Ludwick as a full-time starter

BM has a good blog on Duncan

in the PD. Basically he says the problem is Duncan loss of power over the last year. Duncan is a defensive ? but he makes up for it with a power bat.

Maybe Chris needs a rehab assignment in Memphis to regain his stroke. I’d love to see what Mather could do spelling him or possibly Glaus.

by gocards62 on May 7, 2008 11:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

hell, duncan probably still has options

since he stuck in the majors so easily

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

by Valatan on May 7, 2008 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Hoorah.

by stlfan on May 7, 2008 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"hoorah"

Pronounced hoo-rah, emphasis on the hoo…(little sleepy still) :)

by stlfan on May 7, 2008 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

um..

Pronouced oo-rah.

by Evilfrog on May 7, 2008 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

unfortunately this would relegate Duncan to a bench role, which has to greatly diminish what trade value he has remaining. Ludwick may very well be the second best hitter on the team, and until he shows otherwise he should be starting everyday in right or left IMO. To this point we have to be very pleasantly surprised with the play of our outfield rotation…as well as our MIF rotation.

by cardzfanbub on May 7, 2008 11:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Also, it would help balance out the severely lefthanded lineup. Ludwick has shown what he can do with 200-300 ABs; let’s see what he can do with 450-500.

Duncan is an AL player, and needs to become one as quickly as possible.

by blove121 on May 7, 2008 11:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

severly LH lineup?

pujols and glaus balance out the lefthandedness pretty well.

go cards, o's, and phillies.

...boiler up.

by moboiler on May 7, 2008 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

He needs to be starting full time—after watching Duncan in left field on Sunday and Monday night, it makes no sense to keep putting him out there when he’s not even hitting as well as Ludwick is.

Duncan does need AB’s, though, to get out of this funk. Not sure how you work both of them in unless you send Chris to Memphis.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 7, 2008 11:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Duncan on the bench

What a weapon Duncan would be in the pinch hit roll. When have we ever had a power lefthanded bat on the bench of that caliber? Totally agree that Ludwick has earned the fulltime starting job in the OF. Tony has promised to play Albert less this season. So far, that has not happened but it needs to. Albert will break down at this pace. C. Duncan should get some starts at 1B and only an occasionally OF start IMHO.

by jjray on May 7, 2008 11:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

we had quite the discussion

of this issue in the morning discussion thread yesterday.

i added a bunch of data supporting my opinion that the PT distribution shouldn’t be much different that what it is now, so i won’t rehash all that. the key things i’d like people to consider when talking about replacing dunc with ludwick full-time:

1) despite ludwick’s reverse platoon split, dunc still has about an 80-point OPS advantage v. ludwick against RHP over the course of their careers (both have ~500 PA+).

2) as much as ludwick is exceeding expectations at the plate so far, dunc has (at least quantitatively) exceeded them in the field according to RZR; monday was his first truly bad game of the season.

3) the majority of ludwick’s PT already comes at the expense of duncan, for whom it would be pushing it to call him a “regular”. i would prefer any additional PT for ludwick to come from either schumaker or ankiel (preferrably skip). as fourstick states, dunc needs ABs, so relegating him to exclusively a bench role would probably not be prudent. i’d hate to see him go to memphis, because you’d have to bring up another OF – i assume rasmus would be the logical choice, and he needs the full-time ABs just like dunc.

go cards, o's, and phillies.

...boiler up.

by moboiler on May 7, 2008 11:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not Colby...

Duncan won’t get sent to Memphis—it just won’t happen, I was simply trying to figure out a way for him to get at-bats without sacrificing the good of the team, which is what is happening when Ludwick isn’t in the lineup.

Agreed, Duncan does have a higher OPS advantage over the course of their careers, but I don’t think we’ve ever seen this version of Ryan Ludwick either, and there’s no reason to beleive that this is a fluke. It’s entirely possible that a healthy Ludwick could put up a +.850 OPS.

I don’t think you can pull Skip out of the lineup considering the way that he’s been playing of late, and removing Ankiel from CF would really do damage to the defense. I really don’t know where Duncan is going to get at-bats currently, but at some point someone in the mix has to start struggling right?

Any way you look at it, it’s a great problem to have!

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 7, 2008 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only arguement i can see

is that we need to keep playing Duncan to increase his trade value. We absolutely must trade an OF at some point this season. With Rasmus and Mather banging on the door in Memphis we will need to thin out the major league outfield. Duncan seems the obvious chose on the current roster to be traded. Howver, he certainly would bring more in a trade if he was mashing the ball like early 07’ then what he is doing now.

But! I still have to side with putting the best team on the field day in and day out, and not compomising the team just to “get Duncan out of his funk” or “to raise Duncan’s trade value”.

Our best team is with Ludwick starting daily.

by gossard56 on May 7, 2008 12:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The awkward part of that equation...

Is that if Duncan suddenly starts mashing again, the Cards (and we) won’t want him to be traded, because he’ll become a real asset again.

I’ve always wondered the club stance on trading Chris; if Dave has said to the front office “Do what you need to do, treat him like another ballplayer,” and if so, how much stock they put in Chris’ presence making Dave a very happy coach.

by RedbirdAvenger on May 7, 2008 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know

But Dave seems to be the type of Guy who would be willing to trade Duncan away for some pitching.

by Evilfrog on May 7, 2008 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

dave duncan

he has been in professional baseball since1963 I think he knows how things work. To suggest Chris in on the team or has not been traded due to Dave Duncan’s presence is just stupid in my opinion.

by ICbirdfan on May 7, 2008 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have to respectfully disagree...

...if Duncan suddenly starts mashing again, the Cards (and we) won’t want him to be traded, because he’ll become a real asset again.

IMO if Duncan can start mashing again we should be more willing to trade him, as the return will be better. He obviously is not an outfielder, and the sooner he becomes a firstbaseman or DH the better. We simply have three better OF options than Chris right now and his bat is too big to keep on the bench.

by cardzfanbub on May 7, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rick's in, the rest share

Is Colby really “banging on the door.” He’s hitting poorly right now…and I think Barton has the bat and leg speed to play well on a semi-regular basis as well. I hate to say this, but Colby probably needs to stay where he is until the call-up date, if then. Rick’s bat, legs and gun make him a full time starter. But I’d like to see the other four (Shu, Dunc, Lud, and Brian) get roughly the same playing time as the season goes on… I was at the 7-4 loss in SF, and Lud looked real slow in the outfield, reminding me of the terrible defensive outfield stats we had last year—all those fly balls falling in and too many runs scored against us. I love Lud’s bat, but he has to regress near his mean… Brian can hit and he seems to get to those fly balls quicker than Shu, Dunc, or Lud… I’m thinking he deserves something of a shot, esp against lefties…

by SLOKev6 on May 7, 2008 1:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

He might have "looked" slow

but Ludwick is fairly widely viewed as an above average outfielder. He’s viewed as being athletic enough to handle center in the majors so he can certainly be a plus defensive presence at the corners.

