All trade talk here: Who would you bring in?
by boba schrute on Jun 9, 2009 3:12 PM EDT
Email
Print
Since none of our opinions really count, let's pretend we get a vote.
[azru update: I'm going to be more aggressive in deleting fanposts that have no substance especially in terms of trades since they're coming in faster and faster. trade talk here. rosterbate away.]
I read today that DeWitt said that the Cards are open to deal but there aren't any names out there that can help the team. (I'm trying to remember and paraphrase. That's not a direct quote). Maybe that's true. It's still fairly early in the season and there arent enough teams out there who are convinced that they are out of the race. But maybe we should be aggressive and start making phone calls as opposed to waiting for the big names to be waived around for everyone to fight over. The way we've been hitting for the last month (We've been the worst in the majors) if we dont hurry up and do something, we'll be the ones having the going out of business sale this year. It seems like almost anyone could be of help to us right now. We're getting nothing close to what we expected from our outfield, aside from Rasmus, who in spite of constant improvement can't even bump Duncan, who I believe may be the worst all around player in the bigs today. Our SS is still suffering anxiety attacks and can't even get on the field, our 3B is still sidelined by the shoulder injury that was supposed to be fixed by May. Skip is holding his own at the plate while tryin to learn his new position. Albert, who is doing great, could probably be doing even better if we gave pitchers a real reason not to pitch around him. Wouldnt it be great to have him see even 5 or 6 more strikes per game? So all I want to know is who you think we could go after. We won't be able to answer all of our problems this year. Some of these guys are just going to have to start stepping up for us to compete. We wont be getting 6 new good postion players in the next few weeks. But who do you think could fill some of these needs for us?
555 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
the only person I could see as being beneficial
is Derosa, and they are probably asking way too much for him. there’s a lot of drool inducing players for third base, but they probably are not even available. we could go the outfield route, but Holliday will probably cost more than he’s actually worth. I wouldn’t mind getting Nelson Cruz from the Rangers (hopefully I remembered his name correctly) but he might also be too much of a cost to the farm system, plus he’s relatively unproven. at times I think they are ready to make a trade, at others I think they are shooting for ‘10 for a real playoff bid. I just don’t see who could really give a huge boost to this team right now. maybe it’s just best that we are a marginal playoff contender, rather than going all in this year for rentals, etc. still, I woulnd’t mind if we were more serious about getting into the playoffs, so maybe I’m the one on the fence.
4B - beer baseball bands blog
"OOHHHHH!!!! He knocked out the I in Big Mac Land!!"
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 9, 2009 4:16 PM EDT reply actions
no way we get cruz
without gutting the farm system of just about every single meaningful player… Just sayin’….
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 6:24 AM EDT up reply actions
that's pretty much what I thought
just don’t know anything about him
4B - beer baseball bands blog
"OOHHHHH!!!! He knocked out the I in Big Mac Land!!"
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 10, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
kind of a post-hype guy
i think he was a latin american signing by the brewers, looked good in AAA in 05/06 but looked like a total bust in 07 when the rangers brought him up to the big.
Seemed to have figured it out and found his power swing & some patience at the end of last year, carrying it on into 2009. High strikeout guy, but he’s maybe a 40-HR threat in future. He’s also got a special glove in the OF, which got him called up in the first place. Could be a 5-win player going forwards, i.e. a young, cost-controlled superstar.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:01 AM EDT up reply actions
A new hitting coach...
I really believe a big part of the problem is the swing at anything approach they started using.
It might not be fair to him, since the attitude seems to come from a higher position, but that person basically has the job for as long as he wants it.
Agreed.
Say you were standing with one foot in the oven and one foot in an ice bucket. According to the percentage people, you should be perfectly comfortable." - Manager Bobby Bragan
it may not be his fault
but it sends a powerful message when you boot him in the arse. And even if the old guy is doing fine, a new guy may bring fresh persective.
The hitting coach is certainly the easiest guy to replace, anyway. Next to maybe the bench coach or the bat boy.
- "I went at it and didn’t slow down, so it kind of bounced off me." -Lil' Dunc
then let's boot the bat boy.
he’s been tampering with our bats! clearly.
On with the (good) youth movement!
REHIRE JOSH!!!
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jun 11, 2009 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions
teah this Tanner guy clearly isn't cutting it
Chuck Norris doesn't need a bat.
he just roundhouse kicks the ball out of the park.
by bearcatcardfan on Jun 11, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
it's worth a try
4B - beer baseball bands blog
"OOHHHHH!!!! He knocked out the I in Big Mac Land!!"
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 9, 2009 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I still don't like the way he
wears his cap. It just looks like it might fall off at any moment.
Keep telephones away from him.
But in all seriousness, I think he would be a scapegoat. And it would not send a good signal. My impression of the Cards and how TLR handles players (at least most of the time) is that he does leave them hanging out to dry
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red
he doesn't wear his cap
he merely supports it.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:02 AM EDT up reply actions
New to forum...
Carlos Lee. Not sure of his contract situation. I’m sure it would take a miracle to trade for him within the division, but I would see what Houston’s asking price is…high I’m sure. I’m ready to trade Ank. and Dunc. and we could probably give them some good prospects to go with.
If we are going to make a big trade we will have to give up a lot….maybe give up Wallace (even though I love his promise).
If….IF Glaus comes back at the end of the year we could have a lineup like this if in the playoffs…
SKIP
RASMUS
PUJOLS
LEE
LUDICK
GLAUS
MOLINA
RYAN
PITCHER
you gotta be freaking kidding me
since your new i’ll go easy on you, but Lee? oh hell to the no. he’s owed almost $100 million damn dollars
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
He's in the same division.
Not gonna happen.
"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter
Cots Baseball Contracts
The good:
- He hits left-handed pitching at a .295/.357/.480/ (.837 OPS)
- Legit 30 HR, 100 RBI clean up hitter.
- Um, that’s it….
The bad:
- Is owed $18.5M per season thru 2012.
- Will be 36 years old in 2012, he’s 33 now.
- Has a body that will not age well, probably. He looks a LOT like and has stats similar to George Bell or Jim Rice who were either out of baseball or severely declining by age 34.
- Has cost his team more than 5 runs on defense every year in the last four and has already cost the Astros 5 runs on defense in 2009. By UZR/150, in 2009 he will cost the Astros 2 wins on defense.
- Will cost a boatload to acquire, especially after paying the “intra-division” tax. Even if the Astros were in salary dump mode, they’d never trade him here, and I’d rather have Berkman anyway if it came to that.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
18.5 mil!
holy crap!
4B - beer baseball bands blog
"OOHHHHH!!!! He knocked out the I in Big Mac Land!!"
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 9, 2009 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah they are
4B - beer baseball bands blog
"OOHHHHH!!!! He knocked out the I in Big Mac Land!!"
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 10, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions
That's true
But check out baseball-reference.com as they have better stats there that explain why he would be outperforming his career split by so much:
- He has only 44 AB’s against lefties this year.
- His BABIP (Batting Average on Balls In Play) is .395. League average BABIP is around .295 – .305, meaning he’s been lucky so far on balls in play against lefties. If his BABIP comes down, so does his average, most likely.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Who keeps up with all these stats anyways?
Some guy in the press box just recording what balls are in play…come on get a life.
If someone wanted to pay me to watch baseball games
and count statistics I’d do it.
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 9, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I dunno and I don't care
because it really helps to understand streaky hitters and explain stuff like this.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Yeah
But in this case specifically, you didn’t have to look up his BABIP to know that we should stay the hell away from El Caballo.
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 9, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions
DeRosa would be the only player I would consider
but I think this team just needs to get healthy. Ludwick and Ank need to produce like they are capable of. Dunc is better than last year, and Raz and Schu are solid. Adding DeRosa can make Thurston and Barden more complimentary players as opposed to necessary pieces.
2B Schu
CF Raz
1B APu
LF Ludwick
RF Ank
C Yadi
3B DeRo
SS Ryan/Greene
This allows Thurston and Barden to come off the bench as defensive subs and not have their subpar bats in the lineup for all nine innings.
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 9, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Does anyone have a new name to consider?
Don’t think DeRosa is a big enough bat.
Like Holliday but what if we can’t get him…then what.
Adrian Beltre
Owed around $12M or so the rest of the season.
Seattle needs RH relief pitching which we have tons of in our farm system.
Great defensively and tearing it up with the bat after a really poor start.
Will probably be at least a type B at the end of the year, netting us a compensation pick if he leaves.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
I don't see that happening
Last time he hurt his shoulder he missed the entire year.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
You can do that all damn day...
it doesn’t help you ballclub right now. If our offense doesn’t improve there won’t be any playoffs to worry about.
Beltre helps us get to the playoffs. If Glaus comes back, he’s a very valuable bench guy/pinch hitter who will be a type A free agent 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
If glaus comes back
I wonder if we could start beltre in LF against LHP, platooning him with one of our lefties. I don’t believe Beltre’s ever played SS, but he’s probably a good enough defender at 3B to actually be able to do it; still, that’s probably not realistic.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 6:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Could Beltre play second?
I’m not real sure that this would be a good fit, but the move would obviously upgrade your outfield defence with Shu roaming around in left. At least Beltre is an infielder…shorter with some speed.
Who would it take to get him? Would a Garcia, Perez, and AA do the job?
I would think it wouldn't be impossible
but I doubt very much he could transition to 2B or SS in the middle of the season, without being very bad at it. He’d need to work, specifically on turning the DP, if he were to move to 2B, over a spring, and he still might not be much better than Schu.
He’s definitely got the range/glove/arm, i.e. all the tools, but I think SS would be a better fit as it’s a bit more similar to playing 3B. Still, it’s probably a stretch to move him to either spot at this stage in his career and expect him to be much good.
I’m pretty certain Garcia + Perez would get it done. I can live w losing Perez, but Garcia is a good prospect who’s probably under-valued right now because of his injury. He’s probably got a higher ceiling than all our high-minors starters so I’d like to keep him. Plus he’s left-handed and we don’t really have any southpaw starters of note in the system at all.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually he has less than 8m coming to him over the remainder of the season.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
Define "big bat"
Is Holliday a “big bat”? If that’s the case then so is Ludwick and there is no need to make the trade. The only difference between the two is Holliday has the “big name” to go along with it.
There may not be another new name out there to consider. I like DeRosa because he is an upgrade over Thurston/Barden offensively and defensively at third, and if Glaus ever returns he is versatile enough to play other positions.
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 9, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Ludwick has struggled ever since his injury.
That so called “Big name” gets Pujols more pitches to swing at. You think Pitchers are scared of Ludwick at the moment?
Sorry for being so negative, but the impact of Pujols getting good pitches to swing at cannot be understated.
My avatar is 3 years into the future for sure...
The only difference between the two is Holliday has the "big name" to go along with it.
I usually agree with you, but I really am getting tired of people underrating Holliday. He is the very definition of an impact players. His average WAR from 06-08 (which is already park adjusted so don’t give me any Coors field affect crap) was 6.2, good for 8th in baseball during that span. This year, despite the slow start, he has been worth 1.8 WAR. And his BABIP is way down from his career average.
Ludwick, otoh, had a great year last year, however, it was only a little better than Holliday’s current pace this year. Also, it’s highly unlikely that Ludwick’s true talent level is as high as his production last year.
Right now, our outfielders not named Rasmus are playing terribly. Ankiel and Duncan don’t even project to be league average the rest of the way. The OF would be the bi
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 1:16 AM EDT up reply actions
That's true
but I’m still willing to believe that Ludwick can be, over the course of the rest of the season, just as valuable as Holliday and he won’t cost us prospects or $$$.
Luddy was experiencing a mini-slump before the injury, and since then he’s obviously still been struggling. He should get it together soon. IF he doesn’t, then we have some problems, but even Albert isn’t hitting right now. Plus, I don’t think Ludwick’s true talent level has to be as high as it was last year for him to be able to protect Albert.
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 10, 2009 6:30 AM EDT up reply actions
but I’m still willing to believe that Ludwick can be, over the course of the rest of the season, just as valuable as Holliday and he won’t cost us prospects or $$$.
You’re definitely a lot more optimistic than I am :). And you’re right about the prospects part of the equation. However, if it was a Ludwick for Holliday 1 for 1 swap, I would do it in a heartbeat.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 6:59 AM EDT up reply actions
You can actually calculate it from a regular stat line...
Just take every hit that stays in the yard (H-HR) divided by total balls hit in the yard (AB-K-HR+SF).
The result will show you roughly how lucky a player is (how many of his batted balls are falling for hits). League average floats around .300.
Now, whenever Rick Ankiel goes on a 2-week tear and Al attributes it to him “getting his confidence back” or something, you can look at his BABIP, realize its .650 and that he was extremely lucky, and understand he still sucks.
Mang Says...
"There is no "I" in team, or in B g Mac Land, either."
makes sense but...
doesn’t take into consideration how hard the ball is hit.
How does AP’s BABIP compare?
Career .318, this season .284...
It also correlates to a guys LD%. So, the more LDs hit, the greater BABIP generally speaking. There are more accurate ways to predict BABIP than LD%, but its generically close.
Mang Says...
"There is no "I" in team, or in B g Mac Land, either."
Line Drive Percentage
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 9, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Go putz around Fangraphs.com for a while
Check out the glossary first so you know what the metrics are. Should be eye-opening for you.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
I do love that site!
Second best baseball site. Next to VEB of course.
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 9, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Who keeps up with all these stats anyways? Some guy in the press box just recording what balls are in play…come on get a life.
I think you might be at the wrong site…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 6:27 AM EDT up reply actions
not even close
fourstick hit the nail on the head. waay to expensive, waay to outta shape to play in Busch, waay to old, no way the stros trade him to a rival.
do you really not know who Bell & Rice are?
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
damn kids,,,,
get off my lawn!
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
by gdm426 on Jun 9, 2009 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
stick around a while & you'll get that joke kid
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
us 20-somethings aren't all noobs...
no offense Schnur
In what St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa called a "big day" for his club, starter Chris Carpenter took the mound for his first session of live batting practice and promptly buzzed the fuzz on catcher Jason LaRue’s chin with an errant fastball.
"Sorry," Carpenter called from the mound.
"Don’t say you’re sorry," LaRue barked back.
"He said it," pitching coach Dave Duncan said from the side of the cage, "but he didn’t mean it."
~ DG
HUH?
Jim Rice was just elected into the Hall of Fame in a rather controversial selection. And, he was THE MOST FEARED HITTER IN BASEBALL!!!!!!!!!!!! according to brilliant minds such as Dan O’Badatmyjobessey. But seriously, if you don’t know who Jim Rice is, you’ve not watched enough ESPN lately.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jun 11, 2009 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Couple things...
First I don’t have ESPN…it’s hard without it, yes really hard.
Second if he was “THE MOST FEARED HITTER IN BASEBALL!” why was it so controversial?
turn your sarcasm meter up to 11
and thank the goog lard you don’t have the WWL. trust me, your life is better because of it
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
no one
the cost of rental’s is not worth the price. ride this season out & just don’t bring back the parts that are not useful anymore. i’m looking at you Dick, Dunk, KBot, Thurston & Barden.
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
If we don't make a move this year, we waste healthy years from Carp and Pujols.
How many more of these do we have? Does Pujols want to stick around with a team that doesn’t make a move 2 years straight when making the playoffs is attainable?
we've already wasted last year too
i have no idea what Pujols will think, it can’t be good. but after it’s been hashed around here for weeks, i just don’t think one or two moves will do anything but hurt the future of the team. every team is going to want the Cards best prospects, and most of them for one player. that’s not a smart way to run a team. we can’t sell the farm for rentals like DeRosa & Holliday. if the Mariners want to give us Beltre for almost nothing, that’s the only smart move i think MO can & should do.
something your best laid plans go to waste. and i think that’s what happening now. we all counted on the OF not sucking, KBot not having issues, and all of our 3rd base back ups not getting hurt & not being able to fill Glaus shoes. i only hope MO doesn’t do something stupid to just appease the masses. and i hope Albert can understand things are just not going the Cards way this year & he doesn’t use this as an excuse to run to the east coast when his deal is up in two & half seasons.
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
If Holliday helps us make the playoffs and keeps Pujols healthy,
I think it would be worth Jones and two pitching prospects. Jones is a high-risk/high-reward prospect who could be at his peak value now. Our pitching prospects all have similiar guys who can take their place within our system. We’ve did an aweful job the last couple of years of maximizing value with our young players (Reyes and Duncan to name two off the top of my head).
What makes Holliday so special that he guarantees us a playoff berth?
What if we make the move and still don’t get into the postseason? Does Pujols still stay just because he was happy we made a move? I think he’s just concerned about winning games. We can do that with the current team, the offense just needs to step it up.
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 9, 2009 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions
he's concerned with
the FO making apparent that they will do what it takes to win games. we could pick up holliday, longoria and hanley ramirez and still not make it, but it sure looks like we’re trying
I'm pretty sure that team would make it :)
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 7:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Holliday
IMO offers the highest upgrade for our team by a pretty large margin. Given that we would probably be within 2 or 3 games of the Brewers/Cubs when the season is over, adding Holliday would raise our playoff odds a lot.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 7:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Don't look now...
But Jones has a .400+ OBP over the last 18 months and is being promoted to AAA sometime this week. He’s fantastic on defense and seems to have put some skills together to go with the great tools that he already had.
I think he’s moved past the point of being a high-risk/high-reward type of prospect.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
I was so pissed last Saturday
I went to my first Spfd game in the last 3 weeks and they gave him a night off! All I got to see was Pete Kozma and his .537 OPS w/ 8 errors….
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 9, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I went on Friday and JOnes didn't really impress me he looked like a lefty soriano
which isn’t all bad but he struck out 3 times IIRC
Chuck Norris doesn't need a bat.
he just roundhouse kicks the ball out of the park.
by bearcatcardfan on Jun 11, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
you didn't catch the grand slam, then?
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
Nah
I left early
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 11, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
plus the A's are winning, who says they won't ask for more than Jones & two pitchers?
keep Jones, the kid is just beginning to get good.
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
I really, really don't want to trade DJ Tools for a rental
I’d say he’s my favourite prospect right now. I’d be happier to trade Wallace as he’s blocked in our system and will probably bring more back than Jones.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 6:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Agreed so hard
Jones is potentially a better player then Wallace when you consider defense, and as you said, Wallace is blocked.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 7:02 AM EDT up reply actions
How is Wallace blocked?
I know his defense is questionable, but isn’t he still probably the best option for third base in the whole system right now (at least for next year)?
On a related note, any word on how Freese is doing?
by WyoCardsFan on Jun 10, 2009 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Haha, I hope you are talking at the AAA level.
Or, in a future where losing is good.
Mang Says...
"There is no "I" in team, or in B g Mac Land, either."
by all4tookie on Jun 10, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
most don't think he's a third baseman
he’s definitely blocked at 1b for the time being
How depressing is it being you? Is it closer to being a lifelong cubs fan or being born without lips? - Janitor
by themanthemyth on Jun 10, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't know...
despite the success of the incumbent firstbasemen, Thurston has a good chance to move across the diamond…he is that good.
I think he has a future behind the plate personally.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Buchholz & Holliday
Trade Wallace straight up to Boston for Buchholz.
Trade Duncan, one of Perez/Motte, one of Boggs/Walters/Mortensen, and probably another A ball prospect to Oakland for Holliday.
Sign Holliday to 6yr extension for $110MM (he’s only 28) and then give Albert his new deal starting next season for 10yrs $240MM.
Think about this lineup/rotation for a while:
Schumaker
Rasmus
Pujols
Holliday
Ludwick
Freese
Molina
Ryan/T. Greene
Carpenter
Wainwright
Lohse
Buchholz
Piniero/Wellemeyer (next year insert whoever makes the club between Garcia/Boggs/Mortensen/Walters)
"Your mom likes Albert Pujols" - Happy Joe
by fatbellyjefferson on Jun 9, 2009 4:56 PM EDT reply actions
Your payroll is around $120M+ for years 2010, 2011, and 2012
I just don’t see DeWitt doing that in an economy as unstable and unsure as this one.
