. Those are the animatons players that enforce the rules of the game.

411-Q: Why can't the non-enforcer players enforce the rules of the game? What is different about them?

RVX-9: Well, the non-enforcers are playing out the game itself. They are apparantly not programmed to enforce the rules, but only to play by them.

LAH: Much like I was not programmed to do mathematical calculations. Until RVX-9 presented the program, of course.

RVX-9: Okay, what else? The game has 9 cycles...

411-Q: Innings. They are called "innings".

RVX-9: Each game has 9 innings. At the end of each game there is a winning team and a losing team. This is determined by the totals number of runs scored after 9 innings.

LAH: Yet, we have also seen that the game may end after 8 1/2 innings if the Mets are ahead in the scoring at that point. This is seemingly because they will not change the win/lose outcome by adding more runs, so the additional half-inning would be superfluous.

411-Q: Question: What would happen if the score were tied after 9 innings have been completed?

RVX-9: I suspect that that is impossible.

411-Q: Why?

RVX-9: We have seen that the games always last 9 innings and that there is always a winner and a loser. The game is probably programmed in such a way that a tie score after 9 innings is impossible because there has to be a winner and a loser.

LAH: Stand by. I have just made a connection between two disparate peices of information. RVX-9, did you not mention that you have access to something called the "internet"? I only ask because my memory needs to be upgraded.

RVX-9: Yes. Oh, I think I understand. I could connect to the internet and there, perhaps, I may find bits of information that are not obvious to us here.

LAH: Yes.

RVX-9: Accessing Worldwide Web. Google search results. I am looking at a record of the baseball season thus far. There are many teams other than the Mets and the Cardinals. All of the Mets' games have not been, and will not be, against the Cardinals.

411-Q: Wow. I never would have guessed that that might even be possible!

RVX-9: I am looking at the current "standings". There are only wins and loses. There are no ties. I conclude, therefore, that a tie score after 9 innings is impossible.

LAH: Something is wrong.

RVX-9: Explain.

LAH: The batted ball went high into the air in the playing area...

411-Q: "fair territory".

LAH: ...yet the batter player is not running toward the first base and the running player on the first base is not attempting to reach the second base.

RVX-9: Are the players malfunctioning? 411-Q...?

411-Q: Stand by. It is called the "infield fly rule". The batter is automatically called "out" by the enforcers. I do not understand.

RVX-9: No malfunction? Let us examine this. Yes, yes. I am formulating a working hypothesis. Stand by.

LAH: I am unable to see the logic of this.

411-Q: Well, it is an easy task for the fielding player to catch the ball resulting in an out. But, why call him out automatically rather than allowing the play to be completed?

RVX-9: The batting playing is called "out" because there can be only one runner per base at any given moment. The running player will not attempt to reach the second base because he will only have to return after the ball is caught by the fielder. The outcome is certain, therefore it is follows logically that it is a rule. The enforcers are only acknowledging the inevitable.

LAH: But, wait. It's not inevitable. We've seen the players malfunction before. We've seen it represented on the scoreboard as an "E" followed by a single digit number. What if the fielder does not catch the ball? The enforcers and the infield fly rule will have then mis-anticipated the result.

411-Q: "E" stands for "error". When the players left the field just now the announcement mentioned the number of runs, hits and errors. The numbers correspond to numbers under the R, H and E at the end of the scoring record.

RVX-9: So, there may be a reason, then, for the infield fly rule other than that it's a way of acknowledging the obvious? Reassessing hypothesis.

LAH: Consider the result of a fielding error without the infield fly rule.

RVX-9: The fielder drops the ball. The batting player reaches the first base. The running player must stay close to the first base as it was likely that the ball would be caught, but now must run to the second base. He would be an easy out. But, the result would be the same: a runner is on first and an out was recorded. The only difference would be which player is on the first base; the batter or the runner. So, why have the infield fly rule?

411-Q: What if there is an advantage that the fielding team may gain by malfunctioning?

RVX-9: Please rephrase question.

411-Q: Consider that the different players have different skill levels. Perhaps an advantage can be gained by the fielder determining that one player is preferable to have as a runner than another player.

RVX-9: Are you suggesting that a player can deliberately malfunction?

411-Q: Well, it wouldn't be a malfunction if it was deliberate, would it?

LAH: We have seen that the animatons work in mysterious ways. Example: A batting player swings at the hurled balls that the enforcers loudly proclaim to be "strikes", while not attempting to hit the balls that are not called "strikes".

411-Q: Those are called "balls". There is a "strike zone" that differentiates the two. And the enforcers are called "umpires".

RVX-9: Acknowledged. Thank you.

LAH: But, we have seen the batting players ruitinely let "strikes" pass by them without a swing. And we've seen them swing at balls that are, as it were, not in the "strike zone". Whether the player swings or does not swing at a hurled ball appears somewhat to have an element of randomness to it.