My term “banging on the door” didnt imply he’s on fire, or that he had to be brought up in the next few weeks. Just means that he WILL be in the bigs probably by the end of the season, and that means we need to thin our current major league OF group.

And finally….WHY should all four of the OFs (the 4 not named Ankiel) blindly be getting equal at bats? Duncan has gone about 4+ months not hitting for any power. He also has a pathetic 6 RBIs for the season. Six! Duncan with no power = fairly worthless. Why should he continue to get equal at bats?? You play the players that are producing.

As i said before, Ludwick, Shu and Ankiel have solidified through their in game performance this year that they “should” be our starting OF and the platoons should be dropped. LaRussa!!!! Play the best players please!

by gossard56 on May 7, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

slow?

Ludwick came up as a CF prospect and before his leg injuries was considered one of the better CF prospects in the minors. He is an above average corner outfielder and is posting an OPS above 1.000 right now. Why wouldn’t you keep riding that horse until it broke? Even if he regresses a bit, a +.850 OPS with above average defense would be better than all the other options that we have including Duncan and Barton.

If Barton needs more playing time, then it has to come out of Schu’s AB’s. They are the same type of player and would take turns leading off. In fact, that would be a nice platoon if Schumaker starts to struggle. Both have good speed and seem to get on base.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 7, 2008 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let me throw out a few stats

Ludwick is 8 at bats short of showing up in the official MLB leaders stats, but if you lowered the minimum this is where he would fall:

4th in slugging
5th in OPS
9th in on base %
9th in doubles

This is in the entire major leagues!

You can’t even argue that TLR’s platooning has put him in the best position to suceed by only having him face lefties. The guy hits righties even better then lefties!!! Therefore, it really means his numbers could be even more impressive if he played against more righties.

I’ve also said this in the past…....LaRussa is the ONLY manager in all of baseball that wouldn’t be playing Ludwick everyday. His stats are too far off the charts to ignore and LaRussa is the only manager who could out smart himself and continue to play Duncan because thats what the “platoon book” says to do.

by gossard56 on May 7, 2008 2:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

my bad

his on base % is actually around 25th in the league. the others are correct.

by gossard56 on May 7, 2008 2:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I hear ya

and maybe I’m too committed to past performance, but over time I have to think that Dunc’s bat will improve (tho I doubt his fielding will) and that Lud’s hitting will regress… I really hope I’m wrong about Ludwick… and I hope your point about his injuries skewing his numbers is right, and I agree that TLR likes platooning too much… It’s just that such a permanent surge is unlikely over the course of a season… Also, Barton is also a good hitter (.819 OPS w/o getting much of a look) and given the time he may be a better fielder, I think, than all but Ankiel… I WILL agree that it’s best to play the hottest guy…

by SLOKev6 on May 7, 2008 2:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Let's not lose ourselves over one good month.

Ludwick is a decent reserve: a .270/.330/.450 type guy who doesn’t drag the team down with his glove. I still expect Rasmus to be up here one he and Schumacher cool off.

by JI on May 7, 2008 2:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

How do you know that?

What evidence do you base that off of? His numbers from last year, which was his first extensive time in the majors?

I’m not losing myself over one good month, but how can you dismiss his one good month based on three league average months from last year? That hardly seems fair…

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 7, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well to begin with, the three months are the larger sample size.

If you disregard the larger sample size in favor of the smaller one, you are practicing bad science.

There’s also his entire minor league track record
Plus,he’s going to be 30 in July, and it would be quite unique for his skills to take that type huge leap forward.

I like what the Cards are doing now, by rotating Skip, Dunc, and Ludwick LaRussa is keeping them from getting overexposed. Ludwick could probably play everyday on a bad team, but on a team that plans on winning he’s best cast as a reserve.

by JI on May 7, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

See I agree

I don’t know how good Schu, Dunc, Lud, or Barton really are but I would say the platoon is getting the most out of them so I like it. Who knows any of them playing every day may just expose them.

I would say Dunc is just having trouble recovering from surgery. Otherwise he seemed to do well in his platoon role the past couple years.

TLR may be brining out the best in the outfield

by ICbirdfan on May 7, 2008 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If I understnad this arguement correctly

...most people would agree that last year’s .267/.339/.479 is more or less Ludwick’s true ability line (though the sooner people learn that reverse splits are bogus 99.99% of the time the better, but that’s another discussion), maybe the power #s are a bit over his head, maybe the average/on-base is a bit low—but it’s still a reasonable assessment.

Now that Ludwick has gotten off to a great start people want him to get an everyday job, not because he’s the +/- .800 OPS guy with decent defense, but because they think he’s significantly better than he was last year. If you believe this, you’re basically arguing that Ryan Ludwick is one of the very best players in the Majors because the number of hitters that can give you a .300/.360/.540 line plus good defense are scarce.

by JI on May 7, 2008 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

luddy was awful in his first 2-3 weeks

He was hacking at everything, pressing to hit a home run on every swing, with predictable results. As he settled in, he became better and better. he took two walks total last year in the months of may-June, 7 in July, and then 17 in aug-sep.

From June 1st to the end of the season, he put up an .874 OPS. From July 1st, .900, .880 in Aug and .910 in september.

This year has just been a continuation of what he was doing from June on last year, with better performance against lefties.

And I awoke in California, far far from Spancilhill...

by SleepyCA on May 7, 2008 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you take away all the bad, he was good!

You have to evaluate all the available data, not cherry pick the rosiest scenario.

by JI on May 7, 2008 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well...

