CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
Yep. I still don't really like the Kemp deal because it's a health risk, but I feel like a large portion of the "statistical media" is panning every move as some sort of weird reaction to that deal.
Great article. It's been interesting to see what writers are understanding what Preller is doing versus those that see that the acquired players are flawed in some ways and immediately see overpay.
I'm not surprised it is someone with a fantasy background. Most of the good fantasy players I know are constantly doing something to get slightly better, making moves in volume rather than waiting for the big score.
Preller is aggressively improving his team now step by step. I doubt he's done. $15M net and prospects he's lost just aren't that big a cost for +8 wins or so. Especially once you factor in playoff contention, excitement and the upside of some of the players.
It'd be really awesome if this was tagged Top 10 prospects so it wouldn't be such a pain to find.
I appreciate the subtlety of thinking in this transaction analysis, but what it is really missing is some of the basics. I've noticed this with every analysis of the Stanton deal so far. Everyone is in such a rush to point out the complexities, they are forgetting to ground us in the basics.
Like the fact that PECOTA projects Stanton for 50 WAR over the first 9 years of the deal. Seriously, why isn't there a projection in the article? The only projection I see is that he might be worth somewhere around 30.
Assuming the same decline, it's about 55 over 10. Even without rising inflation of the cost of a win, that's actually worth $30M/year.
Yes, there's injury risk, and yes there's likely a huge revenue and salary bubble out there that pops at some point. But if he's a 5-win player on average the rest of the way, this is a steal by current pay rates.
This is your mayor: http://online.wsj.com/articles/st-louis-to-america-dont-be-jealous-1412273454
That should be enough evidence.
Eh, as a Padres fan, I'm more than okay with the firing. I never understood the machinations that went on with the Byrnes hiring -- why anyone would want a GM with such a middling track record.
While some of the extension failures seemed like good ideas at the time, there's a been a series of questionable decisions around resource allocation and player development/drafting.
I will reserve judgement until I see the replacement, but Byrnes' track record is more eh than something to be worried about losing.
He's one of those guys where if you frame it as "does he deserve to be fired" then maybe not, but if you frame the choice as "are you likely to get a better option" then yes, I think there are quite a few better choices out there.
So is there really no real value on other games, or are managers not taking advantage of something they should?
At minimum, it seems like they may be wasting off days.
This is really good work, but I have to admit I really don't understand the application of regression to the mean.
On one hand, you aren't adjusting for disproportionate counts received, which implies to me you are looking to measure past value and not true talent.
On the other hand, you regress to the mean, which feels like you are trying to measure true talent and not value.
It seems an odd mix.
I get accuracy, but I'm not sure I understand 'carry?' Isn't that just a function of arm strength? Or are you saying he does a bad job of launching the ball at the appropriate angle to the ground as well as right to left (which I assume is in accuracy)?
(I get carry off a bat, but no one's putting backspin or topspin much differently on a throw, right?)
Perhaps, but it's certainly not voting according to the instructions.
And why apply game theory when there's no real consequence here?
It is informative to me that even with a fact-based and statistic-based site (and yes, I know you have a lot of folks who aren't that way who are marginal contributors) that Curt Schilling isn't a HOFer even after allowing an expanded ballot.
I'm kind of stunned by that.
I admit I didn't get all the way through the article, but one other possible issue is that reading the ball off the bat could be affected as the angle of the fielder's vision would be changing.
You hear players comment a lot on this. I've haven't seen statistical backup, but it makes a lot of sense. Instinctual reaction is based on repetition -- does moving your outfielders make them worse for a while?
It doesn't change your conclusions, but I wonder if the big break, 80mph "fastballs" at the back end are actually mis-read changeups? How many pitchers throw an 82-mph fastball?
I usually like your writing, but this is a terrible article. And fairly insulting to the umpires involved.
I have no dog in this fight, and I find both Sox and Cardinals fans tediously annoying and their actual teams fairly likeable.
This entire article is an attempt to bring into the discussion things that simply don't matter in order to muddle the waters.
