hornsby : Messages : 2597-2626 of 2664

I feel it should be used very sparingly. Still, the way baseball rules are now doesn't mean they are "correct" in the sense of what is most fair. For example, if the count is 3-2 and there are two down and a man on first, when a batter hits a ground-rule double the run doesn't score. 90% of the runners would score in that situation. Baseball has been getting it wrong for years. So what if that continues.

Michael

--- On Fri, 11/20/09, LeBritton, Joe <joe_lebritton@...> wrote:

From: LeBritton, Joe <joe_lebritton@...>
Subject: [hornsby] Baseball's replay "controversy"
To: hornsby@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, November 20, 2009, 9:22 AM

Hornsby members,

      I have finally had enough of sportswriters suggesting instant replay for baseball for "everything except balls and strikes". This simply won't work in baseball for very obvious reasons and I can't believe that (supposedly) intelligent analysts would even suggest it.

      In football, there is a clear way to reset the play after a call has been overturned. For reviewable plays in football, it is always possible to determine "what would have happened" if the referee had gotten the call correct. This is not the case in baseball.

      A simple example. A runner is on second. A fly ball is hit to center and the center fielder dives for the ball - apparently catching it. The umpire calls the batter out and the runner at second base stays there. A replay shows that the ball was trapped by the center fielder. There is NO WAY to determine "what would have happened" if the call had been correct. Would the runner at second advanced to third? Would he have scored? Would he have been thrown out at the plate trying to score?

      Jeff Passan at Yahoo Sports suggested that the umpire be allowed to advance the runners in this situation. This would be a radical change in the rules of baseball all in the name of getting calls right.

      I would like to hear what Hornsby members feel about this issue. I personally think that the current replay system is as far as baseball should go.

Joe LeBritton

#2625

From: Monte Cely <cely@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:47 pm
Subject: Re: Baseball's replay "controversy"

celyloveboat

Offline

Joe - I would greatly simplify this entire mess and yet provide some redress for the "game changing blown call".

Give each manager one "challenge" - he could challenge home run/not homer, fair/foul, out/safe. He could not challenge balls & strikes.

If his challenge is upheld (ie the call is reversed), he retains the right to challenge. If not, he gets no more challenges. That way, the manager can choose to use a review for only that one most critical call of the game. This would actually speed up the game as it would prevent some of the lengthy rhubarbs we see today.

Otherwise, do away with the current boundary calls and any other electronic umpiring. I can put up with a four-hour football game once a week, but not a four hour baseball game every night.

Monte

--- On Fri, 11/20/09, LeBritton, Joe <joe_lebritton@...> wrote:

From: LeBritton, Joe <joe_lebritton@...>
Subject: [hornsby] Baseball's replay "controversy"
To: hornsby@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, November 20, 2009, 9:22 AM

Hornsby members,

      I have finally had enough of sportswriters suggesting instant replay for baseball for "everything except balls and strikes". This simply won't work in baseball for very obvious reasons and I can't believe that (supposedly) intelligent analysts would even suggest it.

      In football, there is a clear way to reset the play after a call has been overturned. For reviewable plays in football, it is always possible to determine "what would have happened" if the referee had gotten the call correct. This is not the case in baseball.

      A simple example. A runner is on second. A fly ball is hit to center and the center fielder dives for the ball - apparently catching it. The umpire calls the batter out and the runner at second base stays there. A replay shows that the ball was trapped by the center fielder. There is NO WAY to determine "what would have happened" if the call had been correct. Would the runner at second advanced to third? Would he have scored? Would he have been thrown out at the plate trying to score?

      Jeff Passan at Yahoo Sports suggested that the umpire be allowed to advance the runners in this situation. This would be a radical change in the rules of baseball all in the name of getting calls right.

      I would like to hear what Hornsby members feel about this issue. I personally think that the current replay system is as far as baseball should go.

