11/21/24
September 17, 2005
Motivational posters for the unmotivated. Two Cincy Reds bloggers team up to create motivational poster parodies for each MLB team. First half here, second half here. (via Byzantium's Shores)
posted by Ufez Jones to baseball at 02:04 PM - 51 comments
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim? That's the name they settled on? For real? The name is a punchline all its own.
posted by worldcup2002 at 07:43 PM on September 17, 2005
Those are good, thanks for the links!
posted by jojomfd1 at 09:03 PM on September 17, 2005
The Red Sox poster sums up my feelings on that team perfectly. I'd love to purchase it for all Red Sox fans. Thanks for the link.
posted by dyams at 07:39 AM on September 18, 2005
The Yankees poster sums up my feelings on that team perfectly. I'd love to purchase it for all Yankee fans. Thanks for the link.
posted by jerseygirl at 08:04 AM on September 18, 2005
I see a lot more "prospects" making contributions to the Yankees this season than to the Red Sox. How many home-grown players are in the Sox' lineup currently. Get back to me.
posted by dyams at 10:59 AM on September 18, 2005
Kevin Youkilis, Trot Nixon, Jon Papelbon, Manny Delcarmen. Tim Wakefield has been with the team for 10 years. Technically, Curt Schiling. What's that supposed to prove? Neither team is a small-market team, so it's not relevant. The Yankees will never be anyone's underdog; you can't get there from here. Who do the Yankees have? Rivera, Jeter, Posada, the Corpse of Bernie Williams, Wang. What might I glean from this information? Why can't the post be about the posters and not about which specific team you like?
posted by yerfatma at 01:51 PM on September 18, 2005
Now who is being cocky? Oh, you.
posted by jerseygirl at 01:53 PM on September 18, 2005
Yeah, yerfatma, those guys (with the exception of Nixon) have really contributed to the pennant race. I was thinking of Ortiz, Ramirez, Damon, Renteria, and I don't know what you're talking about with Schilling. I meant guys coming up through their farm system. These days, for teams with pennant aspirations, the farm system only means "trade bait." Cano for the Yankees has been fantastic and outshines any player the Red Sox would dare use in their lineup. And jerseygirl, cocky? Win a division championship and more than one World Series in your (or your grandparents) lifetime, then talk to me about "cocky."
posted by dyams at 03:22 PM on September 18, 2005
I have a dream... a dream that every sportsfilter thread that is even remotely connected to baseball, and even threads entirely unconnected with baseball, will devolve into a Red Sox/Yankees debate.
posted by uglatto at 03:36 PM on September 18, 2005
Hey, don't look at me. For some reason, one of the Yankees' players came in here and started spouting off with a piss-poor attitude.
posted by yerfatma at 04:20 PM on September 18, 2005
Win a division championship and more than one World Series in your (or your grandparents) lifetime, then talk to me about "cocky." Right then. This is a good enough example of someone being cocky. Thanks.
posted by jerseygirl at 04:24 PM on September 18, 2005
And to think that postseason is just around the corner. I can't wait for more of this.
posted by qbert72 at 07:31 PM on September 18, 2005
Wow, let me retract everything I said. Wouldn't want to have a cocky, piss-poor attitude on THIS sacred site. What I really meant to say was, I think the Red Sox are a bunch of charming, talented ballplayers who won with class last season and continue with their wonderful outlook this season. I think the ridiculous "motivational" poster created at their expense was a shameful poke at a team that has persevered through staggering odds and has truly become the team of the 2000's. I applaud them and their fans. May God bless everyone. Good night.
posted by dyams at 07:41 PM on September 18, 2005
Interesting Link. Some very creative work. Thanks for the link. Many were quite humerous. Funny how after 3-4 years the only thing about the Twins that some people can relate to is contraction! But Hey, Its all obout the Yankees and the Red Sox, Right?????? AAAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH! I dont care about Jeter! I care even less about AR! Why do we have to constantly here about a goup of over paid, over rated, and over the Hill starters? The same goes for Manny, Big Pappi and Schilling! I could care less about them as well. The Tribe is on a great run--Lets celebrate stuff like that--oops I forgot that its against the rules to talk about any baseball team but the YAnkees and the Red Sox... My bad.......................... Dont you just love this time of year ;-)
posted by daddisamm at 09:00 PM on September 18, 2005
The Tribe is on a great run--Lets celebrate stuff like that--oops I forgot that its against the rules to talk about any baseball team but the YAnkees and the Red Sox... Talk about whomever the fuck you want, Daddisamm. No one was saying otherwise. For fuck's sake, about 2-3 weeks ago, I pleaded for LESS Red Sox posts and threads. So, yeah, exaggerate much do you? Dyams made, what I thought was, a tongue in cheek, goofy comment so I returned it in the same vein thinking it was all good natured ribbing. I wasn't out to be an asshole fan but apparently, he was. So fuck it. Mental note: Can't goof off with Dyams, apparently, without it turning into a "I'm a Yankee fan, hear me ROARRRR!" cockiness exhibit with the "get back to me" and the "win more than one in your grandparents lifetime" bullshit. Didn't realize he was that kind of fan.
posted by jerseygirl at 08:16 AM on September 19, 2005
Wow, someone's off their medication. Yes, you can goof off with me, but it's not always possible to tell from someone's typing what their attitude is for a particular post. I'm a Yankee fan, and when I see the opportunity to come to their defense, I usually take it. The Yankees' "poster" had to do with them sacrificing their farm team. I responded to that. My point was all the top-salary teams are looking to the "win now" philosophy, going for proven veterans over young guys in their systems. The Yanks do it, the Red Sox do it, others do to. Minor league talent from those teams are being used by the smaller market teams because that's the only way they can afford (or try) to compete. I'm not a huge fan of that type of thinking, but I didn't create the system, either. I don't know how that came across as "cocky" or "piss-poor attitude". I thought the point of this story was to respond to the captions on the posters, not just type 30 posts saying, "Great story. That's really cool..." blah blah blah. Relax and have some fun.
posted by dyams at 08:58 AM on September 19, 2005
My point was all the top-salary teams are looking to the "win now" philosophy, going for proven veterans over young guys in their systems. The Yanks do it, the Red Sox do it While I take your larger point, I would say the Red Sox, since the hiring of Theo Epstein, have been reversing course. We'll see the relative success of their efforts in a year or three. Also, your response is a rather positively-slanted interpetation of your remarks.
posted by yerfatma at 09:53 AM on September 19, 2005
Ahem - Third party entering off-topic debate: Red Sox, under Epstein are a much more flexible and youthful operation. They have some talent down low and are producing more major leaguers, more quickly. Cano, while being a very good (and very surprising - even to the Yankees ) example of Yankee talent, is the exception; the team is still playing in a different league. Take pride in that Yankee fans - you never have to wait; but don't expect some kind of awe at the level of smarts your orgainization possess beyond the ability to overpay every player they want to. P.S. - I'm not seeing either of these teams beating the Cardinals or Angels, anyway - it's called pitching and y'all don't got none.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:57 AM on September 19, 2005
I'm with Jerseygirl, dyams was being an @ss. But way to try and back off at the end and plead innocence. Now why shouldn't we talk about Boston/New York? Undoubtedly the biggest rivalry in baseball, two bona fide title contenders, the two biggest payrolls in the world, and the ALCS last year why is anyone surprised that we're talking about them? Now i'm not a big fan of either but they are without a doubt the biggest thing in baseball right now.
posted by tron7 at 11:34 AM on September 19, 2005
Since we're completely off-topic... The same goes for Manny, Big Pappi and Schilling! I could care less about them as well. The Tribe is on a great run--Lets celebrate stuff like that Sour grapes? Does you not wanting to hear about Ortiz directly relate to your team non-tendering him after 2002? David Ortiz is the most celebratable player on the Red Sox, I don't see how you lump him in with Manny and Schilling except for just hating on success. If anything he's has more in common with the Indians than anyone. He's hands down the AL MVP after consistently improving his game over the past 3 years.
posted by YukonGold at 11:59 AM on September 19, 2005
I gotta pick a nit here after watching Craig Hansen make his big-league debut. Next year's Sox staff may feature Papelbon, Lester, Delacarmen, Cla Meredith and Hansen. Non-pitchers may include Kevin Youkilis, Dustin Pedroia, Hanley Ramirez and Kelly Shoppach (who may be dealt while he still has value). I don't think the Yankees have that kind of development pipeline right now.
posted by yerfatma at 08:21 PM on September 19, 2005
Who do the Yankees have? Rivera, Jeter, Posada, the Corpse of Bernie Williams, Wang. you forgot Al Leiter:-) thanks for the post Ufez. for demotivators, i personally prefer these, but the baseball ones are a good effort nonetheless.