The umpires guessed? No, they did not. They don't feel that way. I'd imagine if you took this into a courtroom or an arbitration setting, the people ruling wouldn't feel that way, either. Of course, I have no way to prove this.
You exhibit all the worst arguments out there -- first, immediately disarming anyone certain as if they were biased. Since you are arguing in favor of uncertainty, you establish yourself as the reasonable one, and inherently target anyone certain as mockable. As you do in your entire second paragraph. Just because someone is certain does not they are so because they root for one team or because they aren't as even minded as you. Sometimes it is because they are right, or can actually make a decision.
Your argument for "it could go either way" is an unfuriating argument because uncertainty does not mean you are right -- and the open-mindedness the uncertainty argument implies gives the arguer often undeserved credibility.
To back yourself up, you begin to make pointless arguments -- Craig caused Middlebrooks to fall! Is there anything in the rulebook to argue that should have an effect on the call? Anything at all?
In soccer, we evaluate intent! Soccer is irrelevent.
In other parts of the rulebook we evaluate intent! Actually, by the fact that it is specifically mentioned elsewhere and not here tells us intent is most likely irrelevant.
And the neighborhood play isn't even in the rulebook, is it? Why is it here? It's something the umpires consistently allow because it is presumed to reduce injury. It's widely accepted and known. None of that applies to this call.
The rule is fairly clear. There's some wiggle. I suppose they could have called it the other way with some roundabout explanation, but it was called according to the rulebook. It wasn't a fifty-fifty play.
(Morally neutral? What does that even mean? Was there a call out there in the universe here that was morally evil?)
It certainly wasn't a guess. Many of your arguments make sense for why the rule should be changed, but not why you'd call it differently.
My first thought as a Padres fan was Bud Smith. But then I realized, no, it was the Padres, who have a long and storied history of getting no-hit under the most random of circumstances. The pitcher seems almost irrelevant at these no-hitters -- the Padres simply refuse to get a hit.
Fantastic article and parallels a lot of my feelings as a fan.
Keep writing -- you're good at it.
Great article. Love getting this kind of detail.
One question on terminology. A #3 starter would be an average ML-level starter, right? But I thought a 5 was an average ML player -- that a six was "above average."
I'm sure I'm missing something obvious.
The big gap in scouting report seems not to be an inability to evaluate, but rather in an inability to understand who and what can improve.
While the first (who) seems just simply tough, the second is sometimes baffling. It's not just in baseball -- it's in every sport.
But thinking someone can't get stronger? Or that a guy with a great arm can't ever learn control? The former might be the single easiest thing for a player to do. The latter is certainly easier than adding stuff.
Kerry Wood. Never quite seen a pitcher be so dominant and he was never close to the same. Prior's on the list above, and he had a similar issue, but Wood was so amazing to watch.
The short version: A's ownership does not want people to come to the games and is not shy about announcing it, both in action (they do not make the most of their stadium or try to improve the experience) or in words.
Outsiders never seem to realize it, but these owners don't like baseball. They were looking for a real estate deal and are pissed they haven't been able to pull it off.
For Clemens and Bonds, when you are discussing big hall/small hall, isn't the difference between those who voted for them and against entirely in Clemens and Bonds?
Didn't Clemens and Bonds voters vote for 4.6 non-Clemens/Bonds people (about) and non-C/B voters vote for 5.5?
We know the people who didn't vote for C/B are doing mostly for PED reasons (and the first ballot people) -- so aren't most C/B voters actually voting for less people on merit once we ignore PED users?
The best is the Rays one ... simply because the Twitter handle is "hue knows baseball."
Why not Raines? He seems so clear to me (especially relative to folks like Martinez and Palmeiro). Can you elaborate more?
It's not so much the evaluations of the relative players, it is the timing.
You make the point that many of their previous prospects aren't panning out -- but that actually would make the trade worse as it means there's no chance the Royals compete next year.
The best case scenario for this trade for the Royals is that Hosmer and Moose hit like crazy -- and so the extra wins Shields and Davis bring on the pitching side have any real relevance.
This trade shows one of three things:
1) Possibly unjustified confidence in their young talent to mature in the next 1-2 years
2) A belief that if they don't win next year they are all fired
3) An intense desire to break over .500 for no apparent reason
Thanks so much for the response!
Great article. One thing that I'm explicitly missing in some places -- though it is implied -- is the why.
Why does a pitcher need great balance? What does an 80 balance do for Matt Cain? More resistant to injury? More consistency in performance? Higher velocity?
If you go to Baseball Think Factory, the Hall of Merit section has quite a few massive, interesting threads on Deacon White.
Over 50% of the crowd will be mostly trendy bandwagonners, waiting to be seen. They did not notice the Giants until about September of '10, ignored them after June of last year and are back.
Much of the rest will be people who got free tickets from Oracle, Salesforce or whatever B2B technology company out there decided to snap them up.
World Series are better than Super Bowls for the corporate atmosphere, but there's going to be a whole lot of non-Die Hards there. It's cool to be a Giants fan right now.
All good questions. Perhaps Cespedes was openly campaigning?
I also think that Cespedes probably got some ROY as MVP consideration.
Either way, if I'm a player, I'm not voting on merit if I've got a teammate in consideration. I really don't have a lot of incentive to do so.
Mean to say, "If I'm a player on the A's, and I can vote for Cespedes, I'm voting for Cespedes."
If I'm a player on the A's, and I can vote for Cespedes. What's my upside of voting for Trout? The sanctity of the Sporting News Rookie of the Year Award?
Or the chance that my teammate comes by and wonders why I didn't support him.
It's like telling your wife she looks fat in that dress or telling a friend that's he's definitely a better catch than the new guy his ex-gf's with.
I don't think it's a very useful analytical stat from the outside (or as an analytical stat from the inside).
But a player -- or coach -- thinks differently for a reason, I suppose. Reading the ex-players' quote, it reminds me of how Joe Morgan used to talk. The way a player should think to get optimal results on the field isn't necessarily how a GM should think.
This actually might be the best narrative -- Cabrera had the best year because it was in this year that he worked hard enough to take a new/retake an old position, thus allowing an upgrade of Prince Fielder over whomever their third baseman would have been.
It's a bit of semantics, but if I were running his PR campaign, I'd go that route -- selfless teammate, hardworker -- create a narrative that basically says we should give it to Miggy this year.
He's in, easy. Likeable, big numbers, understandable reason why his career numbers aren't there.
I really can't see him being excluded.
Seems to me MLB made a great practical decision.
Who wants an award winner -- no matter how trivial some people think it is -- to be someone who cheated in the time period they won it for?
It's bad PR, and MLB's customers won't like it. Why make this a question of principle?
Anyway, this is far from the first time that batting title has had chicanery around it targeted at individual players. I wish Steven Goldman were still around -- I'm sure he'd remember all the stories.
Even thought I knew they were coming by the second one, and it's the same joke, still hysterical.
And I doubt Chase will keep the power, at least if he stays in Petco and certainly not at this level anywhere.
That said, his 2010 was very strong and better than anything Zeile ever put out. Strong OBPs, good defense and if he stabilizes his power in the high teens (in Petco, 20 or so elsewhere), he's a valuable player.
The ballpark, San Diego and the lack of winning makes Chase run under the radar. But he was a big trade target for a reason.
Zeile wasn't bad, but I wouldn't be shocked to see Headley end up with three or four seasons better than his best.
Pre-2010 Headley? I'm not sure it's really valid to expect a regression to the levels of performance from three years ago, centering on the players' first 1.5 years in the majors.
And given the levels of performance over the last three years where he's average 3 WARP (if you are more comfortable with BP), falling to about 1 WARP a season is kinda cliff-like.
(Also, Chase is a very good defender. He had some error issues last year, but both my eyes and a lot of fielding metrics like his D. Not sure why FRAA is different).
I guess my point is that Zeile wasn't all that good, by anyone's metric, and that it's not unreasonable to view Chase as a better player and expect him to continue being better.
Well, Zeile had 11 seasons where he was somewhere between 2.9 fWAR and 1.4 fWAR, but usually over 2. That's a nice player.
But Headley's already had two seasons that were significantly better than Zeile's best and a third that would be up there for Zeile.
Headley's three best seasons comprise 14.1 to date. Zeile's best three were a total of 8.6. Todd's best 5 seasons only total to 13.9 fWAR. (The bWAR numbers are lower for both, but still mostly in line with each other).
Yes, Zeile had another six useful seasons and Headley could fall off a cliff, but this isn't his first good year, and it's been twice as valuables as Zeile's best year.
It's been more than a good half season (2010 was also very strong), and I think a vast majority of people would bet on Headley having a better career than Zeile.
Also: is there a player you would have thought to be less likely than Phil Plantier to be a hitting coach?
"See, what you do is have an incredibly uppercut -- like sixty degrees -- and then swing so hard you can barely keep your eye on the ball."
Not saying it didn't work for Phil, but...
Sweet! I didn't miss it.
I had completely forgotten the Padres tried Chase in left field for those seasons, both wasting his strong defense and putting him in a situation where he was a) obviously uncomfortable and b) had to focus on things other than hitting.
I don't know if the position change made a material difference to his bat, but I remember it wasn't an overly easy one just from body language, etc.
It totally made sense at the time.
Formersd has a good point as well about the heat. He was crushing it before the really strong heat wave, but the day/night splits at Petco are pretty differentiated and the marine layer is as important as the size of the OF in terms of crushing power, IMO.
Oddly enough, I have had this conversation before at a ballpark. We also discussed constantly moving outfield walls.
It's Chase Headley. Unless he got married/got fused together in a mad scientist's experiment with teammate Nick Hundley.
The other thing about Petco and bringing in the fences is that the dimensions really aren't the biggest problem: it's the weather.
For whatever reason, the cool, marine layer that's there in 99% of night games seems to kill fly balls. For such a big park you'd expect a ton of doubles...but no, not so much.
In the daytime, Petco plays just fine.
In the end, whether it's the infield or the weather, bringing in the fences will add home runs, but bringing them in too far could bring a weird imbalance -- almost no doubles or triples and even a reduction in singles as the outfield could play in even more.
I think part of this is the bias towards small ball and the logical idea that home runs often happen on mistakes where as you can always go to speed and manufacturing runs (it's easier to move a runner over than hit a homer; "speed never slumps").
I think part of it may be errant analogies to other sports. In basketball or football, defenses can change how they play to stop certain aspects of your offense. A one dimensional offense, when game planned against, can be shut down pretty easily.
In baseball, there's little game-planning difference between the regular season and the playoffs. Oh, sure, you might bring in more situational relievers or run more on a weak catcher or employ a shift, but relative to what happens in the NFL? It's nothing.
Yes. Burroughs has become a poster boy (and not in this article) for a guy who didn't develop, but there's a lot more there.
People also forget that he had 40 XBH in 500 ABs at age 22 in the majors. Oh, it's not like he was destined to be a power hitter, but he was not a slap hitter when he first came up.
For whatever reason, and the personal issues are a likely contributor, his power regressed and then his game completely fell apart.
Huston Street is injured as well.
I don't know if this is the appropriate place, but one scouting write-up I'd love to see is on Cory Leubke. You watch him, and he just doesn't seem like he should be as effective as he is. He was never a scouting darling, but somehow, that fastball really works well now. Curious to see why scouts think he's so effective.
As a Padres fan, the answer to "What could go wrong" is usually "everything."
Like Tarakas, I'm curious if they fixed the injuries.
Also, I've never found the in game simulation to be reliable -- despite not being an incompetent manager, my winning % when playing games is massively lower than straight simulation.
Lastly, anyone know if they fixed the prospects? A few generations ago, no players ever really reached the level of current players. It was odd.
You may run like Mays, but you hit like ...
Boo. Thanks for being one of my favorite writers on this site. You will be missed.
Hopefully, you can begin to make Bleacher Report something worthwhile, rather than a collection of random people who post more for controversy and hits than anything interesting. I can't say you'll fit in, but maybe you can bring up the level of both analysis and writing there.
Fun. The actual market efficiency here is that the Academy is very old, very white and very enamored with anything that makes them feel or look important. (And I say this as a fan of movies and the Oscars).
Oh, a movie that glorifies my profession and reminds me of the days of my youth! Splendid!
Is it any wonder that the two front-runners were a movie about an actor in the silent era and movie about the early days of film and how important it is to remember and celebrate our film history?
Alas for Marty Scorcese, the artist's dog was cuter than Hugo's dog.
Yes, you should.
Otherwise there is absolutely no incentive for the state to maintain any fairness. Maybe you were speeding, maybe you weren't. The bigger evil here would be a state that does not need reliable evidence to charge and convict, no?
He's repeatedly said he is innocent. What am I missing that he's not arguing he didn't use?
People seem to think these tests are infallible. Even if handled correctly, there can be errors.
I am not sure why people are so disbelieving that he could be innocent. They process thousands of tests a year, right?
There's absolutely no doubt that's Brian Giles.
Fun article, if the only thing I really learned is that Pavement fans are crazy defensive.
Does this comment address any point listed in the article above? The writer lists only two concrete data points for either Smith or Evans being HOF-worthy (lifetime WARP, JAWS) and they both seem to pass the test there.
The rest of the writer's discussion focuses on trying to figure out why they got so little support. You admit the players are at least borderline -- they should have gotten more support than they did.
The Tony Perez comment is an odd strawman, since he's never mentioned and doesn't meet either of the standards the writer uses. And the rest of the commentary:
"You have to realize, back then, the stuff that matters now didn’t matter then…And I don’t mean walks…Walks always mattered…It’s just that drawing 3 walks in a Milwaukee-California game in September 1972 meant nothing..."
I may be the only one, but I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You seem to be saying playing on a bad team makes it substantially easier to perform. Or you could be saying since it didn't matter in the standings, the player should get no credit.
Either way, I'd like to see any data backing up the former and I doubt anyone involved with you at the HOF agrees about the latter.
Also, there are really a lot of stat gurus that didn't see Morris pitch? It's not like he's Juan Marichal. Dude was pitching in the 90s.
I have to admit I'm confused.
If you're going down that road -- Jeff Bagwell specifically -- how do you 'prove' he didn't use steroids?
You can't -- just like they can't prove he did. All you can hope to practically do is prove that their assumptions about why they think he did steroids (he was good, he had muscles, he didn't look like a traditionally good player) are wrong. Which is what Colin was doing.
When you say this, what's the piece of evidence that is convincing? Are we dividing 1B into hulking (Frank Thomas) and non-hulking (Wally Joyner, another "obvious" 'roid user)?
I agree that engagement is a good route, but the targets tend to move when people do not verify that the "evidence" they are using has no value.
It's funny. I think there's a much higher chance that Jeter did than Edgar.
But this is really a discussion about the connotation of the word "evidence," isn't it? I don't doubt the denotation of the word works for what you were saying, but the connotation feels very strong to me -- it feels like somewhat unassailable, like videotape of a murder in a trial rather than "he's bigger."
Uncertainty in writing is something that you are taught is poor writing -- persuasive essays should be written as persuasive.
But I find being honest is more important to me than convincing someone of something I don't believe entirely.
Also, is the payout really worth $50 M just to keep a player away from a competitor? That seems like a steep price.
Others: Kurt Bevacqua. Geoff Blum.
Great stuff - Can we get Team as a filter on the reports? I've noticed it's dropped off a lot of reports, so if I wanted to see those stats for all the say, Cardinals, it'd be a pain unless I put them all on my "tracker."
Which is a pain.
I am absolutely certain that everyone at BP, including Jay Jaffe, would rather their customers "whine" so they can react to the feedback than simply take their money elsewhere.
It is not unmanly or weak or even childish to comment on a way a product you use or pay for could be improved.
Frankly, your reaction is ridiculous hyperbole (really, it made you "ill") to people giving balanced and measured feedback. I don't think they are the ones that need to grow up or stop whining (and yes, whining about other people's comments is still whining).
Excellent review. I appreciate an honest and balanced commentary on it.
The problem with Lew Wolff is he's never been serious about building a new stadium. The man is a real estate developer looking for a publicly funded handout.
He's never made a real effort to invest in anything in the Bay Area and if you go to an A's game, you'll see it. Terrible food, terrible policies, a complete lack of effort on the business side.
He has no interest in succeeding in Oakland. He wants to move the team to a place that will gift him land and public improvements and perhaps even cash so he can develop an area around a stadium and make money.
Contrast that to how new Warriors ownership is behaving and you'll see the difference and fan response (once the lockout is resolved).
Hundley actually has a pretty good arm (which I think is backed up by decent CS%). Some of his pitchers aren't great at holding people on, but my hypothesis would be that the SB Attempt % has more to do with the run environment than Hundley's rep.
Or is that the just Padres %? If so, Hundley's been hurt much of the season and the backups really aren't ML catchers.
There's a whole lot of anti-Moneyball sentiment out these days, so I'm happy to see this movie be good. Caught up in the "scouts have value, too" movement (and they do, and stat-inclined people were way too one-dimensional in the past, etc) is this misremembering of the extremely reactionary environment major league baseball and the media around it could be.
I'm glad the movie seemed to capture the brilliance of the book, which was essentially a story about people figuring out how to solve a problem despite real constraints by breaking artificial ones (conventional thinking). Even if sometimes their thinking could be constraining, too.
Calling the Padres contending is pretty generous. But I imagine he's up about five minutes after Ludwick is dealt.
Blanks was actually a pretty strong performer as soon as he was promoted. He had a 137 OPS+ in 2009 in 172 PAs.
The next year, he struggled mightily, whether because of injury (he was hurt), the league adjusting, or just simply a cold streak or a combination of all three. He played just 33 games before undergoing the knife.
But Blanks had a 54-game run at the end of 2009 which anyone would be happy with -- 19 XBHs in 172 PAs playing his home games in Petco.
James Darnell? An outfielder? Or too old?
The best argument against including active players is Phil Nevin, who would have undoubtedly made this list at this point, but his 30+ career resurgence seems to exclude him now.
This is a quibble I've long had for years with any analysis done on run expectancy and decision-making. It's always done on league average.
In many cases, this is not useful. Your team, the ballpark, the opponent, etc. all play a major role in decision-making, and using league average info can lead to a poor decision.
So many Padres...sigh.
It's about time someone evaluates individual prospects in the context of reality -- that even most top 100 prospect don't end up being more than mediocre major leaguers and many don't make it at all.
For every Tampa that actually saw it's youngster lead the team to the playoffs, there's several Arizonas and Dodgers, who have watched many of their top young players flop or level off -- and the Giants, Rockies and Padres have won most of the last few playoff spots.
If anything, I'm more annoyed that it was YET another article that centered significantly on the Yankees. I'm a Padres fan with no interest in the Yankees -- why no Chase Headley/Will Venable stories?
In a really cranky, bitter voice, where everything sucks, but yeah, where they talk about baseball!
I thought it was an entertaining and actually informative article (I honestly had no idea).
For those who disliked it ... there were plenty of disclaimers and you could tell what it was going to be about from sentence two. Why did you keep reading? Why did you comment?
Personally, I have no interest in many of the articles on this site (I maybe even start reading half), but I simply don't read them. If it became a trend, okay, I see simply complaining that you'd like more interesting content, but really, does anything think this is more than a one time thing?
I'd also say that I'd prefer it not be the top prospect. I think most of us are in tune with what the scouting world thinks of Jesus Montero by now, thank you very much.
As a Padres fan, I'm less interested in Simon Castro than Adys Portillo or Jonathon Galvez for something like this. There's simply more extant information out there on Castro.
I'd echo this. That was very cool.
Without doing any real math, what looks overrated is teams that ended up having bad bullpens and what looks underrated are often teams with good bullpens.
Perhaps it's because that's the highest variance or perhaps it's in the playing time dynamic or possibly just how PECOTA handles relievers.
Wait, you're not interesting in just fawning over your own team's/fantasy team's prospects over and over again?
What are you? Weird?
Before he went to MLB Network and disappeared, Matt Vasgersian was great for the Padres. New school style, but still fantastic, which is hard to find these days.
My issue with the comparison to Gwynn, Jr., is that TGJ is one of the best CF in baseball this year, statistically and by quite a few people's eyes.
Hunter has always been referred to as a mediocre CF -- which may or may not be true at this point because that's been the book for so long I wonder if public information is really relevant.
If Hunter's not a top-notch CF defender, he's got to hit better than Tony.
Thank you for putting this out there. It seems like everyone who opposes replay at all always creates a straw man by making replay the most cumbersome system ever (basically, mimicking the NFL instead of college football) so that they can say "It will take forever."
Heck, if Jon Garland is pitching, you can do the replay before he ever steps on the rubber for his next pitch.
I would bet for some pitchers it is a repeatable skill. Chris Young, in particular seems like he always got a ton of pop ups. With his deceptive delivery and the fact that he'd throw a lot of high fastballs, it seems like there's logic to back it up.
Would running the numbers against Pitch f/x data make more sense? High fastballs? "Rising" fastballs? Isn't this more likely to be a cause to a pop-up?
On Juan Oramas, I get that he's relatively unknown and 5'10" or whatever, but he's only 20, pitched very well everywhere he's been and I've heard his fastball does about 88-91.
What makes him only a relief prospect? He's not a 24-year old college pitcher in high A.
The starting pitching for the Padres will eventually decline, because pitchers like Jon Garland aren't quite this good.
Still, the Padres haven't been inordinately lucky. We've gotten virtually nothing (somewhat predictably) from our best pitcher, had our starting SS injured for most of the season and now have lost Scott Hairston.
Only one hitter is really hitting wildly above expectations (Torrealba) so there's probably some upside to the hitting.
Since it's a spring training article, I'd think the window you're looking at is more what's happened last year and what will happen this year.
I'm not sure why you'd hold a quick commentary based on extremely recent events to a trend line from 1993.
SB were at their highest level since 2001/2 last year, and several teams have stated the usually overstated intention of running.
I do think more teams are shifting to more of a running game. The rest of article may be bland, but honestly, I think you are being overly dismissive of the upticks.
Just because we're not heading back to the 80s yet doesn't mean there isn't some shift.
Thanks, tb. I've bought it for the past five or six years at least, so I will probably pick it up. But the projections are a big part of it for me.
Has anyone bought the book?
Are all the projections in there just as bad? I'd like to know before I spend any money on it.
Why isn't it available on Kindle? Will it be?
Heath Hell has a huge add? He's not short but he's not CY. Is it something specific to him or is the Padres' mound somehow factoring in?
Maybe not enough of a prospect to make your list, and yes, it was Arizona, but Rymer Liriano (SD) put up a 4-4 line with 3 HRs and a BB, scoring six knocking in 6. Not too shabby a game. Any thoughts on him?
People at the ballpark will cheer the name on the back of the jersey.
But no one is buying a ticket they wouldn't have bought to see him.
Gerut wasn't even making that much. It is just an awful trade.
A great example is Adrian Gonzalez. He was drafted #1, and traded twice.
He had a .272 OBP and under a .400 SLG over 192 ABs when traded from the Rangers to the Padres. He was blocked by Texeira, but he was also considered something of a bust, perhaps because he seemed to have spent so much time in the minors.
Then at age 24, he had a major league season that was better than his minor league line.
I\'d love to see a repetoire for every listed pitcher -- especially at the lower levels, with fastball velocities. You may already be doing this, but I find it is really hard to find what a guy throws, especially when he\'s in Low A.