... that’s true, but you also have to look for trends, and examine extenuating circumstances. the trend is for Ludwick to have improved starting about June 1st of last year. the extenuating circumstances which might explain worse performance that include: nervousness, unpreparedness from just being called up, lack of comfort with coaches, lack of exposure to MLB pitching, small sample in May, etc.

it’s probably true that Ludwick isn’t a .900 OPS player. but it’s almost certainly true that he’s an .800 OPS player (at minimum) with plus defense, fair speed, and a general ability to not make retarded mistakes at inopportune times. right now, Duncan can’t compete with that. and, in any case, Ludwick is OPSing over 1.000 right now. he’s gotta get playing time.

by kindred on May 7, 2008 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

The debate really isn’t “who’s been the better player over the course of their major league career?” Its “who’s playing better right now?” With outfielders to spare, the Cards have the luxury of riding hot hands until they get cold. Ludwick is hot right now, and is playing much better than Duncan—that’s undisputed. So why let a guy who’s crushing the ball sit on the bench when his primary replacement is having a hard time getting it going offensively and defensively? Because that guy has had a better major league career? (Edmonds?)

by Ray Lankford on May 8, 2008 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you Ray

+1

by nybirdfan on May 8, 2008 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duncan isn't 37 and breaking down

any argument based on playing Ludwick more means two things

1) You expect Ludwick to continue to punish the ball at a rate comparable to what he is currently.
2) You expect Duncan to continue to suck

I disagree.

by JI on May 8, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

once again

thats not at all what we are saying and its not worth our time to explain it to you. you read what you want to read in our comments but not what we are saying.

i understand your a Duncan fan…i’ve been there and argued for Lankford years ago, but please look at what we are saying and stop twisting it around in your guys favor.

by gossard56 on May 8, 2008 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I loved Ray too, obviously

by Ray Lankford on May 8, 2008 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not not really that big of a Duncan fan actually.

Why must people is assume to this is based on who I like better, and not what actaully makes sense for the team to do.

Logically I don’t know any other way to explain it. Could you help me out here?

-You expect Duncan to bounce back, and you expect Ludwick to regress to the mean, but you want to play Ludwick anyway?

-You expect Ludwick to suck, but you expect Duncan to suck worse?

-fill in the gap for me please

by JI on May 8, 2008 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"i would say the platoon is getting the most out of them"

ummm…wow. its truely amazing that you could type that comment. the platoon that you are so excited about MAKES NO SENSE!!! You say it is bringing out the best in the outfield, but if you read anything i wrote you’d realize TLR is benching a guy (Ludwick) who is CRUSHING righties to play a guy (Duncan) who is flat out struggling in all aspects of the game right now.

How is this maximizing the outfield production???

by gossard56 on May 7, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duncan's the better player

You don’t seriously think they’re going to bench a guy who has Duncan’s abilities and success based on one bad month do you?

by JI on May 7, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

his abilities and success??

he is terrible right now and Ludwick is playing much better is a very simple way of putting. so yes, i would bench Duncan to play one of the current hottest players in the league.

and you mention his abilities like he is a five tool monster or something. He does a couple good things….gets on base which he is still doing well, and hits for power…which he hasnt done for 4 months!!! past that he’s a bad outfielder.

Ludwick was much more prized prospect based on “abilities”.

by gossard56 on May 7, 2008 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you basically your saying

we can tell more from Ludwick’s last 83 at bats, then we can from Duncan’s last two seasons? It’s a wonder why the Yankees didn’t bench Paul O’Neill for Shane Spencer.

by JI on May 7, 2008 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wait, what?

Duncan’s two seasons? in 2006 he got 280 ABs and OPSed .952. in 2007 he got 375 ABs and OPSed .834 with horrible defense and base-running.

you don’t think Ludwick could sustain an .834 OPS over 375 ABs with better defense? he almost did last year, putting up an .818 OPS in 303 ABs. you think Duncan’s twenty OPS points really makes him that much better of a player?

Luddy isn’t keeping this up forever, and Duncan probably won’t struggle forever either. but right now, there is no question who should be getting the playing time.

by kindred on May 7, 2008 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i mean...

... Adam Kennedy is out-slugging Duncan so far this year. this won’t happen forever, but Duncan needs to get his shit straight before he can claim more ABs. this team is already short on power, and right now Ludwick is producing power numbers and Duncan isn’t.

if you’re asking me who i’d rather have on my team for the next 3 years, i’ll take Duncan. but if you’re asking me who should start tonight, the answer is clearly Luddy.

by kindred on May 7, 2008 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This team isn't having a hard time scoring runs

I don’t understand the panic.

by JI on May 7, 2008 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no panic...

... but this team isn’t very good at scoring runs. aren’t they like 9th in the NL? they may be an average offensive team right, and if you expect the pitching to eventually regress (as i do) then you’re going to need more offense to stay in contention.

i’m not saying that they should give Duncan his outright release. all i’m saying is that there is nothing at all wrong with riding the hot hand. Duncan hasn’t looked good at any point this season, while Ludwick has been killing it since ST. right now he should get more ABs from the platoon.

by kindred on May 7, 2008 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beliving Duncan's baseline is a .834 OPS is a faulty assumption

especially when his career numbers are closer to .900.

Duncan is doing ok, Ludwick isn’t gonna OPS 1.000, I say this early stick to guns: there’s need to panic, especially since there’s no way 80 at bats worth of performance is in any way significant.

by JI on May 7, 2008 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

for the record

over luddies last 352 PA’s: .930 OPS

Even I don’t believe that Luddy is that good, but he’s close, and I believe that Duncan is a .930 OPS caliber player, when healthy. heck, Duncan was at a .968 OPS after 20 April, though a lot of that was due to extreme platooning. The question is, is duncan healthy? And if so, what is wrong with him? If he isn’t healthy, or if there is something wrong with his approach, playing him right now only hurts his trade value.

Anyway, this is a silly argument; Ludwick and Duncan should both be starting, and Skip should be playing second base.

And I awoke in California, far far from Spancilhill...

by SleepyCA on May 7, 2008 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

to both starting. even over skip – if ludwick is as good as everyone here seems to say he is in the field, then it’s not a loss to have skip as a 4th OF.

go cards, o's, and phillies.

...boiler up.

by moboiler on May 7, 2008 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he isn't healthy

then yes, Ludwick should play

by JI on May 8, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

had a typo

in my “number of PA’s” in the above comment. Should have been 382 PA’s, not 352.

Anyway, after last night, it’s now ”.938 OPS over his last 387 PA’s”.

And I awoke in California, far far from Spancilhill...

by SleepyCA on May 8, 2008 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look

Edmonds has great career numbers. Are you telling me that you’d rather start him in center over Ankiel because Ankiel doesn’t have the benefit of large number of career at bats to make solid predictions about his skill set?

by Ray Lankford on May 8, 2008 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and again

ray is right!

by nybirdfan on May 8, 2008 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duncan

is not the better player!

by nybirdfan on May 8, 2008 8:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Duncan's abilities and success"

Geez - you make him sound like he’s a perennial all star or future hall of famer. He’s a good hitter who is struggling right now, and a butcher in the field. He HAS to be hitting to justify playing him - its the only plus aspect of his game. He gets the same treatment as other struggling non-all stars on a team with 5 above average outfielders get—he sits when he’s struggling.

by Ray Lankford on May 8, 2008 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

entire minor league track record????

you obviously didnt check out those stats. He has an OPS of .850 for his minor league career but its

2007 in Memphis: 108ABs, 8HRs 1000+ OPS pretty damn strong

2006 in Toledo: 508 ABs, 28 HRs .848 OPS

by gossard56 on May 7, 2008 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

after a certain age

minor league track record becomes irrelevant because it’s28 year old facing 21 year olds: Varsity v. the JV. A 28 year year old guy posting a .846 OPS at Toledo isn’t that impressive.

by JI on May 7, 2008 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok

now who’s cherrypicking their stats? You’ve done a complete 180 in the last 30 comments. First it was “look at his whole minor league track record”; now it’s “look at his whole minor league record EXCEPT the last couple of years which tend to disprove my point”.

I find such pandering hilarious and find it impossible to debate with someone who can’t give me a reason for not playing Ludwick every day that even that person doesn’t refute within 30 comments…

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 8, 2008 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you undestand how to evalute minor league statistics?

They’re only super useful when a judged against the age group they guy is playing. A fully develooped 28 year old mashing of unfinished 20 years olds is not that impressive. When a young player who mashes off his own peers, or hold his own peers that are older than him (say 17 year old in A ball) the it is impressive.

by JI on May 8, 2008 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In other words...

I should judge Ludwick based on his whole body of work but I should only judge Duncan on what he’s done the past couple of seasons when he wasn’t hurt?

That’s a ridiculous assertion and you know it.

If you compare their minor league numbers, Ludwick looks like a whole lot better player all around, so even that doesn’t help your argument.

You can’t base the current playing time on past statistics—you simply should ride the hot hand as much as you possibly can.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 8, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have to evalutae players

-on who they played against (the quality of the league)
-their age, the development and quality of their opponents (a 20 year old who crushes AAA is impressive, a 28 year old who crushes AAA is not)
-where they played (park factors)
-their relative health

Generally the only samples that are worth anything are the last three years worth of data. Keep in mind, hitters tend to peak around the age of 27, but genreally will peak anywhere between 25-31. So, when you compare Chris Duncan’s last three years it is ridiculous because Duncan (age 27) will probably improve, where as Edmonds (ages 35-37) was on a steep decline in skills (and production).

You can’t base the current playing time on past statistics—you simply should ride the hot hand as much as you possibly can.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

There is no evidence that there is any predictive power in the hot hand. Predictive power in a change in skills? I’m all for it, but therre no evidence that Ludwick has acquired any new skills. Right now Ludwick’s BABIP is .450 (a normal BABIP is about .300 for most players), there’s not any human being can maintain that. In other words, he’s hitting the ball well (all those homers) and he’s getting lucky. There’s no where for him to go but down.

by JI on May 8, 2008 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

his BABIP is actually right in line

with his insane LD rate. it’s just not accurate to say “he’s been lucky”. if anything, he’s been a bit unlucky with line drives being caught so far. Although his LD rate is so high that he probably falls outside of the basic models, and he probably won’t maintain a 43%+ LD rate, he could easily have a .550+ BABIP and not be considered “lucky” based on the way he is hitting the ball.

And yeah, that LD rate is going to decline, but before you get too excited about that, lets do some math. Assuming his LD rate this year had been 20%, instead of 43%, and that his BABIP was in line with that- .320, and adjusting singles, doubles and triples by the expected BABIP/actual babip ratio, his line so far would look like: .284/.362/644, or a 1.006 OPS. So yes, he has nowhere to go but down, from his 1.190 OPS, but I think we knew that already, and I’ll take a starting corner OF with an OPS over 1.000 any day of the week.

BTW, you are absolutely correct about the “predictive power of the hot hand”, but Luddy has been hot for a while now, as I showed in the other posts you didn’t read. i don’t think it is crazy to think that an age-29 player, who was once compared favorably as a prospect to travis hafner, who was good enough to make the bg leagues as a 23yo, who came to camp with a huge chip on his shoulder and in the best shape of his life, could have a season or two of greatness in him.

I also believe that Chris Duncan has the potential to be very, very good- I think he compares well toleft-handed hitters like klesko, morneau, etc- but Luddy deserves a starting job on this team right now.

And I awoke in California, far far from Spancilhill...

by SleepyCA on May 8, 2008 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Wait...

What am I predicting about the “hot hand”? I’m not predicting anything, I’m simply saying Ludwick is the best option right now because he’s hitting better than anyone on the team outside of Pujols. You seem to be directing all your vitriol around the fact that Duncan is a better long term player. This post is about why some of us think he should be starting until he shows that he’s not a +.850 OPS player. Since June of last year, he has been better than that and Chris Duncan hasn’t. Period.

I never compared Duncan to Edmonds.

Keep in mind, hitters tend to peak around the age of 27

What kind of logic are you using to make that statement? All hitters, regardless of when they reach the big leagues and regardless of injury history, will peak around 27? I’m sure I could come up with a ton of players who’ve peaked around age 30 or later (Eric Byrnes, Jermaine Dye, and our very own Jim Edmonds come to mind)

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 9, 2008 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think several people are missing the point

I will simplify. Ludwick is playing very very well. Duncan is not. Regardless of whether Ludwick is going to be a monster for the rest of his career, you HAVE to put him in the lineup everyday since he RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT is the far superior player.

Thats the core of my arguement. I don’t even see how that can be argued against.

Now, to add to that, i personally believe that Ludwick is an above average offensive and defensive outfielder. A guy who can post 850+ OPS seasons for us and can hit 25-30 HRs givin a full season of at bats, while also playing superior defense then Duncan.

by gossard56 on May 7, 2008 4:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree with everything you just said

by Ray Lankford on May 8, 2008 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

and I think most of the posters in the above thread are with you.

I, too, think that he’s a +.800 OPS player with above average defense—which pretty well makes him a starter on any ballclub without three All-Star players in the outfield.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 8, 2008 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well said

i think we’ve stumbled upon an above average offensive and defensive OF making league minimum.

by gossard56 on May 8, 2008 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Regardless of whether Ludwick is going to be a monster for the rest of his career, you HAVE to put him in the lineup everyday since he RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT is the far superior player.

Unless Duncan is playing hurt, this is wrong. Duncan has superior skills, he has demonstrated that he is a quality major league hitter. Unless the skills that made him that hitter are no longer present it would be foolish to bench him in favor of Ludwick (at least against RHPs). Again, you are basically arguing that Ludwick will continue to mash at his current pace rather than come back to earth a little.

by JI on May 7, 2008 5:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

you should be playing left field

cause thats where your responses are coming from. EVERY manager in the big leagues would be starting Ludwick on a daily basis RIGHT now over Duncan based on the past month+ results. The past month Ludwick has been one of the best players in the majors. THAT IS A GUY WHO SHOULD BE STARTING!!! If he cools off all the way to the point he’s struggling then start platooning again if ya like. But he is playing so well you can’t possibly be benching him against righties that he actually hits even better.

Ride the hot bat!!!!

That is the most basic way of looking at this. Argueing against that point is mind boggling.

Now, if you figure Ludwick is going to put up even better numbers against righties (no reason not to believe this, he’s done it his whole career) then he projects to being above league average even when his numbers regress as they must to some degree.

and i certainly have never said he will continue at this pace as you suggest.

by gossard56 on May 7, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is the most basic way of looking at this.

That’s why it’s dumb. The basic way of looking at this sucks. People need to realize that small sample sizes don’t mean anything, and that talent is the deciding factor

EVERY manager in the big leagues would be starting Ludwick on a daily basis RIGHT now over Duncan based on the past month+ results.

This isn’t true, (just ask Tony LaRussa) or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Most big league managers would say that Duncan is the better player. he’s off to a slow start and needs some time to get going.

no reason not to believe [that he’ll put up better number against right handers]

There’s every reason, there’s been a ton of research done on this subject. This column explains it pretty simplistically. Platoon splits aren’t set in stone and in the long run righties will hit left handed pitchers better.

If you’re going to argue that Ludwick’s going to continue hit at a 1.000 OPS pace, you basically arguing that he’s better than Manny Ramirez in his prime.

by JI on May 7, 2008 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow

this is like the third time i’ve said this…..I NEVER SAID HE IS GOING TO CONTINUE ON THIS PACE!!!

I agree, “the basic way” to look at it is dumb, but presenting facts didnt seem to matter so i tried to make it simple.

And talk about a simple approach to your agruement, “Duncan is a better player” is what you keep rolling out there. Brilliant.

Also, there are players that have reverse splits. And Ludwick is one of them and its a very long standing reverse split. There is plenty of track record with him that says he will continue to hit righties better then lefties.

by gossard56 on May 7, 2008 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How many times do I need to say

Also, there are players that have reverse splits

No there aren’t. Find me one hitter who over the length of their career had a reverse platoon split.

Also, there are players that have reverse splits. And Ludwick is one of them and its a very long standing reverse split.

400 at bats IS NOT CRITERIA FOR A LONG STANDING PLATOON SPLIT! Small sample sizes do not matter.

your agruement, "Duncan is a better player"

Why is this dumb? Should we play our worst players?

by JI on May 7, 2008 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

JI, you dont seem to actually read the words i am typing

you are like my wife and read what you want to hear, not what i am saying. its certainly not worth explaing a ninth time.

by gossard56 on May 7, 2008 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know exactly what you are saying and I disagree

I don’t believe in the predictive power of the hot hand. It makes no sense.

by JI on May 8, 2008 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

(although I am weirdly flattered in regards to be compared to your wife)

by JI on May 8, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duncan is essentially....

A one trick pony. I’m not sure what abilities you think that Chris posesses. He’s terrible in left field. He doesn’t run fast. He strikes out too much. He CANNOT hit lefties. He can hit for power, but he has not been doing so. Ludwick is tearing the cover off the ball. Until he cools off you don’t sit him. He’s a natural outfielder. He’s got some speed. He was also considered a top 100 prospect in 2001 and 2002, before a hip injury nearly ended his career. Ryan Ludwick was supposed to have been a star in the majors before that injury and we might be seeing what all the hype was about right now. Chris Duncan is basically a platoon DH until he learns how to hit LHP. If he can ever figure that out he could someday be a full-time DH. His place in the majors is certainly not with the Cardinals especially once Rasmus arrives.

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

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on May 8, 2008 5:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not all tricks are created equal

Ryan Ludwick was supposed to have been a star in the majors before that injury and we might be seeing what all the hype was about right now.

And this is likely? You don’t think age and injuries have sapped some of the ability he had 5 years ago?

by JI on May 8, 2008 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you watching him play now? Looks like he still has some ability to me.

by Ray Lankford on May 8, 2008 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never said he didn't have ability

I said he’s a .270/.330/.450 guy, with decent defense—that take a decent amount of ability. It’s ridiculous to think that a 30 year old player who has been injured has the same skills he did at 24.

by JI on May 8, 2008 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is dumb for 3 reasons, Jl

(this is in response to your question: Why is this dumb? Should we play our worst players?)

1) Ludwick is not our worst player. You can’t even argue that. I won’t allow it. (and I don’t think you seriously were, but that’s what you implied, given the context of the argument) Besides, everyone knows LaRue is our worst player. Or maybe Miles.

2) RIGHT NOW, Ludwick is a better player than Duncan. (I bolded and capitalized that portion of the text because I don’t want you to miss that point, as you have throughout this entire thread) This season, Ludwick is a much better hitter and much better fielder (but that isn’t saying much, when compared to Clunk).

3) When making lineups each night, major league managers with viable, productive options at a position will try to get the most out of those options. You would prefer LaRussa to sit Ludwick and his strapping 1.0+ OPS in favor of Duncan because you believe that Duncan has been a superior player throughout his career. This is what doesn’t make sense. Simply because someone has had a better / more productive career, doesn’t mean they are the better player. (as previously noted, Edmonds had a pretty damned impressive career, but I sure wouldn’t want him starting over Ankiel).

Duncan has played longer and has a bigger sample size of at-bats to show that he is a really good hitter, I’ll give you that. But Duncan is also in a 6 month slump. Why in the name of everything holy do we “owe” a slumping Duncan playing time when it would leave Ludwick, who is knocking the cover off the ball right now, sitting on the bench? Or to start Duncan over Barton? Or over Schumaker?

by Ray Lankford on May 8, 2008 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is what doesn’t make sense. Simply because someone has had a better / more productive career, doesn’t mean they are the better player. (as previously noted, Edmonds had a pretty damned impressive career, but I sure wouldn’t want him starting over Ankiel).

Comparing Edmonds to Duncan is a faulty comparison. Edmonds was old and breaking down, and clearly past his prime. Duncan is young and probably has yet to hit his prime… and really he hasn’t been that terrible. you have to like the patient approach he’s had this year, and if he’s healthy, the homeruns will come. I’m not ready to turn send him to the bench because Ludwick had 80 good at bats.

by JI on May 8, 2008 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again...

He has more than 80 good at-bats, so stop using that reference because it’s WRONG.

As was posted above by SleepCA (do you read at all?)