Joe LeBritton

#2624

From: SBraccini@...
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:49 pm
Subject: Re: Baseball's replay "controversy"

stevebraccini

Offline

As one who loves the way baseball the way it's been played for over a hundred years, I agree with you, Joe. Quite frankly, I don't like the current replay situation and don't want to see it expanded either. We've lived with blown calls, trapped balls called outs, and missed home runs for more than a hundred years. We've argued over umpire calls for decades. It's one of the beauties of baseball. Take the slow-motion cameras and replay out of baseball and leave the umpires to do their jobs.

-Steve Braccini

In a message dated 11/20/2009 9:23:17 A.M. Central Standard Time, joe_lebritton@... writes:

Hornsby members,

      I have finally had enough of sportswriters suggesting instant replay for baseball for "everything except balls and strikes". This simply won't work in baseball for very obvious reasons and I can't believe that (supposedly) intelligent analysts would even suggest it.

      In football, there is a clear way to reset the play after a call has been overturned. For reviewable plays in football, it is always possible to determine "what would have happened" if the referee had gotten the call correct. This is not the case in baseball.

      A simple example. A runner is on second. A fly ball is hit to center and the center fielder dives for the ball - apparently catching it. The umpire calls the batter out and the runner at second base stays there. A replay shows that the ball was trapped by the center fielder. There is NO WAY to determine "what would have happened" if the call had been correct. Would the runner at second advanced to third? Would he have scored? Would he have been thrown out at the plate trying to score?

      Jeff Passan at Yahoo Sports suggested that the umpire be allowed to advance the runners in this situation. This would be a radical change in the rules of baseball all in the name of getting calls right.

      I would like to hear what Hornsby members feel about this issue. I personally think that the current replay system is as far as baseball should go.

Joe LeBritton

#2623

From: charlesok@...
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: Baseball's replay "controversy"

cokaufman

Offline

I couldn't tell you in football all of the situations that allow reviewable plays. I hear announcers say, "Well, that's not a reviewable call." Who can keep it all straight?

In baseball, I suggest we ask umpires to determine how replay would best help them. Discretionary calls (strike zone, in the vicinity calls on double plays, etc.) would remain at their discretion. If they agree that replay would help them with, say, fan interference of a home run or fair or foul calls, then I'm okay with it. I'm going to give the benefit to the doubt to umpires that the vast majority of calls they make in the field are correct. Personally, I would be opposed to reviewing every "in the vicinity" call at second. If the fielder misses it badly or the player slides into the fielder way out of the base path, the umps usually call it. Strike zone issues should be dealt with by the current powers. Hell, who's going to go to the ball park if we can't bitch at the umpires?

chuck kaufman

-----Original Message-----
From: LeBritton, Joe <joe_lebritton@...>
To: hornsby@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 20, 2009 9:22 am
Subject: [hornsby] Baseball's replay "controversy"

Hornsby members,

I have finally had enough of sportswriters suggesting instant replay for baseball for "everything except balls and strikes". This simply won't work in baseball for very obvious reasons and I can't believe that (supposedly) intelligent analysts would even suggest it.

In football, there is a clear way to reset the play after a call has been overturned. For reviewable plays in football, it is always possible to determine "what would have happened" if the referee had gotten the call correct. This is not the case in baseball.

A simple example. A runner is on second. A fly ball is hit to center and the center fielder dives for the ball - apparently catching it. The umpire calls the batter out and the runner at second base stays there. A replay shows that the ball was trapped by the center fielder. There is NO WAY to determine "what would have happened" if the call had been correct. Would the runner at second advanced to third? Would he have scored? Would he have been thrown out at the plate trying to score?

Jeff Passan at Yahoo Sports suggested that the umpire be allowed to advance the runners in this situation. This would be a radical change in the rules of baseball all in the name of getting calls right.

I would like to hear what Hornsby members feel about this issue. I personally think that the current replay system is as far as baseball should go.

Joe LeBritton

#2622

From: Jan Larson <jan.a.larson@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: Who Were the Most Productive Offensive Players in 2009? [1 Attachment]

jan_a_larson

Offline

Also posted on the Hornsby website:

http://chapters.sabr.org/hornsby/research/papers/86-who-were-the-most-productive-offensive-players-in-2009

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Bill Gilbert <billcgilbert@...> wrote:

[Attachment(s) from Bill Gilbert included below]

�� I have completed my annual analysis of the most productive offensive players�for 2009 based on Bases per Plate Appearance..� Albert Pujols tops the list for the second straight year. Prince Fielder, Joe Mauer, Ben Zobrist and Joey Votto round out the top five.

