• Bobby Richardson

    Posted by on August 18th, 2013 · Comments (71)

    Have you ever looked at his stats?

    For a guy who couldn’t hit a lick, and that’s being kind, he was always mentioned in the MVP voting, no?

    Year Age Tm G PA R 2B 3B HR RBI SB BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS+ Awards
    1959 23 NYY 134 507 53 18 6 2 33 5 26 20 .301 .335 .377 99 AS,MVP-18
    1960 24 NYY 150 507 45 12 3 1 26 6 35 19 .252 .303 .298 67
    1961 25 NYY 162 704 80 17 5 3 49 9 30 23 .261 .295 .316 67 MVP-24,GG
    1962 26 NYY 161 754 99 38 5 8 59 11 37 24 .302 .337 .406 101 AS,MVP-2,GG
    1963 27 NYY 151 668 72 20 6 3 48 15 25 22 .265 .294 .330 76 AS,MVP-10,GG
    1964 28 NYY 159 728 90 25 4 4 50 11 28 36 .267 .294 .333 73 AS,MVP-17,GG
    1965 29 NYY 160 713 76 28 2 6 47 7 37 39 .247 .287 .322 74 AS,MVP-20,GG
    1966 30 NYY 149 648 71 21 3 7 42 6 25 28 .251 .280 .330 79 AS
    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
    Generated 8/18/2013.

    .

    Comments on Bobby Richardson

    1. PHMDen
      August 21st, 2013 | 12:15 am

      @ Evan3457:
      I wonder why Maloney didn’t respond to your nonsense?

    2. McMillan
      August 21st, 2013 | 12:19 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Which is why I called that statement a non-sequitur.

      It was in reference to something you wrote, you idiot:

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Ricketson wrote:

      you don’t even understand the very simple concept of post ergo propter hoc, for example.

      No, YOU don’t understand it, as evidence by my use of it as an inductive support, while you claimed it’s always a fallacy. It isn’t.

    3. Evan3457
      August 21st, 2013 | 2:26 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I get paid to do the second, and my work has always been rated highly by my superiors.
      If the superiors of a high school teacher receiving a paycheck for teaching logic superiors saw that the teacher doesn’t even understand post hoc by way of baseball blog, that teacher would, or should, lose his or her job.

      LOL. You know even less about the teaching profession than you do about logic. Or baseball.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      To me, it seems the entire reasoning behind your position that the post-season isn’t a crapshoot boils down to this: the better post-season teams are the teams that play better in the post-season…
      This is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
      Causation? Temporal sequence?
      “Post hoc ergo propter hoc, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states “Since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc.”

      @logic failure
      @mischaracterization of an argument
      @failure to understand simple definitions
      @trollobvious

    4. Evan3457
      August 21st, 2013 | 2:28 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I didn’t use post hoc ergo propter hoc, your side did.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      To me, it seems the entire reasoning behind your position that the post-season isn’t a crapshoot boils down to this: the better post-season teams are the teams that play better in the post-season…
      This is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
      Causation? Temporal sequence?
      “Post hoc ergo propter hoc, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states “Since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc.”

      @false connection
      @linking two things that weren’t orginally linked.
      @typical obvious troll

    5. Evan3457
      August 21st, 2013 | 2:28 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I didn’t use post hoc ergo propter hoc, your side did.
      You did, and incorrectly, Evan042013…

      No, I used the definition correctly. Your side used it.

    6. Evan3457
      August 21st, 2013 | 2:32 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I didn’t use post hoc ergo propter hoc, your side did.
      You did, and incorrectly, Evan042013…

      False.
      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Which is why I called that statement a non-sequitur.
      It was in reference to something you wrote, you idiot:

      No, it was in reference to a quote that mischaraterized an argument I made, you moron.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      Ricketson wrote:
      you don’t even understand the very simple concept of post ergo propter hoc, for example.
      No, YOU don’t understand it, as evidence by my use of it as an inductive support, while you claimed it’s always a fallacy. It isn’t.

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Which is why I called that statement a non-sequitur.
      It was in reference to something you wrote, you idiot:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Ricketson wrote:
      you don’t even understand the very simple concept of post ergo propter hoc, for example.
      No, YOU don’t understand it, as evidence by my use of it as an inductive support, while you claimed it’s always a fallacy. It isn’t.

      Thanks for quoting something of my without an idiotic comment on it.
      For once.

    7. Evan3457
      August 21st, 2013 | 2:33 am

      PHMDen wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      If the superiors of a high school teacher receiving a paycheck for teaching logic… saw that the teacher doesn’t even understand post hoc by way of baseball blog, that teacher would, or should, lose his or her job.
      Agreed.

      Agreed and incorrect. Not even close to reality.

    8. Evan3457
      August 21st, 2013 | 2:34 am

      But all well trolled.

    9. Kamieniecki
      August 23rd, 2013 | 1:05 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Oh, and the Yanks didn’t have Edwin Jackson along with Kennedy to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.

      And the Tigers didn’t have Ian Kennedy along with Jackson to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      They are blaming Cashman for not trading for Scherzer, when the Yanks didn’t have an Edwin Jackson to trade.

      They are not blaming Dombrowski for not trading for Scherzer, when the Tigers didn’t have an Ian Kennedy to trade.

    10. Evan3457
      August 23rd, 2013 | 4:07 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Oh, and the Yanks didn’t have Edwin Jackson along with Kennedy to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.
      And the Tigers didn’t have Ian Kennedy along with Jackson to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.

      Irrelevant. The Tigers did have a Curtis Granderson to get Kennedy from the Yankees. It doesn’t work both ways.

      They are blaming Cashman for not trading for Scherzer, when the Yanks didn’t have an Edwin Jackson to trade.
      They are not blaming Dombrowski for not trading for Scherzer, when the Tigers didn’t have an Ian Kennedy to trade.

      Again, who’s blaming Dombrowski or not blaming him is irrelevant.

    11. Sweet Lou
      August 23rd, 2013 | 4:51 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Oh, and the Yanks didn’t have Edwin Jackson along with Kennedy to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.

      Kamieniecki wrote:
      Oh, and the Tigers didn’t have Ian Kennedy along with Jackson to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      They are blaming Cashman for not trading for Scherzer, when the Yanks didn’t have an Edwin Jackson to trade.

      Kamieniecki wrote:
      They are not blaming Dombrowski for not trading for Scherzer, when the Tigers didn’t have an Ian Kennedy to trade.

      @ Kamieniecki:
      Agreed. Sounds like a fair point: Both Cashman and Dombrowski had 50% of the asking price for Scherzer, but Dombrowski came away with Scherzer…

      and one of Cashman’s top prospects.

    12. Evan3457
      August 24th, 2013 | 2:42 am

      Sweet Lou wrote:

      Agreed. Sounds like a fair point: Both Cashman and Dombrowski had 50% of the asking price for Scherzer, but Dombrowski came away with Scherzer…
      and one of Cashman’s top prospects.

      It’s not a fair point. Jackson was considerably more than 50% of the value of the deal, as Kennedy had proven nothing at the big league level to that point.

      Ask yourself this: would the Tigers have traded Edwin Jackson for Kennedy, even up? If you’re at all fair, you know the answer is “no”.

    13. Sweet Lou
      August 24th, 2013 | 9:31 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Jackson was considerably more than 50% of the value of the deal.

      No he wasn’t.

    14. Kamieniecki
      August 24th, 2013 | 10:05 am

      @ Sweet Lou:
      The D’Backs were more interested in Kennedy as a long-term fixture; they just wanted two years from Jackson before free agency. For the D’Backs, Kennedy was certainly more than 50% of the value of the deal.

    15. Raf
      August 24th, 2013 | 10:47 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      It’s not a fair point. Jackson was considerably more than 50% of the value of the deal, as Kennedy had proven nothing at the big league level to that point.

      Kennedy was also coming off surgery and A. Jackson had proven less at the big league level.

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      The D’Backs were more interested in Kennedy as a long-term fixture; they just wanted two years from Jackson before free agency.

      They may have been more interested in Kennedy, but there was no need for them to trade for E. Jackson when they already had Scherzer who was younger, cheaper and had performed at Jackson’s level.

      The Tigers got salary relief, a CF to replace the CF they traded. The Yankees got a LHB that better matched up with their home park, who was going to replace Johnny Damon (it wasn’t known if Granderson was going to remain in CF or move to LF; Melky & Gardner were with the team at the time)

    16. Sweet Lou
      August 24th, 2013 | 1:35 pm

      Raf wrote:

      They may have been more interested in Kennedy

      They were.
      Raf wrote:

      Raf wrote:

      there was no need for them to trade for E. Jackson when they already had Scherzer who was younger, cheaper and had performed at Jackson’s level.

      Arizona made a mistake – that’s obvious. But that’s not relevant to the question of why New York didn’t pick up Scherzer when New York had more than 50% of the package Arizona accepted.

      Raf wrote:

      The Yankees got a LHB

      @ Raf:

      Well, that’s the point: New York got a LHB and a replacement for Damon when Detroit got more than a RHP – they got Max Scherzer – with less than 50% of the package the Diamondbacks took to start with.

      Regardless of whether Kennedy was coming off of surgery of any kind, he was still more than 50% of the deal in the Diamondbacks’ eyes that New York had in its possession, and Detroit ended up with Scherzer – and A. Jackson!

      The question is why New York didn’t take Scherzer themselves – one can’t say because they didn’t have E. Jackson – Detroit didn’t have I. Kennedy, either.
      And If you’re correct that it wasn’t known if Granderson was going to move to LF, the trade’s worse: a team doesn’t pass on Scherzer to get to a left fielder, unless Scherzer wasn’t on its radar or it didn’t evaluate him properly:

      Raf wrote:

      I guess one of the stories that caught your eye was the powwow in Tampa?
      http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/hall-calls-tampa-meeting-address-barren-farm-system-article-1.1431853

      … Look at how long New York’s gone without a consistent presence in LF with the exception of Matsui. Plus, A. Jackson’s worked out fine.

    17. Evan3457
      August 25th, 2013 | 12:29 am

      Sweet Lou wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Jackson was considerably more than 50% of the value of the deal.
      No he wasn’t.

      From Tyler Kepner’s article on the piece after the 2011 season:

      While Cashman and Dombrowski discussed Granderson, Byrnes was pursuing Edwin Jackson, who was coming off an All-Star season. He was also intrigued by Kennedy, who had spent most of 2009 dealing with an aneurysm under his right armpit but looked sharp in the Arizona Fall League.

      Byrnes introduced the three-way concept as a way to satisfy all parties. He and Cashman knew the Tigers wanted younger versions of the players they would be trading — and then some. Austin Jackson gave Detroit a younger center fielder than Granderson, and Scherzer a younger starter than Edwin Jackson.

      Cashman also parted with Coke, a left-hander who could start or relieve, and Byrnes included Schlereth, another lefty, who had been a first-round pick. Because Byrnes was trading Scherzer, too, he needed another young starter in return. So the Yankees gave up Kennedy, a fly-ball pitcher who seemed to be a better fit for the National League West than the American League East.

      “As much as we liked Scherzer and Schlereth,” Byrnes said, “the notion of getting two starters back was pretty compelling.”

      As I said earlier, from the D’backs standpoint, Jackson was the key to the deal, and the D’backs were trying to rebuild their rotation by getting two starting pitchers at once. Byrnes was intrigued by Kennedy, but was pursuing Jackson.

    18. Evan3457
      August 25th, 2013 | 12:30 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      @ Sweet Lou:
      The D’Backs were more interested in Kennedy as a long-term fixture; they just wanted two years from Jackson before free agency. For the D’Backs, Kennedy was certainly more than 50% of the value of the deal.

      In the actual event, they kept Jackson for one season, then traded him for a good young starter in Daniel Hudson, who then blew out his elbow.

      So yes, after the fact, in hindsight, Kennedy had more direct value to the Diamondbacks than Jackson, but the deal would never have been done for Kennedy, or for Kennedy as the key component.

    19. Sweet Lou
      August 25th, 2013 | 11:47 am

      @ Evan3457:
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Jackson was the key to the deal

      The Kepner article is inaccurate: Kennedy was the primary; not E. Jackson:

      “Dipoto, then the Diamondbacks’ senior vice president of scouting and player development, watched every pitch KENNEDY threw, and came away impressed…
      ‘He was outstanding every time, right through the championship game of [the AFL]’ Dipoto… recalled…

      Arizona needed to improve its rotation after Webb had made only one start… and had uncertain shoulder health. The club wasn’t concerned with… finding a substitute ace… just a quality pitcher on whom they could depend for SEVERAL YEARS…
      ‘We had identified [KENNEDY, not Jackson] as a very good fit… He was young, CONTROLLABLE and had a quartet of pitches he could control… and we felt like he could deliver quality innings,’ Dipoto said…”

      Arizona was interested in KENNEDY in Oct., 2009, not Jackson. At the same time, Cashman was interested in GRANDERSON. Cashman called Dombrowski to inquire about Granderson on the evening of Game 1 of the 2009 World Series. One month later, in Nov., 2009:

      “Dombrowski was driving… to Chicago… His cell phone rang, and [Byrnes] was on the line. ‘He said he talked to [Cashman]. There was the potential of a three-way deal… And that…got that ball rolling,’ Dombrowski related…”

      “Byrnes had called Cashman [about KENNEDY] BEFORE contacting Dombrowski [about the potential for a three-way deal involving Kennedy and Granderson], feeling out [Cashman] on what he might be looking for [in terms of the team’s needs]…

      Byrnes… guessed New York was focused on Granderson. ‘We sat down… and felt like the Yankees [not the Tigers] were the logical spot,’ Byrnes said. ‘We didn’t know that. We just thought about that…’ The deal was finalized on Dec. 9.”

      Arizona was interested in Kennedy, and believed New York to be interested in Detroit’s Granderson and contacted Detroit to negotiate the three-way deal with New York. Cashman has never been reported to have inquired about Scherzer, who’s gone 62-28 since the trade, at the time Byrnes was inquiring about Kennedy and before Byrnes approached Dombrowski about a three-way deal.
      So Scherzer was available, and Cashman had the more significant of two pieces Dombrowski used to acquire Scherzer. And Dombrowski also walked away with A. Jackson; it was a heist.

      After the trade:

      “If Kennedy pans out like the D-backs think he will, AND Jackson gives them TWO good years BEFORE becoming a FREE AGENT, then this will wind up being a good deal for the D-backs. Is there risk involved in giving up someone with Scherzer’s ability? Absolutely… In the end you have to trust your scouts and if the D-backs feel as strongly as they do about KENNEDY they have to follow that… if KENNEDY turns out to be a solid 3/4 starter, then the deal will be worthwhile for Arizona…”

      “The Diamondbacks got Ian Kennedy from the Yankees, and he posted a 3.80 ERA in 32 starts in 2010. They didn’t keep Edwin Jackson for long, trading him to Chicago for promising right-hander Daniel Hudson…

      “‘I think the [Dec., 2009 trade] made sense for all the teams involved, which is rare for a three-way deal,’ Byrnes said… ‘From our perspective, we wanted to add depth to our rotation. As much as we liked Scherzer and Schlereth, getting Kennedy and Jackson LED TO TWO LONG-TERM starting pitchers (Kennedy and Hudson)…'”

    20. Evan3457
      August 25th, 2013 | 12:57 pm

      The article you quoted says the D’backs were interested in Kennedy first. It doesn’t say they’d have traded Scherzer for him.

      From the same SB Nation article you posted:

      Rob Neyer is a good example: “All my friends seem to have this one the same: Great for Yanks, good for Tigers, terrible for Diamondbacks. My friends are usually right.”

      Also from the same article:

      Ken Rosenthal says the reason for dealing Scherzer is that Arizona “view Scherzer as a reliever, not a starter. Scherzer had Tommy John surgery in high school. He was a reliever in college. And his mechanics remain a concern.” Therefore, we are effectively converting two relievers into two starters.”

    21. Sweet Lou
      August 25th, 2013 | 1:54 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The article you quoted says the D’backs were interested in Kennedy first. It doesn’t say they’d have traded Scherzer for him.

      @ Evan3457:
      My earlier post actually references more than 5 articles altogether, not just 1.

      The D’Backs did trade Scherzer for Kennedy – for Kennedy AND E. Jackson; Kennedy was the primary.

      It hasn’t been reported that Cashman attempted to acquire Scherzer when Scherzer was available and the Diamondbacks was interested in Kennedy; Cashman appears to have had an opportunity to acquire Scherzer and did not; Dombrowski did. And Dombrowski also pocketed one of Cashman’s top prospects at the same time.

      Neyer’s friends were obviously quite wrong: Great for the Tigers.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.