Bay, Holliday - can someone make sense of this?

by rlgosnell on Jul 11, 2008 10:57 PM EDT Comment 58 comments

Hey all,

I'm a 3rd generation Cards fan living in Texas so I don't get the local spin on the team apart from what I read in the Dispatch website or during game broadcasts on the Extra Innings package (which hasn't had an FSN-Midwest broadcast in semmingly forever). I've read a couple of names (Bay and Holliday) that really don't make much sense to me so I'm not sure why they're being floated or if fans in STL are in favor or opposed to such trades. Both players would supplant either Schumaker or Ludwick in the present and Rasmus in the future. Since I don't think Rasmus would be included in a deal for either it doesn't make sense to further crowd an already crowded outfield. And since Ludwick and Bay are close to a wash offensively and Schumaker is clearly our best leadoff hitter it doesn't make much sense in the present. I watch parts of every game on a nightly basis and I get sick of flipping the channel and seeing Manny protecting JD Drew or Ramirez protecting Derrick Lee and no one protecing Pujols, but these OF options just don't make any sense to me. Adding an OF bat and keeping Ludwick in the lineup removes a solid OBP option in Skip and makes me fear TLR will play Miles more at 2B to make it up and playing Skip robs us of Ludwick's bat which doesn't maximize the potential of adding a Bay or Holliday. I know power bats in the middle infield don't grow on trees, but with the roster constructed the way it is, that's what we need. What's the word on the trade front around STL?

0 recs | Comment 58 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Future OF

Seeing as Ankiel pretty much has to be out there because of his defense, you can pencil him in at CF.

LF:
CF: Rick Ankiel
RF:

Given our current lack of power production, Ryan Ludwick needs to find a place in the outfield as well.

LF:
CF: Rick Ankiel
RF: Ryan Ludwick

Seeing as we don’t have a consistent leadoff hitter that plays the MI, Skip fills the last spot.

LF: Skip Schumaker
CF: Rick Ankiel
RF: Ryan Ludwick

That should be our everyday OF. Acquiring Bay or Holliday would force either Ludwick or Schumaker out of the lineup, most likely Schumaker. If the Cards can somehow land a MI that bat leadoff and plays very good defense, then their offense will start clicking. If anyone can find a young 2Bman (preferably hasn’t gotten to the big league level yet), who can bat leadoff and play very good defense, please name him.

by AP5 on Jul 11, 2008 11:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

SKIP CAN'T HIT LHP

he should not be out there everyday. Against RHP, he’s been extremely good this year but vs LHP, he is dreadful.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Jul 12, 2008 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jed Lowrie

Granted he has been in the big leagues already this year, but the Sawx need a catcher soon (Anderson) and Lowrie is blocked by Lugo’s contract.

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

by showmejoe on Jul 13, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

skip is nowhere near

a “wash” offensively with either bay or holliday. Replacing skip with one of those two players nets between 2 and 3 wins over half a season.

Also, “leadoff hitter” is not a position. We don’t need a “leadoff hitter”. We’d score 20-30 more runs with Glaus (or ludwick or ryan or …) as a leadoff man and bay in LF than schumaker leading off and playing LF.

"If thats bad luck, lets DFA our luck away." -DriverZN

by SleepyCA on Jul 11, 2008 11:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What he said

Jason Bay is much better than Schumaker, and Holliday is worlds better. This year Bay has been pretty awesome to a tune of .287/.389/.520 compared to Schu’s .293/.358/.434. Although Schumaker has been getting on-base at a clip comparable to Bay, Bay’s power is simply far more developed.

As for Holliday, his .340/.422/.561 line speaks for itself.

by Gnick on Jul 11, 2008 11:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

one additional thing about holliday or bay

Because they are signed through ‘09, if we could get one of them without sacrificing Rasmus (unlikely), they become valuable trade chips. we could potentially trade them in the off-season for a long-term SS or 2B solution, or a young pitching prospect, making them both a win-now AND long-term benefit.

"If thats bad luck, lets DFA our luck away." -DriverZN

by SleepyCA on Jul 12, 2008 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And even if we let both walk

they are both likely to be Type A FA’s after 2009, so we hopefully could get value back in the draft.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Jul 12, 2008 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're taking their numbers this year without any regression

or at least using a weighted average with previous seasons. Since both players are having very good seasons to date, that’s probably overstating their projected value moving forward. They’re both upgrades but not as significant if you regress or look over multiple seaosns.

by azruavatar on Jul 12, 2008 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

regress to what?

Holliday is 28 and bay is 29. Bay has hit for an OPS+ over 130 in 5 of 6 seasons, and the one that wasn’t was due to injury; this season (143) isn’t out of line with career norms at all. Holliday is basically matching last season’s performance (150 -> 152) and has shown a steady improvement each year (103-114-137-150-152); he likely hasn’t yet peaked.

Both likely have their best seasons ahead of them, or at the very worst will have 2-3 near-peak years before they begin to decline. I wouldn’t sign either one to a 10 year contract, but 3-5 would be peachy. This year and next year it’d be hard to beat either one for value per contract dollar.

I’d be confident in predicting Bay for a 130-145 OPS+ season next year and Holliday for a 145-160 OPS+ season. if Holliday is traded, make it a 140-155 season ( I don’t think OPS+ does a great job of removing park effect benefits from some players). if either one could be acquired for anything but Todd or Rasmus, it has to be done.

"If thats bad luck, lets DFA our luck away." -DriverZN

by SleepyCA on Jul 12, 2008 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That doesn't mean you take improvements as their

true talent level. You still have to regress toward MLB averages. I’m not talking about adding aging to the projection just that you’d never want to take single season stats (or half season stats) as a the new baseline.

by azruavatar on Jul 13, 2008 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

ludwick could be as good or better leadoff hitter as skip. Ludy has just as much speed on has pop and pretty consistent so therefore there is a new leadoff man and Bay and Holliday is a lot better asset to have then skip schuman. We could probably get Bay without giving up Rasmus, but Holliday is a better overall player that would require rasmus. To me thats not a huge deal, i knows he’s a highly regarded prospect, BUT he’s not tearing up Triple A right now and Holliday is tearing up the pros along with the ability to steal bases(13 as of July 11) and is a grat bat behind Pujols that is definitely proven.

That gives you:

LF: Holliday
CF: Ankiel
RF: Ludwick

Lineup:
1) Ludwick RF
2) Ankiel CF
3) Pujols 1B
4) Holliday LF
5) Glaus 3B
6) Yadier C
7) Kennedy 2B
8) P
9) Izturis/ Ryan SS

And Holiday is signed through ‘09 giving us more time to resign him plus you could probably get another need in Fuentes as a lefty reliever

Now this more then likely won’t happen because MO is in love with rasmus so take what you desire to

by fzeballer15 on Jul 12, 2008 12:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Ludwick is in no way capable of leading off.

TLR tried that experiment earlier and it was a disaster. In this scenario you have either Izturis/Kennedy/Ryan/or Miles leading off.

Better yet, trade for Bay, then trade for Brian Roberts, wah-lah, problems solved :)

boo cubs, hooray beer

by Raconteur on Jul 12, 2008 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ludwick

His average is .012 below skips but almost .050 above izturis and ryan
but his OBP is .001 above skip(not big difference) and higher then izturis ryan and kennedy but better yet Ludwick’s SLG% is .573 which is the highest among the other leadoff men but over .139 and leads in total bases, home runs, and walks even over schuman who has 16 more AB’s so please explain why he shouldn’t have a chance to lead off????

by fzeballer15 on Jul 12, 2008 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

because he strikes out a ton and doesn't take pitches

boo cubs, hooray beer

by Raconteur on Jul 12, 2008 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

schumaker has seen 3.77 pitches per PA this year

before today (it’ll go down after today’s numbers are included) and his career numbers are much lower. Luddy has seen 3.81 P/PA this year. IE Luddy takes slightly more pitches than Skip (I’m actually shocked that it is so close). Really, it’s a wash, and “seeing more pitches” is a poor reason to choose a leadoff man anyway. Luddy does strike out a lot, and hits few ground balls, making him an ideal #4 or #5 guy since he rarely GIDP’s and will have a large number of sac flies over the course of a year (he’s currently leading the team, though it’s only 4 vs a bunch of guys with 3). Still, the minimize-GIDP’s thing is a better reason not to bat him #1.

Also, the one time he led off was against Arroyo, a junkballer, which was pretty much a “set-him-up-to-fail” situation.

Agree with hardcore that Glaus is the best choice for “leadoff man” on our team, right now. he takes great at bats and would have close to a .400 OBP if the umps weren’t intent on screwing him, and for whatever reason is uncomfortable batting 4th.

Wonder how he’d do in the #3 spot, with AP 4th?

"If thats bad luck, lets DFA our luck away." -DriverZN

by SleepyCA on Jul 12, 2008 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

K's too much?

Are we still using this as a measure of how good a player is? Except in a handful of specific circumstances, a strikeout is no different than any other out and is better for a team than a DP, a point that has been demonstrated again and again by BP, among others.

In 2006, Grady Sizemore struck out a whopping 153 times, so I suppose he shouldn’t have hit leadoff either, his .375 OBP be damned. Last year he whiffed 157 times, but OBPed .390, but I suppose he should have hit 6th or something b/c he K’ed too much.

Obviously Ludwick isn’t the player that Sizemore is, but the simple fact of the matter is that the guy has on-base skills that are on par with Schumaker (the official lead-off man), along with significantly more power. I highly doubt the guy will just combust or something if he hits leadoff, so really it isn’t outrageous to bolt Skip to the bench in the unlikely event that Holliday or Bay becomes a Cardinal. The offensive upgrade to Holliday/Bay from Skip would almost certainly guarantee more offensive production, even without a “leadoff” hitter.

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

by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 12, 2008 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's not a measure of how good a player is,

I agree.

But it is a warning sign of a player who needs to improve their plate discipline. Rarely do players with such high K rates keep producing at high numbers.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Jul 12, 2008 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that doesn't make sense either....

Reggie Jackson, Adam Dunn, Ryan Howard, Bobby Bonds, Willie Stargell, Mike Schmidt, Harmon Killebrew, Jim Thome and, finally, Rickey Henderson—who may be the greatest lead-off man of all time all had a high K rate over their careers. All, with the exception of Bonds, are HOF or potentially headed there (if Howard keeps dinging 45+ homers a year he’ll probably hit 500 or more in a shorter career than most of the others on that list).

FWIW, most of these guys have high career OBP’s as well, so you can’t say they have a lack of plate discipline. There are plenty of guys with a lack of plate discipline that don’t strike out much as well—Vlad Guerrero comes 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 Jul 12, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I was about to say the same thing, but you beat me to it.

I’ll throw another name out there: Mickey Mantle. That guy whiffed over 100 times in every full season he played. He’s arguably the most talented player that ever lived, and it could be argued that he was, in his peak, the best center fielder that ever played. He also walked over 100 times a significant number of times, so he clearly had plate discipline.

K’s are often the result of holes-in-you-swing, and NOT lack of plate discipline.

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

by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 12, 2008 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Addendum

By full season I mean seasons in which he played 145 games or so.

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

by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 12, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, that too

that’s my point—if someone has a high K-rate, you need to look out for him. That’s all.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Jul 13, 2008 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's such a small sample size

you’d be amazed at how many hitters have failed because of their horrible plate discipline. This is what makes these guys such great natural hitters - but if you aren’t all great and talented from the started, then poor plate discipline is going to kill you. Take in mind that I didn’t say that they still can’t be great hitters - like Vlad (who I believe simply sees the ball really well despite its relation to the strikezone— just that Ks are a WARNING SIGN for poor plate discipline, so it’s always something to look out for (kind of like really good pitchers who still get away with walking guys).

As I said, I agree that it’s not a measure of how good a player is, but you can’t ignore it if you see a guy striking out at high rates.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Jul 13, 2008 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't he try it for

1 game?

I’d rather have Glaus leadoff. He’s got the better eye of the two.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Jul 12, 2008 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was only 1 game

but that 1 game was his worst of the season and he looked incredibly uncomfortable leading off. On top of that, he doesn’t take many pitches and really doesn’t have any speed.

boo cubs, hooray beer

by Raconteur on Jul 12, 2008 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But adding 20 HRs the rest of the way out

from either Holliday or Bay would make up for the OBP deficiencies that Ludwick may have in the leadoff spot.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Jul 12, 2008 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not to mention

the ~.400 OBP those guys would bring over. That would be huge.

Heck, bat holliday leadoff.

"If thats bad luck, lets DFA our luck away." -DriverZN

by SleepyCA on Jul 12, 2008 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

can we look up things before stating them as fact

Ludwick sees more pitchers per plate appearance than Kennedy, Miles and Izturis. And the same number as Brendan Ryan. I’m not advocating him for the leadoff spot but your logic doesn’t make much sense given the suggested alternatives.

by azruavatar on Jul 12, 2008 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eh, I was wrong

It seems to me Ludwick first pitch swings alot, but apparently not. Where do you guys find the P/PA for players anyway?

boo cubs, hooray beer

by Raconteur on Jul 12, 2008 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Hardball Times

by azruavatar on Jul 13, 2008 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was one game!

It was a disastrous game, but that’s a ridiculously small sample size.

Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy and Randy Flores!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans

by Mr Redbird on Jul 12, 2008 3:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wait.

plus you could probably get another need in Fuentes as a lefty reliever

So because we’re taking their best player off of their hands, the Rockies would just throw in Brian Fuentes? Even though he’s by far their best trade chip right now because so many playoff teams need a good lefty reliever? You, my friend, need a lobotomy. To get those two guys the Cards would have to gut nearly the entire farm system. I don’t think that there is any way they’re going to package both of those guys together in a deal unless they get a boatload of MLB ready top prospects in return.

People aren’t looking at the market for these guys either; there are teams with a lot better tradable pieces out there than the Cardinals—and a couple of those teams need a bat far worse than we do.

Arizona needs a bat worse than anyone, the Rockies could trade Holliday to them for Scherzer and Owings and that’s a far better deal that the Cards could give them. I don’t think they’d do it because it’s a division rival, but why would they take less than that? Jason Bay could probably be had for less than that, maybe Sherzer or Chad Tracy straight up for Bay. The Pirates need a decent bat at 3B, and Tracy fits that bill.

Boston may also be on the lookout for another stick if Papi’s injury is more serious than they think, and they have MLB ready pitching, MI, and OF prospects at AAA that are much better than anything St. Louis has outside of Colby Rasmus. Holliday or Bay make sense for them too, since Manny would become the full time DH and either would then play LF in Boston, upgrading the Sox defense by removing Manny and adding another bat in the middle. Boston also is said to be looking at getting Brian Fuentes, and probably have the prospects to do it and the money to re-sign him after the season.

"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 Jul 12, 2008 9:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like your line-up a lot. It almost makes me say bye bye to Rasmus but only if they throw in Fuentes.

"Why does he keep saying that?"

by Red Blazer on Jul 12, 2008 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not to be a nitpicking nellie or anything

but Rasmus was tearing it up in Triple AAA at the time of his injury. He was coming on strong, very strong.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jul 12, 2008 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Personally I think K's in a leadoff man are over-hyped as a negative...

Bottom line in a leadoff hitter is getting on base. OBP is king. If he strikes out a lot or not what does it matter because you don’t need him to make ‘productive outs’. In most situations, any out your leadoff hitter makes is going to be un-productive.

by rlgosnell on Jul 12, 2008 1:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

once per game

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

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Jul 12, 2008 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm losing my grip

on my usual maniacal insistence on a ‘classic’ lead-off hitter {works the count; doesn’t K much; good base-runner}. The overall reason is because the game is changing, especially from what it was in my younger days. But – more to the point – with the present day Cardinals specifically, two things jump out at me:
Not only is OUR lead-off hitter only that in his first AB, but with LaRussa’s pitcher hitting 8th batting order, he isn’t even the leadoff hitter for the rest of the game. He functions more like a 2-hole hitter.

The main reason, tho, that the Cards don’t need a ‘classic’ lead-off hitter is because (with the exception of Pujols) we don’t have a classic anything else. ... ie. a 2-hole hitter who is a bat handler with an exceptional eye, patience, great understanding of the game and a willingness to do the little things that may harm his ‘personal’ numbers a bit; ...a 3-hole hitter who is a stick enough to nearly lead the league in hitting and is mainly a line drive jump off the bat type;... a 4-hole hitter with proven power (yes, even if he Ks a lot)... and a 5 and 6 hole(s) hitter who is what you would call a dependable ‘RBI man’.

With so many “classic’ pieces missing elsewhere, why fuss about having or not having a classic 1-hole hitter? As a couple of you said above, bat Glaus in the # 1 spot. Does it really matter?

by the Tewk on Jul 13, 2008 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't read any of this yet

please no austin kearns. PLEASE!

strikeouts from left-center

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 12, 2008 3:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Middle Infield

Is the key need for this ballclub - trading for an outfielder makes no sense to me at all, because you still have to bat Izturis, Kennedy, Miles, and Ryan two spots in the order, even if they are 7th and 9th. As Az said yesterday in the main thread, the guy the Cards really ought to target is Brian Roberts - good to great defense at 2B, high OBP, and can lead off. The Orioles also make excellent trading partners for the Cardinals because they are likely to be looking for players that the Cardinals have in spades—pitching, corner OF, and 3B prospects. They also have Sherrill, who would sweeten the deal even more by giving the Cards a closer/lefty option in the pen that Tony would absolutely covet. Roberts would probably be a type A free agent, so losing he and Lohse after the season would probably net the club an extra 1st round pick and two sandwich picks in next years draft, which could be a pretty loaded draft from some things that I’ve read so far….

"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 Jul 12, 2008 9:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm surpised

I haven’t heard anything about Tejada being available…

by connorkt on Jul 12, 2008 10:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

me too

HOU is going nowhere now that Oswalt is hurt again. They were shelled by the Nats last night.

Tejada’s a BIG contract and they have depleted their farm system.

But with McClain, who knows?

Proud sponsor of the Official 2008 StL Cardinal theme song: "Beautiful Day" by U2

by gocards62 on Jul 12, 2008 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or Berkman

It’s not like their depleted farm system is going to resurrect them anytime soon—they might as well blow things up and start over at this point. There’s a team out there that would probably take both of those guys and trade them young pitching a good young position player in return: Arizona

Say Berkman and Tejada for Drew, Tracy, Scherzer, and Owings.

Tejada hasn’t been hitting for power much this season, despite playing in a bandbox, so I think that might hurt their chances of trading him for similar players to what they gave up to get 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 Jul 12, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We need to use the A's as an example

Why are we talking about trading our mlb ready prospects for one mlb player? Teams that are “selling” have been coming up big for years. The Marlins were supposed to be terrible this year, the reason they’re not is they’ve gotten 3:1 on their money for years. Lets think outside of the box a little bit. What would it take to get Clayton Kershaw from the Dodgers? I know it would be a lot but would Glaus and Iz2 be enough? They need both of them and maybe we throw in Reyes and or Motte and get Andy La Roche to play third and bat cleanup the rest of the way. We end up with a formidable lefty reliever this year who turns into future no. 1 lefthander. Maybe then we flip La Roche when Walrus is ready or vice versa. I do not want to see us start selling the future when is only beginning to brighten.

by RayMonD! on Jul 12, 2008 1:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

. What would it take to get Clayton Kershaw from the Dodgers? I know it would be a lot but would Glaus and Iz2 be enough?

No.

They need both of them and maybe we throw in Reyes and or Motte and get Andy La Roche to play third and bat cleanup the rest of the way.

LaRoche is OBPing .444 in the majors. Anthony Reyes and Motte? Come on.

"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA

by joker24 on Jul 12, 2008 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

laroche

laroche was OBPing 444 in the minors. He’s terrible since he’s been up with the Dodgers.

by rlgosnell on Jul 12, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LaRoche

...has been terrible over his first 133 at bats spread out in a very random manner over the course of two seasons and around a couple of injuries. That’s a pretty poor sample to just poo-poo a guy who has shredded the minors for several seasons.

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

by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 12, 2008 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I realize

this trade maybe totally delusional but its more about the mode of thinking rather than the specifics. What would Kyle Lohse fetch us this year? Do we really want to give him the contract he was looking for last offseason?

by RayMonD! on Jul 12, 2008 1:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

..

I think I am the only person on this board who wants us to keep Lohse and thinks the contract he asked for last year is totally worth it now.

by Ghosty on Jul 12, 2008 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lohse

If Lohse continues at this pace what are the chances he would be type A classification-pretty high right?
He’d probably get four years from somebody if he keeps this up.

by greenwichvillagecard on Jul 12, 2008 2:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

how is that classification decided?

some sort of committee? objectively? coin flip? selig’s personal dream self-interpretations?

by mattybobo on Jul 12, 2008 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Elias rankings

Apparently it’s all the archaic wins and ERA stats and stuff.

"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA

by joker24 on Jul 12, 2008 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And it's also based on three year data

So he might still come up as class B.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Jul 12, 2008 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

at most

He’s a class B—he doesn’t have the three year average to be a class A.

"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 Jul 12, 2008 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jeff Suppan was a Type A

and his 3 year #’s weren’t much better than Lohse’s (atleast I dont think so)

boo cubs, hooray beer

by Raconteur on Jul 12, 2008 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Grudzie

Grudzalenek=3.6 WARP
Kennedy=1.4
Izturis=.4
Guzman=3.1
Schumaker=3.6
Holliday=4.2
Bay=3.6

WARP values (which factor in defense) so far this year for several of these players. I would much rather upgrade the middle infielders than burn prospects for a marginal upgrade at left/right field.

Now, for a 4th outfielder who can really hit! If Mather/Duncan don’t show >OPS+100, I’m looking at you, Barry Lamar Bonds.

"Never judge a taco by its price" - Dr. Gonzo

by KennyWang on Jul 12, 2008 4:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs