The upside of upside

by azruavatar on Mar 28, 2008 9:17 AM EDT Comment 102 comments

Anthony Reyes.

Just kidding. I'm not going to talk about Mr. Reyes today although I imagine some of you cringed a bit just now.

About a week ago, Kindred made a comment questioning the validity of the term upside and likening it to "grit". My point isn't to call out Kindred, so I hope he can forgive me for using him as an example, because the questions that he raises are worthwhile to consider. At what point does the term upside become so nebulous that we're discussing intangibles that won't ever really be resolved? Does that conversation inevitably boil down to a my-opinion-your-opinion back and forth that isn't reconcilable? I don't think there are definite answers to either of those questions but given how often I use the term upside, I wanted to flesh out the concept.

If ylwe're going to pick the word most synonymous with upside, it's probably potential. The untapped latent ability of young(er) players to rapidly improve upon their established true talent level. Something of a perfect world scenario for that player, where everything that we can reasonably expect to go right does. There are two words that I want to pick up on there to begin: young and reasonably.

Sometimes the word upside gets used during the free agent period. I'm sure I've said something to the effect of "Barry Bonds has more upside than Chris Duncan." or it's written equivalent. The more I consider what upside is, the more I've come to think that statement is wrong. Barry Bonds has an established level of true talent. We have a reasonable idea what we should expect from him as a player. There isn't any reason to expect a sudden increase in productivity (let's leave aside the steroid comments) that we would associate with a younger player's game progressing. So a more accurate comparison would be "Barry Bonds is likely to be the better player but Chris Duncan has some upside that could significantly improve upon his most likely performance."

The second word is both more important and more difficult to isolate. What can we reasonably expect to go right? Maybe it's my time at Future Redbirds that's caused me to struggle with this question for the last week but it's a beast. Is it reasonable to expect Tyler Greene to ever hit for average? For Adam Ottavino to suddenly discover a plus changeup? For Daryl Jones to convert his tools to productivity? Of course, those questions and the ambiguity of their answers are what makes prospect watching and young MLB players so interesting and so hotly debated.

For hitters, there seems to be an easier visible correlation between tools and on the field productivity. When you see a player like Daryl Jones, you notice the speed; you notice the strength. The raw athleticism that exists does make it reasonable to anticipate that he could someday just "get it" for lack of a better term and that strength could turn into homeruns. The speed could turn into stolen bases or stretching a single into a double. I use Jones as an example because he's quite possibly the best athlete in the farm system (yes, better than Rasmus) but he's worlds away from translating that into real baseball production. The point is, the upside with Jones is tremendous but the gap between what he is and what he could be is also substantial.

The flip side of that is considering the scenarios that aren't realistic expectations. It's probably not reasonable to expect someone like Chris Duncan to suddenly stop striking out. (I don't have the traditional abhorrence of strikeouts but work with me here.) He's shown that proclivity and that he can get fooled by breaking pitches at times. There isn't a reasonable explanation for why he would suddenly cut his strikeouts in half, for example. That's not a slam on Duncan, just an attempt to point out the limits of his upside. He does represent upside defensively; as he plays more games in left field there's some valid reasons to think that he could improve on his (terrible) defensive performances from the last couple.

Pitchers are another situation altogether. The addition of a new pitch can radically alter a player's game and, using an extreme example, make them a Hall of Fame pitcher (see: Sutter, Bruce). That said, it doesn't happen often. Jason Motte isn't likely to suddenly add a wicked curveball to his arsenal. I doubt we'll see Brad Thompson exhibit a plus changeup this season. When a pitcher does make the leap that way, it's fantastic but I don't consider it realistic to forecast a player adding a brand new above average pitch.

But improving on a pitch they already have, that's upside. One of my favorite new sites is Saber-scouting. Two individuals who have worked for MLB previously (one as a scout) publishing their analysis of different players and prospects. Here's a recent scouting report on Johnny Cueto, the Red's pitching prospect who has made some noise recently surpassing Homer Bailey in their depth chart. Notice that they grade out the future potential of the pitches. As pitchers get a better feel for their secondary offerings, you'd expect improvement. That's upside.

The easiest example of pitching upside that comes to my mind is velocity. There are certain players who because of age, build and work ethic, are expected to add velocity as they get older. High School pitchers aren't always drafted for their present velocity but for the potential that they could add another 2-3mph on top of that. Again, a reasonable expectation of latent potential which is separate from their established level of talent.

But what's the benefit of upside? We've spent all this time thinking about how to define it and what it could be, what it can't be, and what it probably shouldn't be . . . but why care? Let's consider two hypothetical players: Player A and Player B. There established talent levels would cause us to expect both of them to hit .280/.350/.475 next season and play comparable defense to one another. Player A is 32 and Player B is 22. Player B is still maturing somewhat as a hitter and even adding some muscle as he finishes growing. There's reason to believe that Player B will hit substantially better than his most likely projection but little reason to believe the same for A. Of course, you are going to pick Player B.

Consider it stacking the deck in your favor. The more upside there is present on your team, the more potential there is for you to exceed that average/no-substantial-improvement projection. (Also, we're talking talent not luck here. Luck is not a part of upside. Spikes in BABIP or other luck stats shouldn't be considered.) It's rarely as cut and dry as the Player A vs. Player B scenario above but that's the end goal. To geek out for a moment, you want to skew your probability curve toward the right. Push it so that the variables inherent in the system cause an overperformance more often than an underperformance.

Players with the most upside often have a significant risk associated with them as well. The chance that they could amount to nothing is a profound and all too often occurrence. That's your basic cost-benefit analysis. Is the probability of this player achieving his potential during the season worth the risk of the chance he doesn't? And what are the risks and rewards of each stage in between total success and total failure? Obviously those are both questions best handled on a case-by-case basis but it's important to remember that players with upside are often players with risk.