From June 1st to the end of the season, he put up an .874 OPS. From July 1st, .900, .880 in Aug and .910 in september.

Wow…those look like FOUR pretty good months to me, and maybe his hot start to this season is a continuation of that. You can look it up at baseball-reference if you like, but I’m sure you’re going to respond with something about sample sizes, faulty comparisons (which you keep doing yourself, btw), etc. etc.

I disagree that Duncan is more talented player. It’s a stretch to even say that he is the most PROVEN player of the two, considering Ludwick may end up with a higher OPS at the MLB level through 500 AB’s. You’re forming an opinion based on what you see, but you’re statistical comparisons of the two are completely biased by your opinion.

If you look at the hard facts, it makes no sense to have a player with a 1.000 OPS on the bench until he cools off. I don’t know if Ludwick can put up a 1.000 OPS for the whole season, but you don’t know that he won’t unless you can travel through time.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 8, 2008 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you look at the hard facts, it makes no sense to have a player with a 1.000 OPS on the bench until he cools off. I don’t know if Ludwick can put up a 1.000 OPS for the whole season, but you don’t know that he won’t unless you can travel through time.

Yes it does. It only doesn’t make sense if you believe that a 1.000 OPS is his true ability level. You are bascially saying that his first two months were a complete fluke and that the last four are his true talent level. If you think that these last four month are his true ability level, you are basically arguing that he is as a good of a player as Manny Ramirez in his prime. You would be arguing that he is one of the three or four best players in baseball. I think it’s absurd to think so.

If you don’t believe that ~.950 OPS is his true ability level, then why does any of this matter?

by JI on May 8, 2008 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So

I have said, repeatedly for those who read posts, that I believe that Ludwick’s true talent level is probably +.850 OPS. If you couple that with this above average defense, he is a better option than Duncan long term. This is based solely on my opinion and what Ludwick has done since June 1, 2007.

Regardless, that is not what this entire fanpost is about—we’re all saying that Ludwick is a better option RIGHT NOW than Chris Duncan is. You should always play the players who give you the best chance to win, especially when you’re near the top of the division and in contention. Ryan Ludwick (again, in all caps), RIGHT NOW gives them the best chance to win.

It’s apparently frivolous to debate whether he is the better player long term because you use your own arguments against yourself half the time, and apparently think that only the statistics you like have any impact on predictive nature. You don’t know any better than I who is the better hitter long term—both of their sample sizes are too small to know for sure. RIGHT NOW, however, Ludwick is one of the best hitters in baseball, so he should play

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 9, 2008 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nobody is even commenting on

Duncan’s extreme platoon splits.

THE GUY DOES NOT HIT LEFT HANDED PITCHING!!

So this argument about reverse platoon splits as a fallacy is a joke, IMO, since TLR is starting Ludwick against lefties AND righties (52 AB vs RHP, 39 vs LHP) yet he does not trust Duncan enough to play him against LHP (81 PA vs RHP, 13 PA vs LHP)

To call Duncan a better player right now is ludicrous and, although Jl may be well versed at statistical evaluation, the premise of his entire argument (that Duncan is a better player when healthy) is flawed.

by silent_bob on May 9, 2008 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Something I found interesting

is that it seems that people on this site are in such favor of trading Duncan (he is a 1B /DH or an American League player). In order to do this, we would all want to see him start mashing the ball again to up his value. Well right now Ludwick has the hot bat and is mashing, and it seems that he may be the one who is upping his trade value right now. Perhaps looking at trading Ludwick would be able to bring us a better prospect/player while we wait for Duncan to bust out of this slump and find his stroke and power and more importantly, his power stroke, thus we will have traded away an outfielder, presumably get some value back, and have Duncan hitting like his previous MLB numbers suggest he can. Of course, if Duncan can’t start hitting, this trade may not be the best idea for this season, as we need all the offense we can get this season.

by Dave0585 on May 7, 2008 5:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Ludwick doesn't have any significan't trade value.

...unless he’s still mashing the ball in July.

I think we should trade Duncan, actually. He’s not very valuable once he hit’s arb, at least not as an outfielder.

by JI on May 7, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So...

We should hold on to the “reserve” outfielder but trade a guy who you say is the better player?

Now I’m really confused….................

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 8, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duncan's worth more to an AL team then he is to us.

If the opportunity comes along we should take it, especially if it nets us a SP or a good middle infielder.

by JI on May 8, 2008 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But why is he worth more?

If Ludwick is a reserve outfielder, as you seem to believe, then what is our starting OF if we trade Duncan?

Skippy, Ank, and Barton?
Barton, Ank, and Rasmus?

If you agree that Ludwick is a +.850 OPS player than I agree that we should look to shop Duncan and get some value for him.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 9, 2008 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I agree with your general point, which I take to be that Ludwick should be getting lots of starts right now.

I don’t buy the conventional wisdom of many on this site that says that Duncan is some sort of fake ballplayer who should be traded for anything we can get as soon as possible. I certainly don’t understand why he should be replaced with a player like Bonds or Burrell, who would both seem to have many of the same defects as Duncan, but cost millions more.

He’s a potential power hitter with a few major defects: splits against LHP, baserunning, and defense in left field. Right now, he is not hitting for power, though his OBP is up. And I do think that, generally, his defense has improved drastically from 2006, with the potential to improve further.

This does seem like a no-brainer. Play Dunc periodically. See if his power takes off. See if someone bites. He’s costing us next to nothing. We’re not hurting in the outfield. But, yes, for the moment, give Ludwick the AB’s he deserves. Maybe luddy slumps later and maybe Dunc picks up. That’s baseball. This will shake itself out.

by tom s. on May 7, 2008 6:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But...

what if Duncan stays in his slump that he is now? Can the team afford to have someone on the ML roster who is a defensive liability in the outfield and average at best at the plate? Duncan. as the team is currently constructed, needs to bust out of the slump for the team to continue its fantastic winning ways. His contribution or a contribution from that fourth OFer is critical. I do not believe that three a little bit better than league average, taking in account the their recent success and career totals, outfielders will be enough to keep up this winning. This team needs a fourth outfielder to take the pressure off of the other three. It doesn’t matter who but there needs to be the four outfielders producing; Barton as the sparkplug is fine by me. I think that the best way for Duncan to break out of this slump and hit like the Duncan of old is to be in the lineup enough to have a real rhythm, which he hasn’t had all year due to the injury in ST, and the onslaught of LHPs that we have faced this year (or so it seems). Confidence and consistency is where Duncan is lacking, definitely somehing fixable by a 3-4 outing with a HR, 2B, and no defensive miscues.

For the lineups, that is one of Tony’s greatest strengths. I don’t mind the constant tinkering with the lineup because it keeps all the guys fresh, doesn’t over-expose any of the young players he has, and he puts guys in their spots for a reason. He doesn’t always just give Duncan a spot in the lineup because he Lud has played the last three games or Lud a spot because a LHP is on the hill. He plays batter vs hitter, success in certain stadia, type of outfield, spot in the lineup, type of pitcher, etc. and it seems to work.

However, this all becomes moot when (if; dont want to do any jinxin) Rasmus comes up and delivers even a fraction of his potential. Then we have a surplus and the least valuable to us is (in my opinion) Duncan, with Skip a distant second. Package him with to AL team for quality pitching/MI prospect and voila, best case scenario.

Wow, that was some rambling that red baron would be proud of.

At least he's better than Esteban Yan.

by jacksonian on May 7, 2008 6:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

We have a load of OFers, I'm not worried.

We should be worried about the pitching.

by JI on May 7, 2008 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We have a load of those too

And, last I checked, they were all pitching pretty well as of late….

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 8, 2008 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't mean they will in the future

Every starter on this staff besides Wainwright is a prime candidate to regress to the mean.

by JI on May 8, 2008 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like Ludwick as the cleanup hitter

I think he might take off there if he gets to play every day

Ankiel is Jesus!

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 7, 2008 7:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I read this thread

And it just seems insane to me that there are actually people who think Ludwick shouldn’t be starting over Duncan right now. I mean, seriously, we’re not talking about a guy who’s producing at the league average right now while another guy is slumping. We’re talking about a guy who is one of the most productive offensive forces in baseball right now. You don’t bench that, not for anyone. We’re not talking about riding the hot hand as in a guy who’s hitting .300 over his last 10 games or something…we’re talking about with a 1.101 OPS over his last 83 AB.

Bench whoever you have to. I don’t care who it is, but it’s downright silly to not play Ludwick every damn day right now. The theory behind a platoon is to patch together the most productive offense on a given day…well, Ludwick should be in the most productive offense every day. Over Skip, over Ankiel, over Duncan, over Barton. Play him until he cools off.

Just look at the Dodgers right now—they’re benching Andruw Jones, who they just signed to a 2-year, $36 million contract because he’s hitting anemically and the rest of the outfield is going like this:

Kemp: .328/.355/.509
Ethier: .291/.376/.447
Pierre: .304/.382/.354

Play Ludwick. Start him regularly in left, and when Duncan’s in the lineup, give Skippy or Ankiel a day off. And start him in right. And keep doing that as long as he’s on this torrid pace.

by mojowo11 on May 8, 2008 12:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

obviuosly Jones should be playing

not Eithier or Kemp. All those stats are an aberration, an ABERRATION, I say!

"He was trying to hit a three run homer with the bases empty. To my knowledge, no one in the history of the game has ever done that. But it could happen someday. You never know in this world of baseball." The Moonman

by mattyfrommo on May 8, 2008 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know

We should play Jones so can work out the kinks and bench an outfielder. After all, Jones is the better player!

by mojowo11 on May 8, 2008 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I find it amazing also mojo

But JI is pretty passionate about Duncan and his one good year of ABs.

i wont to repost these stats;

Ludwicks rank in the following categories:

4th in slugging
5th in OPS
9th in on base %
9th in doubles

This is in the entire major leagues!

These stats are off the charts and a guy hitting like this can not be on the bench 3 or 4 days in a row like he is when we have a string of righties pitching against us.

What is more amazing then JI argueing for Duncan is TLR’s comments in the article this morning. He basically says yes Ludwick is playing great but we have Duncan to play against righties. Just insane. Its blind faith in a player who hasn’t earned the opportunity to play through a 4 month slump.

One last thing…..LUDWICK HITS RIGHTIES BETTER HIS ENTIRE CAREER!!!

Incredible. Its so cut and dry.

by gossard56 on May 8, 2008 3:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's not insane

And despite the sour tone, TLR realizes that Duncan is a good hitter who’s off to a slow start, and that Ludwick is an OK hitter who off to a great start. He knows that the players’ skillsets haven’t changed. Duncan will probably hit better, and that Ludwick is due to come back to earth. He knows to shake up the team based on 80 measley at bats is a bad idea. It’s common sense. if you believe that small sample sizes mean more than talent, and more than the bigger picture. Then there’s really nothing more to say here. The overwhelming odds say that Ludwick is due to regress, and that Duncan is going to start hitting for more power.

One last thing…..LUDWICK HITS RIGHTIES BETTER HIS ENTIRE CAREER!!!

Meaningless small sample. Go through baseballreference.com a look at the splits of hitters who had long careers, you’re not going to find anyone with a significant reverse split like Ludwick. Why would a hitter continually do worse when he has the advantage? He won’t and it’s been proven. All these things even out over time.

Believe what you want to believe, I hope Ludwick slugs .700 the whole season and earns the job, just don’t pretend you know anything about statistical analysis when it comes to baseball.

by JI on May 8, 2008 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Meaningless sample size?????

what the hell are you talking about. Ludwick has 724 major league ABs. That is not meaningless. Every single year he has hit righties significantly better.

by gossard56 on May 8, 2008 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nobody is arguing this point. The problem is, that power that Duncan is going to hit for…well, Ludwick’s hitting for it now. And then some. So, you know, rather than playing Duncan in anticipation of future power, doesn’t it make sense to play Ludwick while he’s hitting for that power?

Your logic makes no sense. Duncan is valuable to you because of his power. Thus, you insist he should play. But when we have another player on the team who’s hitting for power NOW, you think we should bench him. Which helps our team more, power or potential power?

by mojowo11 on May 8, 2008 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Quote didn't work

I meant to quote “The overwhelming odds say that Ludwick is due to regress, and that Duncan is going to start hitting for more power.”

by mojowo11 on May 8, 2008 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Statistical Analysis?

Is that what we’re doing? It’s been statistically proven throughout this FanPost that Ludwick is outperforming Duncan since June 1, 2007. That’s a hard statistical fact that you seem to forget to mention when you spout that we don’t know what we’re talking about.

Also, there’s lies, damn lies, and statistics. Why is that quote important? Because you consistently use only the stats you believe to be of value when comparing the two, and even then, you’ve been consistently proven incorrect about who is the better player.

Regardless of whether his reverse split is correct or not, it doesn’t make sense to platoon him when he’s putting up a 1.000+ OPS, which he is right now. You platoon a player who struggles against a certain type of pitching - so far in his career, Ludwick has hit righties better than lefties, over a span of 700+ AB’s at the major league level and around 2800 minor league AB’s. That’s an awfully large sample size - more than enough to be statistically relevant.