�

�� The�4-page report is attached.

�

Bill Gilbert��
�

billcgilbert@...

�

Attachment(s) from Bill Gilbert

1 of 1 File(s)

BPA2009.DOC

#2621

From: Bill Gilbert <billcgilbert@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:38 pm
Subject: Who Were the Most Productive Offensive Players in 2009?

bgilbert35

Offline

I have completed my annual analysis of the most productive offensive players for 2009 based on Bases per Plate Appearance.. Albert Pujols tops the list for the second straight year. Prince Fielder, Joe Mauer, Ben Zobrist and Joey Votto round out the top five.

The 4-page report is attached.

Bill Gilbert

billcgilbert@...

1 of 1 File(s)

BPA2009.DOC

#2620

From: Jim Baker <jimbaker1066@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:07 pm
Subject: Re: Baseball's replay "controversy"

jimbaker1066

Offline

Joe:

I think implementation would be a mess. What continues to blow my mind about umpires though, is this:

*how often they are in the wrong position to make a good call on a base play (especially at second and home)

*how poor their strike zone judgment is

To their credit, however, they do seem willing to get help from other umps -- something that was unheard of years ago.

Jim

--- On Fri, 11/20/09, Jan Larson <jan.a.larson@...> wrote:

From: Jan Larson <jan.a.larson@...>
Subject: Re: [hornsby] Baseball's replay "controversy"
To: hornsby@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, November 20, 2009, 9:46 AM

Joe -

I agree with this. There are far too many dependencies on each play and if we make the assumption that umpires make too many mistakes now that we need to use every available technological means to correct them, I wonder how technology would be able to correct for the situations you described? Arguments about the fallibility of umpires would persist, they would just be different arguments than was have today.

The problem is the asymmetry of the plays. A ball that is called fair but was really foul could be overturned on replay and everyone simply goes back to where they were and the next pitch is thrown. The opposite situation where a ball that is called foul that was really fair cannot be rectified because it is unknowable as to what might have happened. I suppose there could be rules put in place to handle this such as if a ball was erroneously ruled foul but was determined to be fair upon review, you advance each runner one base and put the batter on first but in the case such as we saw with the Mauer ball in the ALCS, this would not yield the result that one might expect had the play been ruled correctly.

The current replay scheme is also asymmetric in that same respect. If the umpire does not indicate home run but the ball is seen to have cleared the wall during replay, the runners simply run around the bases and that is that. The opposite case is the one that is problematic where an umpire indicates home run and the ball did not clear the wall.

I can live with the current replay scheme but I have serious doubts as to whether implementing replay for fair/foul and/or safe/out calls would make the game any better or eliminate umpire controversy.

Jan

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:22 AM, LeBritton, Joe <joe_lebritton@ mentor.com> wrote:

Hornsby members,

      I have finally had enough of sportswriters suggesting instant replay for baseball for "everything except balls and strikes". This simply won't work in baseball for very obvious reasons and I can't believe that (supposedly) intelligent analysts would even suggest it.

      In football, there is a clear way to reset the play after a call has been overturned. For reviewable plays in football, it is always possible to determine "what would have happened" if the referee had gotten the call correct. This is not the case in baseball.

      A simple example. A runner is on second. A fly ball is hit to center and the center fielder dives for the ball - apparently catching it. The umpire calls the batter out and the runner at second base stays there. A replay shows that the ball was trapped by the center fielder. There is NO WAY to determine "what would have happened" if the call had been correct. Would the runner at second advanced to third? Would he have scored? Would he have been thrown out at the plate trying to score?

      Jeff Passan at Yahoo Sports suggested that the umpire be allowed to advance the runners in this situation. This would be a radical change in the rules of baseball all in the name of getting calls right.

      I would like to hear what Hornsby members feel about this issue. I personally think that the current replay system is as far as baseball should go.

Joe LeBritton

#2619

From: Jan Larson <jan.a.larson@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:46 pm
Subject: Re: Baseball's replay "controversy"

jan_a_larson

Offline

Joe -

I agree with this.� There are far too many dependencies on each play and if we make the assumption that umpires make too many mistakes now that we need to use every available technological means to correct them, I wonder how technology would be able to correct for the situations you described?� Arguments about the fallibility of umpires would persist, they would just be different arguments than was have today.

The problem is the asymmetry of the plays.� A ball that is called fair but was really foul could be overturned on replay and everyone simply goes back to where they were and the next pitch is thrown.� The opposite situation where a ball that is called foul that was really fair cannot be rectified because it is unknowable as to what might have happened.� I suppose there could be rules put in place to handle this such as if a ball was erroneously ruled foul but was determined to be fair upon review, you advance each runner one base and put the batter on first but in the case such as we saw with the Mauer ball in the ALCS, this would not yield the result that one might expect had the play been ruled correctly.

The current replay scheme is also asymmetric in that same respect.� If the umpire does not indicate home run but the ball is seen to have cleared the wall during replay, the runners simply run around the bases and that is that.� The opposite case is the one that is problematic where an umpire indicates home run and the ball did not clear the wall.

I can live with the current replay scheme but I have serious doubts as to whether implementing replay for fair/foul and/or safe/out calls would make the game any better or eliminate umpire controversy.

Jan

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:22 AM, LeBritton, Joe <joe_lebritton@...> wrote:

Hornsby members,

�

�� I have finally had enough of sportswriters suggesting instant replay for baseball for "everything except balls and strikes". This simply won't work in baseball for very obvious reasons and I can't believe that (supposedly) intelligent analysts would even suggest it.

�

�� In football, there is a clear way to reset the play after a call has been overturned. For reviewable plays in football, it is always possible to determine "what would have happened" if the referee had gotten the call correct. This is not the case in baseball.

�

�� A simple example. A runner is on second. A fly ball is hit to center and the center fielder dives for the ball - apparently catching it. The umpire calls the batter out and the runner at second base stays there. A replay shows that the ball was trapped by the center fielder. There is NO WAY to determine "what would have happened" if the call had been correct. Would the runner at second advanced to third? Would he have scored? Would he have been thrown out at the plate trying to score?

�

�� Jeff Passan at Yahoo Sports suggested that the umpire be allowed to advance the runners in this situation. This would be a radical change in the rules of baseball all in the name of getting calls right.

�

�� I would like to hear what Hornsby members feel about this issue. I personally think that the current replay system is as far as baseball should go.

�

Joe LeBritton

�

#2618

From: "LeBritton, Joe" <joe_lebritton@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:22 pm
Subject: Baseball's replay "controversy"

jlebritt

Offline

Hornsby members,

I would like to hear what Hornsby members feel about this issue. I personally think that the current replay system is as far as baseball should go.

Joe LeBritton

#2617

From: SBraccini@...
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:47 am
Subject: Re: "300" hitters

stevebraccini

Offline

Cyril:

Has anyone got the answer to your question yet?

In a message dated 11/15/2009 10:42:38 P.M. Central Standard Time, cyrilmorong@... writes:

The list below shows the all-time leaders in seasons with 300+ TBs and
300+ RB (times reaching base, H + BB + HBP). I removed one player from
the list, who is tied for 10th with 3. Who is he?

T1 Lou Gehrig 9
T1 Babe Ruth 9
3 Barry Bonds 7
T4 Ted Williams 6
T4 Stan Musial 6
T6 Jimmie Foxx 4
T6 Todd Helton 4
T6 Jeff Bagwell 4
T6 Rogers Hornsby 4
T10 Frank Thomas 3
T10 Albert Pujols 3
T10 Tris Speaker 3

Also, the first year it was done was 1894 by Hugh Duffy (374-304) and
Joe Kelley (305-311). I can't tell from those numbers who got to 300+
in both first. Any ideas? (Neither one is the answer to my first
question above about the guy I removed from the list).

Cy Morong

#2616

From: Michael Bass <maxmuscleaustin@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:57 am
Subject: Negro League Museum newspaper article

maxmuscleaustin

Offline

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.sphinx19nov19,0,1958072.story

--- On Thu, 11/19/09, Jan Larson <jan.a.larson@...> wrote:

From: Jan Larson <jan.a.larson@...>
Subject: [hornsby] November meeting wrap-up and December meeting
To: "SABR Group" <hornsby@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 9:48 PM

Subject information may be found here:

http://chapters. sabr.org/ hornsby/home

Jan

#2615

From: Michael Bass <maxmuscleaustin@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:00 am
Subject: Re: November meeting wrap-up and December meeting

maxmuscleaustin

Offline

Geez, sounds like I made the quiz just as impossible as the last one!

Michael

--- On Thu, 11/19/09, Jan Larson <jan.a.larson@...> wrote:

From: Jan Larson <jan.a.larson@...>
Subject: [hornsby] November meeting wrap-up and December meeting
To: "SABR Group" <hornsby@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 9:48 PM

Subject information may be found here:

http://chapters. sabr.org/ hornsby/home

Jan

#2614

From: Jan Larson <jan.a.larson@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:48 am
Subject: November meeting wrap-up and December meeting

jan_a_larson

Offline

Subject information may be found here:

    http://chapters.sabr.org/hornsby/home

Jan

#2613

From: SBraccini@...
Date: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:30 pm
Subject: Re: SABR Meeting, Thursday, November 19

stevebraccini

Offline

Clint Hurdle continues to assure me that he will make every effort to make our January meeting. He does, however, point out that he won't know what the Rangers have in store for him for first two weeks of January until closer to that time. I'll keep the group up to date as I hear anything.

Oh, and I'll be there tomorrow evening.

-Steve

In a message dated 11/18/2009 6:31:50 P.M. Central Standard Time, billcgilbert@... writes:

    It looks like we should have 10 people at the meeting tomorrow night. Unfortunately, I won't be among them. As some of you know, I have experienced a setback in my recovery I'm back in a wheelchair and having quite a bit of pain in my leg. I hope to be back on track next month.

    Since this will be the next-to-last meeting before the Annual Meeting in January, some serious planning needs to be done. We need to pin down who is planning to give a presentation and get a better handle on guest speakers. I have contacted Bill Brown and Jim Deshaies. Bill enthusiastically accepted but Jim said he would not be available. Someone, other than me, needs to take the responsibility of managing and planning the meeting.

    Monte, I'll pick up my prize in the Cy Young contest next month after your guy, Wainwright, wins the NL Cy Young.

Bill Gilbert

billcgilbert@sbcglobal.net

#2612

From: Monte Cely <cely@...>
Date: Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:43 am
Subject: Re: SABR Meeting, Thursday, November 19

celyloveboat

Offline

Bill - very sorry to hear about the bum "wheel". Hope that you recover quickly and are back on track next month.

It looks like you're in great shape if "my guy" Wainwright wins the NL CY tomorrow. But if "my other guy" Carpenter takes it, then our poll is still at issue. I'll send out the results tomorrow.

Get better!!

Monte

--- On Wed, 11/18/09, Bill Gilbert <billcgilbert@...> wrote:

From: Bill Gilbert <billcgilbert@...>
Subject: [hornsby] SABR Meeting, Thursday, November 19
To: "Rogers Hornsby Chapter" <hornsby@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 6:31 PM

    It looks like we should have 10 people at the meeting tomorrow night. Unfortunately, I won't be among them. As some of you know, I have experienced a setback in my recovery I'm back in a wheelchair and having quite a bit of pain in my leg. I hope to be back on track next month.

    Since this will be the next-to-last meeting before the Annual Meeting in January, some serious planning needs to be done. We need to pin down who is planning to give a presentation and get a better handle on guest speakers. I have contacted Bill Brown and Jim Deshaies. Bill enthusiastically accepted but Jim said he would not be available. Someone, other than me, needs to take the responsibility of managing and planning the meeting.

    Monte, I'll pick up my prize in the Cy Young contest next month after your guy, Wainwright, wins the NL Cy Young.

Bill Gilbert

billcgilbert@ sbcglobal. net

#2611

From: Bill Gilbert <billcgilbert@...>
Date: Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:31 am
Subject: SABR Meeting, Thursday, November 19

bgilbert35

Offline

It looks like we should have 10 people at the meeting tomorrow night. Unfortunately, I won't be among them. As some of you know, I have experienced a setback in my recovery I'm back in a wheelchair and having quite a bit of pain in my leg. I hope to be back on track next month.

Since this will be the next-to-last meeting before the Annual Meeting in January, some serious planning needs to be done. We need to pin down who is planning to give a presentation and get a better handle on guest speakers. I have contacted Bill Brown and Jim Deshaies. Bill enthusiastically accepted but Jim said he would not be available. Someone, other than me, needs to take the responsibility of managing and planning the meeting.

Monte, I'll pick up my prize in the Cy Young contest next month after your guy, Wainwright, wins the NL Cy Young.

Bill Gilbert

billcgilbert@...

#2610

From: Jim Baker <jimbaker1066@...>
Date: Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:20 pm
Subject: Re: "300" hitters

jimbaker1066

Offline

Mickey Mantle

--- On Sun, 11/15/09, cyrilmorong@... <cyrilmorong@...> wrote:

From: cyrilmorong@... <cyrilmorong@...>
Subject: [hornsby] "300" hitters
To: hornsby@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 10:17 PM

The list below shows the all-time leaders in seasons with 300+ TBs and
300+ RB (times reaching base, H + BB + HBP). I removed one player from
the list, who is tied for 10th with 3. Who is he?

T1 Lou Gehrig 9
T1 Babe Ruth 9
3 Barry Bonds 7
T4 Ted Williams 6
T4 Stan Musial 6
T6 Jimmie Foxx 4
T6 Todd Helton 4
T6 Jeff Bagwell 4
T6 Rogers Hornsby 4
T10 Frank Thomas 3
T10 Albert Pujols 3
T10 Tris Speaker 3

Also, the first year it was done was 1894 by Hugh Duffy (374-304) and
Joe Kelley (305-311). I can't tell from those numbers who got to 300+
in both first. Any ideas? (Neither one is the answer to my first
question above about the guy I removed from the list).

Cy Morong

#2609

From: Monte Cely <cely@...>
Date: Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:11 pm
Subject: Re: "300" hitters

celyloveboat

Offline

Cy - another wild guess -- Orlando Cepeda ??

Monte

--- On Wed, 11/18/09, cyrilmorong@... <cyrilmorong@...> wrote:

From: cyrilmorong@... <cyrilmorong@...>
Subject: [hornsby] "300" hitters
To: hornsby@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 7:46 AM

Mike Dillon said Hank Greenberg. He did have one season, 1937, but
only one (305 RB and 397 TB). Gehringer had two. Greenberg did have 3
other seasons with 297, 290 and 289 in RB, all with 300+ TB.

Cy

#2608

From: cyrilmorong@...
Date: Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:46 pm
Subject: "300" hitters

cyrilmorong@...

Mike Dillon said Hank Greenberg. He did have one season, 1937, but
only one (305 RB and 397 TB). Gehringer had two. Greenberg did have 3
other seasons with 297, 290 and 289 in RB, all with 300+ TB.

Cy

#2607

From: "mike dillon" <mikedillon@...>
Date: Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:55 pm
Subject: Re: "300" hitters

mikedillon1945

Offline

How about Hank Greenberg

Mike D

----- Original Message -----

From: cyrilmorong@...

To: hornsby@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:01 AM

Subject: [hornsby] "300" hitters

Mike Dillon gave Ichirio as the answer to my question of the other
player who had 3 seasons with both 300+ TBs & 300+ times reaching
base. Ichiro had 1 season that fits, 2004 (320 TB and 315 RB). In
2001, his only other year with 300+ TBs, he had 280 RB.

Cy

#2606

From: cyrilmorong@...
Date: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:01 pm
Subject: 300 hitters

cyrilmorong@...

Monte Cely said Vern Stephens. But he never had a 300+ RB season.

Cy

#2605

From: Monte Cely <cely@...>
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:48 pm
Subject: Astros announce AAA field staff

celyloveboat

Offline

http://www.roundrockexpress.com/default.asp?PageId=84&ArticleId=2642

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#2604

From: Jim Baker <jimbaker1066@...>
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:11 pm
Subject: Re: closers

jimbaker1066

Offline

Norman nails it.

--- On Mon, 11/16/09, nlm@... <nlm@...> wrote:

From: nlm@... <nlm@...>
Subject: [hornsby] closers
To: hornsby@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, November 16, 2009, 11:48 AM

The miserable record of the closers in the post-season calls into
question the whole concept of the copycat use of one by managers even
if they don't have a dependable one.
Norman

#2603

From: nlm@...
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:48 pm
Subject: closers

nlm@...

The miserable record of the closers in the post-season calls into
question the whole concept of the copycat use of one by managers  even
if they don't have a dependable one.
Norman

#2602

From: Monte Cely <cely@...>
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:04 pm
Subject: RE: 300 hitters

celyloveboat

Offline

Cy - I'll take a wild guess and say Vern Stephens...

Monte

#2601

From: cyrilmorong@...
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:01 pm
Subject: "300" hitters

cyrilmorong@...

Mike Dillon gave Ichirio as the answer to my question of the other
player who had 3 seasons with both 300+ TBs & 300+ times reaching
base. Ichiro had 1 season that fits, 2004 (320 TB and 315 RB). In
2001, his only other year with 300+ TBs, he had 280 RB.

Cy

#2600

From: "mike dillon" <mikedillon@...>
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:04 am
Subject: Re: "300" hitters

mikedillon1945

Offline

Ichiro?

----- Original Message -----

From: cyrilmorong@...

To: hornsby@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 10:17 PM

Subject: [hornsby] "300" hitters

The list below shows the all-time leaders in seasons with 300+ TBs and
300+ RB (times reaching base, H + BB + HBP). I removed one player from
the list, who is tied for 10th with 3. Who is he?

T1 Lou Gehrig 9
T1 Babe Ruth 9
3 Barry Bonds 7
T4 Ted Williams 6
T4 Stan Musial 6
T6 Jimmie Foxx 4
T6 Todd Helton 4
T6 Jeff Bagwell 4
T6 Rogers Hornsby 4
T10 Frank Thomas 3
T10 Albert Pujols 3
T10 Tris Speaker 3

Also, the first year it was done was 1894 by Hugh Duffy (374-304) and
Joe Kelley (305-311). I can't tell from those numbers who got to 300+
in both first. Any ideas? (Neither one is the answer to my first
question above about the guy I removed from the list).

Cy Morong

#2599

From: cyrilmorong@...
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:17 am
Subject: "300" hitters

cyrilmorong@...

The list below shows the all-time leaders in seasons with 300+ TBs and
300+ RB (times reaching base, H + BB + HBP). I removed one player from
the list, who is tied for 10th with 3. Who is he?

T1   Lou Gehrig                9
T1   Babe Ruth                 9
3    Barry Bonds               7
T4   Ted Williams              6
T4   Stan Musial               6
T6   Jimmie Foxx               4
T6   Todd Helton               4
T6   Jeff Bagwell              4
T6   Rogers Hornsby            4
T10  Frank Thomas              3
T10  Albert Pujols             3
T10  Tris Speaker              3

Also, the first year it was done was 1894 by Hugh Duffy (374-304) and
Joe Kelley (305-311). I can't tell from those numbers who got to 300+
in both first. Any ideas? (Neither one is the answer to my first
question above about the guy I removed from the list).

Cy Morong

#2598

From: Gary McIntosh <mojomarvels@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 2:58 am
Subject: Re: Digest Number 756

garymcut

Offline

It appears that really only two closers did any good at all, Fuentes and Rivera..Franklin's ERA was solid, and it's tough blowing a save with an unearned run....but the others didn't pitch well, even though Broxton and Lidge got 5 saves between them.....when it was on the line, they couldn't get people out consistently, and almost blew games regularly

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#2597

From: Bill Gilbert <billcgilbert@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:31 pm
Subject: Postseason Closers

bgilbert35

Offline