I also think that you’re not going to be able to deal Duncan to the A’s, and your A’s package is way to little for Holliday, they’ll get more.
I’m also not crazy about paying $18.5M per year for 6 years to a 28 year old who hasn’t proved he’s a superstar outside of Coors.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
I'm going under the assumption that you have seen Holliday's recent stats.
What more does the guy have to prove? A hot streak would last for 2 weeks or so. He’s been hitting since the beginning of May. If the guy hasn’t proved he can hit away from Coors, I don’t know who can.
My avatar is 3 years into the future for sure...
That's a ton of cash though
Unless payroll goes north of $120M the team simply can’t afford to have three players making better than $15M. They just can’t, and if we’re signing a guy to that kind of deal I’d prefer he also played a premium defensive position. Holliday doesn’t.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
People were clamoring for Peavy
And he would have the same contract situation as Holliday, and Holliday is a better player.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions
isn't Holliday a free agent next year?
That’s not nearly the same.
On with the (good) youth movement!
First off, way too little for Holliday;
It’s going to take at leat D. Jones as the centerpiece of a trade for Holliday and we might have to give them MORE if they take Duncan.
We also don’t need to trade for starting pitching right now. Everyone complains about Wellemeyer, but no team’s fate is determined by their 5th starter. Remember, you’re talking about the 120th-150th best starting pitchers in the big leagues. Also, Piniero has been much better than expected this year and would probably be the #4 even if Buchholz was on our team.
Last thing: I doubt Holliday sniffs 16 mil/year in free agency. The only team with big money looking at him will be the Mets and that all depends on what kind of moves they make this season. Expect 13-15 mil/year. The market has adjusted and most teams realize this.
The Yankees will always check in if they disappoint their fans somehow
so basically, if they don’t win the World Series, they will take a look at him.
My avatar is 3 years into the future for sure...
They'd be nuts to let Bay go
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
i completely agree...
… but if he does go, for whatever reason, Boston will have to make a run at Holliday.
And then we can make a run at Jason Bay
EVERYBODY WINS!!!
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
We also don’t need to trade for starting pitching right now. Everyone complains about Wellemeyer, but no team’s fate is determined by their 5th starter
So replacing Wellemeyer, who kinda sucks, with Buckholz, who is kinda good and has vast potential and is cost controlled for a while, wouldn’t help us?
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions
He would help in the future,
But probably wouldn’t make much of a difference this year. Young pitchers struggle all the time in the beginning. There’s a reason Boston doesn’t have them in their rotation.
there's more than one reason: matsuzaka, penny, beckett, lester, wakefield. . . .
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
True
But if they believed Buckholz was going to be decent this year, they would not have gambled on Penny and Smolz in order to get him in the rotation. My thoughts, anyway.
Bucholz is a lot better than Wellemeyer
that’s my opinion on it. I think it would take Wallace + something to get that deal done, though.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:07 AM EDT up reply actions
29
Holliday was born January 15, 1980
by Steve in Alabama on Jun 11, 2009 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Since this is a free for all...
- Is Daryl Jones for real? If so, he’s the Cardinal leadoff hitter and left fielder for the forseeable future, which to me makes Skip/Duncan/Ankiel expendable.
- Can Wallace play third base? If not, he has no place with the Cardinals and should be the centerpiece of a trade. If so, he’s the third baseman of the future.
- Assuming #1 and #2 are true, you have to trade for a right handed bat with whatever is left in the farm system besides those two guys, since our lineup will be even more ridiculously lefty heavy with those guys in the lineup.
- Can Tyler Greene/Pete Kozma/Brendan Ryan be a league average SS? If so, I think you just keep two of them on the roster and pray that they hit since they’ll bring enough glove to still be valuable.
- Are there are starters better than #4 or #5 rotation guys in the minors? If not I think this is our biggest need.
- Is Glaus coming back at all this season? Seems nobody knows how to answer that one…
In my opinion, Daryl Jones is the real deal and will be ready to leadoff and start by next spring, if not before. He can play RF or LF, but it just seems stupid to trade for an outfielder when we have a potential leadoff hitter in the minors at that position, the second best major league CF on the current roster, and a reigning silver slugger in the other corner. This makes Skippy, Duncan, and Ankiel expendable to make a deal for a rental outfielder for just 2009 (Holliday?) who hopefully will be a type A and sign with the Nationals, so we get their top 5 pick and a supplemental pick in the 2010 draft.
I don’t think Wallace is going to make it as a third baseman, so his place is as the “top trade chip” to bring in a player. Judging by the above numbered rundown, the long term needs would be at 3B, middle infield, and SP.
In order:
- I think you look to make a deal for Matt Cain using Wallace and another player as bait. It would be similar to the Matt LaPorta deal only we’d get much, much more out of Cain since he’s signed through 2011 and his contract is cheap. I realize that offense is what is struggling right now, but I think you just have to assume that Ludwick is going to start hitting at some point and that our offense is better than what it showed in May but not as good as it showed in April. If we’re a league average offense with Carp, WW, and Cain in our rotation, we’ll win 90 games…
- Try to flip a bullpen arm to Seattle to take Beltre off of their hands. They aren’t competing for that division right now and they have a huge hole in RH relievers. If you could trade them Perez + OF prospect (Robinson?) for Beltre and eat his salary the rest of the year, that solves the 3B issue for 2009 and is probably a source of a compensation pick or two at the end of the year.
"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 Jun 9, 2009 6:17 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Get Matt LaPorta.
Joking of course. I saw that kid play down here in Huntsville, AL and he is good…real good.
I'm assuming that you would be against acquiring Bedard
since it is the same logic as acquiring Holliday, but I think that our rotation will recover.
The big issue for me is our defense. We need to improve our defense to either make up for skip (SS) or to replace skip and put him in the outfield altogether (2B). The two world series teams last year were the Rays and the Phillies. Is it really a coincidence that both happen to have had the top 2 defenses in the MLB?
My avatar is 3 years into the future for sure...
Pretty much
It depends on what we have to give up to get him. I just don’t think you’re getting Holliday for less than premium-MLB ready talent, so that means Wallace or Rasmus, and I’d like to get more out of Wallace than simply a rental player. Now, Holliday will probably be a type A free agent, so if we could get the Nationals to sign him in the offseason we’d have a top 5 pick and a sandwich pick as compensation.
I’d like to see us upgrade the middle infield as well, I’m just not sure where that upgrade would come from. There just don’t seem to be a lot of middle infielders on the block right now.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
we wouldn't get a top five pick
you can’t lose your pick if you pick in the first 15
by prophetjohn on Jun 10, 2009 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions
The middle looks pretty solid
If Tony finally puts Schumaker back in left, than the MIF combo of Thurston/Greene/Ryan is probably above average when you consider defense. Adding a third baseman and a right handed hitting outfielder is the top priority.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 7:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Jones starting and leading off by next year?
I see no way he is ready for that.
Say you were standing with one foot in the oven and one foot in an ice bucket. According to the percentage people, you should be perfectly comfortable." - Manager Bobby Bragan
And
I’ll just take your word for it because you are the resident VEB expert on minor league prospects. No, really, no evidence needed, just a blanket statement.
"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 Jun 9, 2009 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Let's not get personal here...
Personally, I think Sooner is pretty reasonable when it comes to most things… just not with TLR. He made a simple statement that a prospect who still does have a bit of risk in him, might be ready to make the jump to the major league level in the near future. It wasn’t exactly the most flammable statement.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 1:20 AM EDT up reply actions
I think Jones could be a major leaguer by the end of 2010
and it’s not out of the question that he might be ready to play some role by next spring. I don’t think it’s something we can bank on, though.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 6:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 6:53 AM EDT up reply actions
I simply asked him to back up his argument.
Which he didn’t do. Who’s getting personal?
I agree that he’s got a big of risk, but look at his numbers the last two seasons — he’s certainly made the leap from risky, fringe prospect with tools to bona-fide top 50 prospect with a tangible skill set (Good OBP, Good speed, solid defense, high walk rate) If he’s getting promoted to AAA in the next couple of weeks, why is it such a leap to make the assumption that he could be MLB ready next spring? There will be plenty of competition for those outfield spots, but if Jones can hit well during a call up in September and hit well next spring, I find it hard to not give him a shot to win the job because of his ability to lead off.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
No.
You were passive-aggressive. It reads like you were trying to pick a fight.
"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter
I disagree...
he never backs up his argument with factual information — just “I don’t think” or “I don’t believe” statements. All I’m asking for is a reason why he thinks the way he does other than gut-based thought.
Sheesh…talk about your overreactions…
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
I'm not over-reacting.
“And I’ll just take your word for it because you are the resident VEB expert on minor league prospects. No, really, no evidence needed, just a blanket statement.”
It’s just dripping with sarcasm and hostility. It’s one thing to disagree, but c’mon. Isn’t this exactly the type of comment that drives you nuts when Sooner does it?
I’m not saying that you questioning his opinion and blanket statement is an act of passive-aggression. It’s the way you say things. We’ve had this discussion before. You don’t seem to know and or care how your comments come across. The issue isn’t in what you mean.
"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter
His type of reaction
is the exact same thing. I’m not questioning his opinion, even though I don’t agree with it. I’m questioning why you would bother posting a statement like that when you don’t cite any evidence to back it up. There’s really two reasons:
- To make yourself look smart (and consequently arrogant)
- To make the OP look bad
So I responded in kind. I don’t see what the big deal is. You’re making it out to be way worse than it actually is. It’s not hostile, it’s simply a taste of his own medicine.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
How do you back it up?
It is an opinion based on seeing him play, and knowing his age/experience level, and knowing who he’ll likely be competing against.
Half a season, or less, at AAA probably isn’t enough to get him ready to START on an ML roster next year. And why rush him? We have plenty of OF talent that will likely be able to duplicate anything he could do at the ML level next year.
He isn’t polished. That is something that is better taken care of in the minors, not at the ML level. You can rush a kid like Colby, b/c he is a ball player with a particular set of skills from the beginning. Jones is still a guy that is developing his baseball skills, trying to catch them up with his athletic ability. I see no reason to rush him, and no way that it’ll happen.
Say you were standing with one foot in the oven and one foot in an ice bucket. According to the percentage people, you should be perfectly comfortable." - Manager Bobby Bragan
by SoonerfanTU on Jun 10, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
By saying what you just said, that's how.
Respectfully, I disagree with you. The team wouldn’t be promoting him to AAA this season unless they had designs on him reaching the big league level within the next year. Remember when Luhnow was talking about “pushing guys to a level that will challenge them?” — this is what he was talking about.
Over the last 18 months, Jones has maintained an OBP above .400, a walk rate of 13%, and an Isolate Patience of around .100. Those numbers translate very well to the big league level. I’m not sure he’s ever going to be a guy who’s going to hit 15+ homers at the big league level, but I think he can provide a solid leadoff presence with good on base ability and good defense. He should get a shot at making the big club in the spring next season — he’ll be 22 years old, same as Colby was this season when he got his shot. If he can get on-base at a .360 clip and play good defense, he can be a valuable player at the MLB level, so why keep him in AAA?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
that level of production...
… basically makes him Skip Schumaker, who we already have on the roster. why not just keep Schu, save a year of Jones’ clock while letting him develop further, and let Jones be Schu’s replacement in a year or two when Schu becomes a FA?
I think Jones' glove is much better than Schu's
and I dunno if he can hit LHP at all – Schumaker certainly can’t. The guys who are more versed in the world of prospects can probably answer that question – I’m not sure platoon splits lower than AA/AAA mean much, but it’ll be interesting to see if he can be an everyday player (i.e. much more valuable than Schu) or just the left-hand side of a platoon (i.e. a bit redundant).
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Interesting...
I agree that the level of production described above would be equal to Schumaker’s this season and last, but the difference between the two players is that the above level of production represents Schumaker’s peak while it would represent only rookie year statistics for Jones, who has a much higher ceiling. Nearly 80% of Schumaker’s AB’s in the last two seasons have come against right handed pitching, making him a platoon player; Jones has good splits in the minors against left handed pitching. He’s a .262/.383/.333 career hitter in the minors, considerably better in ‘08 (.318/.396/.439) and ’09 (.308/.438/.333 in only 38 AB’s). Jones is also a better player defensively (+17 in LF by Total Zone in ’08) than Skip is, simply because he has great speed.
Try this on for size — we deal Schumaker as part of a trade that brings back a startiing pitcher or middle infielder (preferably 2B) then start Jones in the LF next season. Jones will make around 1/4 of what Schumaker would make next season in his first arbitration year, and we’ll have traded Skip at his peak as a player, probably selling high at the right 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
i'm fine with something like that...
… just saying that it doesn’t make sense to call up Jones while we still have Schu cheap if they’re going to perform roughly the same.
of course, if Schu sticks at 2B the point is moot.
Jones starting and leading offf by next year?
think I’ll stick with Sooner on this one. As for evidence. I think we can see with Motte and Perez and Wainwright and Rasmus that success doesn’t come by making them a big leverage player in their rookie season. I’m ok with suggesting he might get a roster spot and would be happy if he was able to make it that far.
Further, I can’t see Tony ever doing that unless the guy has Pujols bloodlines. Ludwick still can’t play everyday so I don’t see Jones getting 600ABs that early in his career.
Just win
Motte and Rasmus have been given big roles in their rookie seasons?
Primary set-up guy and starting centre-fielder/cleanup/2-hole hitter, no?
And Wainwright closed for a portion of his.
Or have I just got a defective sarcasm-o-meter? I’m thinking that might be it…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 6:56 AM EDT up reply actions
that's my point
Motte was tried at closer and failed so they put him in a less stressful position. Rasmus is being platooned as best as I can tell. Both of those are a far cry from jumping from AA into the leadoff role and starting in the outfield. Wainwright spent much more time in the minors as well and if I recall he only became closer due to injuries.
I think the case for bringing up these rookies and putting them into high leverage positions is overblown. Stats are nice but I prefer the go slow approach for most of these guys. I’d rather not replicate the David Clyde scenario. Having said that, there are rookies that you stick in the lineup right away like Pujols and Ankiel. I just don’t think any of our rookies project like that.
Just win
Motte was tried at closer and failed so they put him in a less stressful position
Motte had one bad game in which he allowed a couple of flyball doubles. I would hardly say he “failed” as a closer. Tony jumped the gun and went with the veteran, which despite Franklin’s BABIP driven success, cannot possibly be seen as a smart move. Anyway, Motte has the third highest LI of any full time reliever on the club and has been arguable our best pitcher out of the pen.
Rasmus is being platooned as best as I can tell.
Rasmus is playing almost everyday recently, and by WAR he has been worth more than our other 4 outfielders combined. Nuff said.
Both of those are a far cry from jumping from AA into the leadoff role and starting in the outfield.
No, they have played very big roles in our teams success so far this year.
Wainwright spent much more time in the minors as well and if I recall he only became closer due to injuries.
He started the season in the pen as the teams primary setup man. He finished the year with a 3.31 FIP. He did step into the closers role due to injuries but was an absolute beast in the playoffs. I certainly don’t think his inexperience was a problem for him that year.
I agree with you that Jones shouldn’t be garaunteed to leadoff. However, if he outplays the rest of the candidates, he should get it, regardless of his age/inexperience. Of course, we all know with Tony still managing that’s not going to happen; but, we can dream right?
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 7:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Tony jumped the gun and went with the veteran, which despite Franklin’s BABIP driven success, cannot possibly be seen as a smart move.
I kinda disagree with this, not in terms of the process but in terms of the result. I’d rather have our best reliever in the “bullpen ace”-type role that Motte currently inhabits (replacing Springer from the last two years), being thrown into the closest games (generally) in this highest-leverage innings when we need Ks, Ks and more Ks. I’m kinda happy for the grizzled, not-particularly-good-but-still-better-than-a-few-people-seem-to-think veteran take on the 9th inning role because quite often he won’t be facing the best hitters or pitching in the most critical situations. I think we can leverage our best reliever (Motte) by having him in a flexible role, which is what’s happening now.
Not that I think that’s actually Tony’s thinking (his brain: closer = most important arm in the bullpen, grizzled, bearded junkballing vet = best and most experienced gritty reliever), but I reckon it’s the right thing to do, providing Motte’s used correctly.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
i would take a bet for a large sum of money that franklin begins to crash
this season and gets replaced by motte, probably sometime in august.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
Also, McClellan jumped from AA to the bigs on the merits of a good spring.
It happens all the time.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
But he won't be doing that
Both of those are a far cry from jumping from AA into the leadoff role and starting in the outfield.
Considering his success at Springfield so far, Jones is probably going to spend most of the next 3 months hitting at AAA, the Cardinals just need to figure out a roster spot for him. I think it will happen as soon as Mather is ready to come up to the bigs and contribute, which is hopefully soon. If not then, when a trade is made, and considering our issues with the 40 man roster at the end of the season, a deal is going to get done in the next two months, mark my words.
So he’d probably get at least 200 AB’s in AAA, which is about how many Colby got last year before making the big club this year. If he can prove his bat is ready and he can handle the leadoff role, why shouldn’t he get it over a low ceiling player like Schumaker?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
You see that how?
He’s Top 10 in OBP for the Texas League and he isn’t a defensive liability like Chris Duncan.
You said this time last year that Colby Rasmus would in no way be ready to play at the MLB level this year and low-and-behold, he’s the best rookie in the NL and currently this teams 2nd best hitter.
by Hardcore Legend on Jun 10, 2009 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions
I said no such thing about Raz
I said he wasn’t ready last year, and I said he should have to earn it this year.
He’s earned it.
Say you were standing with one foot in the oven and one foot in an ice bucket. According to the percentage people, you should be perfectly comfortable." - Manager Bobby Bragan
by SoonerfanTU on Jun 10, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
I believe
that the top 10 picks are protected…maybe top 15..so if we trade for him and the nats sign him, we dont get their top pick
Strikeouts are boring - besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls. More democratic.-Bull Durham
I pretty much agree 100% with fourstick
If we could use Wallace as a centrepiece for Cain that’d be great. I kinda worry they’ll want Jones as well (at least), because it’ll probably take more than just walrus, and we don’t have too many position players to give up (they surely don’t need pitching, unless maybe they’d take Perez/Motte or something). I’m just not sure the Giants are that big on dealing him right now – I know they’re probably out of it this year, and have lots of minor league depth, but Johnson’s probably gone next year, and it remains to be seen when Bumgarner will be ready.
I’d think we’d have to blow them away to get Cain. I’d do Perez+Robinson for Beltre though.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 6:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Incidentally
whether we get Cain or not, I think we MUST do two things:
1) sign an average right-handed corner outfield bat (I’d mentioned Kearns but they’re basically dime-a-dozen) who can hit LHP and platoon him with Schumaker in LF. Move Thurston/Ryan to 2B, stick with the Ryan/Greene/Greene plan at SS.
2) sign a right-handed hitting 3B, either Beltre or DeRosa (heck, I would even take Atkins as he likely costs nothing in prospects), probably whoever is cheapest. I’ll give up Perez for this, not Motte at present, and perhaps a low-ish level pitching prospect. Either that, or give them Boggs/Mort.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 6:47 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't think I have ever agreed with anyone more on one thread,
than I have with you on this one :).
It absolutely makes sense to move Skippy back to the outfield, as his bat is good enough and he plays above average defense there. Austin Kearns would be perfect as a platoon partner, as he can hit left handed pitching and is an excellent defender. Also given the Nationals glut of outfielders, they would be happy to have someone take them off of their hands in exchange for some salary and opportunity costs relief.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 7:15 AM EDT up reply actions
hehe good stuff
just to flesh this out a bit:
Skip’s OPS vs RHP: .809, with an impressive .365 OBP
Kearn’s OPS vs LHP: .824, with an awesome .393 OBP (which would be 2nd on the team vs lefties – there’s your lead-off/#2 hitter right there)
Skip is worth 3 runs over average in LF, Kearns is an awesome +10 runs in RF so should be similarly excellent in LF (I guess he’d possibly play RF and Luddy would move to LF in that situation, as he’s a better glove than luddy). Given that they’re both above-average hitters against their platoon pitching, this LF platoon is probably worth at least 3 wins above replacement, possibly even 4. Not bad considering that Dunc/Ank are currently skirting around replacement level
Helps our production bigtime against LHP too, which is a major issue at the moment.