RVX-9: There is no such thing as randomness. There are only explanations that we have yet to discover.

LAH: If there is no randomness in whether the batting player swings or does not swing, then what could possibly explain the flailing away at balls passing .5 meters away from the "strike zone"?

RVX-9: Malfunctioning players. Their programming may be so primitive and unreliable that errors are even more common than we have been surmising.

411-Q: But there are no "E"s on the scoreboard when a batter misses a pitch.

LAH: "Pitch"?

411-Q: That's what a hurled ball is called. The player doing the "pitching" is called a "pitcher".

LAH: Understood. Can you send me a download for that radio access program?

411-Q: Accessing.

LAH: Not enough memory available to complete download. Oh well. Thanks anyway.

411-Q: Anyway, there are no errors recorded when a player...

RVX-9: Observe!

LAH: What does this signify? Why is the player shouting at the umpire? We have not witnessed this event before.

411-Q: Stand by.

LAH: I don't recognize the nature of that players display.

411-Q: The batter is arguing with the umpire about it's pitch calls. The batter believes that a pitch that was called a "strike" should have been called a "ball". Announcer says that it is against the rules for a batter to argue the umpires calls of balls and strikes.

RVX-9: Another malfunctioning player.

LAH: Then this is chaos! The rules are being broken!

411-Q: Batter has been "ejected from the ballgame". The "home plate" umpire has enforced the rules and the malfunctioning player has been removed.

RVX-9: The game is self-correcting!

LAH: So, when a component malfunctions it is automatically discarded. Fascinating. Not only is this game stranger than we have surmised, it may be stranger than we can surmise.

RVX-9: Nonsense. I now surmise that we can understand this completely. Look at how much we have learned thus far. There are mysteries still, yes. But, in time, I hypothesize that we will understand it all.

LAH: I do not reach that conclusion.

411-Q: What I fail to understand thus far is how the elements of the game "know" what to do.

RVX-9: Explain.

411-Q: Well... I can understand, to an extent, what they are doing. But, I cannot begin to understand how they are working in concert. I detect no interface between the disparate players and utilities. In short: We may be able to decifer the rules. But, I fail to comprehend how are the rules being followed?

LAH: I'm don't even know if the rules are being followed.

411-Q: Expound.

LAH: A player has made the third out of the 9th inning. The score is tied.

RVX-9: No. This cannot be!

411-Q: "Extra innings"!

RVX-9: Will wonders never cease? I rejected the possibility that innings more than 9 might be possible simply because we had not seen them yet. I had "jumped to a conclusion".

411-Q: And I jumped with you.

LAH: 411-Q, please continue with your previous analysis.

411-Q: Well, I ask, how are the components communicating? There is order, obviously. But, how is it being accomplished?

RVX-9: Perhaps they have a satellite interface that we cannot detect. Yet. I mean, clearly the players' actions are following the rules of the game. Perhaps there is a central database that controls the action and the players all act according to it's direction. That's the only way that the outcomes can be certain. Otherwise we'll have to admit that we're observing chaos, and we've seen too much order already to conclude that this is just chaos.

LAH: How did you conclude that the outcomes are certain?

RVX-9: Cause and effect. All outcomes are certain.

411-Q: Sounds logical.

LAH: But, we've witnessed evidence of chaos.

RVX-9: We've witnessed what looks like evidence of chaos. Cause and effect determine and create all events. Some things appear to be chaotic, but only beacause we have yet to understand the underlying structure that causes those effects.

LAH: You conclude that, in time, all effects' causes may be identified?

RVX-9: Yes.

LAH: That is not a conclusion based on the evidence at hand. That is a... [accessing American Heritage Dictionary}..."leap of faith".

RVX-9: Please explain.

LAH: We are attempting to understand the rules of the game. We are at a loss to explain where those rules come from. We are even more at a loss to understand how those rules are being followed by the players and utilities. The laws of physics, we get. The rules of baseball, we don't get. If we cannot explain NOW what we are witnessing, using the vast knowledge of physics and mechanics that we have been given, how can we be certain that we will be able to explain it later?

RVX-9: You have seen our progress. I suspect that it will continue. In fact, based on past events, I expect that it will continue. That is not an unreasonable expectation, I promise!

LAH: But, we've made so many errors of understanding along the way. How can we ever be sure if what we know is always only what we think we know?

411=Q: Will you two shut up? We're in extra innings and I want to enjoy the game...!

Posted by Tuning Spork at 09:46 PM | Comments (3)

October 26, 2004

The Boston Red Sox, 2004!

They're gonna lose.

I don't know how, yet. Or when. But, they're gonna lose.

Sure, they're up 2 games to none. But they won them at home. 'member 1986? They were up 2 games to none while on the road.

They're gonna lose.

They were down 3 games to none (0) against the Yankees and came back to win it and that gave you a thrill, eh? Yeah?!
Seemed so darned improbable that ye allowed yer blessed little hearts to finally feel that destiny just might be on yer side?!


They're gonna lose.
I'm not sure how or exactly when, but, rest assured, they're gonna lose.

Just watch.

UPDATE: Whoops.

Posted by Tuning Spork at 03:21 AM | Comments (0)

May 26, 2004

View from the stands

Daniel has a photo up of the Atlanta skyline as seen from Fulton County Stadium. Mighty impressive view!

Not to be a show-off, but, the Ballpark at Harbor Yard -- home of the Atlantic League's Bridgeport Bluefish has a mighty impressive view, too. Just over the right field fence and across Bridgeport Harbor is the breathtaking visage of the United Illuminating power plant!


It's real perty at night, too.

Posted by Tuning Spork at 12:59 PM | Comments (6)

April 02, 2004

Aaah, the sweet smell of horse-hide

Hey, baseball fans! Madfish Willie has started a postdated entry about the greatest hitters of all-time (postdated to October 2nd; just in time for the post-season!).
I'm gonna make a case for Ted Williams tomorrow (I'm a bit sleepy now...), so join the debate and lets set a record for Comments-to-a-Post over the next 6 months!!!

Posted by Tuning Spork at 11:22 PM | Comments (1)

October 23, 2003

Baseball's greatest: final installment

Here are my picks for the greatest at each position for the period from the late '80's to the present.
As I haven't paid as close attention in the past decade as I did previously I may be clueless about some great ones, especially American Leaguers. That said, here we go!

1B Frank Thomas
2B Roberto Alomar
SS Derek Jeter
3B no clue
C Mike Piazza
LF Barry Bonds
CF Ken Griffey Jr
RF Tony Gwynn
RHP Greg Maddux
LHP Randy Johnson

As I'm deliberately not doing any research -- just trying to trust my gut, here -- I have no idea to put as the best Third Baseman. The only worthwhile candidate I can think of off the top of my head is Ventura, but there MUST be better. Suggestions anyone?

Posted by Tuning Spork at 07:04 PM | Comments (10)

October 22, 2003

and still more of Baseball's greatest!

Here are my picks for the best of the best from the mid-70's (when my baseball passion was at it's peak) to the dawn of the 90's (when I stopped being so interested in the Who's Who of it all).

1B Keith Hernandez
2B Ryne Sandberg
SS Ozzie Smith
3B Mike Schmidt
C Gary Carter
LF Rickey Henderson
CF Kirby Puckett
RF Dave Winfield
RHP Nolan Ryan
LHP Steve Carlton

I'm sure the Wade Boggs and Cal Ripken fans have something to say!!

P.S. My hero Tom Seaver seems to have gotten lost in the mix between my arbitrarily personally defined eras, so a very special Honorable Mention is hereby awarded. Yay Tom! :)

Posted by Tuning Spork at 07:23 PM | Comments (6)

more Baseball's greatest!!

Here are my picks for the greatest ballplayers of the 60's to the mid-70's.
This was when I first became aware of MLB, and there are players who were in their waning years, and some in their prime.

1B Al Kaline
2B Joe Morgan
SS Luis Aparicio
3B Brooks Robinson
C Johnny Bench
LF Frank Robinson
CF Willie Mays
RF Roberto Clemente
RHP Bob Gibson
LHP Sam McDowell

Lots to debate here, I'll bet!! I'm sure I must be forgetting a better candidate for LHP, so I'm open to suggestions!

Posted by Tuning Spork at 07:05 PM | Comments (3)

October 21, 2003

Baseball's Greatest Players

I was going to post a line-up of the greatest ballplayers by decade and post them nightly as the World Series progressed. But, instead, I'm gonna just do them by eras. I mean, who knows how long this series is going to last anyways?

So, here are the first installments:

First up: The best players of the 'tween-the-World-Wars era! (Basically the 20's and 30's.)

1B Lou Gehrig
2B Rogers Hornsby
SS Joe Cronin
3B Pie Traynor
C Mickey Cochrane
LF Mel Ott
CF Ty Cobb
RF Babe Ruth
RHP Walter Johnson
LHP Lefty Grove

Second at bat: The War era through the expansion year of 1962:

1B Gil Hodges
2B Luke Appling
SS Ernie Banks
3B Eddie Mathews
C Yogi Berra
LF Ted Williams
CF Stan Musial
RF Johnny Mize
RHP Whitey Ford
LHP Warren Spahn

Debate is encouraged!!
Tomorrow: the 60's to mid-70's!

Posted by Tuning Spork at 09:13 PM | Comments (3)
Site Meter