posted by goddam at 10:15 PM on September 19, 2005
He's hands down the AL MVP after consistently improving his game over the past 3 years. I don't know whose hands are down on that, but they ain't mine. Ortiz isn't even the MVP of his own team! I'd give that honour to Ramirez before Ortiz. In my books, the AL MVP is ARod. Statistically, he's having a better year with his bat than Ortiz or Ramirez, and he's providing more value to his team with the glove than either of those two (especially since Ortiz's defensive value is zero).
posted by grum@work at 11:10 PM on September 19, 2005
grum, why would you say Manny is the team MVP? Ortiz has the lead in OPS and he has some ridiculous late and close numbers.
posted by yerfatma at 06:09 AM on September 20, 2005
Hansen, yes! While Ramirez is leading the leagues in OF assists, his average has been blah by his own standards and while Ramirez's HRs have been decent and about where they usually are, Ortiz has been clutch and is absolutely knocking the cover off the ball. Ortiz has been simply carrying that team for the month of September, and while I don't know if he's AL MVP, for the team, he's the MVP, without a doubt.
posted by jerseygirl at 06:45 AM on September 20, 2005
Right now, I have to give it to Arod based on the overall numbers - but Manny and David are so freaking clutch it's staggering. They just end up taking votes away from each other. I think given what the Yankees have been able to do with a complete lack of pitching, Arod gets the nod. Statistically, I think he's closer to the Triple Crown than anyone else, too.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:27 AM on September 20, 2005
grum, why would you say Manny is the team MVP? Ortiz has the lead in OPS and he has some ridiculous late and close numbers. To paraphrase the poets of the 80s, defence counts in small amounts. I have a hard time giving the MVP to a DH, unless his numbers are so astronomically great (see Bonds, 2001) that it overwhelms the fact that he provides zero defence. Wait, less than zero defence. He's so bad defensively that the Red Sox don't even CONSIDER putting him out there. The difference in hitting between Ramirez and Ortiz isn't big enough (< .070 in OPS) for me to ignore that Ramirez provides value (albeit small) with his glove. Ramirez has 222 putouts and 16 assists, while Ortiz has zero of both. That's why I'd still give my vote for Boston MVP to Ramirez. (although I can fully understand why a true fan of the team would vote for Ortiz over Ramirez (clutchiness vs moodiness))
posted by grum@work at 08:34 AM on September 20, 2005
I don't have any problems with Manny. I would say the outfield assists thing is a little overrated: he has so many because teams run on him. I don't know why they do it; he used to be a decent right fielder in Cleveland. He can certainly play left when he wants to. Especially in Fenway where he plays incredibly shallow.
posted by yerfatma at 09:12 AM on September 20, 2005
Also, Ortiz's defense is only marginally worse than Kevin Millar. The whole "OMFG! What will they do in the NL city" thing amounted to less than nothing last year in the Series.
posted by yerfatma at 09:13 AM on September 20, 2005
I thought...28 comments about the posters? I can't wait to see this. Oh well, since it is a pile-on I might as well shout into the wind. Let's face it, as a lifelong "professional baseball" fan I don't believe the Yankees and Red Sox represent the best of the sport. They're a couple of corporations with the required corporate mentality. It's not new. In the mid-60s the owners of the Yankees gave up buying all their players from teams like the A's. They went into a period of decline. These Yankees are doing the same. The Red Sox will eventually also collapse under the weight of their payroll. It's got to the point where I'd like to see the leagues split by payroll. Put in a hard salary cap. Anything. And why hasn't anyone posted about the Expos playing 162 road games this year???
posted by ?! at 09:43 AM on September 20, 2005
If we're arguing that an MVP has to be the most valuable on his team, then throw out Arod too. You can easily give Rivera that honor. I guess I buy into the idea that an MVP is measured in value... what happens if you remove him from his team? Arod's production can be replaced by 3 players (Giambi, Sheffield, Matsui). Ortiz has a much greater impact on his team because while the team's overall offense is potent the drop off from him and Ramirez is quite great (on an individual level). Plus, I'll take the ability to perfom with RISP and in the late innings over any defensive value. But, ther'ell be the Goerge King's of the world who think a DH can't be an MVP, just like a pitcher can't.
posted by YukonGold at 09:47 AM on September 20, 2005
as a lifelong "professional baseball" fan I don't believe the Yankees and Red Sox represent the best of the sport Call me biased, but this always sounds ridiculous to me. If the teams that can afford the best players in the world don't represent the "best of the sport", how many Cape League games did you and Gammons catch this year? How many Legion ball games did you attend? Who are the stars on your local high school team (I know they're the SS and another pitcher, what are their names?)?
posted by yerfatma at 10:05 AM on September 20, 2005
Oops, "professional baseball": subsitute A, AA, AAA, Independent League for my previous examples.
posted by yerfatma at 10:06 AM on September 20, 2005
Seeing as how the Yankees are probably going to surpass 4 million in home attendance this season, I can't really agree they're not "the best of the sport." They spend money because they make money. And, yes, they are corporations. Baseball at that level is a HUGE business. The Yankees and Red Sox also, of course, draw the most fans on the road. Other teams have done pretty well for themselves getting rid of their big-salaried stars and replacing them with prospects, provided their scouts know their business. All sports need a few dominating teams, otherwise all the teams blend together in the dreaded "parity" scenario, and fans lose interest. A lot of people only follow the sport to see the Yankees lose. That's fine. But while many continue to worry about how much the Yankees spend each year, they lose track of the fact there are several other teams involved in great years and entertaining divisional and wild card races. If baseball does go the way of a salary cap of some sort, so be it. But the league hierarchy are still hoping for Boston-New York.
posted by dyams at 11:44 AM on September 20, 2005
Also, Ortiz's defense is only marginally worse than Kevin Millar. The whole "OMFG! What will they do in the NL city" thing amounted to less than nothing last year in the Series. If it was really only "marginally worse" than Kevin Millar, how come they've played Ortiz only 10 times at 1B this season, but they can trust Millar there and in the OF? Especially interesting when you consider how bad Millar was with the bat this year that they didn't just put Ortiz at 1B and a better bat (from ANY position, like OF or C) at DH. Boston's Win Shares New York's Win Shares That's what I'm using to help make my decision on the MVP vote. If Ortiz had 40 WS or something like that, I'd begin considering him for the MVP. But he's second on the team, so I'd be hard pressed to say he's the MVP of the league in that case.
posted by grum@work at 12:58 PM on September 20, 2005
So that's how an MVP gets decided? One statistical category? Is there any room for judgement outside of OPS+, Range Factor, and Win Shares?
posted by YukonGold at 01:55 PM on September 20, 2005
If it was really only "marginally worse" than Kevin Millar, how come they've played Ortiz only 10 times at 1B this season, but they can trust Millar there and in the OF? I dunno, but your argument suggestions all managers act rationally in all decisions and make the correct call every time. If I'm playing your game, it's because Ortiz is the least helpful in the field. Millar being played in the outfield does not make me believe in him as a fielder. The fact the Red Sox don't have any very good or very bad defenders at the power positions doesn't make Ortiz the Boston Strangler.
posted by yerfatma at 02:46 PM on September 20, 2005
So that's how an MVP gets decided? No, but those numbers are how I generally begin to judge an MVP. One statistical category? Is there any room for judgement outside of OPS+, Range Factor, and Win Shares? In terms of actual MVP awards, sometimes there are completely unstatistical reasons for winning the the award. Like "We like Player A more than Player B". For an example, see the NL MVP results for 2000. I prefer using statistical analysis for an initial comparison. That's because I don't get the chance to watch every single game of every single player. Even writers who follow the game for a living are very unlikely to watch all the games of all the MVP candidates. But using comparitive statistics that involve offence/defence/pitching gives me a chance to immediately shake out the pretenders. Using Win Shares, I can tell you (off the top of my head) that the probable MVP candidates in the AL will be: Vlad Guerrero David Ortiz Manny Ramirez Alex Rodriguez Gary Sheffield Brian Roberts Miguel Tejada (although those last two have the whole "our team sucks" problem to overcome with the voters) It doesn't mean that they should be the MVP, but they are the ones that I would be investigating more closely. However, this is the beginning of the process on how I judge an MVP. If I were in Las Vegas and wanted to lay a wager down on who I think will win the award, then it's a whole other matter. If NY wins the division: ARod If Boston wins the division: Ortiz The baseball writers are going to obsess over that race more than any other, so the "winner" will probably come from one of those two teams. They might want to choose a player from Cleveland, Chicago, or Oakland (if they make the playoffs) but there are no real players that standout from their teammates. They are truly teams with more balanced lineups than NY or Boston or Baltimore.
posted by grum@work at 03:48 PM on September 20, 2005
You had me 'til the last part: those lineups are better because they don't have standout players?
posted by yerfatma at 05:16 PM on September 20, 2005
The Yanks do it, the Red Sox do it Even educated fleas do it....
posted by owlhouse at 06:22 PM on September 20, 2005
grum, I think Ortiz might be trying to convert you.
posted by yerfatma at 07:04 PM on September 20, 2005
You had me 'til the last part: those lineups are better because they don't have standout players? I'm not sure if they are better because they lack standout players, but I'm saying that they don't really have a single (or two) player(s) on their roster that leaps out from the rest of their teammates and make themselves obvious MVP candidates. Chicago White Sox: 8 players within 5 Win Shares (20-15) Cleveland Indians: 5 players within 5 Win Shares (23-18) Oakland A's: 4 players within 5 Win Shares (19-14) Boston Red Sox: 3 players within 5 Win Shares (28-23) NY Yankees: 2 players within 5 Win Shares (32-29) The tightly bunched teams could be better in the playoffs if you believe in the whole "don't put all your eggs in one basket" theory of team construction. grum, I think Ortiz might be trying to convert you. Haha...I see that. If he goes off on some tear these last 10 games or so, and proceeds to rip the Yankees a new orifice during their series, then I'm going have a hard time believing in what I've written before this...
posted by grum@work at 07:16 PM on September 20, 2005
Wow, someone's off their medication. I use that line all the time when picking up hot chicks. Works wonders.
posted by qbert72 at 07:42 PM on September 20, 2005
Wow, my little ol' comment got a Sox fan and a Yankees fan to agree. "best of the sport" Look at that again. "best of the sport" Not the best players or the best team of the sport. Players come and go and teams come and go, but the process of buying the best players has been with us for years. That part of the corporate mentality of baseball is what I dislike about MLB. yerfatma: I addressed your question on April 16th, 2005. self-link. Maybe not in the way you'd like, but I don't think a list of players would make my point as well. Especially since we were talking about the Red Sox, the Yankees, and MLB. Maybe it was the way I phrased my rant. I will try a different tack: "The worst part of major league baseball is the corporate mentality that detracts from the joy of watching baseball played by people who love the game. A game where some teams are not eliminated on May 1st simply because they exist in poor media markets or are owned by people with shallow pockets. I'd like to see how well teams would play if everyone had the exact same payroll (within 5 million.)" Or I could have said: "How easy is it to cheer the money teams? What true fan loves baseball only when their team is a winner?" But don't let me stand in the way of your Sox/Yankees rivalry. I'm on the outside looking in. My home team hasn't been in the series since '59 and my adopted team was poisoned and moved.
posted by ?! at 10:36 PM on September 20, 2005
grum, you had me for a minute there. I misread your numbers and thought you were saying those teams had more total win shares distributed amongst a matching set of players. But all you're really saying is they have a lot of similar-quality players. Of course, a team where all players had 0 win shares would have a perfect distribution for your balanced lineup. ?!, let's just agree to disagree, though I do have to say Boston (and Chicago) would be the last places to ask your "What true fan loves baseball only when their team is a winner?" question.
posted by yerfatma at 06:15 AM on September 21, 2005
But all you're really saying is they have a lot of similar-quality players. Of course, a team where all players had 0 win shares would have a perfect distribution for your balanced lineup. Technically, you can only have a team of 0 win share players if that team didn't win any games whatsoever. The basic formula for a team win shares is Total Team Win Shares = Wins * 3
posted by grum@work at 08:46 AM on September 21, 2005
I know, but I'm a very lazy boy. And I was appealing to popular opinion rather than presenting an intellectual argument.
posted by yerfatma at 09:40 AM on September 21, 2005
yerfatma: OK. We disagree. Except you are right about Chicago and Boston. They are the last places to ask that question. The correct answer is "New York fans." That team will watch its fan base drop considerably if the suffer a years long losing streak. Chicago and Boston fans support their teams even during such streaks.
posted by ?! at 09:16 PM on September 23, 2005
Oh, if only all of us were true to the cause. You're right about me being right, though.
posted by yerfatma at 10:45 PM on September 23, 2005
The best part of that post was: "And in the process, obliviously, the majority of Red Sox fans are living their worse nightmare. They’ve become just like Yankees fans."
posted by ?! at 09:33 AM on September 25, 2005
Eh. Good idea, but pretty bland execution. Too much far-reaching for a funny (Jose Canseco representing the A's; can we stay topical?). Thanks for the link though, a couple alright ones.