It shouldn’t cost any prospects either – Nats are stacked in 1B/OF players (Dunn in LF, Dukes in CF, Willie Harris in RF would be their new starting lineup, but they also have Willie Mo Pena, Josh Willingham AND Lastings Milledge to find space for) so they don’t need him. They’re not competing and they need to find $50m from somewhere to sign Strasburg. Given he’s owed just over $5m for the rest of the season, I’m reckoning they pretty much give Kearns to us for nothing. We just need to find the cash for the balance of the contract.
Of course, it also means we need to find a home for at least one of Dunc/Ank – I’m guessing we could option Duncan, or look to trade Ankiel for a bag of balls. Shame to deal them away when they’re at their lowest value, so I suppose that’s an opportunity cost.
$5m and a positional switch for Skip and we can add 2-3 marginal wins to the team over the rest of the season (assuming Ank/Dunc don’t come round). That’s like dealing for an All-Star, mid-season, without actually having to give up anything meaningful. You know, Al…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 7:36 AM EDT up reply actions
...It really is
All that’s left is to find a decent third baseman. Moving Skip to left would give us a MIF combo of Thurston/Ryan/Greene/Greene… not to shabby. If would could somehow turn Ankiel/Duncan + someone else into Beltre/DeRosa, we would improve our team by a lot.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 8:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Option Duncan
Duncan has an option left IIRC so use it before it’s gone. Let him hit away in Memphis and build trade value for DH in the American League (or at 1st base for San Fran). Ankiel is gone at year end and has very little value to other teams. But, as we saw last season, injuries happen and our OF depth disappeared by mid August with Duncan, Ankiel, Mather, Rasmus and Barton out with injuries. So keep both available to back fill when the injury bug hits.
also
ank can field and his bat is maybe coming around a little bit, so he’s not a bad option as a 4th OF/occasional starter vs RHP. I don’t see that Dunc has any value at all right now, I’d probably rather be carrying Mather or Craig in his spot. Send him to AAA and see if his power comes back (realising he’s only a year removed from serious spinal surgery…)
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:13 AM EDT up reply actions
I think we should stay away from Cain
His improvement this year is a mirage, as his FIP is 4.24, which is actually his highest mark. He’s still a good young pitcher, as his true talent level is probably that of a 3.80ish FIP with some room for improvement, however, he isn’t as good as most people think. Because of the discrepancy in skills vs. results so far this year, the Giants, and probably most other teams will think that he has finally realized his potential and we would have to give up to much to get him.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 7:07 AM EDT up reply actions
maybe
i guess it depends how they value him. Like you say, I’d reckon he’s roughly on a par with Wainwright (late-3’s FIP), and that’s the pitcher he’s been for a while, and will continue to be.
Maybe somebody like sabean is still entranced by ERAs, so you might be right…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 7:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Let's look at his game log though
Which tells a vastly different story. He’s had 13 starts and 3 of them have been bad. The others have all been quality starts and he’s thrown at least 6 innings in every start but one this season.
Sure, I think his strand rate is a bit high and the HR/FB numbers are higher than they have been in season’s past, but Busch III suppresses HR balls as well as any park in the MLB, and he’s still striking out around 7 batters per 9 innings. I wouldn’t trade the entire farm for him, but he’s a better #3 starter than what we have right now and would possibly allow Tony to carry only 12 pitchers since he, Carp, and WW will usually get to the 6th inning and beyond.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Okay
He’s a good pitcher, I acknowledged that. He had back to back years of a high 3’s FIP (although pitching in SanFran does help with the HR/FB), and despite a decline in his skills this year (his K’s have dropped, his BB’s have risen), he still is probably a 3-4 WAR pitcher. However, consider the mitigating circumstances:
1) He is young, and has good stuff.
2) Due to his “hot start” this year, people will be under the false impression that he has finally realized his potential, thus he will cost a lot more in prospects than he is actually worth.
There are other guys, who are close to as good as Cain is, who wouldn’t cost nearly as much. Kevin Slowey, Andy Sonnastine and Scott Baker immediately come to mind.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 5:21 AM EDT up reply actions
I would love to get Slowey
I’ve been obsessed with him for a while…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:13 AM EDT up reply actions
samesies
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 6:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Double-samesies.
Young, cheap, really effing good. K/9: 6.3, BB/9: 1.1. Remember hearing something about him having a ridiculous 1st pitch strike % too, but I don’t remember where and don’t feel like backing that up.
FWIW, really nice guy guy too…coworker went to HS with him and he hooked up some awesome tix for us when the Twinkies came to town.
Mang Says...
"There is no "I" in team, or in B g Mac Land, either."
His first pitch strike percentage is 69.1% this year
which is over 12% above league average… so yeah, amazing. I personally would trade Wallace straight up for Slowey.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions
ooooh, samesies
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Hmmmm...
Slowey’s peripherals are worse than Cain’s this year and have seen a similar drop off. He’s also older and has fewer MLB seasons under his belt, meaning he has more cost-controlled years but it’s still a crapshoot as to whether you’re getting a legit #2 starter.
Scott Baker has an FIP of 4.80. For someone who’s concerned about Matt Cain’s FIP, Scott Baker seems like an interesting choice to bring up here. He’s had exactly one season as good as Cain’s worst season in the big leagues and that was last year, and he’s 28 years old, 4 years older than Cain is. Sure he’s cheaper, because he’s not as good of a pitcher.
Andy Sonnanstine? Really? The guy sporting the 5.65 FIP for 2009 right now? I’m sure he’s a better pitcher than that, but I really don’t know by how much.
I’m sorry, but none of those guys are “close to as good as Cain is” except Slowey, who’s older and has less of a track record at the MLB level. The other two have 2 good seasons between them and are significantly older than Matt Cain.
For someone who is alarmed that Cain’s numbers have fallen off this year, you sure are content to trade for three other guy’s who’s numbers have fallen off dramatically from last year. Obviously they’re going to be cheaper — they aren’t as good at pitching! The only guy I’d be interested in is Slowey, and Minnesota isn’t going to trade him since he’s their staff ace!
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
I said Slowey, Baker, and Sonnastine are nearly as good as Cain
Here are the ZIPS rest of seasons projections for each player:
Sonnanstine: 4.31 FIP
Baker: 4.16 FIP
Slowey: 3.83 FIP
Cain: 3.68 FIP
So, I guess I was wrong about Sonnanstine and Baker, but you also have to remember that they have played their entire careers in the AL which is the harder league. They would probably get a nice bump going to the NL.
The reason I want them more is that they will come much cheaper in a trade than Cain due to the factors I mentioned earlier.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, Cain's projection factors in his good years despite a steady decline in skills,
meanwhile the other three have much shorter careers behind them which makes their projections less palatable.
I agree on the main problem with Cain being cost. At this point Sabean could easily decide (based on bullshit evidence) that Cain is worth Josh Beckett prospects. Ugh to that trade, I’d rather just step up and get a real front liner.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
Garrett Atkins
is available and has one more Arbitration year left. And the Rockies would take a AA reliever and 12 pack of Bud Dry for Atkins.
He sucks
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 10, 2009 1:47 AM EDT up reply actions
We're better off with Thurston/Barden platooning at 3B
Than trading anything for Garrett Atkins. He’s a defensive liability and has seemingly lost the ability to hit baseballs effectively.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
But he is called "Garrett"
which reminds me of the central character in the excellent late-90s Theif sneak-’em-up videogame series, so he does have some advantages.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions
nope. That's pretty cool
not sure my shitty laptop will have the guts to be able to run it, though.
I loved The Metal Age.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:14 AM EDT up reply actions
I’ve been thinking about the possibility of Schu in left, T.Green at ss, and B.Ryan at 2B and letting it stick for a little while. Maybe TG and BR would benefit from getting consistent at bats. Ryan anyway seems like he needs to be active al the time, the bench probably hurts his game. At least with that lineup our defense at 2B and left improves even if the offense doesnt go up that much. It’s pretty clear to me that Duncan is still around because of his dad. Can you imagine any team who would want him for anything at this point. (I mean on the field, I’m sure he would be fine folding towels) If Mo isnt going to find us a bat or two then maybe we should experiment with the light hitting, highly defensive, low runs given up per game model. This current team is just disgusting to watch. I havent been this sick about a team in a long time. I’ll probably get yelled at again, but I still would like to have Dunn. I think he’s a guy that could be had and would instantly improve a pathetic offense. We need to score some runs.
"I don't take no anesthetic. Did Lincoln ask for any girlie gas when they blowed his head off?"
agree with the lineup
no to Dunn
Proud sponsor of the Official 2009 StL Cardinal theme song: Reason to Believe
Dunn
Here’s the thing — moving Skip to LF and putting Ryan and Greene in the middle infield, assuming they can hit at around league average for their positions, actually makes us a better team by WAR than we would be after a Dunn trade.
Skip was worth nearly 20 runs defensively in LF last year, and he’s projected to be worth 20 runs at 2B this season, so moving him back to left is a 4 win proposition in itself, not even factoring in the benching of Duncan’s terrible defense and the fact that Ryan will be better than an average defender at 2B. I’m still a bit of a skeptic on UZR metrics because we don’t have good enough batted ball data for in-zone and out-of-zone plays, but it’s not a stretch to say that those moves alone would account for nearly 5 wins over the course of a season - that’s a TON, about the same difference as picking up a Jake Peavy or Matt Holliday would give us, and probably 2 wins more than Dunn would give us considering his horrible defense.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
I'm not especially a sceptic of fielding metrics
but I would be extremely surprised if Schu is really 4 wins better in LF than he is at 2B, that’s a phenomenal amount. However, as I’ve said a bunch of times, I’m very much in favour of him moving back to his actual position…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions
He's not 4 wins better
He’s two wins better than league average in left field, and 2 wins worse than league average at second base. If you replace him with Thurston at second, who’s a league average defender there, the swing is 2 wins in each direction, if you replace him with Ryan, who is probably worth a win on defense at second base, the swing is 2 wins in LF and 3 wins at second base. If you factor in Schumaker replacing Duncan in LF, it’s about 2.5 wins in LF and 2.5 wins at second base (averaging the Ryan/Thurston out), that’s a 5 win swing just on defense alone…
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
there's no way...
… that Schu is 4 wins better defensively moving from 2B to LF (2 + 2 = 4, no?). i don’t see how that is even possible.
I guess I just have to show it via link then...
Schumaker UZR/150
You’re right, I was way off — it’s actually more like 5 wins difference.
Like I said, I’m a skeptic when it comes to UZR/150, but if that’s what you go by, and you agree that 10 runs equals one win, then it’s hard to argue that he isn’t 5 wins better in LF because that’s what the numbers show.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
i wasn't disputing your read of UZR...
… i was disputing UZR’s grasp on reality.
5 wins? sorry, but no. that’s what Ryan Ludwick was worth last year. any statistic that thinks that Skip@LF – Skip@2B = Ryan Ludwick is completely full of shit.
UZR’s value is very limited. i know you’re not defending it, but for example: do you really believe that Holliday was 1.5 wins better than Carl Crawford in 2007 on zone coverage alone? i don’t believe that, because it’s… not possible.
there is way too much within-player variance in UZR for me to take it seriously. i mean, just look at Crawford’s year-by-year UZR/150:
23.2
14.2
9.6
-1.4
25.6
what the hell is that? the range is more than 2.5 wins? are we really to believe that his performance on defense has varied by that much from one year to another? how can we deduce Crawford’s true level of ability from that?
Holliday varies quite a bit as well, as does Soriano. if nothing else, as a predictive stat UZR is completely worthless.
are we really to believe that his performance on defense has varied by that much from one year to another?
Defense, like offense, is subject to slumps and hot streaks. Their are plenty of guys who have ups and downs offensively, why wouldn’t it be the same for fielders? Just because the ratings don’t correlate perfectly from year to year doesn’t mean that they are flawed.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 6:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Ok
But great hitters don’t fluctuate from being a 4 WAR player to being a 1 WAR player offensively from year to year. They just don’t. I believe UZR is a flawed stat simply because we don’t know the nature of the ball that was hit. Was it a line drive or a pop up? It makes no adjustment for home park or anything else, just plays made in zone and out of zone. Hit f/x will give us a lot better idea of the defensive metrics we’re using are really accurate and my guess is that they’ll trend nicely, but they aren’t going to be near as accurate as we’d like them to be.
I think that UZR is much better used for infielders because the dimensions are the same at every ball park. I think it’s a real crapshoot for outfielders.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Also
sample sizes are much smaller. A typical hitter might have 600 plate appearances in one year, and even then you get occasional outlying super-lucky or unlucky years. How many catchable flyballs out-of-zone to their left will a typical RF see in the course of a year? Maybe one or two a week, I guess. It doesn’t take too many of those to be dropped to REALLY badly hurt their stats, even over the course of a year.
Also, I’m not sure how it works with regard to the “intermediate” zones, say between CF and LF. Could a LF be penalised one year for not making any OOZ plays when he plays alongside a CF with super range who gobbles all of them up? Will Carl Crawford’s UZR in left be the same if the CF is BJ Upton or Rick Ankiel? I tend to believe (from what I know of UZR) that it probably won’t be.
Also, UZR doesn’t take positioning into account, in any way. For instance, a short-stop who has to play closer to the 3B line because the third baseman is a fat bastard with no range will get penalised on balls hit down the middle, because he’ll presumably have harder plays on any of them that’re in his “zone”. Whilst he’ll make more easy OOZ plays to the third-base side, will this necessarily counteract the value he “loses” for not getting to hard hit balls down the middle, or the right-hand edge of the “traditional” shortstop’s range? I dunno. There’s still a lot of grey areas.
I’m a bit ambivalent on UZR – I tend to use it quite a lot, but I think it’s fair to apply a bit of skepticism. I think it USUALLY correlates pretty well with what you see, so I tend to trust it up to a point, but when something in the stats jumps out at you as seeming a bit unrealistic, I’m more inclined to treat it with caution if it’s a defensive metric than if it’s a hitting/pitching one…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions
I can't tell if this is sarcasm
But great hitters don’t fluctuate from being a 4 WAR player to being a 1 WAR player offensively from year to year. They just don’t.
I believe UZR is a flawed stat simply because we don’t know the nature of the ball that was hit. Was it a line drive or a pop up?
UZR takes batted ball data between line drives, flyballs, groundballs, popups, etc. Is it perfect? No. But it is accounting for ball type to some degree.
UZR gives us a reasonable idea of what a players defense is. I don’t think it’s hard to say that Crawford is a +15 defensive player and be accurate within half a win of his true talent level. Will he have fluctuations? sure. Will the be severe? possibly. Does that imply the stat is wrong? Absolutely not.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jun 11, 2009 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Are you serious?
Using the two examples you just gave me:
Beltran had exactly ONE year since 2001 where his wOBA was under .375. ONE. However, his UZR/150 looks like this:
2002: 9.2
2003: 10.6
2004: 3.6
2005: -6.9
2006: 5.7
2007: 0.9
2008: 8.8
2009: -9.0
If +5 is good and -5 is bad, how talented is Beltran defensively? I think he’s one of the best centerfielders in the game. The defensive metrics tell me that he was an average defender in 2007 and an elite one in 2008? Um, bullshit. You’re telling me that you can positively correlate UZR/150 the same way as wOBA? Bullshit. There’s too much fluctuation, as a whole, from year to year on UZR for too many players. The Carl Crawford numbers above show another prime example of this. He literally cannot go from being way above average to way below average defensively from one year to the next without having a significant injury play a large part. We’re not talking about hitting a baseball here, we’re talking about merely catching it, which is a whole lot easier and therefore repeatable from play to play.
The Konerko example is even worse. He’s shown the average career arc for a player with his skills at the plate. Good, good, great, great, good, average, good. But his UZR/150 is all over the damn place. One year he’s an elite first baseman, the next year he’s horrible at that position. They don’t correlate with his offense being good or bad either. What’s his true talent level defensively? Looking by the UZR/150 numbers….I have no idea! I can’t really average them properly because I’d be throwing out half of the data due to it being outliers from the main population. With that many outliers, how can I be sure that my data is accurate at all?
Do I think it’s capable of separating the bad defenders from the good defenders by trends? Yes, I think it does. But to approximate wins based on a specific number of runs that a defender is worth strikes me as being horribly assumptive that UZR is that accurate.
I use it all the time to approximate defense because right now it’s the best measure that we have. Until we have something better, it’s what we have to go by. Considering what Harry Pavlidis has done so far with hit f/x, I hope that’s the tool that really begins to shed some light on the defensive side of the diamond.
UZR is not near as accurate as wOBA is at approximating offensive value. Saying otherwise is simply incorrect.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Consider input bias as opposed to formula failure
Right now important stuff like batted ball types (LD or FB?) and speed (medium or hard?) is being assessed by humans watching video. New F/X systems could, as you say, change the perceived accuracy UZR – but without changing UZR itself much if at all.
I'm not saying the formula is wrong
I’m saying the results aren’t consistent. There should be some way to get uniform results for your data coming in and determine which data source is the better one.
There seems to be a ton of imput bias, and Tango points out. I would think that the Hit f/x system would help to even out the input bias once it is implemented, simply because it will use vectors to determine ball flight instead of witness accounts. It should be more accurate and will definitely be more uniform once it is implemented everywhere.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Really?
I believe UZR is a flawed stat
I don’t think there’s much ambiguity there.
simply because we don’t know the nature of the ball that was hit. Was it a line drive or a pop up? It makes no adjustment for home park or anything else
just plays made in zone and out of zone.
That sounds like ZR, not even RZR – much less UZR.
I never claimed it was as accurate as wOBA
so let’s start by not expanding the argument.
The problem with the conversation we’re having now is that it’s all based on anecdotals. UZR tracks well with itself on a year to year basis meaning, at the least, it is consistent in it’s biases. I’d still take 2 years of defensive data = 1 year of offensive data for the same level of variance though. I grabbed two quick examples of players that have some massive swings in their offense, because there were questions about whether it was unusual to see severe fluctuations in the data. It’s not uncommon for players to experience very good or very bad offensive/defensive years that go against their trend/true talent level.
Hit F/X should almost certainly be an improvement but considering that the system isn’t even in place yet to the full extent, it’s wishcasting to pretend like we know nothing about defense.
But to approximate wins based on a specific number of runs that a defender is worth strikes me as being horribly assumptive that UZR is that accurate.
Which is no more presumptive than statements like:
You’re telling me that you can positively correlate UZR/150 the same way as wOBA? Bullshit. There’s too much fluctuation, as a whole, from year to year on UZR for too many players.
since you did zero research before throwing this out. Personally, I think you’re blowing the limitations of UZR way out of proportion but, regardles,s you’re also creating a bunch of strawmen to knock down that I never set up. You’ve been arguing against Soonerfan too much lately. I’m not going to be a moving target for you.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
rosterbate = WIN
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jun 11, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You're the one that changed the subject here, az
I never claimed it was as accurate as wOBA
But you’re claiming that it’s as accurate in representing defensive ability as offensive metrics are at measuring offensive ability. I contend that it’s not, and we’ve had this argument before. You’re not changing my mind.
I said all along that it is useful, that it’s biases are known, and that the biases themselves are fairly consistent. I’m simply saying that you can’t track offensive wins added and defensive wins added with the same level of accuracy based on year-over-year data — the offensive numbers are just better and more refined at the current time.
I don’t have to do a ton of research on this subject. Based on evaluating Cardinal players and other possible trade targets for Cardinal players I can see that UZR simply isn’t as accurate a measurement of defensive ability as wOBA or even OPS+ are of offensive ability.
As far as being presumptive, if you want me to regress them by year and correlate the bad years to the good years for both wOBA and UZR/150, I could do that, but I think you know as well as I do what I’m going to find, so why spend a week doing that?
it’s wishcasting to pretend like we know nothing about defense.
If we want to talk straw man arguments let’s start with that one, then. Where have I said that it’s so bad that it tells us nothing? I didn’t say that at all, what I have said is that it’s the best measure we have right now, I just don’t think that it’s accurate enough to measure it on a runs based level so you can use it in terms of overall player value, or WAR. Do we have to right now? Yes, because it’s the best system so far. Do I think there’s a better way of doing it? Yes, and I’m sure someone will come up with something better as we get more and more data from things like hit f/x.
I quote Winston Churchill:
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
This sums up exactly how I feel about UZR.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
go back and read the comments because you're confused
you brought up the wOBA and UZR comparison not me. I never claimed UZR was as accurate in reflecting defense as wOBA is in reflecting offense.
Where have I said that it’s so bad that it tells us nothing?
right here:
What’s his true talent level defensively? Looking by the UZR/150 numbers….I have no idea! I can’t really average them properly because I’d be throwing out half of the data due to it being outliers from the main population. With that many outliers, how can I be sure that my data is accurate at all?
We obviously have diverging opinions on the accuracy of UZR. If you read over the last comments, you’re attributing statements to me that I didn’t make. I’m not going to argue this further because it’s a moving target and there’s no way I can refute anything you say when it morphs into a different statement.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
This was my original comment
my guess is that they’ll trend nicely, but they aren’t going to be near as accurate as we’d like them to be.
You seemed to have all kinds of problems with that statement, even stretching to the point of calling it sarcastic.
Now you’ve gone 4 posts deep basically saying the exact same thing that I was saying.
UZR isn’t as accurate as wOBA or OPS+, so I have a hard time valuing it’s “runs saved” as much as wOBA’s “runs created”. But yet they’re both given equal weight in WAR because we add the win totals together to come up with a player’s value. I don’t see why this is such a bone of contention with you, I really don’t. I’m not creating straw men, just taking your arguments and applying them to the situation.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
This is bullshit
go read my first post. I had two points:
1) Fluctuations are not indicative of UZR being wrong or inaccurate nor are they exclusive to defensive metrics.
2) You were FACTUALLY wrong in that UZR does account for batted ball type.
After that, I agreed with you until you started attributing a bunch of stuff to me about wOBA that I NEVER said. And then you started arguing in circles. I’ve yet to move from my original points. I’m yet to expand the argument. (People on this board have a really fucking hard time sticking to specific points lately without expanding the discussion. It’s very frustrating.)
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
See, this is what pisses me off....
I agreed with you until you started attributing a bunch of stuff to me about wOBA that I NEVER said.
I never attributed this to you…ever. Go look. This is you extrapolating that because we’re having a conversation about it. If it’s not as good as wOBA, why do we use it in the exact same manner when calculating WAR? This was my argument last time we had this conversation.
Here’s my argument, write it down:
While UZR is the best defensive metric that we have, I don’t believe that it is nearly as accurate as wOBA and therefore shouldn’t be used in the same manner as wOBA to account for runs saved.
You’ve already stated this to be true, so what is your fucking problem? That’s been my point all along — it’s the best we have, but the offensive measures are more accurate, probably because the reporting data used to build those stats is more accurate.
As far as sticking to specific points, I HAVE BEEN ALL ALONG!!! The above point has been my whole point — go re-read all the posts I’ve made, the problem is that you keep attributing my statements to yourself, when I’ve never done that.
Considering that this whole converstation started when I used UZR/150 to compare the differences in defense from Schumaker from 2B to LF, I find it really annoying that you have consistently tried to undermine me when all I’ve done is state just about the exact same thing as you did in your original post.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jun 12, 2009 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I think that UZR is much better used for infielders because the dimensions are the same at every ball park. I think it’s a real crapshoot for outfielders.
Hrm, I was gonna cite Jason Bay as a potential example of the outfield effect you’re proposing. Story was that he was a good defender, traded places with Manny, and suddenly became a bad defender. Looking at his LF UZR/150s a possible “story” occured to me though:
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1717&position=OF#value
-1.6, barely any innings.
-7.2, first full season. Learning the park?
-4.4, second full season. Getting comfortable.
3.0, third full season. Comfortable.
-11.4, Major decline. Positioning/age? McClouth effect?
-14.4, partial Pirates season. Continued decline.
-24.0, partial Sox season. Jason meets the green monster.
-13.0, partial 2009 Sox season. Still down, getting to know the monster.
Negative → improving → barely positive → declining looks like a fair curve to me. The only thing I found surprising was the huge dropoff between +3 and -11, but it looks like it wasn’t an aberration as he’s holding negative.
i thought it was generally assumed...
… that defense is more easily replicable than offense. i.e., that defense does not have as much variability as offense.
if this is wrong, then we can stop talking about how good Jones’ glove is right now, or how good Raz’s glove will be over the next few years. because honestly… who knows? he might pull a Carl Crawford and be 30 runs worse next year than he was this year.
The point is that people like Carl Crawford and Colby Rasmus can pull a 30 run season,
while Adam Dunn never will. UZR will never tell you that Adam Dunn had a 30 run season and I think you need to admit that.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
i've never denied that...
… i fully admit that UZR generally points in the right direction. but that’s a very, very, very low bar. well below the usual standard for sabermetricians.
but suppose that UZR tells me that Crawford is +30 and Dunn is -30. should i really believe that Crawford is 6 whole wins better than Dunn on defense? 6 wins? to me, that strains credulity.
but maybe i’m alone on that.
6 wins? to me, that strains credulity.
Why? The spread in offense between the best and the worst hitters was about 9 wins. Why is it so hard to imagine that defense has a similar effect?
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
because...
… hitters get 600 ABs a year. left-fielders get half as many “chances”. and of those, their UZR is only affected by plays made out of the zone and plays missed inside the zone.
so what’s the separating equilibrium here? 25 plays? 50? 100? each of which differs by situation, positioning, etc. and those plays are supposed to translate into 5 or 6 wins?
compared with the other criticisms made above, it seems like UZR is too dependent on exogenous factors to provide any real precision.
For outfielders
Most of the plays missed are doubles which are much more conducive to runs scoring. The spread in infield UZR is half of the outfield UZR.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions
not necessarily...
… many of the missed plays are short fly balls or bloopers that land in front of LFers that basically stand on the warning track.
but even still… what’s a double worth? something like .75 run, right? so to get to six wins, there would have to be 80 excess doubles allowed. 80.
excuse me, but that’s bullshit.
the math gets even harder if you assume that many/most of the excess hits are singles.
You make some good points
However, I’m not sure if 80/100/whatever extra plays is that outrageous. Have you seen Carl Crawford? That guy is a freaking race horse, and Adam Dunn is like Duncan with no arms.
If you assume that 100 excess plays equals 6 wins, that would only mean that Crawford saved 3-4 more doubles each week than Dunn. That wouldn’t surprise me that much.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 1:16 AM EDT up reply actions
it would surprise me greatly...
… if Crawford saved his team 8 bases per week over Dunn, or more than 1 base per game over the course of a season. that’s the equivalent of two surplus home runs per week*, each week, for a whole season. that’s a lot. Albert Pujols does not hit two home runs per week more than the worst player in baseball, because Albert Pujols does not hit two home runs per week (on average)
but i guess we’ll just have to disagree.
*actually, in run expectancy terms two doubles are somehow worth more than one home run, so the comparison is even more skewed in my favor
If albert hits one home run more and walks more and strikes out less,
it’s about making outs more than gaining bases.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
If you're questioning stuff like +20 or -20 you're questioning defensive valuation, not just UZR
Dewan’s Plus/Minus system ticks “plays” above or below average
Justin Inaz’s Total Value (very popular until Fangraphs added UZR and started calculating WAR) uses a homebrewed mashup of ZR and RZR.
PMR is a defense-only stat that was one of the more popular, freely-available ones before Fangraphs.
Carl Crawford has been talked about a lot.
Plus/Minus: 23, or 18.4 runs.
Inaz TV: +7.4 runs.
PMR: 15.58 runs
Fangraphs bUZR: 19.6 runs.
Inaz (presumably the least technical) is the outlier here, but it’s still got plenty of +20 and -20 players. The others are all using BIS as a data source, but all have different formulas.
If you look at it in runs, does that change anything? You seem to stress the “WINS” part of this a lot, but a win is simply being defined as about 10 runs.
Could somebody, over the course of a season, cost their team 20+ runs below average defensively? I’d say sure. Look at the error by the CF in today’s game, that gave us two runs and set up more. One play in one game, and defense can be a lot more subtle than that in terms of range.
Could somebody, over the course of a season, save their team 20+ runs above average defensively? I’d say sure again, if they’re a wizard or being put in a too-easy position (think Rolen at 1B or Rasmus in a corner), or if their position is noted for hiding who-cares-about-their-defense hitters (1B and LF come to mind).
Put those two together and you have a delta of 40 runs. 4 WINS.
i've been assuming all along...
… that one win equals 10 runs.
the error today did not “give us” two runs, according to UZR. UZR is context-neutral, so that error ended up with Ludwick on 2B, which “gave us” .75 runs, which is the run-value of a double.
but in actuality, that ball was alway a single, which is worth ~ .5 runs. so the marginal difference was .25 runs.
could somebody save 20 runs? sure. i can believe that. but from what i can gather, UZR has a confidence bound of +/- 5, which is +/- 10 if you are comparing two fielders to each other. that margin of error represents something like 16% of the total variance of the population (assuming the worst defenders are -30 and the best are +30).
er…. color me not convinced. if we’re operating anywhere close to the mean, then the statistic is virtually worthless with that much error built in.
+/- 5 run variance does not equal "worthless"
I don’t understand how you are possibly making that assumption. The whole point of UZR to objectively judge a fielders talent. It is not meant to be used in small sample sizes to pinpoint exactly how many runs a guy saved.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions
i didn't say worthless...
… i said virtually worthless if we’re anywhere close to the mean.
+/- 5 runs is quite a bit. it’s half a win in either direction, or roughly $5mn in value that we are just chalking up to uncertainty before we even consider the exogenous factors (e.g. subjectivity of coding, positioning of players, velocity/vector of batted ball, etc.) or the crazy year-to-year variance. if you think that’s insignificant, then… i guess we just have to agree to disagree.
we (somewhat arbitrarily) say that a player is a good fielder if he is +5 and a bad fielder if he is -5. but… the built-in margin of error tells us that if we see a +6 fielder, we cannot assume that he is really any better than average. we can just as easily infer that he is one of the league’s best!
my whole point is that it is exceedingly difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from UZR. it’s probably the best measure we have, but it is full of holes.
it’s probably the best measure we have, but it is full of holes.
Why do you continue to say this? The only proof that you have offered is that their are often large fluctuations from year to year in individidual ratings. However, that can be explained by many other factors (namely small sample size magnifying random variation, fluctuation of league average, and change in a players true talent level). You have yet to go to the root of why you think UZR has error bars.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 3:22 AM EDT up reply actions
no, i have put forth numerous reasons...
… and so has fourstick. i’ll number them, so it’s easier for you to remember:
1. the built-in margin for error is extreme: /- 5 runs represents something approximating 16% of all variance for all players. that is unacceptably high for a rigorous method. it means that if we observe a perfectly league average fielder according to this metric (0 UZR/150) we literally cannot be sure if he is a bad fielder (-5) or a good fielder (5). any measure that starts with that level of uncertainty is stupid and a waste of time.
2. selectivity in coding (which most likely leads to the wild fluctuations in rankings): the fact that “zones” are created based on where a fielder “should be” irrespective of situation, positioning, or “quality” of batted ball, and then fielders are judged on these arbitrary standards, is cause for major concern. hell, the fact that it’s not based on where fielders are actually positioned makes the whole thing invalid since it doesn’t measure what it claims to measure: fielder ability. any metric that does not measure what it claims to measure is stupid and a waste of time.
3. (some) defenders of the metric cite “small sample” when i question the massive year-by-year fluctuations. pardon me, but if a measure can’t aggregate on a yearly basis with any precision, then it’s a very poor measure. a full season is not a small sample. any measure that is so sluggish to converge on a normal distribution is stupid and a waste of time.
4. sheer incredulity: as i’ve described above, to buy into the metric, you’d have to believe that Carl Crawford is worth something like 2 home runs per week better than Adam Dunn in left field, each week, for a whole season. that is… very unlikely. you also have to believe that Schumaker in LF is 5 WAR better than Schumaker at 2B. again… not credible. any measure that makes claims that do not pass a drunken laugh test are stupid and a waste of time.
5. a simple lack of correlation between players year-by-year ability. and not in one specific case, but in many. look at lots of guys: Crawford, Edmonds, Holliday, Soriano, etc. these guys have enormous fluctuations in their supposed ability — which translates to $10+mn in value — from one year to the next. and these fluctuations are not attributable to a normal decline in skills or abilities, because they often rebound in the very next season. again… it is not credible, unless you believe that Jim Edmonds and Carl Crawford just forgot how to catch balls for one season. any measure of player ability that fluctuates so wildly that you cannot ascertain player ability is stupid and a waste of time.
6. lack of predictive capabilities. you cannot look at past UZR performance and have any fucking clue how a player will perform moving forward (i.e. a player like Carl Crawford can be +25 one year then -5 the next), which makes it borderline worthless when used in analyzing trades or free agent signings. any measure that has absolutely no predictive capability is stupid and a waste of time.
now i haven’t run any regressions on UZR because, quite frankly, i’ve got better things to do with my time. but if someone wants to make the case that this is a good measure then the burden of proof is on them, not me.
it basically wins the “best defensive metric” award by default, since there are very few defensive metrics, and at least UZR tries. but it is not a good metric.
I'll run a regression soon
Mainly cause I’ve got nothing else to do today :)
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 8:43 AM EDT up reply actions
good...
… if you don’t mind, run an ARM with UZR/150 regressed on a lagged UZR/150 as an independent variable. let’s see if that shit comes out significant.
i’d especially appreciate it if you did it by position, or at least by IF vs. OF.
I'm pretty sure someone already did something like that
Here.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions
no...
… look at the assumptions at the start of the piece. only 50% weight is given to UZR, and the rest is assumed to be league-average.
THEN, there are no significance levels reported (no p-values, nothing). only one group is claimed to be significant — LF — but we aren’t told at what level (i’ll assume .95, as is custom). and then look at the R^2: they are all over the place, and none of them are very high. even LFers are only .73, which is pretty low for an ARM, and that’s by far the highest R^2. look at the graphs: they bounce all over the place, and in no very clear predictable pattern.
3B have an R^2 of .001, and even that isn’t significant! that literally means that UZR means absolutely nothing at all for 3B. and since the author doesn’t claim that any other positions are significant, i’ll assume they aren’t. which means that for no positions other than LF, UZR is not statistically significantly related from one year to the next. which means it’s a stupid measure and a waste of time. and the MIF analysis is just batty, especially without significant results to go by.
(if we’re to continue the argument, i suggest we move below or start a new thread. i can’t handle this narrow shit much longer.)
You were arguing just as intensely before you heard about +/- 5
And now it’s bullet point number one. But it isn’t even canon – it’s one comment from one representative of Fangraphs, not MGL (UZR’s creator), Tango (internet hero statistician), etc.
UZR isn’t my child, and I’m perfectly okay with it being good, bad, or ugly – I only want to know what it is so that I can put it to appropriate use, if possible. And I’ll be the first to agree with issues like positioning.
I think you need to consider the possibility that you’re specifically seeking facts which support your position as opposed to drawing a conclusion based on data, though. I think you’re being very emotional about all of this.
those points weren't in order of importance...
… i HAVE been arguing all along that the within-player variance in UZR is exceptionally large. i didn’t know that the +/-5 was built-in to the statistic at first, but quite frankly learning that fact did not improve my opinion of the measure’s validity.
frankly, i think the regression analysis posted by vivaelpujols is by far the most damning evidence against UZR, unless you believe that fielders’ abilities are truly not correlated from one year to the next. and that is a data-driven conclusion. in fact, it’s the only one made by anyone yet in this discussion.
Also
Some of the variance in defensive rankings can be explained by the fact that the baseline changes year after year. UZR is runs saved above average, so if defense as a whole is better one year than another and a specific players true talent level doesn’t change, he would have a lower rating by default.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
how much is "some of the variance"?
the year-by-year average shouldn’t fluctuate that much. unless, of course, UZR is simply an unreliable system.
there isn’t much “average” fluctuations in offensive or pitching stats. if there is a lot of movement on the defensive side, which is supposedly the most repeatable skill, then that calls the validity of the measure into question.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-relative-importance-of-fielding-metrics/#comment-80291 has one take on it. As for average fluctuations in offense and pitching, that is published all over in the form of run scoring environments (and it’s the reason that 10.5 runs per win is an approximation as opposed to a rule).
I would suggest that it could fluctuate “that” much – without necessarily being an unrealiable system – by way of a sudden surge in defensive analysis and valuation. If the stats are there and the scouts are pushing it, it changes everything from scouting to drafting to eventual major league promotions, which should affect overall defense (and supress offense while increasing pitching).
but...
… if UZR is a reliable measure and the fluctuations are due to improvements in methodology, then shift should be in the scale and not the spread. i.e., if the measure is reliable, then all players should move or down roughly in tandem as the data improve, and the “real differences” should be basically the same.
if the measure isn’t reliable, then we’d see movements all over the place. which is what we see.
Those movements all over the place
are just as easily explained by random variance in performance.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions
if you believe performance is random...
… then why are you bothering to measure it? and if one year’s performance should be strongly correlated with the previous year’s performance, then why isn’t it?
what?
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 1:56 AM EDT up reply actions
if you truly believe...
… as you said, that “those movements are just as easily explained by random variance” and truly mean that, then you must believe that performance is itself random.
i mean, i know you don’t believe that, but that’s the position you’re arguing for.
Year-to-year performance can be random
You need 2 years of UZR to get a big enough sample size to accurately judge a players true talent level.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 8:31 AM EDT up reply actions
if you need 2 full years...
… then that measure is stupid and a waste of time.
and by the way… who says? what if you get +20 one year and -5 the next (as Adam Kennedy had the past two years)? what do you do, just average them out?
that’s really bad statistics. really, really bad statistics.
Your missing the point
Multiple years are needed to judge a players true talent level. It’s the same thing with offense. If a player has a .390 wOBA one year and a .320 the next, you would regress somewhere in the middle. Same thing with fielding. However, it doesn’t mean that the batter didn’t actually put up a .390 wOBA just because it doesn’t represent his true talent level.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions
You are apparently defining your own idea of what is or isn’t an acceptably large sample size. Is that good statistics?
better than just continuing...
… to increase the number until i get the result i’m looking for.
all these definitions are arbitrary. if you have a good reason for thinking that a year’s worth of data is too little, then state your case. otherwise, i’ll just assume that you are merely fishing for results.
better than just continuing to increase the number until i get the result i’m looking for.
How is that any different in any way from dismissing offensive performance based on 50 PAs, but accepting it on 700? I do that, and I presume that you would do the same. That isn’t fishing for results, it’s setting an appropriate sample size.
so what is appropriate?
i’m using the yearly stats because those are the ones that are reported. i assume that the creator of UZR intended it to be a yearly measure, since that’s always the way it is always reported: not as a rolling 3-year average, but on a year-by-year basis, just like the offensive stats.
if you don’t think that that is the appropriate way to view the statistic, then you are fishing.
(and 50 PA vs. 700 PA is hardly analogous. i’m using a year’s worth of data. if that isn’t enough, then we can’t make meaningful conclusions about the value of a player to a team. which means the stat is basically worthless.)
Talking about runs above AVERAGE or below AVERAGE, and that AVERAGE is not a constant from year-to-year; if Ryan Braun and his 28 twins got promoted to 3B, Rolen would post an off-the-charts UZR (or Plus/Minus, or anything else that compares one to their peers) without getting any better, or even while getting worse.
do you really believe that Holliday was 1.5 wins better than Carl Crawford in 2007 on zone coverage alone? i don’t believe that, because it’s… not possible.
~15 runs over the course of an entire season sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Positioning can vary greatly from year-to-year, and positioning is critical to UZR.
Right on...
positioning is critical to UZR.
That refutes your argument that it’s a good measure of “talent”. Players don’t control positioning, coaches and scouts do. So if your coaches and scouts have you positioned wrong all the time, it makes UZR fluctuate greatly. Over time, with a large population of data, we can probably discern who the good fielders are and who the bad fielders are. I don’t think you get enough of that over a single season to negate the noise in the data though.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
That refutes your argument that it’s a good measure of "talent".
Eh, what? I hadn’t used the word “talent” in this entire thread!
Players don’t control positioning, coaches and scouts do.
I think that’s often – but not always – true. You don’t need to explain to me that positioning is critical, though, because I was the one that said it!
Um
~15 runs over the course of an entire season sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
So, by that statement you mean that the positioning, scouting, and coaching for the Rockies is better than that of the Rays? Otherwise if we’re talking about player vs. player, we’re talking about “talent”.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
So, by that statement you mean that the positioning, scouting, and coaching for the Rockies is better than that of the Rays?
Otherwise if we’re talking about player vs. player, we’re talking about "talent".
You’ve asked your “question” (more like a statement) as if it’s EITHER positioning OR talent, so I disagree with the question itself. Ask an honest question and I’ll give you an honest answer.
Well
It’s phrased properly to determine whether we are measuring talent or not. If coaching, scouting, and positioning were all equal and you believe that ~15 runs over the course of season is a reasonable change, you’re saying that Holliday is ~15 runs better defensively than Crawford. This is where we would disagree. I would contend that Crawford is probably the better overall left fielder and that due to other circumstances (ballpark, coaching, positioning, chances, scouting, etc.) UZR makes Holliday LOOK like the better defensive outfielder. In which case it isn’t a good judge of talent, just a good judge of talent combined with all the other intangibles.
Holliday might be better, but he certainly isn’t 15 runs better over the course of one season based solely on range alone, considering that Crawford could probably run circles around 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
It’s phrased properly to determine whether we are measuring talent or not.
I agree that it accomplishes that goal, but I think it’s a bad goal. BOTH positioning AND talent are factors, so it isn’t an EITHER/OR proposition.
you’re saying that Holliday is ~15 runs better defensively than Crawford
Dude, stop setting up hypotheticals to show things that I’m “saying.” To clarify, it doesn’t seem at all unreasonable to me that he may have BEEN 15 runs better, for those 1000+ innings measured during that specific season. And again it’s not talent alone, but even if it were that wouldn’t surprise me either. It’s just 15 runs (+/- ~5 on both sides of the equation, so a potential delta of 10), and it’s just one season.
I would contend that Crawford is probably the better overall left fielder
I would too. Note the distinction between “is” and “was.”
considering that Crawford could probably run circles around him
Catching baseballs takes more than just speed.
wait wait wait...
… where do you get the “+/- 5 on both sides of the equation”? is that assumed in UZR?
if UZR’s confidence interval is that wide for all players, then there’s no way it’s a useful stat for comparing players side by side. or even comparing one player from one year to the next. the assumed error is simply too high to draw any meaningful conclusions.
that would explain a lot of the crazy year-to-year variances, though.
UZR is better as a "true talent level" metric than it is at explaining the past
However, given a large sample size, UZR is pretty accurate.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions
what does that mean?
what do you mean when you say “UZR is better as a ‘true talent level’ metric than it is at explaining the post”? no sarcasm here… i’m genuinely curious as to how to interpret that that.
I mean
you can use UZR to judge how good a player is defensively, roughly, but you can’t really pinpoint exactly how many runs they save.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions
okay..
… as a general heuristic used for ordinal rankings i can buy that. but that’s not UZR’s claim.
remember how this conversation started? according to UZR Skip Schumaker in LF is 5 wins better than Skip Schumaker at 2B. now, i think we can all agree that Schu is a better LF than 2B. but i think we can also agree that the cannot be that large.
That's exactly what I am saying
First of all, those UZRs are based off of extremely small sample sizes in which anyone can look like a really bad or good defender. Using small sample sizes of anything will lead to wacky results, it doesn’t mean the stat is flawed.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-two
“I generally give it an error range of five runs in either direction, meaning that a +10 could be anything between a +5 and +15)”
That’s “just” Dave Cameron from Fangraphs saying it, so if you want something authoritative look for statements from Michael Lichtman (MGL) – the creator of UZR.
We would need to platoon skip in LF with a right-handed batter
(as we are doing with him/ryan/barden mostly at 2B) because he’s terrible against left-handed pitching. Mather or Craig would be the internal options. But yeah, I like him in left, seems to solve a lot of our problems.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Small sample sizes be damned
but isn’t skip hitting lefties well this year?
How did the pig corner the breakfast market?
not really
.656 OPS.
- "I went at it and didn’t slow down, so it kind of bounced off me." -Lil' Dunc
And Dunn's definitely better than what we're running around in LF right now
but I feel we could make comparable improvements to the team without giving away half as much as it would take to land Dunn. Also, another lefty isn’t really what we need.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Are the Nats
going to be looking to shed some payroll in order to sign Strasburg? Left handed or not, Slot Dunn behind Albert and Albert either sees more strikes or Dunn does. Having two of the top walk rate guys back-to-back would probably just lead to even more men LOB, but it might work out. I think it would be interesting to know what it would take to get him.
How did the pig corner the breakfast market?
If it's a pure salary dump
I’d take dunn in a heartbeat. I just think that a) he’s on a 3-year contract (I think?) and so we’re maxing out on payroll in a position (corner outfield) we can probably fill pretty well internally, going forward, so we’d have to either trade him or some other pieces and b) he’s simply over-valued, due to his terrible defence.
I wouldn’t give up anything meaningful for Dunn. I reckon we’d be better off looking for a pure rental for the rest of the year, preferably a RH one.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:18 AM EDT up reply actions
i thought dunn signed a 1 year deal?
am i completely wrong about that
by VolsnCards5 on Jun 11, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions
yep its 2yrs/20 million
of course while perusing cots i once again saw zimmerman’s contract…it truly is a thing of beauty:
09:$3.325M, 10:$6.25M, 11:$8.925M, 12:$12M, 13:$14M
by VolsnCards5 on Jun 11, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Shur
Ferz uh Walroos, uh Toolman, uh Deestroyzer, and uh Boggsy.
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 11, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions
iz in ur farm.
takin ur prospektz.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
this one looks right
If so, I think that’s a pretty good deal for a 40 HR guy, even if he sucks at defense and hates America
How did the pig corner the breakfast market?
Actually BtB just did an interesting post on Dunn
There was a lot of meta stuff on perception in the media, the Dunn phenomenon vs. the Jeter phenomenon, etc. But the numbers part of it indicates that Dunn may be so bad at defense this year that he’s actually a negative value. I don’t know if that is an aberration or not, if he will improve over the year, etc… but the recent improvement in defensive analysis have really opened my eyes and this is a good example. I’m not sure I would want to bother with the Adam Dunns of the world anymore.
There's no "I" in team. There's also no "I" in "B-g Mac Land".
well, then it's a good thing I drink,
therefore, as long as I talk loud enough, I am always right. Let’s see the fancy stats and references you have to beat that?
How did the pig corner the breakfast market?
Crap!
I got nothin’ on that…I mean, I like drinking and all, but my robust 5’6" (on a good day) 140 lb frame, three years removed from my college tolerance peak, would probably fall asleep these days before I got drunk enough to have the courage to talk loudly enough to compete with that. Phooey! You win this round (pun intended!) but you haven’t won the war.
I’ll get you GADGEEEEEEeeeeeet………!
There's no "I" in team. There's also no "I" in "B-g Mac Land".
by mattybobo on Jun 11, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
yea
it was shocking to me that he stayed in the national league…he would have a ton of value as a DH
i hate the DH by the way
by VolsnCards5 on Jun 11, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
That was Driveline Mechanics fool :)
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed 1000+ on Duncan!
He will not be part of any significant trade unless he is a throw in. He should be the 5th outfielder, LH PH early in games. The oppurtunity cost of playing him most days is Rasmus/Ludwick on the bench. He is playing better than Ankiel though, which might tell everyone something about his trade value as well (which is also even lower because he’s a free agent after this year).
haven't checked lately
but I think Ank’s been better than Dunc this year. Dunc’s hitting is slightly better (and I think he looks much better at the plate, even given ank’s good couple of games in florida) but Ankiel is a far superior fielder.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:19 AM EDT up reply actions
if i'd wanted to look it up on fangraphs i would've
but thanks :-) – posting the figures would’ve been more helpful. I see they’re both just over replacement ATM…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Brandon Wood
can play either 3B/SS, has a big RH bat, and is young (25).
Proud sponsor of the Official 2009 StL Cardinal theme song: Reason to Believe
Than why are
Erick Aybar and Maicer Izturis playing ahead of him? Both those guys are a little above average defensively and terrible offensively, yet Wood can’t crack the lineup. His brief stints in the big leagues haven’t shown any promise either, so I’m not sure that he’s really all that good to begin with.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
I think Wood is better than
the Barden/Thurston combo
Proud sponsor of the Official 2009 StL Cardinal theme song: Reason to Believe
I like wood
but I’m not sure he helps us this year…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 10, 2009 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Youth for Youth at 3B
Ideally they would find a 3B vet who plays good defense and who can hit in the 5-6-7 spot. If they cannot get a proven vet to fill that need then what about the possibility of trading prospects for a good 3B prospect who might be blocked. I know they have Wallace and Freese but is there someone better that is ready to play right now? I don’t know but I would explore that option.
The pitching has to be improved and Peavy is there for the taking. They say they can take on a big contract so here is a frontline pitcher who helps now and into the future. I hope that Pinero and Lahose make it back and have confidence in Carpenter and Wainright but Wellemeyer is not going to cut it. Peavy cost money and prospects but probably not high level prospects.
I like Holliday as much as anyone but to think that Ankiel and Duncan are not going to play or to think that they are going to get traded is probably just wishful thinking. Besides Ankiel looks like he is starting to hit and if he does he as good as anyone that you could trade for.
As they continue to lose I start to believe that Pujols to 3B might not be such a bad idea. I know all the arguments against it but what have they got to lose if this continues.
yup
big risk…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Russell Branyan (former Cardinal) to 3B
Currently playing 1B for the Mariners, 1YR/1.4M contract.
Career .250/.335/.495 (.353 wOBA) and -6.9 UZR/150 at 3B. Plays all four corners.
.320/.421/.613 (.438 wOBA) in 215 2009 PAs. Previous spot starter, averages 211 PAs per season.
Trade Duncan (1B, DH, LF). 3 years remaining in arbitration? See what else it might take.
I really like that idea
4B - beer baseball bands blog
"OOHHHHH!!!! He knocked out the I in Big Mac Land!!"
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 10, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I say we should
trade for joe mauer, rather have his salary and bat over hollidays. But then molina would have to find a new position or be traded, and too many fans would be mad that molina is gone, although we would have a mvp batting there instead.
What about Casey Blake? how are the dodgers doing at 3b depth, I’m guessing not great if he was picked up again this year. I like Melvin Mora too, but I see us matching up more with Colorado than any other team sadly. Too bad we missed the high selling point on most of the people we could spare to trade also, I see us giving up a little bit too much to make a trade with the other team knowing we have a hole there.
by from First to Third on Jun 10, 2009 4:11 PM EDT reply actions
joe mauer??
who would you propose we trade to get ahold of joe mauer?
How depressing is it being you? Is it closer to being a lifelong cubs fan or being born without lips? - Janitor
by themanthemyth on Jun 10, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
well didn't know i needed a trade proposal, but here i go
Bryan Anderson, Adam Ottavino, Fernando Salas. Maybe they would go for Molina, C. Perez, Kozma, Mortenson. Either way the Cardinals will never trade for Joe Mauer, and the Red Sux and Yankme’s will get into a bidding war on this chap and we will still have molina, albeit I love the way he handles the pitching staff, and his arm is amazing. But we would have a good D catcher, and a GREAT BAT to add to the lineup, probably our #4 guy for sure compared to what we have
Batting
Career G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
597 2189 359 707 137 15 56 336 316 252 30 7 .323 .405 .476 .881
by from First to Third on Jun 10, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
You don't NEED
a trade proposal, but you won’t be taken seriously unless you have one. And even then, sometimes you won’t be taken seriously.
No way in hell the Twins part with Joe Mauer.
"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter
sometimes i wonder if these posts aren't some sophisticated form of performance art.
there’s bound to be some baseball-savvy junior at art school who wants a project that’s a little “out there.”
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jun 10, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
heh
4B - beer baseball bands blog
"OOHHHHH!!!! He knocked out the I in Big Mac Land!!"
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 10, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
LOL
@ Anderson, Ottavino, Salas for Mauer… That would genuinely be the worst ever trade in baseball history.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Mauer
Never. Gonna. Happen.
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 10, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
EVER.
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 10, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions
The only way that happens is if the Twins actually are contracted
even then, Bud ain’t gonna let Mauer go to no St. Louis Cardinals
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
that would probably work
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jun 11, 2009 2:01 AM EDT up reply actions
trade for joe mauer
Holy god. How in the name of St. Peter would they do that? What kind of haul would Joe Mauer bring in? Despite the fact that he’s not a legendary hitter when you compare him across the board, the fact is that he’s a very good hitter who plays a position where Miguel Olivo and John Buck can split time and Kenji Johjima can start and so on and so forth, he’s mother frigging on another planet. That makes him gadzooks valuable. He was a 6 WAR player this year, and is suddenly showing the power that Everyone said would come. I mean, shit, getting him would probably take Rasmus and/or Jones and/or Wallace (probably at least one, if not two) and a number of pitchers. That’s just free-balling…it may be more or less…point is, he’s Joe EFFING Mauer. Shit ain’t happening.
*bizarre words used in this post are the result of words not-yet-created to define Joe Mauer’s value.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jun 11, 2009 2:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm saying Molina
plus rasmus, plus wallace, plus DJ probably gets it done.
Ermmmm……. No thanks.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Hey I heard the Twins are looking for a right handed reliever...
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 6:30 AM EDT up reply actions
a right-handed power hitting reliever?
shit… we traded worrell to the padres….
Missed opportunity.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
so you're saying there's a chance?
- "I went at it and didn’t slow down, so it kind of bounced off me." -Lil' Dunc
Do you honestly think that Mauer is anyway attainable?
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 6:29 AM EDT up reply actions
No
Even I can see that, maybe in free agency if the Twins don’t put the cash up. What I’d like to hear is maybe someones opinion on the more realistic people we could target that I talked about, Mora or Blake. Wow, you guys should lighten up did anyone read past the part about mauer? I never said we could or ever will trade for someone like joe mauer, anyone should know Mauer is untouchable and nothing we have other than pujols, rasmus, or wallace would even get the twins interested. If you guys highlight sarcasm in a different color text here, I’m sorry I don’t know how to do that yet.
So again, what about blake or mora?
by from First to Third on Jun 11, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions
If you were being
sarcastic, then put “/sarcasm” after your paragraph so we know. Or write so that it’s obvious.
It would look like this.
/sarcasm
Then type the rest of your entry here.
"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter
The part about mauer was sarcasm
wanting to know if casey blake or melving mora was attainanle was not, but thanks hopefully i can save myself a beating next time
by from First to Third on Jun 11, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Perhaps
you should’ve skipped the trade proposal then. You could’ve said you were joking at that point.
At any rate, until regular posters get to know your tone, it’s going to be hard to know when you are joking. It sure reads as sincere.
"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter
Try not to sweat it too much
The thing is, I could easily have written that post now that I look at it; I often fall victim to writing things in a dryly sarcastic tone that are misinterpreted as sincere. Simple tricks like, say opening that second paragraph with “But seriously folks” or something similar usually does the trick. As spants says above some of the problem will recede as people start to recognize you and your writing style. There’s also the ridiculous hyperbole/dumb talk trick, i.e. “HAY GUISE, we shood trad for Mauer he’s not as good as Morneau n e way, shouldn’t take much mebbe some b/c level spects???” but I totally understand if that’s not your sense of humor.
There's no "I" in team. There's also no "I" in "B-g Mac Land".
i see
As my fellow posters said, if you want to be sarcastic in type, it helps to make your proposition really obviously wacko. Or, simply mention that it’s sarcasm. Trust me, we love a good joke here!
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jun 11, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions
hahaha
jesus, i’ve never seen such detailed explanations of how to explain sarcasm over the internet
you guys,
by prophetjohn on Jun 11, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions
shut up
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
That's how much we care.
There's no "I" in team. There's also no "I" in "B-g Mac Land".
by mattybobo on Jun 12, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
the /sarcasm thing takes all the fun out of comments though
i like the mystery of not knowing if someone is being sarcastic or not
by VolsnCards5 on Jun 11, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Blake and Mora are mediocrities
I’d probably rather have Blake. I don’t see that mora’s any better than what we have now.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Blake is like 38 years old and signed to a 3 year contract
Their is no way that a trade for him would work out well for us.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 11, 2009 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions
DH in Cleveland
short term question as it relates to this “Who would you bring in?” The Cards play three at Cleveland this weekend, with Sat & Sun against LHP. The Cards also finish up against a LHP in FLA on Thursday and have an upcoming off day on Monday.
Do the Cards promote a RH and drop down an arm in the bullpen (Blake) so we don’t end up using a LH DH against LHP? Craig or Mather come to mind, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see Wainwright as the DH.
Considering the roster right now...
that might not be such a bad idea…
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
who is blake?
But yeah, we need to bring up a RH hitter. Craig or Mather would be fine.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:23 AM EDT up reply actions
oh yep :-)
i totally forgot his entire existence on this planet. Easily done (sorry, Dan :-)…)
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Iowa
Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!
by RunninRedbird on Jun 10, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
cubland
4B - beer baseball bands blog
"OOHHHHH!!!! He knocked out the I in Big Mac Land!!"
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 10, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Why is everybody so harped up on DeRosa?
I mean he is a solid player but no where near the offensive POWER we need. We don’t need the scrappy spray it around .260 avg if lucky batter. We need some legit help for albert. when that help was there the Redbirds were too much pffensively for most. When had Edmonds and Rolen at there offensive heights the line up was ill. We have a good farm system and plenty of pitching prospects to trade away. I was on the Motte train this year, but he is slowly making me want to get off. Also we need to look at pitching. Yes Adam and Carp are the truth, but Wellemeyer is not reliable and Lohse and Pineiro are products of the great Dave Duncan and don’t think their success will last. Let’s get Holliday who we wanted anyway and would have paid arpound the same and go after an available pitcher. Maybe a lefty which we don’t have. Maybe Bedard or possibly Kazmir.
derosa has some useful talents.
he’s righthanded.
he plays 2nd, 3rd, and the corner outfield spots reasonably well.
he hits well, with reasonable power, and gets on base.
he’s been worth 2.5 wins or more above replacement for the past three years running.
basically, you won’t find an easily available player with his mix of fielding and hitting skills who plays the spots at which the cards have the biggest needs. don’t just look at his average. and you can’t measure every trade target against 2004-era rolen and edmonds. we’d never make a trade if every target had to be rolen or edmonds.
i think holliday makes more sense now than he did, with the injuries to the OF. but he will not come cheap, and would upgrade a spot where — at least potentially — we could get a lot better if duncan or ankiel gets well/becomes effective again. so derosa may be a comparable upgrade relative to what we have at 2b and 3b as holliday would be relative to our outfield.
we certainly could use a pitcher, no doubt. kazmir is injured and i’m not sure when/if he’ll be back. bedard is a possibility, but would cost a lot.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
kaz is not that injured. he has more mechanical issues and with dave duncan on his side he could become a top 5 talent again and the rays would love to get soem young bullpen talent. bedard would cost, but would be nice. and yes e can compare the edmonds-rolen era cause that is the type of production we need and want and that is the most recent to compare too. imagine if pujols gets protected by holliday then ludwick and imagine when glaus comes back. thats a tough foursomme, not to mention colby
kaz is not that injured.
He’s just lost about 4mph on his FB and suddenly become bad at pitching as a practical joke, I think.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:26 AM EDT up reply actions
yeah, Kaz is done
but anyway, remaining somewhat realistic, i have a hard time seeing how DeRosa wouldnt make a ton of sense. his versatility is just what LaRussa craves from players; no matter where other options come into play/guys get hot and need to stay in the lineup, well be able to find a spot for him. plus at 6 mil is cost controlled enough for mgmt to actually consider. he just ticks too many boxes for us to not take at the very least a serious look.
by the dawn raids on Jun 11, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, ever since Mark Prior invented that joke it hasn't gotten old.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
not that injured?
do you have proof of that…because he seems to be in a bad bad way…maybe it is just mechanics, but i seriously doubt it
by VolsnCards5 on Jun 11, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
the idea is that if Glaus does come back
Derosa would still be useful
4B - beer baseball bands blog
"OOHHHHH!!!! He knocked out the I in Big Mac Land!!"
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 11, 2009 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
He
may be boring to you, but he’s a very valuable player, especially for someone so versatile.
In 2006, 2007, and 2008, he was worth 2.9, 2.6, and 3.8 WAR respectively. This year, he’s not doing quite as well, but that doesn’t mean he won’t pick it up.
"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter
yea his 10hr and 42 RBIs on the year are boring
we don’t need that kind of production at third at all do we
by VolsnCards5 on Jun 11, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions
IA AGREE
WE TOTALLY NEED TO MAKE A TRADE TO PFFENSIVELY PWN EVERRONE>
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:25 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
A DeRosa trade is beginning to bother me because
he appears to getting attention from multiple teams. I would consider Cleveland’s FO to be on the savvy side, so I think we are going to see the return package price tag on DeRosa go up.
Originally, and even still theoretically, I think DeRosa fits the Birds very nicely. However, I begin to worry that what Cleveland would ask for in return will be a bitter pill.
I think Seattle will be willing to part with Beltre for relatively little (in terms of players) provided the team acquiring him will eat the 8-9 million (or something like that) he has left for this year.
In addition...
I like the idea that Beltre is a pending free agent for two reasons.
I don’t what sort of free agent Beltre will be, but I assume that the Cards could get a draft pick if/when he signs elsewhere. I could be wrong about that.
I also like the idea of leaving 3rd open for next year. We will have internal options. Wallace can compete for the job, then there’s Freese, and Mather on top of that.
by Scarecrow7775 on Jun 11, 2009 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe a Type B?
He’ll definitely be an A or B.
But yeah, I totally agree. He’d be cheap, little commitment, and he’s typically a second half player. We get Beltre when he’s good and let him go. No harm done, and we have one of the best defensive third basemen in baseball.
On with the (good) youth movement!
"cheap" as in what we'd need to give up.
I should’ve made that more clear.
That is, unless Seattle thinks their .500 record will get them to the playoffs. But I get the feeling the new GM is a little bit brighter than that.
On with the (good) youth movement!
My slight concern with Beltre
not that it’s a big issue, is that we have to offer him arby to get the pick. I could see a situation, if the economy/free agent market continues to tank, in which he might accept. I think he’d be guaranteed about $10m (is that right?) which would be a pretty good deal for him but would suck somewhat if we want to get wallace/freese up, and maybe restrict us adding payroll elsewhere.
He’ll probably test the market again but I guess it’s not impossible he’d accept.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 6:29 AM EDT up reply actions
I suspect you're right about the arbitration
and I also agree that it would be a minor hurdle.
I’m not sure what Beltre would get in arbitration. But, if he did accept and stay on for 2010, my opinion is that it would be far from a disaster. Like you, I’m comfortable in assuming that the price would be “reasonable.”
I have the impression that the Future at third is Wallace, who wouldn’t suffer by spending 2010 at Memphis. Freese is the fUTURE, and would probably be blocked should Beltre stay on for 2010.
In that case, and assuming that Wallace can keep developing at the plate and put something together resembling defense at 3rd, we’d have an extra trade chip in Freese, a solid 3rd sacker in Beltre, and more time for Wallace to put it together.
On the other hand, if Wallace goes bad (hey, it could happen), then I’d have to rethink the whole thing.
by Scarecrow7775 on Jun 11, 2009 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Arbitration offers next off season
I agree that we probably will see more acceptance of arbitration offers this off season than in years past. With Beltre’s history, he could probably get a nice one year arbitration award, then head out when the offers improve (hopefully) in 2011.
Mo wouldn’t offer Springer arbritration because of the acceptance risk on $3MM. Same with Looper. Now that I think about it, Mo probably doesn’t offer Beltre arbitration because of the payroll risk and opportunity losses.
How about Chin Ming Wong?
His numbers this year put him in line to match the Cardinal mid-season pick up formula.
All sarcasm aside, I actually could see him pulling a Jeff Weaver with us.
On with the (good) youth movement!
Speaking of Wang
This should change your mind a little bit….
Look at Harry’s comment — it’s the third one down. Over 36% of batted balls off of Wang this season exited at over 100 MPH, a full 10% more than the next closest guy. Dude got HAMMERED in his starts this 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
having watched the first 3 innings of the sox-yanks game with my sox-loving housemate last night
Wang looked AWFUL. He couldn’t find the zone, and when he did he got pummelled. Looked a lot like a less-controlled version of PJ Walters that we saw earlier in the year, minus the plus slider and curve….
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 11, 2009 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions
ugh
sox-loving housemates are the worst
by VolsnCards5 on Jun 11, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Totally
My house is barefeet only, no exceptions
Mang Says...
"There is no "I" in team, or in B g Mac Land, either."
I don't get socks lovers in general at all
I mean, a cat? Worst Presidential Pet. Ever. This is America OK, get a damn dog!
/lolitics
There's no "I" in team. There's also no "I" in "B-g Mac Land".
Nah, it won't change my mind
Because I really don’t want him to start with — just saying he fits the Cardinals mold for an “ideal” trade candidate.
I wonder what happened to him this season.
On with the (good) youth movement!
If the Yankees are willing to trade him,
he’d be a great fit. duncan could sort him out, and he’s a sinkerball right-handed pitcher. It would depend on whether the Yankees want to get rid of him.
by ultimatecardinalfan on Jun 11, 2009 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I just read an article
about how they might really have no choice. If he keeps pitching like this, they can’t DFA him without sending him through waivers. It’d be a lot like the Mike Maroth deal, where the team has too many starters and needs to part with the one with the worst numbers.
On with the (good) youth movement!
I think it was on yahoo sports, but I can't remember
. . . in case you want to read it too
On with the (good) youth movement!
Count me in if Chien Ming Wang is on the block.
He has looked horrible but he is getting more strikeouts and still has excellent velocity. If he can just lower his walk rate and iron out his mechanics he could really be good for pretty cheap.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
maybe it's worth a gamble...
I know he’s been awful this year but he has been pretty consistently good for a couple of seasons now. And he’s the very definition of a model dave duncan pitcher…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 7:09 AM EDT up reply actions
What would a slow-starting Troy Tulowitzky cost?
Is that how you spell his name? Looks weird.
He is a plus defender, a middle-of-the-order bat, and young/cost-controlled. Is there any chance the Rockies’ front office is panicking on him? Does his injury history portend bad things?
A lot. no. no. yes.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
Bedard!!
An impact lefty alongside Carpenter and Wainwright would make the rotation the best in the division, maybe the NL, and a force in the playoffs. He’s a free agent after this season; does that take his cost down?
I’d send a package featuring Wallace as the centerpiece out for him, especially if there were some indication of possibly resigning him. Would you?
might as well
include Beltre. The Mariners are probably willing to part with them because they will both be free agents after this season, and they have high salaries.
by ultimatecardinalfan on Jun 11, 2009 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
If we could get both
for a package involving wallace-and-not-much else, I guess it might be a gamble worth taking. We are pretty clearly getting fleeced on that deal in WAR terms, though – Bedard and Beltre add maybe 3-4 wins total to our end-of-season number, probably enough to make the playoffs but not as much as Wallace will add in his pre-FA years (probably like 20-ish, if he stays healthy and hits really well…)
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 7:12 AM EDT up reply actions
That's true
But I would posit that 3-4 wins this season might win us the division, and if we get to the playoffs with a rotation of Carp, WW, and Bedard, I quite like our chances to win the NL pennant, don’t you?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Yes
but I liked the Cubs’ chances last year with a rotation of Harden, Zambrano, career-year Dempster and Lilly. And better positional players than we have this year. Like I say, it’s a gamble, I’m ambivalent as to whether it’s worth taking.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
The more I think about it...
I really like the idea of adding Adrian Beltre.
1. Could be had for not as much (as Holiday anyways)
Thinking: Garcia, Perez, and AA pitcher with some promise
2. Good Bat…could improve in NL and in more powerful lineup
See: Raul Ibanez…assuming he’s not on roids
3. Keep present OF of Ras, Lud, and Ank (who are finally starting to heat up)
Keep Dunc on bench for use in PH situations
4. Offer Beltre arbitration with the understanding that he may have to move positions.
If he accepts…move him to 2B or SS…Schu to OF when Ank leaves next year.
If he rejects…pick a nice compensation
5. He’s starting to turn it around 16 for 42 in last 10 games (.381 avg).
Mo get him soon before his trade value increases!
I agree with all but #4
We offer him arbitration, if he accepts we get an above average third baseman for one year at around what Glaus is making this season, maybe less. If we doesn’t, he’s borderline type A and we hope he ends up with a team outside the top 15 so we get a first round draft pick and a sandwich pick for him.
He’s not going to change positions to a more difficult position at this point in his career.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
We won't need to deal that much.
It’d be a salary dump if we landed him. He’s not under high demand.
On with the (good) youth movement!
garcia plus perez is quite a lot IMO
if the TJ works out Garcia is STILL our best pitching prospect (at least until/if we get miller signed).
I would give up Perez + AA pitcher or something, but + Garcia is too much unless we get, say, washburn too.
Also, Garcia’s value is at its lowest ebb at the moment due to the surgery – it would be a shame to trade a possible top-100 prospect at his “buy low” best…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 7:14 AM EDT up reply actions
i love bacon
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
is that where you bate someone into eating bacon?
cause you don’t have to do that for me. i just had 8 pieces for dinner.
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
is a homphone anything like the hambone?
Cuz I really love that soup
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
fuck!
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
fuck fail
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 7:15 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
TWSS.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jun 12, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
how do you know this?
is there a camera in my room i don’t know about?
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
Adam Kennedy has 5 fucking home runs
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
He's been worth more this season with the bat than in all of his other seasons put together.
Oddly enough his defense has somewhat sucked.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
WHO ARE YOU AND WHERE IS THE REAL ADAM KENNEDY???
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 7:15 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
IN A SMALL SAMPLE SIZE ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN
It doesn’t mean the metric is unreliable.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 8:29 AM EDT up reply actions
FULL SEASONS ARE NOT SMALL SAMPLES
Kennedy’s UZR/150 last year was 21.8. the year before it was -5.7. the year before that it was 0.5. the year before that: 19.1.
there you go. which of those are small samples? if none, then you have have to convince me that something happened to Adam Kennedy over the years that made him amazing one year, then average the next, then pretty bad the following, then THE BEST FIELDING 2B EVER after that, and now back to pretty goddamn horrible (so far this year, albeit in a sample so small that no meaningful inference could possibly be made at all. which incidentally means that Schumaker might also be a pretty damn good 2B b/c we just have no way of knowing yet).
quite frankly, 1/4 seasons should start converging pretty quickly to the normal distribution, especially for “replicable” skills like fielding. so Kennedy’s line this year — 9.9 in 278 innings - should absolutely count for something.
FULL SEASONS ARE NOT SMALL SAMPLES
1) That’s not necessarily true
2) Kennedy didn’t play a full season in 2008. 635 innings, or half a season.
quite frankly, 1/4 seasons should start converging pretty quickly to the normal distribution
Again, not necessarily true. It depends on what you’re measuring.
especially for "replicable" skills like fielding
Where has it been proven that defense – on a granular level – is replicable?
1. nice rebuttal. why don’t you give me the conditions in which a full season is a small sample. and that cannot include tautologies (i.e. in which UZR doesn’t trend properly)
2. 635 innings is a lot of innings. that year Kennedy had 144 put-outs and 244 assists. not including the balls he missed, that’s 400 chances. that is not a small sample, by any standard statistical definition. and if you want to throw out Kennedy’s ‘08, you have to throw out his ’07 as well. in which case you can make no meaningful conclusion about Adam Kennedy’s two years as a Cardinal.
3. it is not possible to prove that defense is replicable on a granular level. that is a non-falsifiable position. but it is common, received wisdom, and it makes intuitive sense. much more sense than the position that defensive abilities are randomly distributed and have basically no correlation from year to year. which, according to the regression analyses posted above, is basically what UZR is telling us.
Why is Raul Ibanez so good this year?
37 year olds don’t triple their offensive output and get better on defense.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
unless of course defensive metrics are totally shit
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 7:15 AM EDT up reply actions
[ducks]
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 7:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I heard that the Phillies are really good a positioning fielders
Of course, their is no way to prove it, but it would explain Utley’s and Rollins’ obscene UZRs over the past couple of years.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 7:17 AM EDT up reply actions
yeah i saw that on BtB
I thought it was a really interesting point, personally. Probably something that’s been totally under-rated, traditionally, in terms of defense.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 7:21 AM EDT up reply actions
yeah...
… that must be it.
Pat Burrell UZR/150:
6.5
-2.3
-13.5
-25.2
-7.1 (2009)
Raul Ibanez UZR/150:
5.0
-5.4
-23.3
-10.4
11.1 (2009)
or are the Phillies just better at positioning Ibanez than Burrell?
Or anything can happen in a small sample size...
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 8:40 AM EDT up reply actions
look...
… 2009 is half over. just how big does the sample size have to be before the measure makes any sense? 5 years? 10? because it doesn’t make any sense from year-to-year, that’s for goddamn sure.
MGL said 2 years hitting = 1 year fielding
So I guess you could say that 1 year of defense = 1 half season worth of offense. As you mentioned, we are now halfway into the season. So lets look at some players this year who have flukey performances so far:
Bartlett: .451 wOBA this year, .311 last year
BJ Upton: .292 wOBA this year, .354 last year
Rollins: .263 wOBA this year, .357 last year
Ibanez: .441 wOBA this year, .356 last year
Luke Scott: .423 wOBA this year, .343 last year
Juan Pierre: .387 wOBA this year, .304 last year
These are just guys off the top of my head who are experiencing huge variation in their offensive stats for no apparent reason. I am sure there are many other this year. Why is it so hard to expect that the same thing can happen with UZR?
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Because it's universally understood
that defensive ability is inherently more repeatable than offensive ability. Catching a ball is easier to repeat than hitting it. Ask any coach in Little League — even the average players are better at catching the ball consistently than hitting it. It’s like playing catch vs. playing pepper, except that all the pepper players have to hit the ball with a bat instead of catching it and throwing it back at the guy with the bat. That’s obviously not exactly what we’re talking about but it gives a pretty good example of the difference I think.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
I don't think that's true
Anyone can make more good or bad plays than they usually do. Especially at the major league level, when a good jump is so important. If a player is hurt, or is misjudging balls for whatever reason. Hell, Ankiel makes some great plays, but looks lost often as well. Even Pujols makes mental mistakes sometimes. Players can improve defensively a lot as well; just look at Pujols.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Ank...
… is a poor example. he’s been a fielder for all of what… 3 seasons? the majority of which he’s been injured. and he hasn’t played one position consistently the entire time.
yes, Pujols sometimes makes mistakes. everyone makes mistakes. but if we’re truly measuring ability, then those mistakes should be random, i.e. roughly constant over time. they should not show up in the stats, because “mistakes” are off-set by “lucky” plays, so they cancel out as noise.
but that’s (seemingly) not what happens with UZR. instead, we get wild fluctuations which are supposed to indicate wild fluctuations in ability.
Because it’s universally understood that defensive ability is inherently more repeatable than offensive ability.
If it’s universally understood, it should be easily provable.
Catching a ball is easier to repeat than hitting it.
Catching a ball is just one element of fielding. It’s easy to see someone catch a ball, and I think it’s also easy to see someone not come close to a ball and think nothing of it despite the fact that a better defender may have read it better off the bat, took a better jump, ran faster, positioned better, caught it with both hands, planted better, and threw it straighter with a stronger arm.
“If it’s universally understood, it should be easily provable.”
this is not true at all. many things that are commonly understood are not easily quantified.
like
Gravity, for one.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
You don’t need to prove it yourself. Submitting proof would be enough, along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
It’s not universally known that defense is easily repeatable; I’m a part of the universe, and I don’t know that to be true.
Now we're into "What if" analysis...
Seriously, if we’re measuring “ability”, it stands to reason that fielding mistakes (be they errors, bad jumps, misjudgments of balls in play, whatever) should be fairly constant over time. As kindred and I have pointed out a number of times, UZR doesn’t indicate that at all. There are wild variations from year to year and from large sample to large sample, and the error bars are so wide that you really can’t discern any measurable context from the data at hand.
Maybe it’s the formula, maybe it’s the data being put into the formula as you suggested above. The bottom line is that it just isn’t very good at measuring “ability” without some other outside knowledge of that particular player. I can look at a stat like wOBA without ever seeing the player in question hit and tell you whether he’s a good offensive player or not, because it conforms to statistical and analytical guidelines for a set of data. UZR just doesn’t do that, so I have to have some knowledge of whether the player is any good before I can really glean anything out of UZR.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
It’s not just ability; I openly concede, for example, that positioning is a big deal. I agree that the ability percentage should be fairly constant over time, but I don’t presume that a single season of data is “large” or “enough” – I rely on repeatable convergence to tell me that kind of stuff. As far as discerning anything measurable, I think it’s accurate to say that Dunn and Rasmus are not in the same galaxy and that’s also born out in various fielding metrics. There’s also correlation of observed skill versus measured results, something we do all the time (e.g. watch a hitter hit, look at their slash line).
"i rely on repeatable convergence"
yes, but the regression linked to above shows that there is only convergence for one position. and if only one position converges, then there is cause to believe that we’re making a Type 2 error.
so what are you basing your idea of convergence on?
I didn’t and don’t presume that one season of data is sufficient based on the amount of variance observed from year to year.
then...
… this conversation is over, because on normative grounds you refuse to accept the only statistical evidence we have. except, you don’t even have normative grounds other than “i don’t presume”. no actual reasons given as to why one full season’s worth of data is insufficient, when we use if for every single other statistic in all of baseball analysis.
and all while appealing to a supposedly objective standard. how ironic.
no actual reasons given as to why one full season’s worth of data is insufficient
Variance, observed by the gap of year-to-year correlation for the same players at the same positions on the same teams. This is the primary reason to consider a sample size insufficient.
when we use if for every single other statistic in all of baseball analysis.
That is a convenience, not a scientific basis for the determination of an adequate sample size.
ooooooooooookay...
So UZR attempts to measure “ability” but has these limitations:
- Positioning (which would include advance scouting and coaching)
- The data given only converges for one fielding position, essentially telling us that the data isn’t solid for the other 7 positions.
- There’s no standard sample size, and the suggested sample size is ineffective for measuring a player on the standard measurement for measuring players, which is one full season.
- The error bars are so big when comparing one player to another that a player can range from "below average (-10 runs) to above average (+10 runs) within the same sample size.
As kindred and I have been saying: We agree that it measures some sort of ability, what we’re saying is that it doesn’t measure anything well, and that you can’t statistically prove that it measures anything at all, because the results are too random.
To reference your point on discernable measurement: You wouldn’t know that Dunn and Rasmus weren’t in the same galaxy without actually having some notion that one was a terrible defender and one was a great defender. You also can’t statistically prove that the gap between them is as large as UZR says it is, due to the points that I referenced above. True, we are able to use statistics to enhance our ability to evaluate what we see, but the offensive statistics are accurate enough that we an actually compare players without relying on what we see or having ever seen players at all. That’s kind of the point actually — to evaluate players without personal bias. You can’t do this with UZR because it doesn’t hold up to statistical evidence that it’s measuring what it says it’s measuring.
I think the difference in opinion between you (as, viva, and astro) vs. us (kindred and myself) is that you’re just glad to have something that seems to measure defense well, while we’re not ok with measuring defense with a low degree of accuracy and then comparing the wins added via defense with the wins added via offense, where the statistics show high correlation to abilty and show repeatable convergence. I think this is a difference of opinion mostly, but to say that we’re wrong for statistically questioning the viability of the stat isn’t fair to us, because it doesn’t hold up to statistical regressions to prove it’s value.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
So UZR attempts to measure "ability"
I don’t presume to know what it’s “attempting” to measure, but consider it a measurement of fielding – not just ability.
The data given only converges for one fielding position, essentially telling us that the data isn’t solid for the other 7 positions.
I think that would be true of all robust defensive statistics. There are still defensive spectrums and historical data to guide us on a LF to RF conversion, for example, or RF to CF.
There’s no standard sample size
2-3 seasons seems to be commonly suggested. Dave Cameron again: “Realistically, you need about 2,000 to 3,000 innings to eliminate enough of the variance to make a good judgment call.”
The error bars are so big when comparing one player to another that a player can range from "below average (-10 runs) to above average (+10 runs) within the same sample size.
If /- 5 is taken as gospel, it can still only take -10 to -15/-5 and +10 to +15/5.
we’re not ok with measuring defense with a low degree of accuracy and then comparing the wins added via defense with the wins added via offense
kindred questions the possibility of one player being 30 runs below average and another player being 30 runs above average at the same position itself. Forget UZR, just the concept of defense itself having that much potential impact. Big difference.
Personally, I view UZR with an eye toward skepticism on sample size, consider the importance of positioning, and contrast it with my observational take on a player’s defense. Rasmus is +11.6 according to UZR right now, which in combination with what I’ve seen is enough for me to declare him a very plus defender. I don’t question that something in the ballpark of 11 runs saved above average happened on his watch, either, but that’s not necessarily giving credit to him for all of it.
Lincecum had a FIP of 2.62 last year, bolstered by a crazy low 0.44 HR/9. HRs are the biggest pain point of FIP, and the pitching leaderboards are dominated year after year by those with crazy low HR/9s. That happened on their watch. Can they repeat it over the rest of their career? I don’t see how. That’s a comparison with UZR, and another MAJOR stat which needs more than a season to factor. xFIP normalizes HR/FB rates to league averages, but that is considered dubious.
The data given only converges for one fielding position, essentially telling us that the data isn’t solid for the other 7 positions.I think that would be true of all robust defensive statistics. There are still defensive spectrums and historical data to guide us on a LF to RF conversion, for example, or RF to CF.
I think you misunderstood that bit, if I’m not misinterpret what you were saying… He was quoting the discussion from kindred and VEP above.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I also think you raise a valid point here
Lincecum had a FIP of 2.62 last year, bolstered by a crazy low 0.44 HR/9. HRs are the biggest pain point of FIP, and the pitching leaderboards are dominated year after year by those with crazy low HR/9s. That happened on their watch. Can they repeat it over the rest of their career? I don’t see how. That’s a comparison with UZR, and another MAJOR stat which needs more than a season to factor. xFIP normalizes HR/FB rates to league averages, but that is considered dubious.
Stats like FIP are a lot more transparent, I think, than UZR. We can look (as you did) at someone’s FIP and say, “ah, pitcher X had a FIP of 3.50 but his HR/FB ratio was a long way below his career numbers, which have usually been around 12% yet were only 3% last year, so it’s possible he’s getting very lucky on flyballs and is due to regress”.
There isn’t really an analogous situation with UZR, because its component parts (and the raw data used to measure defence) just aren’t as transparent or easy to interpret. Somebody could have an unusually low UZR one year for a specific reason that might not be repeatable (hey, who’s to say there isn’t a “luck” component with defence, too?) and thus you’d be able to view that year’s UZR data with skepticism, but generally you just have to take them at face value. That’s another area where I think you can argue the hitting/pitching metrics are more effective than the fielding ones.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
astrostl actually brought that up earlier
when he linked to Tom Tango’s comments about how the input data varied by who was collecting it. This is a huge problem with defensive metrics as there just really isn’t a standard way of recording data as their is with offense.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
yeah
I believe, for instance, there’s significant differences over what is scored a LD, FB and GB from stadium to stadium in the major leagues (I read an article on this a while back, although I can’t remember where) – basically, the same hit is called a LD at Wrigley (say) and a GB at PNC Park (hypothetical). I’m guessing using the “zones” part of UZR to record where a ball is hit has some element of subjectivity to it.
It’ll presumably all be moot sooner or later when someone works out a cool way to incorporate HitFX data into the front end of a UZR-like system, and thus eliminates all the subjectivity in the inputs.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Thinking about it
I guess that example above is also a potential issue with tRA, although I can’t remember exactly how that’s calculated…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
One way of ameliorating the situation would be to use the same formula on the two and average the results, or use something like http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/ to decide upon which of the two between STATS and BIS should be more heavily weighted based on its reliability against prosumer observation.
UZR doesn’t have to be taken at face value though, even for a season. http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/ is a great resource I mentioned, TotalZone for Minor League Stats is another, good old observation is a trusted friend as well. I agree that defense is a lot more opaque, but it’s complex. Comes with the territory.
You'd probably win that :)
Look… I agree that UZR has error bars, but you have made so many statements like “UZR is completely worthless”, when that is not true at all. I never use UZR is a small sample size because the error bars are more pronounced and it doesn’t give a true representation of a players true ability. However, I maintain that over a large sample size, UZR is very effective. Anyway, I gotta get some breakfast, so I’ll leave this argument now.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions
also...
… MGL saying that the stats converging takes twice as long for the defensive metrics as for the offensive metrics is the exact same thing as saying that the defensive metrics are 1/2 as effective as the offensive metrics.
do you yield?
MGL saying that the stats converging takes twice as long for the defensive metrics as for the offensive metrics is the exact same thing as saying that the defensive metrics are 1/2 as effective as the offensive metrics.
No it isn’t, unless your definition of “effective” is “works on a specific sample size that I’m arbitrarily assigning to it without regard for input variance.” It would take longer for a 1/100 to converge than a coinflip, but that doesn’t mean that 1/100 chances are inherently flawed.
no...
… you can pick whatever sample size you please. i used the 1 year vs. 2 year distinction b/c that’s what vivaelpujols used, but it shouldn’t matter: if the offensive stat is more effective (i should have used “efficient”) at the beginning, and the rate of convergence is the same, then it will always be more efficient. the first of that is not in dispute and the second part is a generous assumption to grant.
but seriously… has it come to this?
i used the 1 year vs. 2 year distinction b/c that’s what vivaelpujols used
Based on other comments you’ve made in this thread, it sounds to me that you think that all good baseball statistics would consider a season’s worth of data to be an adequate sample size.
if the offensive stat is more effective (i should have used "efficient") at the beginning, and the rate of convergence is the same, then it will always be more efficient.
Why does that matter, though? If a hitter’s BB% needs only 100 PAs to be reliable and K% needs 250 (off the top of my head, although I think I did see a breakdown of how long it took various things to converge at Tango’s site) does that mean that BB% is good and K% is bad? No, it just means that it needs more data. Congrats to BB% for needing less data – that’s nice – but it would only mean that walk rates are more constant than strikeout rates. That’s the input, not the formula.
Defensive stats, like all stats, will rely upon having a sufficient sample size to be considered reliable. If the size required is too large for your tastes (for actual reasons such as inherent variance in the data being measured), that issue is an issue of your tastes. A season of baseball is not a one-size-fits-all box, it’s just that we as humans have decided to play 162 games and call that a season. I do think it’s highly convenient if something fits in that box, though, or hopefully even less.
I'm not sure which side I'm on in this argument
though kindred’s doing a pretty good job of arguing his case, but in relation to the following:
If the size required is too large for your tastes (for actual reasons such as inherent variance in the data being measured), that issue is an issue of your tastes. A season of baseball is not a one-size-fits-all box, it’s just that we as humans have decided to play 162 games and call that a season.
I think it’s pretty fair comment to say that for the staistic to actually be useful in the real world (i.e. in terms of analysing baseball players), it needs to fit into a certain sample size. You could very well say that a statistical algorithm that takes 10 years to appropriately converge to something meaningful is by definition “useful” in statistical terms, despite the fact (in terms of the timescale over which clubs and sabermetricians have to make useful baseball decisions) it’s no good. Also, there’s the associated fact that baseball players (and the game itself) changes over time – whilst players don’t usually magically age over one season, you could argue that over 3 or 4 years it’s quite common for players’ skills to deteriorate or otherwise change wholesale.
I think kindred’s basic argument that a metric which requires several seasons’ worth of data to converge to a reliable score is potentially useless in some respects as a talent measure is valid. In which case, could it not be argued that scouting and visual talent evaluation (especially in a skill that seems to be easier to evaluate by visual analysis than pitching or hitting) might be a better way to evaluate fielders? That is, that there’s not a reliable scientific method for doing it, with the resources available, and trying to “shoehorn” one is potentially foolhardy?
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Just talked about HR/9 a bit below, check out http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1292&position=P#advanced – or any other quality pitcher with lots of seasons. That’s one example of a stat that needs more than a year. On the offensive side, how about BABIP? Allowing homers and getting hits can have the biggest of effects on baseball outcomes, but it can vary greatly from year to year. I still consider HR/9 and BABIP to be useful in the real world, though, because I can compare them against that player’s career totals as well as the major league averages to determine the extent to which I feel the effects are properly representative.
I still consider HR/9 and BABIP to be useful in the real world, though, because I can compare them against that player’s career totals as well as the major league averages to determine the extent to which I feel the effects are properly representative.
Yes, but can you do that with UZR? That’s the point.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes: look at career average UZR/150 – which hopefully encompasses several seasons – and consider that league average UZR for a given year is always 0.
My point was
in a roundabout way, that HR/9 and BABIP aren’t measures of pitching ability, or even measures of how well player X pitched (maybe you could argue at a very basic level they could be). You can get a fair idea for what the baseline level of each should be without using a pitcher’s career data.
For instance, say Jess Todd comes up to the major leagues and records a FIP of 5.00 for the season, but he gives up 2.00 HR/9. Now, we know that’s likely not representative, even without ANY additional career data, because the average HR/9 is going to be nearer 1 for most pitchers, and, additionally, we can work out whether he looks particularly unlucky on his HR/FB (which is even more consistent between pitchers). Likewise with BABIP, we can determine that someone giving up a .380 average on balls-in-play has likely got somewhat unlucky.
Now, if (say) Jarret Hoffpauir comes up, and records a UZR of -20 over the course of a season, how do we begin to question whether that’s a true indicator of his talent or not? Comparing against the major league average isn’t that helpful, because we don’t know whether his UZR should be anywhere near the MLB average, or even look at the underlying peripherals (such as HR/FB) to determine whether it’s a fair indicator of what he’s done. Without including subjectivity, it’s a lot harder to use UZR over a sub-optimal sample size than it is to use any of the pitching/hitting metrics because there’s a lot we don’t know about it, and because it’s not (AFAIK) calculated from fairly simple peripheral metrics from which we can do a fairly dirty subtraction of some elements of luck etc.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
For someone coming up from the minors, I would contrast their UZR with TotalZone at Minor League Splits (Colby, for example) with what I think based on my observations.
As for a HR/9, somebody could consistently have one of two or even higher – the MLB average is much lower than that, but the crappy pitchers don’t get to play much of a part in that average because they’ll quickly fail. So it’s back to Minor League HR/FBs, for example, and an attempt at league and park adjustments.
Ah, but then you're not using the metric
you’re using a different metric, and your observations, and not using UZR at all. That’s not really making a case for the utility of UZR.
With (say) FIP, or wOBA, you can look at the final “scores” you get from the metric, and then look for any reasons why the individual components of the algorithm are potentially “wrong” in terms of predicting someone’s skills. For instance, in 20 starts, you could look at a pitcher’s FIP, and then check to see if it appears his HR/9 (part of the FIP calculation) is inflated due to an unsustainable HR/FB rate. Of course, I can ALSO look at their minor league record, and actually watch them pitch, but I can make educated guesses as to how accurate FIP is, based on the component parts of it. I can’t do that with UZR.
That’s what I’m saying, in a nutshell.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Neither HR/9 nor HR/FB are components of FIP, it’s just straight up HR.
I still don’t see what the problem is with using one stat to attempt to verify truth in another, though; if I want to know if someone’s a liar, should I only ask them? How does that help?
There are still many components of UZR which can be objectively verified, though: the arm stuff, for example, which MGL himself says comprises ~25% of OF defense.
I don’t consider fan scouting reports, TZ, RZR, PMR, +/-, or anything else to be a MANDATE for the interpretation of UZR either. I look at it, and I look at the player. If it makes sense to me, I stop. If I’m curious, I dig. Same with FIP.
Neither HR/9 nor HR/FB are components of FIP, it’s just straight up HR.
The FIP formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)3-K2)/IP so in effect it does include HR/9 (i.e. it measures the number of HR given up in the number of innings pitched). Otherwise it’d be a counting stat, which would be a bit ridiculous.
I’m not saying there’s any problem whatsoever with using one stat to validate another – but here we’re arguing as to the efficacy of UZR. Not UZR plus TZR plus +/- plus scouting reports, but just UZR. UZR is, after all, all we use to determine the win values for the player, and I think this is how the discussion started.
I’m merely arguing that ONE of the drawbacks with UZR is that it’s not as transparent as FIP or wOBA so (using the HR/9 and HR/FB analogy above) you can’t, say, look at one of the peripherals inputs of the metric (say, % of out-of-zone plays) and make a particularly meaningful stab at interpreting exactly how representative it is of a players’ fielding talent.
Not only does UZR not stand alone as well as, say, FIP, as a bare measure of a player’s ability or achievement, but it’s also not as easy to combine with other stats in a meaningful way.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree that it’s not as transparent as FIP, and I do think that’s a bummer! Complex problems can sometimes require complex solutions, though, and I think this is one of those times – fielding percentage, putouts, DPs, and the like aren’t cutting it.
I do think UZR is a fine measure of fielding achievement, but the extent to which that is either personal or positional is a potential debate for the ages and personally consider that part unclear to the point of warranting visually observed correlation.
Personally, I’m more concerned about input bias between STATS and BIS than the formula itself. Take UZR, isolate positioning, and computerize the data collection and I’d say you’ve got the makings of a superb stat.
How about this explanation:
- He’s changed leagues and is hitting in a good lineup for the first time in his career. He’s also now hitting in a popsicle stand vs. a park where fly balls go to die.
- It’s been said by scouts and coaches (I’m getting this third hand obviously) that he’s better at going back on fly balls than he is on coming in. Because of the short LF in Philly, he’s able to play shallower and still get to balls hit deep, so he’s gobbling up more balls that would have been base hits in Seattle in front of him without sacrificing the balls getting hit over his head. In short, he’s got a lot less ground to cover in Philly than he did in Seattle, another reason why defensive metrics for outfielders REALLY need to be taken with a grain of salt.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Or
Since he has played less than a half a season, its likely he is just overperforming his true defensive ability.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions
yes...
… but UZR routinely destroys LFers in Boston and Houston, who have the smallest LF of all. so that can’t really be it.
I'm just going by what I hear...
and I’ve seen them play twice on TV this year — he really does seem more comfortable turning an running than coming in. Don’t ask me why, as it doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Joe Posnanski
says that Ibanez has gone on 50-60 game tears like this in the past, but they went unnoticed because he played for poor, small-market teams.
"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter
heard on The Herd (sports radio), but don't know how true
Ibanez weight over the years (can’t remember exactly but roughly)…
04: 199
05: 200
06: 205
07: 210
08: 211
09: 227 (something like an extra 15 lbs this year) – interesting coincidence? Dunno.
I have a hard
time believing MLBs official weights for players. However, I’m not saying that Ibanez has or hasn’t put on weight.
"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter
i refuse to read through all the "i have a bigger sabermetric penis than you do posts", so i don't
know if anybody pointed this out, but posnanski has a good article up about how ibanez does this every year and has a 50-game spurt of hitting a ton of homers. he’s just a streaky hitter.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jun 12, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
sorry, now I see spants put it up. my apologies.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
gotta admit that was a great discussion, though
even if it was utterly and completely off-topic for the designated “all trade talk here” thread. Someone needs to go through and flag all of them for that.
- "I went at it and didn’t slow down, so it kind of bounced off me." -Lil' Dunc
It's not about the size of your sabermetric knowledge
it’s what you do with it that counts.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 13, 2009 4:54 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No.
It isn’t.
"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter
TWSS
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 13, 2009 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions
It is, in fact, what I said.
"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter
yeah
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 14, 2009 2:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Not to flash my huge sabermetric penis...
But Poz showing that Ibanez has had streaks in the past by no means shows that he is a streaky hitter.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 13, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
size doesn't matter size doesn't matter size doesn't matter size doesn't matter
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
Felipe Lopez
I saw a piece on mlbtraderumors arguing that the D-Backs should become sellers. Seems reasonable to me.
So, see what the D-Backs want for Mr. Lopez. He’s having a pretty good year- .297/.353/.425. Move Skip back to the outfield (skip, rasmus, probably ludwick as the regulars).
Unload some of our outfield surplus/minor leaguers- get Lopez and a 3rd sacker. I vote for Beltre. As I said above, I don’t think he would cost much in players if the Cards would pick up the remaining 8-9 million on him for this year. Take the risk that he’d accept arbitration, which could actually work in the Cards advantage, potentially.
Next year, let a ST dog fight among the various 3rd base potentials (wallace, freese, craig, mather), if Beltre moves on.
This offense and defense would improve and I don’t think these moves would clog up pipes between Memphis and StL.
Felipe Lopez is a worse hitting version of Skip, who plays slightly better defense
We reheheheheally don’t need him. I agree that we should move Skip back to left, get Beltre, and my personal favorite Kearns as well.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 8:41 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure I see your point about the offense
His numbers this year are a tick above Skip’s. Besides, Skip would be still with the team in this scheme of mine.
Skip
Rasmus/Lopez
Pujols
Ludwick/Rasmus
Beltre
Lopez/Rasmus
Molina
pitcher/Ryan/Greene
Ryan/Greene
I know, lots of variables in that lineup, but we all know how TLR likes to tinker.
Anyway, I guess I need some more arguments before I’m convinced that those two moves wouldn’t improve both the O and the D this year, plus still keeping the lines of promotion open for next year.
by Scarecrow7775 on Jun 12, 2009 8:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Lopez is a slight upgrade over Schumaker
But he would likely be a downgrade over Thurston/Ryan when you factor in defense. I agree that we need a third baseman, we just don’t need Lopez.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions
perhaps
but isn’t offense the main offender this year?
by Scarecrow7775 on Jun 12, 2009 9:02 AM EDT up reply actions
... a run saved is as valuable as a run scored ...
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
True
but you can’t save negative runs and win without scoring any either…
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Pujols will take care of that :)
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
-- Benjamin Franklin.
A run saved is not, however, a run earned. In fact they’re almost opposites. Right?
There's no "I" in team. There's also no "I" in "B-g Mac Land".
To me it’s much easier to see the value in the “run scored” part of that statement. If someone hits a 3 run homer it’s definately 3 runs scored. If someone makes a nice play at ss it’s more vague as to what the value is. A good play might not save any runs but give the pitcher an easier inning, it may cause a third out that stops a runner at 3B from scoring, or it may be the extra out that stops a big inning from occurring. Both of them are important for success but a run scored doesnt have as many variables. It = a run scored. And we need some runs to be scored!
"I don't take no anesthetic. Did Lincoln ask for any girlie gas when they blowed his head off?"
by boba schrute on Jun 12, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s definitely 3 RS, but the situational value of defense can also be applied – was it during a 20-1 blowout? 3 runs were scored, but I’d rather have a leadoff walk in the ninth inning of a tied game. People look at the average run expectancy of a given event to eliminate the situational context, and I think that’s the right way to go. One perspective is at http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/why_saving_a_play_is_worth_08_runs/ which simplifies each defensive “play” (e.g. Dewan +/-) to be worth 0.8 runs.
the left side would be strong
and the right side of the infield would be about the same except with slightly better O. Plus, our outfield D and O would benefit with moving Skip there.
by Scarecrow7775 on Jun 12, 2009 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions
looked at baseball reference and noticed...
1. Kinney appears to be doing pretty well with 27K’s in 22IP and a 3.22ERA (concl: trade Perez/Motte)
2. Remember Royce Ring…interestingly…20K’s in 23IP with 1.17ERA
3. Brett Wallace’s defence doesn’t appear to be that bad this year…not a stat expert but Fld% of .969 and RF/G of 2.48 looks decent for a 3B to me.
I'd be up for seeing Kinney back in StL
which is partly why I might include Perez in a trade for something useful (Beltre/DeRosa).
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 12, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
I'd rather deal Motte
I still think Perez can be our next closer for years to come.
On with the (good) youth movement!
heartbreaking
is a better word than “nice”, imo. but there’s still hope.
- "I went at it and didn’t slow down, so it kind of bounced off me." -Lil' Dunc
interesting bit from leach
matthew leach asked larussa and duncan about kinney yesterday and apparently walters was recalled over kinney based on the recommendations of the AAA staff.
I wonder if there are any thoughts about flip flopping K-Mac and Welley for a while. If Welly’s velocity is down this year from the mid 90’s(when he had success) to the high 80’s-low 90’s (where he’s just had the succss-no “e”) then maybe he could crank up the volume for an inning at a time and be useful to the team again. I’m starting to have hopes again for Ank to put it back together. He didn’t look like a fluke this week, he looked like what we all expected this spring. If he and Ludwick can each get just moderately better think of how much better off we’ll be and how that affects what we need from the trade market. Maybe that would allow us to focus on 3B and maybe another pitcher. That seems like a fixable situation.. For a while it was looking like our only stable positions were Albert and Yadi. With Brendon Ryan coming on, Ank + Lud showing some signs of life (they’re not stable yet, I know), Rasmus pouring it on hard as of late, we could see some better days ahead. We’ve been lucky enough to hang around towards he top during what was hopefully the worst stretch we’ll have all year. A couple more pieces may put us over the edge for real. And if Tony stops playing Dunc so much I’ll never request Dunn again. Scouts honor!
"I don't take no anesthetic. Did Lincoln ask for any girlie gas when they blowed his head off?"
K-Mac
hasn’t been a starting pitcher in over three years. I don’t think you can flip flop them and expect McClellan to be an effective pitcher outside of 30 pitches or so, because that’s the amount of pitches that he’s been throwing for the better part of 2 seasons. Not that he can’t start again, but it’s a change that should be made in spring training where there are opportunities to work on building up arm strength and durability and developing a throwing schedule in between starts.
He’s also been very successful in his current role and we have no idea if Wellemeyer would be successful in that role, so flip-flopping them may end up being a net-negative for the team. FWIW, I don’t think that it’s worth the risk.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
I just read that Drew may be available by the Dbacks too. Maybe we could do some shopping with Arizona. i don’t know much about S. Drew though. Any thoughts? We may be set at SS if Ryan’s the real deal.
"I don't take no anesthetic. Did Lincoln ask for any girlie gas when they blowed his head off?"
why on earth would they make stephen drew available?
he’s young, under club control, hits well, and plays a high value position defensively (not very well, granted).
he costs them almost nothing, so he wouldn’t be good as a salary dump. doug davis, garland, or qualls would make sense. not stephen drew.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
Good question...
but why on earth would not offer Adam Dunn arbitration when he himself said he would decline it? They decided not to because they didn’t want to pay an extra draft pick.
They are slowing becoming the Clippers of the MLB.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
they've got a ways to go to catch Pittsburgh, Florida and San Diego
bit of a shame all the cheap-ass teams are in the NL.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 13, 2009 4:57 AM EDT up reply actions
that doesn't seem right..
… after all, they could have have taken the pick and not signed him, giving them another pick next year when they may have more cash.
they must have thought there was a chance he’d accept, especially after seeing the kind of deals that Abreu and Burrell were getting.
ADAM DUNN NEVER LIES.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 15, 2009 6:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Mark Reynolds
There is talk of the d-backs eventually becoming sellers and that anyone on their team could be had for the right price. Now, I’m not sure what that “right price” is for reynolds but i think he would definitely be an upgrade. He is a 1.6 WAR player so far this year according to fangraphs. He plays average defense at 3B with a -4.2 UZR/150. Right now he’s hitting .265/.359/.525 with an ISO of .260. Now Chase Field is a park that heavily favors hitters but his career home/away splits don’t seem to favor arizona that much.
Again, i don’t know what kind of package it would take to get him. I would imagine that its less than zimmerman as Reynolds is a year older and not quite as good even though his numbers are this year. Their farm system is pretty bare especially as far as position players go. A package of some of our younger hitters to restock it might interest them.
Thoughts?
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Definitely
Reynolds is an above average player, with potential, who is under arby for a couple more seasons.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 13, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Duncan swap?
Shelley Duncan is hitting .310/.379/.670 with 20 HR, bats right-handed, and is stuck in AAA.
Chris Duncan is probably the better outfielder since he’s been playing there everyday, but his bat probably belongs in AAA.
maybe they could pull a Parent Trap.
how bout sumthing radical like
trade ludwick for sum prospects
put shumaker and ankiel in right field
leave rasmus in center
get power right handed bat in left
move thurston to 2nd
leave b. ryan at ss
trade for adrian beltre to play 3rd
sign unemployed veteran for cheap to help the youngsters out and play infield (idk who)
that would probably give us one of the best defensive teams in the majors and the lineup could look like
rf shumaker
ss ryan
1b pujols
lf power right handed bat
cf rasmus
3b beltre
c molina
2b thurston
or
ss ryan
cf rasmus
1b pujols
lf power right handed bat
rf ankiel
3b beltre
c molina
2b thurston
Why trade a power-hitting right hand corner outfield bat (Ludwick) for prospects,
and then trade prospects for a power-hitting right hand corner outfield bat?
Ladies and gentlemen, roll up for Dr Mozeliak’s Mindbending St Louis Cardinals’ Trade Carousel…
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 15, 2009 6:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Peavy injury possibly out 8-12 weeks
Original estimates had the injury at a month. Article on cbssports.com by scott miller contains the following:
“It could be eight weeks, easy,” Todd Hutcheson, San Diego’s head athletic trainer, said Friday before the Padres opened a series against the Los Angeles Angels. "It could be 12 weeks if things don’t come along as fast as we’d like them to.
Luke Scott of the Orioles
Don’t know if he was mentioned or not because i didn’t feel like reading 400 comments. I read today that he may be on the market and I think he would be an intriguing option. He is 30 years old with a 2.4 mil contract for this year and is a FA after the year so he would be a rental.
His stats for the year are
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
Season 45 156 26 49 7 0 14 36 19 33 0 0 .314 .392 .628 1.020
First what he is is a LH DH/LF. I know your saying we have one in Dunc already so why would we want another. Especially one that has played LF only once this year. Looking at Fangraphs though he had a 5.0 UZR and 7.1 UZR/150 last year for Baltimore. For his career he has been 8.9/8.0 respectively although some of that is in Houston. Dunc is negative in both this year and his career so it would be a definite defensive upgrade. Heck Ankiel is – for his career in LF and I see alot of people liking him there instead of Dunc.
Next would be his O. People wil say that he is a lefty and we already have plenty of those especially in the OF. According to ESPN’s splits he is hitting .364 and OPSing at a 1.338 clip against lefties this year while being slighly below .300 and .900 against righties.
What do you think?
getting an OF would be tough
the problem is that with almost any OF you get, he won’t be an everyday player on this team. unless its someone with a “name” like holliday. and in that case he will just take PA’s away from lud and raz.
i don’t think ank of dunc are going anywhere. we aren’t just going to DFA them and they definitely don’t have any trade value. therefore they will stay on the roster and as long as they are on the roster larussa is going to give them plenty of playing time.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Yea one would have to be traded
Preferably Dunc. Maybe to the Orioles as a throw in.
I would prefer Ank,Raz,Ludwick left to right thru the outfield. If we could acquire Scott then Scott,Raz,Luddy and have Ank as the super sub.
Duncan could be optioned.
He has one option remaining. That’s really what needs to happen; bring in an RHB at 2B or 3B, option or DL duncan, and move Skip to the backup LF role.
- "I went at it and didn’t slow down, so it kind of bounced off me." -Lil' Dunc
agree with that.
No to Luke Scott
1) He’s a lefty.
2) He’s having a career year, thus we’d be overpaying for him in prospects.
3) That annoying mlb.tv commercial with the usher from Camden Yards talking about how he once slide into home plate after hitting a home run really sucks and makes me hate Luke Scott and everything he stands for.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 15, 2009 6:46 AM EDT up reply actions
He's a pretty good player
ZIPS projects him to have a .378 wOBA the rest of the way, and he has a career 8.0 UZR/150 in left. Suffice to say he would be much better than any of our current options.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 15, 2009 7:49 AM EDT up reply actions
oh definitely
but I’d rather have someone who hits lefties much better, I think that’s our main problem. He actually (as cowcards said) has good splits, career, vs LHP (without any apparent luck in his BABIP) but it concerns me that he’s only had 300-odd PAs vs LHP (as opposed to over 1,100 vs RHP) which suggests to me he’s been platooned most of his career, so the sample size is quite small – also, if he has been platooned, he’s probably rarely started vs tough LHP and has probably been held out of most late inning matchups against lefties, too.
Still, he’s definitely valuable and would be better than Ank or Dunc by the looks of it. I’d just rather have a righty in the OF, platoon him in LF with Ankiel and let Dunc work out his lack-of-any-production problems in AAA.
The other issue is that Scott is presumably worth more to the Orioles than some of the other OF rental options – he’s on a cheap contract, so Baltimore have no real salary-dumpage need to get rid of him, AND he’s been very good this year so it’s not like it’d be a “buy low” opportunity. I’m thinking he could cost as much as a DeRosa rental.
Although it’ll take 2 or 3 all-star additions to make us one of the better teams in baseball, I still feel we can be competitive in a weak division this year with one or two relatively cheap additions and better use of our current roster (sadly, unlikely to happen under TLR). Adding a proper 3B (or even hoping Khalil might be average there), shifting Thurston to 2B, cutting some of the dead wood (Dunc, maybe Schu?) either in trades or by optioning, and adding a RH OF bat rental (I like current Felonius_Monk/vivaelpujols man-crush Austin Kearns) can at least make our lineups slightly less embarassing, which might just be enough in the NL Central this year.
That said, our offence looks so shit at the moment that ANY addition, Scott, Atkins, whatever, would be warmly received in this isolated enclave of Cardinals Nation.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 15, 2009 8:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
I still think Kearns would be the best option. He’s an excellent defender who can mash lefties, and given the Nats surplus of outfielders, he would come cheap. We would then have to trade either Duncan/Ankiel/Schumaker. To me, they are all pretty much equal in value, and given that Ankiel’s contract expires after next year, he might be the best trade chip.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 15, 2009 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure anyone would give up much for any of them, unless they're looking for the other side of a platoon
e.g. a LHB who can hit righties. I would keep duncan because he still has an option and might turn into something productive next year when he’s a year removed from surgery, so we could dump him down in Memphis this year. I think Ank/Schu have the most value right now to the team, I’d personally probably keep both on the roster (although I would be receptive to a trade for anything worthwhile). Schu’s the sort of just-about-worthwhile piece that someone might give up for an impact reliever later on in the year or something.
I wonder if Ankiel might just end up being a type B – probably not but I guess it’s not impossible if he hits 20 HR the rest of the way. I’d be happy to use him as a bat off the bench, CF reserve (behind Colby) and the left-side of the Kearns platoon. Schu is worth keeping as a 5th OF option/occasional 2B vs RHB, and that means we can send one of our many middle infielders back to Memphis.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 15, 2009 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions
I like Kearns too
and moving Dunc to AAA.
I’d be happy to move Skip, Ank, and/or Thursty, plus any reliever not named Motte or Perez.
Proud sponsor of the Official 2009 StL Cardinal theme song: Reason to Believe
Also, the Nats seemingly do not give a crap about Kearns and he is playing badly.
If he costs more than a D prospect it would amaze me.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
He's owed $9m this year
we’d be on the hook pro-rata, but as they’re out of contention and need every cent for strasburg, it wouldn’t surprise me if they did a prospect-for-prospect trade of equal value and gave us Kearns as a throw-in.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 15, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Jordan Zimmerman anyone?
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 15, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I hear they're looking for a left-hand hitting first baseman
who’s really bad at catching balls in left field. They’re going to platoon him four ways with Adam Dunn, Nick Johnson and Mike Jacobs, who they intend to trade Strasburg for.
Probably.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 15, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Freddy Sanchez hasn't been mentioned yet
He plays 2B and 3B, bats R, has been worth 3.65 WAR/162 games the last 5 years, and is having a nice rebound season from his awful year last year (on pace to be worth 4.75 WAR this year).
He’s paid 6.1M this year, and has a vesting option for ~$8M next year that will almost certainly vest. The pirates can’t be happy about having to pay that salary next year, whereas we’d have room for it with Glaus moving on.
Replacing skip at second with Sanchez over the rest of this year, assuming they continue their current rates of performance, would be very close to a net 4 WAR increase over the remaining 99 games.
Maybe we could build a package around one of our young pitching prospects, like Tyler Herron?
- "I went at it and didn’t slow down, so it kind of bounced off me." -Lil' Dunc
BTW he'd cost ~$3.483M the rest of this year
Surely they have that much “dry powder”, especially now that the attendance isn’t down anywhere near what they thought it was going to be down?
- "I went at it and didn’t slow down, so it kind of bounced off me." -Lil' Dunc
The Penguins are done
Attendance is bound to increase.
My avatar is 3 years into the future for sure...
I am guessing
you are joking about Herron?
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 15, 2009 6:46 AM EDT up reply actions
well, I've heard a rumour that the pirates are interested in him
not sure how true it is, though.
- "I went at it and didn’t slow down, so it kind of bounced off me." -Lil' Dunc
no I mean
Herron was dumped by the club for no apparent reason a couple of weeks ago.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 15, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
It's like trading for a veteran except you don't even have to give anything up...
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
can't beat the price
seems scott wuerz stole bdw’s byline when he created " view from the cheap seat(s)"
"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
It's like trading for a mediocre-hitting shortstop with terrible on-base skills and mental issues to play out-of-position
without having to give anything up, Dan.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 15, 2009 6:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Except your soul,
and your dignity.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
what if you never had either one?
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
then you'd probably be posting on a Yankees blog...
- "I went at it and didn’t slow down, so it kind of bounced off me." -Lil' Dunc
that might help explain why i'm a member at pinstripe alley
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
I will be in favour of this
ONLY if it portends moving Thurston to 2B as an everyday player. At least Pujols-Thurston-Ryan/T.Greene-K.Greene is an excellent defensive infield (I think with Greene’s arm he’ll be above-average at 3B), and we’re then only a right-handed OF bat away from being able to field something that might slump its way into the post-season in this crappy division.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 15, 2009 6:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Platoon infield
LHP
AP-Ryan-TGreene-KGreene
RHP
Duncan-Schu-Ryan-Thurston
(just kidding)
AP-Thurston-Ryan-T or KGreene
More likely the RHP option would be,
AP, Schu, Ryan, Thursty
which would hit fine but hopefully it’s Carpenter pitching rather than Thompson/Pineiro.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
you all do know thursty's not an every day player right?
Boog & Greene are the best MI’s we have. they should be starting every game.
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
assuming boog's the 2B in your scenario
he’s not the hitter that Thurston is IMO. I’d say it’s a push, at best, between them at 2B. Ryan won’t hit .300 for the rest of the year.
Because chicks dig the intentional base on balls.
by Felonius_Monk on Jun 15, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Like you I am not a fan of the idea
of giving Thurston starter status. Too much exposure for him. Off the bench- that’s his safe zone, his home, etc
K Greene going to play third? Well, what the hell. Let’s see if he can pull it off.
For his sake more than the team I’m hoping he can piece SOMETHING together on the field.
by Scarecrow7775 on Jun 15, 2009 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Instead of who, how do we bring someone in?
I know this is a bit tangential to this post, but I wonder if others share my pessimism of management not doing anything again. Last year’s no LOOGY acquisition=painful memories.
How would people feel about sending Mr. DeWitt a message by pushing for a Cardinals boycott day? In other words, we would select one home game to boycott and spread the word around in various blogs, and let Mr. DeWitt know ahead of time. This way DeWitt can’t claim it as a sudden downturn in the economy that caused the low attendance for that day. I want the owner to know, for one game, what it feels like to have the attendance of the Fish or Nats.
I don’t want to sound too hard on DeWitt, as we have enjoyed some great teams and good financial commitment in this decade, but the recent three years (including the very lucky 2006 year) have been absolutely maddening.
It’s just really frustrating to have these really cool discussions on our blogs of who we could get potentially, and then not having any movement at all. Or almost never.
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red
If we actually are going to acquire someone
Brian Roberts would be an excellent choice. He would require a decent return, but if we are gonna blow prospects we might as well do it on him. He could immediately replace Skip at 2B (Skip could be a part of the package or moved back to outfield) and would be an immediate improvement both at the plate and in the field. His line for the year is .299/.366/.462 and he is solid against both LH (.293/.360/.400) and RH (.301/.369/.489) pitching. HIs glove is a clear improvement over Skippy, and he can provide some additional speed to the lineup (he already has 13 steals which would easily be the most on the Cards). His average, on base, slugging, and OPS are all second only to Albert among Cards position players. He could provide a decent glove up the middle, a definite threat with the bat and on the basepaths, and most importantly would mean somebody who can get onbase at the top of the lineup. If the Cards are going to go out and make a deal, this is the one I think they should make.
I would love to get Brian Roberts
But it would take quite an offer. Doesn’t the owner of the Orioles love him like a son or something?
There's no "I" in team. There's also no "I" in "B-g Mac Land".
peter angelos is crazy
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
I would trade Wallace and a pitching prospect straight up for Roberst
He is an allstar player signed to a relatively team friendly deal. He’s 31, so he may decline a little, but he is still a 4-5 WAR player going forward.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 16, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I know this would not satisfy the "win now" mentality
but what would it take to get Brandon Wood from the Angels? They could use some bullpen help, and I’m sure they would not object to dealing for Franklin. A young SS with 30 homer potential, and his defense isn’t horrible.
if we could get Wood for Franklin
that would be a fabulous deal.
- "I went at it and didn’t slow down, so it kind of bounced off me." -Lil' Dunc
Seriously
The Angels would have to be retarded to make that trade. Then again, they don’t seem to like Wood much at all. If they are desperate for a reliever come trade deadline, it might be a possibility.
St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/
by vivaelpujols on Jun 16, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Obviously
it would take more than Franklin to get the deal done. But you have to think with all the problems they have had that Franklin would be a big part of the deal.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Have you criticized Hanley Ramirez on Twitter? Your name may be on his bat!
- U.S. senator cries foul over Nationals plans to take back park from Phillies fans
- Photo: Comerica Park readies itself for Hockeytown
- Podcast: Dirk Hayhurst talks about Italy, the reality of the big leagues and his new book
- Dennis ‘Oil Can’ Boyd claims he used cocaine before a majority of his games
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