Upside is going to remain a nebulous term. Finding those players that have upside due to age, previous injury or perhaps a lack of maturity is a goal of scouts in every organization. Identifying those somewhat intangible qualities that don't appear in the box score is what nets good players at discounts. The boundaries are always going to be a little gray regarding upside but nebulous doesn't imply without any definition -- merely without a firm one. I'll probably watch myself more closely when I use the term upside. There's a meaning there and it's more specific than often portrayed.

0 recs | Comment 102 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If it's nebulous and a matter of opinion now

teams are beginning to attempt to change that.

I think I've linked it here in the past when we were trying to hire their assistant GM; the Indians organization produces reports on every player every year (I believe) that grade the player on various "tools."

Essentially, it's an attempt to turn "upside" into a statistic that can be measured. If the scores are 1 through 5, you concentrate on the players who are 4s and 5s, 'cause they have the most potential. Get them special training, etc. Players that are 1s and 2s? Well, you gotta fill out that minor league roster anyway.....

I'm pretty sure it was an extended URL of cleveland.com, but I can't find it right now.

by sdrone on Mar 28, 2008 9:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It all about quantification

Not to go PhD on you, but I think upside is a cognitive shortcut that lets the beholder assign a compartive value to a player's ceiling. Rather than say given a pitchers skill set and repertoire (and maybe quantifying those) it lets somebody say the upside is #3 starter or rp or closer etc. So I agree with your definitions, but I also think its definition is somewhat tied to the person making the statement.

Thanks
Tony H

by Tony H on Mar 28, 2008 9:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Great post, az

I think it's important to emphasize that accurate, or at least precise, upside evaluation allows teams to find value where other teams may not.

That's why upside has become so important for a team like the Cardinals. If we're always going to be a middle of the pack team in terms of payroll (which it appears that we are) accurately predicting a player's upside is an advantage over other teams, say the Cubs, without as good of a player evaluation system.

When commenters on this blog talk about a player's upside, they're not just talking about the fact that he's young and he might get better, they're talking about a value advantage we can have over other teams.

by arch support on Mar 28, 2008 9:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

PECOTA

The quantification of "upside" is one of the greatest strengths of the PECOTA system - taking into account a variety of stats, body type, (DNA?), etc. and looking for comparable players.

It's easy to think we see potential with the naked eye - great "tools", jumps in stats out of context, but very hard to make an objective evaluation. However, if 9 out of 10 guys who fit this profile became productive big leaguers, there is tangible upside there.

by bgodar on Mar 28, 2008 10:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Let's combine these two debates

and discuss the upside for Reyes. ;-)

Just kidding, all.....put down your blunt objects.

Personally, I think we got hosed on that call.

by TurdFerguson on Mar 28, 2008 10:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Making that statement

shows that you like to "play with risk" as oppposed to a "player with risk" like AZ is talking about.

by cardsgirl95 on Mar 28, 2008 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

;-)

Personally, I think we got hosed on that call.

by TurdFerguson on Mar 28, 2008 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The PETCOTA system

along with other complex systems do have good value in making judgements on a players potential but in a lot of cases like Reyes case, the more simple SWAG method is often more accurate.

by ridgesee on Mar 28, 2008 10:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

More on risk, please

Azru, you mentioned briefly the risk factor near the end of your post. Could you (or someone else) expand on that? I don't think it goes without saying that younger players with more upside also have more risk.

Taking your A and B example, it seems to me that the 32-year-old player A carries a higher injury risk than player B. Wouldn't it be pretty rare that player B's production would fall dramatically?

In other words, why do you think players with more upside usually carry more risk?

by blehmann on Mar 28, 2008 10:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's not just injury risk

Perhaps it's risk for time spending trying to bring the "potential" talent to a real skill that helps the team. Time wasted from failures means maybe another player doesn't get the help he needs.

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Mar 28, 2008 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The conventional wisdom

is often that the uber-athletic toolsy young players have tremendous upside but also a great deal of risk. Daryl Jones, again, serves as a great example of this. He's got all the physical gifts to become a great player but there's some transition from physical prowess to actual baseball skills that he hasn't been able to make yet. This is often the case with those types of players. If things go right for them, they can go very very right. But when they go wrong they go very very wrong. Kip Wells is another example of someone who is regarded as having great stuff but for whatever reason, he's amounted to little more than a replacement level starter (if that).

There's certainly risk associated with an older player and it's not my intention to down play that but there's a long list of highly regarded players who just never manage to put it together at all.

by azruavatar on Mar 28, 2008 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So in other words...

what you're saying with risk is not that there's a good chance productivity will decline, but rather that the risk is that they won't fulfill their potential?

If so, I completely agree - the list of players who never attained the potential attributed them is long. But in that case, the case of the A and B players really presents no (or little) risk for the upside player, since the risk you mention is only the risk that he doesn't improve as hoped. But he'd still remain just as good as player A.

by blehmann on Mar 28, 2008 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

right

that was an example heavily biased in player B's favor to illustrate the point.

by azruavatar on Mar 28, 2008 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure I'd call that "risk"

To me, "risk" involves the likelihood that the cost is greater than the benefit. With someone like Daryl Jones, who's hugely toolsy but hasn't yet put it all together, there's a great likelihood that he'll never put it all together but not much risk as the Cards don't have that much invested in him. He was a top-5 (rounds) draft pick but it's not like he's making millions of dollars or blocking other prospects in the system. The cost of him not making it just isn't that great.

I think a better term for what you're describing is "variance." It is the range of his possible performance. Jones might become an all-star if he can put those tools together or he might flame out and go back to a college football scholarship. His range of performance, from best case scenario to worse case scenario, is very expansive. That doesn't mean that the team's risk associated w/ his performance or with keeping him on a roster right now is very high. It just means there is a great variance between his best case performance and his worst case performance.

I'll add that everyone's worst case scenario is the same -- at least w/ minor league prospects. They all flame out and never amount to anything and get released. The reason Jones' variance is so great is b/c he has such great tools. The variance of someone w/ lesser tools wouldn't necessarily be so great.

by chuckb on Mar 28, 2008 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree HC...

but, I don't think the term risk is really used with guys who don't ask for/receive huge signing bonuses or aren't near the major-league level. DJ is a guy who has only been associated with risk when someone has said there is no risk associated with him (to this point). Risk comes with guys like Kyle Russell and Porcello...or guys like ARey and Brian Barton. Guys who have shown potential to be better than average major leaguers but you play/pay them a bunch of money at the RISK that they won't be.

Thanks for the highlight moments 15 and 27!!!

by cardzfanbub on Mar 28, 2008 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Houstoncardinal

I disagree slightly that there isn't an element of risk involved in the dicussion regarding players like Jones. Drafting a player in the top 5 involves an oppotunity cost from the lost opportunity to draft a different player. I do agree that the use of variance is a needed component of the discussion.

by Tony H on Mar 28, 2008 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but the risk is relatively small

remember, he was picked in the first 5 rounds, not the first 5 picks in the draft. I'll grant you that the risk goes up the higher the person was selected in the draft.

by chuckb on Mar 28, 2008 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if you wanted to label it variance

I wouldn't necessarily quibble with that. Jones is a riskier player relative to a draft pick that has a higher floor but lower ceiling. The overall risk to the organization may not be huge but the probability he reaches potential is also very low. So you have a high probability of no reward and a small probability of great reward. It's a balancing act between the two. Part of this conversation plays into drafting philosophy as an organization, as well.

by azruavatar on Mar 28, 2008 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, maybe I misunderstood your point

I guess your point was that toolsy players like Jones have greater risk than people like Kozma, for example -- higher floors, lower ceilings. I'll definitely agree with that. There's greater risk largely b/c of the greater variance. I guess my comparison was more w/ toolsy young players vs vets -- or young players in general vs vets. There's very little risk for a team who's unlikely to win its division in playing younger guys but much more risk in signing, acquiring, and playing vets -- generally speaking. For teams like the Mets, Phils, Cubs, or others, there may be more risk w/ the young guys b/c they stand to lose much more.

by chuckb on Mar 28, 2008 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent point.

I think that you identify the fun of being a GM. Identifying where your team is on the sliding scale between rebuilding and contending. Having major league players with large variances in potential is most likely seen as less risky when you are in a rebuilding phase (much as the Cards are); however, when retooling from 2003 to 2004, it would have been extremely risky to dump productive veterans with a much more predictable variance for prospects given that they were clearly in a contending mode.

I think that is the issue when you talk about how LaRussa/Duncan look at the roster, because they are looking at the most effective way to contend right now. That's why it was good to see Mo stand up for the organization and indicate that they are in a rebuilding mode.

by etp_stl on Mar 28, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is why I sorta cring when people say

Haren's treatment = Reyes' treatment. The team was in such a radically different situation in 2004 than it is today. It's way less unfair to bitch about Tony not giving the rook a chance in that situation, as that team was so good that anything less than a world series would have been a disappointment. It makes much more sense to go with the players whose performance you can predict in that situation.

Now, however, what the hell is there to lose by not playing Reyes?

"You say the world has lost it's love. I say embrace what it's made of" - Dar Williams

by Valatan on Mar 28, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely.

I don't remember the excessive complaints about Haren being shipped out when we thought Mulder would be Mulder. I'm sure there were those that were tepid on the trade, but the overall feeling seemed to be that Mulder was going to put us over the top. Most were predicting Haren to be a middle to bottom of the rotation starter. His "upside" has been reached in spades.

by etp_stl on Mar 28, 2008 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There were loud detractors

BP predicted that Haren would outperform Mulder in his first year post trade. He did.

I was against the trade since it was pure reactionary. The "we need an ace" thinking. The sad part was we lost because we stopped hitting, not because the pitching imploded.

Ironically the short sighted need for "an ace" then has caused our pitching to implode now.

by DriverZn on Mar 28, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dave Duncan was also against trading Haren for Mulder

by Evilfrog on Mar 28, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

He was for the trade if it was Marquis instead of Haren. That would've been a steal.

by liam on Mar 28, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One very loud detractor

was Brian Gunn, coming out of retirement to write this piece.

(Although I'm convinced Mulder will contribute significantly this year.)

by liam on Mar 28, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ironically,

he references Reyes as the other top pitching prospect in that article. Wouldn't it have been different now if Reyes had gone instead of Haren?

by etp_stl on Mar 28, 2008 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not really talking about the trade

so much as a lot of the commentary I've seen around here recently about how Tony never realy gave Haren a chance to succeed in StL, and hated him and shipped him out, just like what's going to happen to Reyes. And I just think that's a really unfair comparison, because the 2008 Cardinals are decidedly not the 2004 Cardinals.

"You say the world has lost it's love. I say embrace what it's made of" - Dar Williams

by Valatan on Mar 28, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Was there the ...

same sentiment about Haren? I don't remember it at the time, and I guess I haven't seen that said over the last few days. He does, to some extent, indicate the TLR/Jockety preference for proven commodities vs. upside players. But, as you stated, that was a decidedly different time with different circumstances.

by etp_stl on Mar 28, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't remember one

It seems like this is a retroactive sentiment. But then again, in those days, I was spending more time on the official board than anything, and we all know what kind of stupidity goes on there. It was only around the 2004 postseason that I started reading actual cardblogs regularly. But I really don't remember this gigantic outcy about Haren getting the shaft, just perhaps some arguing that he should have had a WS start after his great relief appearance in game one.

"You say the world has lost it's love. I say embrace what it's made of" - Dar Williams

by Valatan on Mar 28, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Confidence interval and variance vs. "risk"

There is no rational basis for concluding that a player has more risk of falling short of expectations solely because he has more talent. The determining factors for projecting the risk of failure are the sample size for the evaluative data and the variance in that set of data.

For example, Albert Pujols had a much higher ceiling as a rookie than Aaron Miles. That did not make Pujols a greater risk of falling short of his expected performance (the median expectation in the range of possibilities). Assuming both players had the same sample size of minor league play for projecting their major league performance AND the variance in the historical data was equal, then the projection of their most likely (median) performance would be equally likely to happen, and the projection of best and worst outcomes for their performance would be equally wide. But the lower end of the range for Pujols' performance would still be higher than the higher range for Miles' performance. Thus, Pujols and Miles would have an EQUAL "risk" of falling short of their median expected performance, yet it one could predict with confidence that even in that outcome Pujols would still perform at a higher level.

If, however, a player shows high degree of variation (variance) in past performance, then the range of likely possibilities is broadened. If Joe Mather, for example, has a higher variance than Cody Haether, we can be more confident in our projections for Cody, REGARDLESS of whether Mather has more or less skill than Haether.

by CardsWin on Mar 28, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course, the main determinant of a players' floor is injury risk

becaue an injured player has zero production, which will drag down any average in a hurry.

"You say the world has lost it's love. I say embrace what it's made of" - Dar Williams

by Valatan on Mar 28, 2008 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

perspective

I think there is a difference between a pujols and a miles in most cases, and it has everything to do with cost. This cost can be in dollars or in lost opportunity. In dollars, if a Pujols goes bust you are out 10 million, whereas a busted Miles only costs 2. Not most of the time the best players are drafted early - you chose Pujols so my arguements is a little weak, but most times highly talented players of pujols caliber are scooped up early in the draft - an second round draft pick is a more risky draft pick than a 22nd round draft pick - it costs more to sign the 2nd rounder, the risk of not being able to sign them is higher and more costly if it falls through (loss of a second round player in the coming years), and if a second rounder flames out, that decision costs you more in productivity than a 22nd round flame out - just because more second rounders should succeed at the major league level than 22nd rounders. Risk isn't just about success and failure, but in investment.

by cdb on Mar 28, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps that wasn't clear

I didn't mean to imply that more talent is directly proportional to the risk. But often, especially with prospects, the very raw athletes offer very high rewards attached to very high risks. Certainly the probability of return on talent players varies though.

by azruavatar on Mar 28, 2008 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think that's what AZ does

he's talking about Daryl Jones -- a toolsy player who was drafted for his tools, not his performance. Throughout his 3-4 years in the minors, his performance has been poor, to say the least. There've been flashes of his tools but he has performed miserably. It's not too much of a stretch to say that it's unlikely he'll reach his potential. Albert's performance was star-like from about the moment he took the field as a minor leaguer. You can't fairly compare Albert's minor league performance to that of Daryl Jones. Jones is unlikely to reach his potential b/c he has shown very little of his potential to this point as a pro, not b/c his ceiling is so high.

by chuckb on Mar 28, 2008 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Projecting based on raw talent versus developed skills

I agree, AZ, that in the case of D. Jones the confidence interval is very wide, because Jones is so low on the skill development curve that it makes for a very wide range of possible outcomes in any projection of his potential skill level, ultimately. So, in that sense, the risk that he will fall far short of his potential is very real.

And I agree with houstoncardinal, too, that Pujols is a rare exception in terms of talent and in terms of how far his skills were developed before he reached the major leagues. The range of possible performance for him was much narrower than the range for D. Jones now. So, yes, there is a much higher risk that Jones will fall far short of his potential.

Investing in player development is a lot like investing in stock. The conservative approach is to go for lower risk with lower potential value (Kozma). The bold (growth) strategy is to go for higher risk with higher potential rewards (Porcello). How much risk one takes on in stocks and in players depends on how much one can withstand losses. The Cardinals in last summer's draft must have felt that with such little capital already secured (minor league prospects) that a rapid growth strategy (Porcello) meant too much risk of ending up with nothing for a large investment ($10M) versus 10 or more cheaper alternatives (Kozma, Mortenson, et. al.) at the same total cost, with the probability that at least a couple or more would actually be able to contribute eventually at the ML level. It's a boring strategy, but it's wise, I think. Once the Cards are overstocked with valuable prospects, they can take more chances on high reward / high risk types like Porcello, because they can afford the failure of those chances, just as someone who has enough in his or her retirement accounts to retire securely can be more comfortable gambling a responsible fraction of assets on high growth / high risk investments, in hopes of striking gold....

by CardsWin on Mar 28, 2008 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Skip Bayless....

picked the Cardinals to win the NL Central. I don't know if that makes me happy or sad.

...just a bit outside....

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Mar 28, 2008 12:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why did he go and do that for?

I don't think the Cards are as bad as most so-called experts say they are, but I don't know about winning the Central. Bayless could look like a fool or a freaking genius. Let's hope for a future membership for him to join Mensa.

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Mar 28, 2008 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that doesn't surprise me a whole lot

he probably picked us 3rd the year after we won 105 games.

by chuckb on Mar 28, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where do you find that?

I'd love to see his rationale, but I can't find the article linked anywhere on the espn MLB page.

Here it shows the predictions of five ESPN analysts for the Cards and they say 4th, 5th, and [gulp] 6th.

by blehmann on Mar 28, 2008 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

its called TV

maybe you've heard of it?

...just a bit outside....

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Mar 28, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's funny

how TV used to actually matter. Nowadays, if you can't link to it, it's almost like it didn't happen.

"I'll believe it when I see it on youtube..."

Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he'd drive down the street in his El Dorado

by SleepyCA on Mar 28, 2008 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right...

I don't think of ESPN as a sports channel but as a website. It also doesn't help that I don't get the channel. :(

by blehmann on Mar 28, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I read that ESPN prediction site

Maybe their W-L predictions are close, but their analysis is waaaaay off.

Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country

by Mr Redbird on Mar 28, 2008 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

they are rank amateurs

http://vegaswatch.net/2008/03/tim-kurkjian-and-buster-olney-are.html

as this article shows, the ESPN analysts don't even go to the trouble of having their predictions balance out to an average of 81 wins per team. every win is also a loss; the MLB-wide won-loss record has to be .500. but kurkjian and stark think MLB will play .506 ball this year . . . . . pretty sloppy.

by lboros on Mar 28, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's hilarious

Still hard to comprehend that Keith Law was denied a BBWAA vote...

by liam on Mar 28, 2008 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I only looked at their W-L for STL

That's really funny (and pathetic) that baseball is going to be more winning this season than ever. I can't believe they get paid that kind of money.

Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country

by Mr Redbird on Mar 28, 2008 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

espn

he said it on first take or first and ten today

by barry whiteteeth on Mar 28, 2008 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bayless is a dolt

I think it's a toss-up between him and Stephen A. Smith for who is the most worthless "pundit" ESPN trots out on a regular basis. I'm going to take his pick of us as a death blow. Kind of like when Lee Corso picks your team on College Gameday, there's no worse omen.

Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country

by Mr Redbird on Mar 28, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Bayless goes for the shock value over substance

Even though he's from Oklahoma (I believe he wrote for a paper here), I do not care for his views on most sports issues.

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Mar 28, 2008 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I agree with that. He just tries to spark a debate for the sake of sparking a debate. It was pretty sad watching him get outmaneuvered by the unintelligent but shit-ass goofy Woody Paige.

"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.

by redbirdnation8206 on Mar 28, 2008 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's tough

I've actually thought about this for a non-trivial amount of time. Stephen A. Smith is definitely an idiot, and so is Skip Bayless, but I also think Dick Vitale is a complete moron. (note the bold "A" -- I had to type it like Mr. Smith pronounces it) I think its hilarious to watch "Dicky V's" March Madness predictions -- top seeds all the time. If I'm not mistaken, his "upset" pick was a 9 over an 8 this year. He's just such a buffoon that sometimes people don't notice that he never has any substance to his analysis.

The best ESPN pundit? I think that's a toss up between Harold Reynolds and Jay Bilas.

by Ray Lankford on Mar 28, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

HR

Harold hasnt worked for ESPN for a while.....

by FunkeeC on Mar 28, 2008 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know that

and I miss him dearly.

by Ray Lankford on Mar 28, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reynolds

HR used to get ripped up pretty good by the firejoemorgan crew, for reasons that were perfectly defensible. However, when he talked about stuff like turning double plays, groundball footwork, swing mechanics, etc. he was actually pretty good. I miss the days when Baseball Tonight had half-tolerable commentators.

"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.

by redbirdnation8206 on Mar 28, 2008 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

bayless

i will start by saying i am not really a fan, but what he said was what i think a lot of people here may be thinking; he basically said he thinks the cubs and brewers would be fighting it out early, but that the cards would sneak in late after getting mulder and carp back, and would at that time have the best pitching; i am not sure, but i believe he may have qualified it by saying the pitching coming back and contributing would HAVE to happen for his pick to be right

Pujols is the greatest Cardinal in my lifetime.

by bigcardsfan5 on Mar 28, 2008 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess it's theoretically possible if 2005 Mulder shows up again

if Hindenburg hurts himself, and gets replaced by a suddenly consistent Anthony Reyes, and then Carpenter comes back in full Cy Young form after the all star break, all while Pujols and Glaus avoid injury, and Ankiel builds on last year, and Izturis' second half of spring training is more indicative than his first half was.

But...

"You say the world has lost it's love. I say embrace what it's made of" - Dar Williams

by Valatan on Mar 28, 2008 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The critical question, the one on everyone's tongues, however is:

Where does John Kruk have us?

"You say the world has lost it's love. I say embrace what it's made of" - Dar Williams

by Valatan on Mar 28, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's why this year is such an opportunity

There are clearly significant holes to be filled, and the financial realities are that we weren't going to be a big player in free agency to fill them.

Personally I was kinda hoping we'd use this offseason to throw the kids right into the mix so we can make more informed evaluations as to which are more likely to live up to their upside in future years. Particularly in the field. Not as much so with pitching simply because I think our best pitching prospects are a little further away.

What happened in actuality as far as I can tell, is a more balanced approach. In some cases youth and upside won out (McClellan, Barton). In others they continue the rummage sale shopping (Izturis, Miles, etc). It's a step in the right direction I think, so overall I'll take it but I do think we could look to give more kids their opportunity.

I like Rasmus, but it's become a given that he'll be able to help at some point. I don't mind a year of seasoning with him. But I hope that guys like Ryan, Hoffpauir, Mather, Perez get extended time over the course of the season. Not that I think any are sure things. To Azru's point, many with youth on their side never do make additional progress. I think putting them into the fire this year, helps make more informed decisions in 09', when we will have enough idle cash to be a player in free agency. I'd like to be able to make some determinations as to where we might need to overpay for talent, and more importantly where we will not.

And who knows, they might be better this year than our more veteran options anyway.

by Merry CRasmus on Mar 28, 2008 12:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Let's not forget just how L-O-N-G a ML season is.

The face of this franchise could very well be quite different by September. For a team in this spot, it's almost like the whole season is spring training. If a couple of our youngbloods put in a good showing in the first half of the season, it builds a case for giving MORE young guys a chance. My greatest fear is not that we will finish 4th, it's that our young players will demonstrate that they are not ML-ready yet.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Mar 28, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Amen..MRFreak read my kind

one way or another (and I hope for the better) the roster will be very different in Aug/Sept than the queasy 25 we trot out this week.
Polyanna-like, I have great hopes for Clement, Mulder and Carpenter; and one or two of the "kids" (I don't know which one) will become this year's Chris Duncan, and Rasmus will be this year's Ankiel come August.
MY biggest fears are people like Pujols (health), Ankiel (flash in the pan?) and Yadi (that boy always scares me).
Make note: I expect nothing but disaster from the middle infield (at least in the first half) so anything we get there at all will be a plus.

And to tweak Freak's biggest fear... with me it's not so much that the kids will prove un-worthy as it is they won't be given the chance. If we are 5 games out by August 1, I hope management doesn't bring in the Miguel Cairo's of this world. I'm still cleaning up my vomit from that move last year.

p.s. I am in the Tony should have been replaced camp.

by the Tewk on Mar 28, 2008 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We are essentially of one mind ... except

re the starting pitching. I expect poor years from all of our "suspect" starters (i.e., most of them), and a bad W-L record as a result. However, I expect the 2008 offense will be surprisingly robust.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Mar 28, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not forming any lasting judgements yet,,,,

Not that anyone cares what I think anyway. Agree that things can change dramatically over the months.

My original comment was more based that I find it interesting that you could make both a case for or against youth/upside being central to Mo's overall philosophy this year. On one hand you have McClellan and Barton. On the other you have the middle infield.

Overall, I'd say I am cautiously optimistic. A lot could change by June/July. If we're giving struggling veterans that have a potential replacement in the system a long leash, I'll be disappointed. If we pull the trigger and give the AAA prospects a shot quickly, overall I'll be pleased. Irrespective of the wins and losses.

by Merry CRasmus on Mar 28, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

great post az

no time to chat right now, but i wanted to give you your due props

by effin fisk on Mar 28, 2008 1:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Az, ...

this was an excellent topic today. Upside is an interesting factor when discussing the new direction of the organization. There has been a great deal made of the Cards selecting Kozma over Porcello, and how that indicates what a "cheap" organization they are. Doesn't it make more sense, though, to temper your draft in terms of player upside based on the current pipeline of major league potential prospects? If one has, as the Cards have had, a relatively bereft pipeline of prospects, wouldn't you choose to draft players with less variance/risk in terms of potential and a lower price tag in order to provide more of those types of players?

IMHO, I would look to stock up with lower tier prospects initially, and start to slide the scale to more prospects with greater upside in subsequent drafts.

by etp_stl on Mar 28, 2008 1:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I thought...

Porcello wasn't really considered a risk because of being a low floor high ceiling guy, but more because of being a signability problem. From what I've read he's "a lock" or "can't miss". Of course we all know how those work out.

Thanks for the highlight moments 15 and 27!!!

by cardzfanbub on Mar 28, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I added him as high risk ...

based on the earlier statement of "risk" being based also on the club's investment. Paying Porcello the amount required to sign him would limit the number of resources available for other picks, free agents, and undrafted minor leaguers. That presents some additional risk to the equation.

by etp_stl on Mar 28, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Expected value = probability of outcome x value of outcome

The "risk" in the case of Porcello and similar signings is guaged by the probability that the team will get a positive return on the investment. The likelihood that any particular high school pitcher drafted, including a first round pick, will ever playing long in the big leagues is very low (I don't have the figures at hand, but there were some very informative postings about the historical data when the Cardinals drafted Kozma and passed over Porcello). The great majority don't pan out, because they don't develop sufficient skill (e.g., control) or because of injuries, etc. So a $10M investment, like Porcello, would have to be made 10 times, on average, to get one major league starting pitcher who stays in the big leagues for more than a short visit, if he makes it at all. That is a high risk of not getting a return on investment. A $1M investment for a nonpitcher thus can have a higher expected value: Expected value = (probability of outcome) x (value of outcome). Compare, for example, the expected value of $1M spent on something with a 20% probability of gaining 10 Win Shares vs. the expected value of $10M spent on something with a 10% probability of gaining 30 Win Shares:

$1M for .20 x 10 win share = 1 win share per million dollars

$10 M for .10 x 30 win shares = 3 win shares per 10 million dollars

The return on investment for the first player is better, even though the potential performance for the second player is much higher.

It's like the lottery. You can spend $1 for a chance at a $10 million prize (with odds of winning at 1 in 50 million, literally), or you can spend that dollar on a local raffle for a $100 item, with odds of winning at one in 200. The expected value for the first bet is a 50 cent return. The EV for the second bet is a 20 cent return. The raffle is the better bet, in terms of likely return on investment.

by CardsWin on Mar 28, 2008 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the info...

but I'm taking a statistics course this semester, and I'm currently on Spring Break...so my eyes glazed over just a bit.

Thanks for the highlight moments 15 and 27!!!

by cardzfanbub on Mar 28, 2008 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

signability

is a risk in itself - the risk is that you don't sign any talent with that pick

by cdb on Mar 28, 2008 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

low risk prospects

I actually made a similar argument many moons ago regarding drafting college vs high scool pitchers - if the system is baren, start with the safe bet to fill the ranks that increase risk as the system grows in depth

by cdb on Mar 28, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I went to a risk managment seminar once,

but all it was just a bunch of jokes about ovaltine.

"Say something once, why say it again?"

by Alxfritz on Mar 28, 2008 1:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Expected Minimum Cost Classification (EMCC)

I wonder if the following is a restatement of Azruavatar point. The concept of expected minimum cost classification is also known by many names, e.g. in law, the B

So how EMCC works in a very stripped down way, is that decisions are made not just considering upside, but also the probability of the upside being realized. So multiply the potential X probability to get the expected potential.
e.g. Pitcher A – probability of realizing potential 10%, potential 10
Pitcher B - probability of realizing potential 100%, potential 1
So based on a dumbed down EMCC analysis, both pitchers have the same expected potential (10% X 10 = 100% X 1).

I know that it is not reasonable to apply EMCC in a straight fashion. Also, I know that the real trick, as many others have raised, is that the estimation of both the potential and the probability are very difficult and problematic, not to mention the inherent difficulty in quantifying qualitative traits.

I guess it would be good to not forget the probability component when we analyze the a player’s potential. I guess to me Marquis is an example of high potential guy (I think both the Braves and Cards were gunho on the potential assessment) but his attitude (or other factors) lowered the probability.

I hope I don’t sound condescending (as in assuming that others don’t know about this) or nerdy with this post. It’s just that I am really a nerd.

BTW, Nestle tastes better than Ovaltine

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Mar 28, 2008 2:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

if skip bayless says so...

now i'm not a big fan of skip bayless, but he's picking the cardinals to have a strong second half and overtake the cubs and brewers because "they'll have the best pitching." what do you think? and more importantly, what do you think of skip bayless?

by barry whiteteeth on Mar 28, 2008 3:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That's what he's paid for

The more people hate Bayless the more he gets paid. He's the Simon Cowell of ESPN's talking heads community.

That doesn't mean he has a point. I have been surprised at how low the Cardinals are being projected by some people. Albert's fantasy rating is much lower because people expect him to have little protection and not be played at the end of the year when we are out of the race. They underestimate the improvement Ankiel and Glaus over last year's terrible lineup and don't understand Albert says when Albert is taken out.

Bayless is right that if, and the issue is that it is a big if, our pitchers actually get healthy we have a chance.

you can't sneak the sun past the rooster

by enoscountry on Mar 28, 2008 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sportswriters' attitudes about "protection" for Albert

really confuse me. The same writers who will admit that Rolen/Edmonds are 1) well past their primes and 2) were really awful last year and could be really awful going forward, at the same time say the Cardinals will suffer from not having them in the lineup. It's like they DID see what happened last year and the year before, but it didn't have any effect on their base assumptions.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Mar 28, 2008 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They must be ...

predicting that Ankiel is going to be a bust. I can't imagine their argument for Glaus not providing at least the production that Rolen did, and frankly I expect him to outperfom Rolen's last year numbers. While Edmonds had a particularly high OBP (.325) given the AVG (.252), It would seem that a conservative prediction of Ankiel would provide at least the same production. I would think Ankiel would outdo the 12 HR, 53 RBI mark, if he stays healthy.

by etp_stl on Mar 28, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They're clueless

One of the ESPN talking heads predicted that Ankiel was going to be a surprise player and hit 40HRs. Of course that did come approximately 3 minutes after he made his requisite "no protection for Albert" comment. I think it was the fantasy "expert" Karabell.

by birdo rojo on Mar 28, 2008 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Skip Bayless...

I think a lot of these ESPN guys don't really believe half the stuff they say. It's kind of like pro-wrestling. its just sports entertainment. I have a tough time believing that skip really believes the cardinals will really win the central just like I have a tough time believing that Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon disagree on almost every possible topic. I think its just done for production value/ shock value. Ratings are the only thing ESPN cares about not the pundits actual opinions.

"Ding-dong the wicked witch is dead!" - Wayne Hagin after the cardinals snapped a losing streak

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Mar 28, 2008 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice work, AZ

An interesting analysis of a word that often means different things to different people. I concur with your parsing completely. It's so disappointing to see young players with "upside" fail to reach their potential, but when one does...WOO HOO!! Let's keep our fingers and toes crossed that Rasmus and eventually Jones (among others) are youngsters who succeed.

by rockin redbird on Mar 28, 2008 4:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This post makes me think of my bowling team and handicaps...

Ankiel is Jesus!

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Mar 28, 2008 5:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

lol

"Anthony Reyes."

just registered to say hilarious start to an article! good fake.

by astrostl on Mar 28, 2008 5:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No telling what will happen here on Tuesday

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Mar 28, 2008 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks you guys for calling out those ESPN baseball "analysts". Those guys are a total joke and are just there as talking heads.

Ankiel is Jesus!

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Mar 28, 2008 5:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

With all the talk of ESPN

I have not seen anyone post their big news about the Sunday Conversation. The guest are Bill Parcells, Bobby Knight and our very own Tony LaRussa.

This has been made possible for the first time by the development a new, really wide angle HD camera that will actually be able to film all three of the extremely large craniums in one shot.

"Do what you want to the women and children but leave me alone"- George Carlin

by That's a Winner on Mar 28, 2008 6:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

How BIG does that camera have to be?

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on Mar 28, 2008 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about a simple explanation from a simple mind?

Upside is a player that looks to have a chance to be better than they've shown to be so far.

I would look at stats that showed underachievement or skills that have not been fully developed and take an educated guess that said player is on a path where they seem likely to show improvement.

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on Mar 28, 2008 7:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i guess i've got to comment...

... good discussion, AZ. i was at work all day with no net access, so i'll to put my thoughts in one post. it's probably going to be a bit long, and i apologize for that, but this is a pretty big topic in my mind.

i spoke sort of flippantly, and with some frustration, when i posed my hypothetical question in that other thread. but i was posing the question in the context of making roster decisions, not comparing a 32 year-old to a 22 year-old with the same current levels of production, or trying to project the production 4 or 5 years down the road of a toolsy player presently in A-ball. my point was that there was a little bit of cognitive dissonance going on when people use terms like "upside," which is why i compared it to people saying "grit" or "heart" or "playing the right way" or other similar things. these terms are usually tossed out to defend a particular player -- usually a fan or media darling -- whose production has been below expectations.

that's why i said the term is somewhat nebulous: when fans on message boards and blogs talk about "upside" they are really saying "i think this player should be better than he actually is -- or, more appropriately in the initial context of my comment, than i thought he would be -- and i can't explain why he isn't, so i'm going to chalk it up to unfulfilled upside". perhaps there's some small bit of truth in such a statement, but it's an unfalsifiable claim. even the much-praised PECOTA system which attempts to include "upside" in its projections missed Reyes' production last season by what, several standard errors? (honestly, i've never seen a study of whether the predictive power of various projection systems are statistically significant; if someone knows of such a study, please point me to it.) and when this imagined potential doesn't develop, people often add on more unfalsifiable claims (e.g. Reyes' "upside" was throttled by TLR/Dunc's meddling; or, Reyes would've performed better in another system or for another team. obviously, i have no desire to rehash the Reyes debate in any of its iterations, but that was the spirit in which i was posting, and i think context is important). to me, this looks pretty clearly like an example of confirmation bias. so what i was arguing against was the misuse of "upside".

now, that's not to say that there isn't a way to measure "upside". there's a simple way to do it: measure past production, approximate skill sets, and factor these -- which are quantifiable -- into their place on the age-development curve. so, for example, it's very easy to say that Skip Schumacher has less "upside" than Colby Rasmus, and be confident in making the claim since Rasmus has out-performed Schumacher at every comparable level, and his skill set is clearly deeper. but that's not (generally) what people are doing with Reyes. and when making a roster decision for an immediate situation, "upside" isn't the only, or even the main, consideration. it would probably be the wrong decision to leave Schumacher off this year's opening day roster in favor of Rasmus. why? because "upside" is only one part of a fairly long equation, and other factors are just as important.

another problem i have with the term is that it is usually used selectively. why does Reyes have upside but not Thompson? a typical defense of Reyes is that he will likely improve his strand rates, or his BABIP, or something else. but on the face, those probabilities don't seem much more likely that Thompson -- if given a regular starting job with proper conditioning instead of bouncing back and forth between the rotation, pen, and Memphis -- might improve his GB/FB rate, or a greater ability than Reyes to go deep into games, thus saving the need to pitch the team's worst reliever in the 5th and 6th innings. after all, Thompson's MiLB stats are pretty gaudy as well, and he holds the record for consecutive scoreless innings pitched, right? not only that, but he's the same age as Reyes, so why doesn't Thompson have upside and room for improvement? (again, i'm tossing this out hypothetically; i don't really want to argue these points again. i'm just using an example of how this term is used lazily and selectively by many.) it just seems like these sorts of arguments get tossed out too selectively for me to take them very seriously.

also, those who said that variance, opportunity costs, expected performance, and risk must be a part of any serious discussion of "upside" are right on the mark. i did my undergrad in econ (doing my Ph.D. in Intl. Political Economy), so those terms are music to my ears. when having this conversation in the context of roster management and development, as my original comment was, i'd like to include discounting as well, but whatever.

perhaps part of the difference is semantic. i would absolutely say that Albert Pujols has more upside than Chris Duncan. i don't define "upside" as "room for improvement". i roughly define it as "realistic potential ability to perform at a high level". to me, it is much more likely that Pujols will perform at an exceptionally high level than Duncan, and so i think Pujols has more upside than Duncan. similarly, when a lot of Cards fans wanted the team to sign A.J. Burnett and/or Jason Schmidt, it wasn't because they thought they were going to get much better than they already were (or, if it was, then those projections have proved to be wrong). no, the opposite was true: their "upside" was greater because their established performance levels were already higher than the other options available at the time. this wasn't gazing into a crystal ball and taking our best guess; it was seeing what they had already done and expecting them to do something like it again.

i prefer my definition because then "upside" can have some meaning, since it will be based on a reasonable expectation of future performance based on past performance and one's spot on the age-development curve. simply equating "upside" with "undefined potential" begs the question: "potential" according to who? using what standard or metric? a hundred different people could answer that question in a hundred different ways, which makes the category essentially worthless as a ranking mechanism.

in short, raw talent is important in sports. but the most important thing is performance. and if one player is consistently performing better than another, i don't see why simply citing the inferior player's "upside" should swing favor to that player's side. particularly when it comes to roster management.

by kindred on Mar 28, 2008 7:12 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

upside... downtown.

well put william. who knew school could be good for something. now if only i can find a way to make this radio/television degree useful.... you could say my degree has less current "upside."

by punksoulbrutha on Mar 28, 2008 8:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pujols owns Jaime Garcia....

A homerun and a double off him so far. Jaime hasn't been bad though, other than Pujols, he's only given up a few singles and gotten a lot of groundball outs.

...just a bit outside....

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Mar 28, 2008 8:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

2 Hits already for Duncan.

That makes me happy.

Billy Crystal is a tougher out than Izturis.

by tangledbrett on Mar 28, 2008 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know, no more Reyes stuff

But I found this on the Rocky Mountain News

Right-hander Anthony Reyes may be the Cardinals' best pitching prospect but his ongoing feud with pitching coach Dave Duncan has him on the outs, and scouts for nearly a dozen teams showed up to watch his most recent spring appearance

Now back to your regular scheduled blogging topic.

"Do what you want to the women and children but leave me alone"- George Carlin

by That's a Winner on Mar 28, 2008 8:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Good

maybe there's hope yet of getting something valuable for him

by chuckb on Mar 28, 2008 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Leach's projected roster

Also noticed that Kelvin Jimenez is listed in middle relief over Anthony Reyes. I understand why they are down on A-Rey, but the fascination with Jimenez really puzzles me.

"Ding-dong the wicked witch is dead!" - Wayne Hagin after the cardinals snapped a losing streak

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Mar 28, 2008 9:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...

I'm surprised Hugo Castellwhatzit didn't make the team instead of either. He seemed to do a pretty good job.

by DiscoJer on Mar 28, 2008 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OT

I checked out that saberscout.com site. Let me tell you what...As a former coach who has a rudimentary understanding of statistical analysis, this kind of stuff is right up my alley. These guys would make great MLB talent evaluators.

"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.

by redbirdnation8206 on Mar 28, 2008 9:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Wellemeyer's last spring outing vs. Reyes' last

Wellemeyer tonight, against a AA team (vs. a ML team for Reyes) gave up:

5 hits vs. 3 for Reyes
2 walks vs. 1 for Reyes
1 run vs. 0 for Reyes

and pitched only 5.0 innings vs. 6.0 for Reyes

The wind was blowing in from RF at 13 mph vs. 12 mph when Reyes pitched.

It will be interesting to see how Duncan spins his propaganda about why Wellemeyer is a better choice in the rotation than Reyes.....

Wellemeyer P 5.0 5 1 1 2 5 0 1.80

by CardsWin on Mar 28, 2008 10:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Welly is a bullpen pitcher, Period

That competition was a sham.

Billy Crystal is a tougher out than Izturis.

by tangledbrett on Mar 28, 2008 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good lord...

this blogs obsession with Anthony Reyes is almost to the point of an obsession. I've never seen so much obsession over such a mediocre ball player.

...just a bit outside....

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Mar 29, 2008 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

as was stated a few days ago

it seems the discussion over reyes has turned from a discussion over a mediocre ballplayer (your words, not mine) to a discussion regarding how this franchise will be run from here on out, hence the obvious obsession.

by lopey986 on Mar 29, 2008 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs