CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
Half of this is playing devil's advocate, the other half could be ignorance, but why is the statement so preposterous?
I'll guess it's only playing 75.8% of the games in RF, the chart requires 80% or more. If OF was used he would have qualified, but 16 of the games came in LF, 110 in RF in 2011.
I've always thought of Harmon Killebrew for a good comparison to Thome's career. Both came up as 3B before spending more time at 1B. Took a few years to become a gain a full time spot in the lineup. When they did, both hit HRs and maintained a high BB rate (and Ks).
I'm not sure I agree with this, why don't you see collisions of this magnitude anywhere else on the field? Surely there are very similar scenarios at other bases.
This is my question as well, but I'll phrase it differently, hopefully I've interpreted your meaning correctly. A force out may be a little less defensible, but from a rulebook perspective, how are the two plays different?
How about every stolen base attempt at third base? Similar situation: ball coming from a 90-degree angle compared to the runner, no force in play. What kind of uproar would there be if Matt Kemp or Jay Bruce barreled through David Wright instead of sliding during a steal attempt? Would the same people say the runner's job is to separate the 3B from the ball? I would probably steal third every time I had a runner on second. How fast would the rule be changed then?
I feel the umpire can absolutely determine intent in regards to these plays, and should be allowed to eject a player if he deems his intent was to hit the fielder and not go for the bag. They're allowed to make this judgement call when it comes to pitchers and hit batsman, this one will be easier to call. Rare is the time when a slide "gets away from you".
To evo34's point, should the catcher sit indian-style (can't still be PC) on the plate, he gets what he deserves. This scenario is something my friends and I growing up also thought was a good idea. :)
Bobby Abreu for Kevin Stocker is always the one that sticks in my mind. Abreu put up a 4.5 WARP versus Stocker's 0.9.
"For one thing you would never get the Player's Association and the teams to agree on where to set the age; too low and the teams would claim that they would not get sufficient return on their investment, too high and the players would claim that many players would never get to cash in as free agents."
- I disagree. There's an average age at which players become free agents right now. If I suggested one year younger, the players association would be in favor of it. If I suggested one year older, the owners would be in favor of it. If I suggest the same age, maybe they could agree. And I'm sure there are other factors, but let's not get into it because we're not answering the question.
I'll rephrase. Why is it better to base free agency based on service time rather than age? There may be legit reasons, I'm just not thinking of them right now.
I think this is the most opposite example of random there is. The age is determined to be 30? Age is 30, no randomness.
As to the high school/college question, does one group tend to reach the majors and therefore qualify for free agency at a younger age? Or would it be fair to say that the three or four years of player control you would get for drafting a high school player would be spent developing him in the minors anyway?
What would be the downside of just setting an age after which you're eligible for free agency? Whether it be 28, 26 or 31 it would end all of these decisions to manipulate a player's service time. As soon as a player enters your organization, you know how much time you control him for. There would be no excuse for not having your 25 best players on your roster.
Agent007's last sentence is the exact thought I came in here to post. As long as the Gonzalez contract doesn't tie up money that would be otherwise used for a necessary piece, then it may just be an investment in a very useful trading chip. Especially if Gonzalez makes it through the year or two healthy, because he's always performed when not on the DL.
I have to agree with Chris Perry. This trade wasn't about filling a positional need or cashing in on a potential free agent. The ages are about the same - Diamondbacks are getting two years older in total age - so it's not about getting younger. The D-Backs is saying he expects Jackson and Kennedy to outperform Scherzer and Schlereth. If I can call Schlereth and Kennedy a wash - young players with good potential who haven't done anything in the big leagues yet, even ignoring Schlereth's lefthandedness - that leaves Jackson vs. Scherzer. I'd like to see what the scouts say about those two because most of the standard peripheral metrics are favoring Scherzer. Not knowing the contract situation of either, I also have to assume Scherzer would be under the club's control for longer therefore cheaper since he's only entering his third year and Jackson debuted in 2003. Can't believe Jackson is only entering his age-26 year.
I do have to wonder if one factor is Hinch is looking for easier names to say and spell for his lineup card.
What sold me on mandatory cup wearing for everyone was watching our catcher get hit while batting, attempting to get out of the way of an inside pitch. The ball ricocheted well over 15 feet. I can only imagine how that would have felt without the cup.
Which manager was Nick Swisher talking about? I'd assume Guillen since all the other quotes are from him, but Guillen's quotes makes me think he and Swisher weren't the best of friends.
I believe there was an article on this site a couple years ago explaining all denial quotes that GM offices and player agents have when discussing free agents or trades. Just because Wade never talked to Pedro doesn't mean he or his office has not talked to his agent.
I didn't disagree with you about the pitching. If the Yankees can give up fewer than 700 runs, I'm sure every Yankee fan will take it. I agree that the Yankees will not have 3 of the top-5 pitchers. Though to nitpick, I count Burnett ranked as the 10th highest VORP projection in the AL. I also agree that Chamberlain will not outperform every Tampa Bay starter, let alone by 25%. My question for that statement is, Is the error with Chamberlain or with the Tampa Bay starters? Chamberlain had a VORP of 32.9 in 100 IPs in 2008, and projected to be 38.1 in 150 IPs. Do you not think that is reasonable? If that is the best case for Joba and he can't perform any better, then maybe we should knock off a win or two from the Yankees. If the error is with Tampa Bay, then the Rays should get a win or two added and the Yankees should stay the same. And if the error is with the Tampa Bay starters, which one? I think this is also due to PECOTA not being able to predict in blanket statements, it's easy to say one out of five guys will be better, much harder to know which it will be. Like if a computer program was picking the 5-12 matchup in the NCAA tournament. Chances are one of the 12s will win, but taken on a game by game basis it'll take the 5 every time.
To lay some more overall facts out there, the Yankees surrendered 727 runs last year. If I may stipulate that one of these free agents will be a wash with the numbers Mussina put up in 2008, I would think it's fair to say the other would greatly outperform the combination of Darrell Rasner (5.40 ERA/-0.6 VORP) and Sidney Ponson (5.85 ERA/-0.9 VORP) who combined for 35 starts and 193.1 IPs.
I did disagree with your analysis of the offense. Yes, Cano had a 6.6 VORP. So for him to get to 20 would be a significant improvement. I wasn't looking at VORP when I said it only had him improving marginally, I was looking at OBP and SLG. How an .018 point bump in OBP and .009 in SLG, all in fewer PAs equates to a 13+ VORP jump is a little beyond me though. Fantastic baserunning? But by the same token, Damon had a VORP of 39.4 and is now projected at 21.7. That's a 45% drop, not a rebound. Also with ARod's and Teixeira's projections being best case scenarios - while be projected to post some of their lowest numbers in over 5 years, 10 in Rodriquez's case. If Teixeira puts up those numbers, nobody will be chanting MVP. And Yankee fans will never chant MVP for ARod, no matter what numbers he posts.
So I'll stand by my claim that the Yankees will score more than the 789 runs projected for them, even after the ARod injury (adding up the depth chart it's now 751). No, I do not think the pitching will allow only 671 runs, but I do believe they'll give up fewer than they did in 2008.
There was something screwy with Dunn\'s card when he signed with Washington. The projected numbers listed here on the Depth Chart/PFM and his weighted mean were different. It looked like the weighted mean and percentiles were updated to reflect his move to Washington, yet the line used in the Depth Chart and PFM still had his projection before he signed. I\'m guessing that was with Arizona as his home park, or maybe a neutral park. I\'m glad to see it is at least consistent now, whether it be higher or lower. I guess higher would have been better for the Nats fans. :)
I\'m not sure where you\'re coming from when you say best case scenarios. PECOTA is predicting Damon to decline from his 2008 numbers in any metric you look at, not rebounding. Cano is to increase his OBP only 20 points and coming in with the same SLG. Not something I would classify as a rebound considering the bar he set in \'06 and \'07. Teixeira is to post his lowest OPS since his rookie year in 2003. Rodriguez is to post his lowest OBP since 1999, lowest SLG and OPS since 1997.
I\'ll agree with you on your pessimism regarding Posada and the 6th starters, but the last thing I would call the overall team predictions is best case. If anything, I would expect the Yankees to outperform the offensive projections by a solid margin. We\'ll see about the pitching though.
Transfers would be a lot easier to pull off. You wouldn\'t need the have the right mix of prospects to pull off a deal. Think of Santana last off-season. Twins could have just sold him to the highest bidder then went out and got the players they wanted with that fat payout.
The system would probably be much closer to this, but the commissioner put the kabosh on it back when Charlie Finley tried to sell off his stars to the Yankees back in the 70s. I remember Vida Blue being one, can\'t think of the other offhand.
Under the European soccer (football) system of transfers, a player does get to play only where he wants. His contract is only with the club he\'s playing for, that contract doesn\'t transfer to a new club. So even if another team buys that player, the player then gets to negotiate terms with the new team. If he doesn\'t want to play for that team, he doesn\'t sign a contract. That\'s what\'s holding up the Kaka transfer, Milan would gladly take the money, but Kaka said he doesn\'t want to play for Man City.
So there is no draft, no being bound to a team for six years waiting for free agency, no getting traded to a club you don\'t want to play for. Much more indicative of a free market.
Rangers 6/130 12/22
These are my exact sentiments, so I\'ll give mrgriffey his due credit by replying to his. I have no problem with a hockey prospectus, or any other sport, but not coming from Baseball Prospectus.