How can someone who can completely maul Jorge Posada NOT be on the Team of the Decade? (NYSuperBlog.com)
In constructing the Team of the Decade of the 2000s, I’ve sought to create an actual team, not just one of superstars. Eric Hinske is the last man on the bench to be announced, joining Gabe Kapler, Alex Cora and Doug Mirabelli.
Hinske was acquired by Boston during the fateful year of 2006 to provide much-needed depth at first base, the outfield corners and third base (although he never once appeared in a game at third for Boston).
Hinske was similar to Doug Mirabelli during his time in Boston that he had a low batting average (.229 in Boston) but a fair amount of pop. He also had strong plate discipline and was considered a valuable asset to the team, serving as the utilityman in each 2007 postseason series roster.
Hinske was a hard-nosed player who was popular in the clubhouse, despite his rather rapid fall from grace after snagging the 2002 Rookie of the Year award. One play he made in April 2007 stands out, and that’s his mad lunge for a dying quail in right field, snagging the ball just as he did a massive face plant into the ground.
Hinske has since become quite a good luck charm: In 2008, he moved on to Tampa Bay and smacked 20 home runs en route to winning the American League pennant. He signed on with the Pirates to start 2009 and then was swapped to the Yankees where he exhibited the same low batting average, high plate discipline and solid power en route to another World Series. If you believe in such things, Atlanta is headed to the World Series in 2010 as a result of inking Hinske to be a bench player.
He wasn’t in Boston long — a shade under a year and a half — but his versatility, his ability, his contributions, his attitude, and yes — his faceplant, all make him a deserving member of the All-Aughts Team of the Decade as the utility player off the bench.
Loading ...
Hinske isn't a be choice here at all, I might have been partial to perhaps electing speed off the bench in this spot. Perhaps Dave Roberts would have been my choice to help give the bench a bit more versatility. Kapler has some speed, and despite Roberts' time with the team being short-lived; his impact is well documented and his role that postseason in my mind grants him a place in my mind as one of the better bench players I can remember. Surely this is debatable as I'm not trying to suggest that Hinske is a poor choice here. This has been a great series of blogs Evan, and I look forward to seeing the completed list for review in its entirety.
Agree. There are some folks who may be equally worthy, so maybe an alternate or three may be called for. Besides, and i just can't help myself, when this first decade of the 21st century officially ends after this 2010 season, if the Sox win it all again, 3x in a decade, then both the '07 and '10 teams will deserve more credit. I like the sound of 3 WS in this first decade. Just sayin' . . .
it'd be nice to see them win the 1st World Series of the NEXT decade (technically)
see i guess i disagree with the idea that '10 ends the first decade. a decade is 10 years long. '00 was a year! '00 – '09 is in fact 10 years. go ahead get those fingers goin. 10 years. so while i see what you're saying Gerry, i can only quibble on something that should otherwise be meaningless or insignificant in disagreeing with you there. regardless, it would in fact be nice to see the Sox win it all again in 2010.
3 titles in 7 years would be excellent. Becoming the dominant team of the 21st century, with 3WS in its first decade, is still, IMO, the goal. I'm going to quibble a bit here, but only because I feel strongly that the media, for their purposes, is incorrectly altering reality (what's new), and sports media are following. I feel confident the new group of prospects Theo has been putting together, starting with Buchholz, Bard, Reddick, Richardson, will cause the Sox to continue to be dominant in the next decade which, by every measuring device exclusive of those used by media, starts with the #1, as in 2011. When Papi's first HR in 2010 comes in early April, it will count as #1, not zero. That's the way everything gets measured, integer by integer, starting with the first of any measurement ("1 to 100" inches, mm, cm, feet, yards, meters, miles, km, ounces, pounds, rpm, psi, tsp, tbsp, pints, pennies, dollars, days, weeks, months, years. decades, centuries, millenia).
I agree that any 10 year period is, linguistically, a decade, but in terms of figuring out where we are within the Gregorian or any other calendar, or using Anno Domine or any other nomenclature, when you get the fingers going, even counting years, you gotta start with year #1, not zero. A million bucks starts with the first $, right? Am I missing something? Counting from #1 through #10 is the only way it can be done, including year #1 through year #10, year #1 through year #100, year #1 through year #1,000, year #1 through #2,000. Except by media, Y2K was universally accepted as ending the 2nd millenium. 12:01:01 GMT of Jan 1, 2001 began the 3rd millenium, which will end at the end of the year 3,000 (#1 through #3,000), and start again with #1 on Jan 1, 3,001. So, there's my reason for quibbling. Now, back to baseball. I like Eric Hinske & Cora off the bench, even if the Sox win it all in 2010.
Yes, it's a quibble, and it's a scientifically-backed one, but the popular notion of decade and millennia is 0-9. Factually incorrect, but far more meaningful in society.
we're not counting dollars we're counting years, '00 is a year, so is '10, and '20
2000-2009 is a decade, 2010-2019 is the next one, 2020-2029 and so on. 2000-2010 would be 11 years