Comparing him to other people in history is irrelavant, because none of them are Ryan Ludwick. Just because most right handers hit lefties better and vice versa does not mean that every hitter has an “advantage” in those situations. In fact, Al Leiter was more effective against righties for most of his career than lefties. Look it up….

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 9, 2008 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Incredible

as i was typing that Ludwick just hit another HR.

He is on fire, but i certainly wouldn’t wont him in there to face a right handed pitcher or to play superior defense.

by gossard56 on May 8, 2008 3:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

but Duncan, with all his talents and abilities, is a better, more proven player over the course of his career. We should give him the playing time because Ludwick, with his .356 average and .701 slugging percentage (that’s right, a mother-fucking 700 slugging percentage), won’t keep this type of production up.

Whoa - I almost bought into Jl’s argument. Then I regained my senses and realized that it doesn’t fucking matter if Ludwick can sustain this production over the course of a year. IT DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER BECAUSE HE’S DOING IT RIGHT NOW AND CHRIS DUNCAN ISN’T. Believe me, when Ludwick starts slumping, letting balls bounce over his head or go between his legs, I won’t have any problem sitting him down in favor of Duncan (or Barton, or Schu . . . basically whoever can produce, because that’s the luxury of having 5 above average outfielders. Come to think of it, that’s really the only way to realize the benefit of 5 above average outfielders - to platoon them / play the hot hand instead of letting them ride pine in favor of someone who got there first).

by Ray Lankford on May 8, 2008 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Christ.

Almighty. He homered again. Its like he knows there are still people saying he shouldn’t be playing every day right now.

by Ray Lankford on May 8, 2008 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's opposite day at Coors Field...

Players who suck and have no trade value are 2-4 with 2 homers….

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 8, 2008 5:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

As Ray L says right above htis post

The point is that Ludwick IS one bad mother fucker RIGHT NOW! RIGHT NOW its pretty much Berkman, Utley and Ludwick in that order as the hottest fucking baseball players on the planet. Look at the stats…can’t deny, this is a fact!!!

At the end of the season will he be in that class. I can pretty well say no. But RIGHT NOW Duncan is swinging terrible and playing poor defense while Ludwick is BEYOND ON FIRE!!! This means you play him. What is so hard to understand?

by gossard56 on May 8, 2008 8:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

JI...this is your main arguement i beleive

we should not be playing him everyday because the level he is playing at is not his true level of ability. Correct?

And you have shot down the idea that it makes no sense to play the hot hand. Correct?

if youy answered yes to both, which you should have…..your view of handling baseball players is 1 in a million.

by gossard56 on May 8, 2008 8:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There's no need

for the personal attacks; much of what he is saying is correct. he’s right that “the hot hand” has been shown to be non-predictive, and playing a “hot hand” over a better player is a bad idea. The fact that many managers do it does not make it a good idea; managers do a lot of foolish things.

The problem with his argument is that this is not what is happening here. Luddy is not “the hot hand” over 80 PA’s, as he claims; he’s “the hot hand” over close to 400 at this point, and that means there is an increasing chance that Luddy’s true talent level is higher than even I think it is (my pre-season estimate was .860ish, IE, “carlos lee”). It’s still a small chance. The more PA’s he gets, the more confident we can become in his performance, but right now we should not be very confident at all that he is really as good as he has looked this year and the last half of 2007.

But, of course, he doesn’t have to be. “Carlos lee” production is pretty darn good.

he’s also correct about luddy’s reverse platoon splits being small sample size and nonpredictive. based on the standard deviation of the typical hitters year-to-year performance, it takes something like 3000 PA’s (i can’t remember the exact # but that is ROOM correct) against lefties for a right-handed batter to establish that he has a bona fide reverse split. Luddy is nowhere near that number.

However, that doesn’t help his argument. What it tells us is that Luddy should have been better against lefties than he has been, and that he should improve against them in the future. If he does, that will only help his overall numbers.

And I awoke in California, far far from Spancilhill...

by SleepyCA on May 8, 2008 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

reverse platoon splits

I agree, but he does have a pretty glaring split in a combined 3500 MLB and MiLB AB’s and 3800 combined PA’s. Obviously those AB’s aren’t all against lefties.

Here’s the problem with that though: how many hitters with a possible reverse split are going to get that many PA’s against the opposite armed pitcher? It would take a solid 7 years of regular play to build up that kind of statistical data, and most hitters with this type of split either aren’t going to stick for that long, or are going to be platooned because of the perceived advantage.

My prediction about Lud was about the same as yours in the preseason, around .850 or so, which, coupled with his above average defense, makes him a starter over Chris Duncan, imo.

Statistically, it’s also true that right handed batters tend to hit right handed pitching better than left handed batters hit left handed pitching. If this is the case, wouldn’t it make more sense to play the right handed batter with above average defense all the time than platoon him with the left handed batter who is a defensive liability?

I agree that there’s no predictive power in the “hot hand”. I’ve never said that there was, but I think that he needs to get the opportunity to play himself back down to where we think he might be.

Everyone wrote off Rick Ankiel when he switched to the outfield, and he’s now proving a lot of people wrong—I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that a healthy Ryan Ludwick might not be doing the same thing.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 9, 2008 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if you ment me

i dont believe that i ever personally attacked him.

by gossard56 on May 8, 2008 11:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

how exciting

my first fanpost went over the 100 comment mark :-)

by gossard56 on May 9, 2008 12:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Numbers...

Just to look at the talent of both

Minors (through age 24):

Duncan (6 seasons, last in AAA) - .271/.359/.448 OPS: .807
Ludwick (5 seasons, last in AAA) - .275/.353/.501 OPS: .854

Seems Jl’s argument doesn’t hold any water there…

Majors (2006-2008—including this season up to this point)

Duncan: .270/.358/.511 OPS: .869 OPS+ – 122
Ludwick: .289/.342/.491 OPS: .833 OPS+ – 112

When you look at the development of both of them, they look like similar types of players, with the exception of Ludwick’s better defense. I really don’t see how you could draw a conclusion that Duncan is a much better player than Ludwick based on these numbers.

Wouldn’t it be nice to see Duncan in left and Luddy in right if we had a middle infielder who could lead off? (See: Roberts, Brian or Furcal, Rafael) That’s really the only reason I can see why they both aren’t playing right now. It would be interesting to do a lineup analysis with both of them in the lineup and Kennedy or Izturis leading off.

Ludwick didn’t play 2006 due to injury

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on May 9, 2008 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs