The deal is for 3 years and apparently a little more than $40m with an option for 2013.
It's rare for players to get better after an injury plagued season at 33, but Chipper has done just that. He's not going to play in 162 games, probably won't play 150, and your lucky if he even gets 140, but when he plays he's going to mash. In the past 3 years, even though he hasn't played full seasons, Chipper is still 6th in the league in wins above replacement. Impressive Stuff Mr. Larry Wayne Jones.
This is a good sign for the Braves. Chipper doesn't have to match his recent output to make good on his contract. In fact, if he just plays about half as well as he has last year it's still a good move. Chipper is obviously brittle, but he always plays in at least 100 games, he's never played in less than 109 in his entire career. If he keeps this up it will serve the Braves and Chipper very nicely.
Tony Gwynn is Mr. Padre, Cal Ripken Mr. Oriole, I think it's safe to say Chipper is Mr. Brave. It will be interesting to see how his career ends in terms of the Hall.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Tigers Release Top Sheff
Rather than keep Gary Sheffield around, the Tigers decided to pony up the $14m or so and release him. My has his stock fallen. Sheffield's always been a headache, but he used to always be good enough to keep around in spite of it. Now he just plain old stinks.
He has 499 HRs and a borderline Hall of Fame career. It will be interesting to see if he can get that one extra HR. With guys like Frank Thomas available, you think Sheffield may not even get that chance. Not that he needs 500 to make or break the Hall of Fame, but you gotta think it's a landmark Sheff would want to cross.
What about that Hall of Fame anyways? His simscores courtesy of B-Ref are The Crime Dog, Griffey Sr., Reggie Jackson, Mantle, Billy Williams, Mel Ott. It's a mixed bag. Most similar are borderline worthy guys, but also in the group are slam dunk guys. A few years ago it seemed like he'd get significantly past 500 HRs, and seemed to be a good bet to go in. Now with the injuries late, and some more steroid controversy I just don't know if he's good enough. He may have to join Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Jeff Bagwell, and Larry Walker on the outside juuuuuuust looking in. Although if I were to choose one of those guys to get in it would be Sheff.
He has 499 HRs and a borderline Hall of Fame career. It will be interesting to see if he can get that one extra HR. With guys like Frank Thomas available, you think Sheffield may not even get that chance. Not that he needs 500 to make or break the Hall of Fame, but you gotta think it's a landmark Sheff would want to cross.
What about that Hall of Fame anyways? His simscores courtesy of B-Ref are The Crime Dog, Griffey Sr., Reggie Jackson, Mantle, Billy Williams, Mel Ott. It's a mixed bag. Most similar are borderline worthy guys, but also in the group are slam dunk guys. A few years ago it seemed like he'd get significantly past 500 HRs, and seemed to be a good bet to go in. Now with the injuries late, and some more steroid controversy I just don't know if he's good enough. He may have to join Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Jeff Bagwell, and Larry Walker on the outside juuuuuuust looking in. Although if I were to choose one of those guys to get in it would be Sheff.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Lackey Out for April
John Lackey will likely be joining teammates Ervin Santana and Kelvim Escobar on the sidelines, or on the DL, until about May. I didn't like the Angels this year before I knew Ervin and John (let's use first names) were going to miss some time, I certainly don't like them now.
Oakland doesn't have a good rotation to begin with but for April and May they may have a better one than the Angels. If they can start with an early lead, and if their young guns get better (Brett Anderson and Trevor Cahill) I say they win the division. I've said this before, but I mean it more when you 1st, 2nd, and 3rd starters will miss the first month and a half.
Oakland doesn't have a good rotation to begin with but for April and May they may have a better one than the Angels. If they can start with an early lead, and if their young guns get better (Brett Anderson and Trevor Cahill) I say they win the division. I've said this before, but I mean it more when you 1st, 2nd, and 3rd starters will miss the first month and a half.
Morrow To Close, and Some Housekeeping
I pride myself on posting a lot without having actual readers. I more or less write this crap for nobody, at least noone that I know. I've said it before and I'll say it again, my posts per readers ratio has to be the highest in all of blogging, at least baseball specific blogging, I'd say on a weekly basis it's 7/1. With that said, I haven't kept up my 30+ posts per month pace so far in March. That's kind of weird considering they have actually started to play some games in March, regardless if they count or not. However, have no fear because this is not a trend.
Back to some baseball stuff, Morrow was named the closer today. This really affects fantasy people more than it would baseball people, but so what. If, and I'll use the cliche that's a pretty huge if, Morrow can stay healthy he'd be a great closer. I loved his starting potential this year especially before he got hurt and a little less after, but still liked him a lot. I figured if he threw 160 innings he could strike out close to 180 with great ratios because of Safeco Field and the defense behind him, the Mariners have Adrian Beltre, replaced Ibanez with Endy Chavez, and essentially have 3 CFs in the outfield. That will still obviously help him as a closer, but not as much in less innings. The Mariners shouldn't be that good, but neither should the division. They have to win the close games, and if they do, Morrow will put up a lot of saves.
This situation seems common nowadays. Team brings up gunslinging pitching prospect, team puts him in relief because of innings, pitcher dominates/shows dominance in that role, pitcher has some sort of injury even though they were trying to be cautious in the first place, debate on which role to use the pitcher. Jon Papelbon had a ridiculous year as the Red Sox closer in 2006 (35 saves ERA under 1), but his arm got tender at the end of the year. Team tries him out as a starter the next offseason, but early on he decides he wants to close. Joba Chamberlain comes up in 07 as a reliever so the Yankees can use all their resources, he does amazing despite that one bug game in Cleveland, next year there's a debate if he should start or close, he gets hurt comes back that year as a reliever, new debate again this year which role he should be in.
The point I guess I'm trying to make here is that teams always try them out as starters. Starters are significantly more valuable than relievers, and teams know that. I don't care how important the 8th and 9th innings are, 65 innings of those can't equal 180+ innings of a starter. Papelbon, Morrow, and Joba all showed dominance as relievers, and in all three cases the team still tried to use them as a starter. The only time they make them relievers is because of injury, a doctor telling them it would benefit their health from being a reliever, or the pitcher prefers to relieve.
I say this because recently I got into that typical New York debate on what to do with Joba with a friend. He said reliever and as you would expect I said starter. I don't think Joba, or any other pitcher in a similar situation, should be a starter with no ifs ands or buts (lol butts), but I do think they should be given the chance to start with no ifs ands or buts (lol butts). You are hurting yourself if you don't give them that chance. It's not unlikely that they get hurt because all pitchers do, but it's highly unlikely they get hurt to the extent where they can't just come back as a reliever. The Mariners have no closer and Morrow is currently hurt, ok put him in the pen. Jon Papelbon had a full season as an established closer and after trying to make him back into a starter he decided he wanted to close, ok with no other closers as an option put him in the pen.
But Joba? He has the best closer of all time behind him and he didn't get hurt last year because he was starting not relieving, why put him in the pen?
I don't need to go through the arguments for or against this any longer. At this point everyone has their opinion and they are unlikely to change. I just wanted to show you how the Morrow situation isn't evidence as to why Joba should relieve, in case you get into any arguments with your friends about this, and they try pulling that out.
Back to some baseball stuff, Morrow was named the closer today. This really affects fantasy people more than it would baseball people, but so what. If, and I'll use the cliche that's a pretty huge if, Morrow can stay healthy he'd be a great closer. I loved his starting potential this year especially before he got hurt and a little less after, but still liked him a lot. I figured if he threw 160 innings he could strike out close to 180 with great ratios because of Safeco Field and the defense behind him, the Mariners have Adrian Beltre, replaced Ibanez with Endy Chavez, and essentially have 3 CFs in the outfield. That will still obviously help him as a closer, but not as much in less innings. The Mariners shouldn't be that good, but neither should the division. They have to win the close games, and if they do, Morrow will put up a lot of saves.
This situation seems common nowadays. Team brings up gunslinging pitching prospect, team puts him in relief because of innings, pitcher dominates/shows dominance in that role, pitcher has some sort of injury even though they were trying to be cautious in the first place, debate on which role to use the pitcher. Jon Papelbon had a ridiculous year as the Red Sox closer in 2006 (35 saves ERA under 1), but his arm got tender at the end of the year. Team tries him out as a starter the next offseason, but early on he decides he wants to close. Joba Chamberlain comes up in 07 as a reliever so the Yankees can use all their resources, he does amazing despite that one bug game in Cleveland, next year there's a debate if he should start or close, he gets hurt comes back that year as a reliever, new debate again this year which role he should be in.
The point I guess I'm trying to make here is that teams always try them out as starters. Starters are significantly more valuable than relievers, and teams know that. I don't care how important the 8th and 9th innings are, 65 innings of those can't equal 180+ innings of a starter. Papelbon, Morrow, and Joba all showed dominance as relievers, and in all three cases the team still tried to use them as a starter. The only time they make them relievers is because of injury, a doctor telling them it would benefit their health from being a reliever, or the pitcher prefers to relieve.
I say this because recently I got into that typical New York debate on what to do with Joba with a friend. He said reliever and as you would expect I said starter. I don't think Joba, or any other pitcher in a similar situation, should be a starter with no ifs ands or buts (lol butts), but I do think they should be given the chance to start with no ifs ands or buts (lol butts). You are hurting yourself if you don't give them that chance. It's not unlikely that they get hurt because all pitchers do, but it's highly unlikely they get hurt to the extent where they can't just come back as a reliever. The Mariners have no closer and Morrow is currently hurt, ok put him in the pen. Jon Papelbon had a full season as an established closer and after trying to make him back into a starter he decided he wanted to close, ok with no other closers as an option put him in the pen.
But Joba? He has the best closer of all time behind him and he didn't get hurt last year because he was starting not relieving, why put him in the pen?
I don't need to go through the arguments for or against this any longer. At this point everyone has their opinion and they are unlikely to change. I just wanted to show you how the Morrow situation isn't evidence as to why Joba should relieve, in case you get into any arguments with your friends about this, and they try pulling that out.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Jeter to Lead Off
So for the rest of the spring Jeter is going to bat 1, and Damon 2.
In reality this move should have little to no effect, but it does help the Yankees a little I think.
For some reason, managers think that the 2 hitter always has to move the runner over, hit and run and do the little things. That's fine if it's the 9th inning and you need to manufacture a run, but in the long run the 2 hole is often wasted by some weak hitting SS, check out the lineups Dusty Baker will put out this year with the Reds as evidence. The Yankees never had this problem really because Jeter was a great hitter, but occasionally Jeter would take it upon himself to bunt or do those "little" things, that a great hitter like Jeter shouldn't do.
Now that Jeter is leading off, he should only be focusing about getting on base. And Jeter is actually better at that than Damon is. Some say the best hitters on a team should be the #2 hitter because you want your best hitters to get the most at bats without having nobody on base, and the #4 htiter because you want your other best hitter to hit with the most people on base. When Arod is healthy, why not keep Jeter at the leadoff, put Teixeira 2nd, Damon 3rd, and Arod 4th with the rest of the lineup being business as usual? You can't say Damon doesn't have the power, because he doesn't have any less than Abreu. And recently, Abreu isn't the OBP machine he used to be.
I like that Girardi isn't afraid to shake things up a little, but I hope he doesn't shake it up too much. Players tend to play a little better in defined roles, it would suit the Yankees best if they choose something and stick with it. So far I like this move, but if in April it turns to Damon back leading off, and then May back to Jeter leading off with Damon 3 when Arod gets back, and then June back to Jeter leading off, I won't be impressed.
In reality this move should have little to no effect, but it does help the Yankees a little I think.
For some reason, managers think that the 2 hitter always has to move the runner over, hit and run and do the little things. That's fine if it's the 9th inning and you need to manufacture a run, but in the long run the 2 hole is often wasted by some weak hitting SS, check out the lineups Dusty Baker will put out this year with the Reds as evidence. The Yankees never had this problem really because Jeter was a great hitter, but occasionally Jeter would take it upon himself to bunt or do those "little" things, that a great hitter like Jeter shouldn't do.
Now that Jeter is leading off, he should only be focusing about getting on base. And Jeter is actually better at that than Damon is. Some say the best hitters on a team should be the #2 hitter because you want your best hitters to get the most at bats without having nobody on base, and the #4 htiter because you want your other best hitter to hit with the most people on base. When Arod is healthy, why not keep Jeter at the leadoff, put Teixeira 2nd, Damon 3rd, and Arod 4th with the rest of the lineup being business as usual? You can't say Damon doesn't have the power, because he doesn't have any less than Abreu. And recently, Abreu isn't the OBP machine he used to be.
I like that Girardi isn't afraid to shake things up a little, but I hope he doesn't shake it up too much. Players tend to play a little better in defined roles, it would suit the Yankees best if they choose something and stick with it. So far I like this move, but if in April it turns to Damon back leading off, and then May back to Jeter leading off with Damon 3 when Arod gets back, and then June back to Jeter leading off, I won't be impressed.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
I Lied, Here's More
Jayson Stark chimed in about Schilling and here is what he had to say:
I get his point, he's had far better seasons than many pitchers who won Cy Young awards, but he lost out to otherworldly seasons. Schilling was an outstanding pitcher, but in his time he was the last of that first tier of pitchers. Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, and Pedro Martinez were all better pitchers during Curt's time. He didn't lose to a lucky Jack McDowell season or Barry Zito, he lost to pitchers that were better than him.
In 1997 when Schilling could have won a 4th Cy Young but I believe there was a young pitcher named Pedro Martinez that went 17-8, 1.90 ERA, with 305 strikeouts in 241 1/3 innings. That once again helps Stark's point that if not for other pitchers he could have won a few Cy Young awards, but the point remains that even though Schilling is outstanding and certainly deserving of the Hall, there were better pitchers in his time. Also, Tim Lincecum pitched on a pretty lousy team last year, it didn't stop him from winning the Cy Young, and if I recall the 97 Expos weren't too good either.
This is kind of a side point but I really hate when writers (who vote for these awards) talk about how many awards a player has, or should have had. They don't vote for a certain player during his career, then hold it against him when they decide his Hall of Fame candidacy. I once read someone say that when Joe Mauer's career is over people will complain how he didn't win an MVP (unless he wins one in the future). The same voters that snubbed him in 2006 and 2008 (when he should have won both) will snub him in 2025 when Mauer is light on the hardware.
When we did one of our famous "That's Debatable" chats last winter about Schilling's Hall credentials, people kept bringing this up -- that he "never won a Cy Young."Well, that's true. But he finished second three times (2001, 2002, 2004). And all three of those years, it took historic seasons by the winner -- Randy Johnson in '01 and '02, Johan Santana in '04 -- to beat him.
Take a look at his insane numbers in those three seasons:
2001: 22-6, 2.98 ERA, 293 strikeouts.
2002: 23-7, 3.23 ERA, 316 strikeouts.
2004: 21-6, 3.26 ERA, 203 strikeouts in 226 2/3 IP, while pitching in the AL East.So how many pitchers of his generation had three seasons that dominating without winning a Cy Young? That would be none. And ohbytheway, he could have won a fourth Cy Young in 1997 (when he went 17-11, 2.97 ERA, with 319 strikeouts in 254 1/3 innings) if he hadn't been pitching for the worst team in baseball (the Phillies).
I get his point, he's had far better seasons than many pitchers who won Cy Young awards, but he lost out to otherworldly seasons. Schilling was an outstanding pitcher, but in his time he was the last of that first tier of pitchers. Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, and Pedro Martinez were all better pitchers during Curt's time. He didn't lose to a lucky Jack McDowell season or Barry Zito, he lost to pitchers that were better than him.
In 1997 when Schilling could have won a 4th Cy Young but I believe there was a young pitcher named Pedro Martinez that went 17-8, 1.90 ERA, with 305 strikeouts in 241 1/3 innings. That once again helps Stark's point that if not for other pitchers he could have won a few Cy Young awards, but the point remains that even though Schilling is outstanding and certainly deserving of the Hall, there were better pitchers in his time. Also, Tim Lincecum pitched on a pretty lousy team last year, it didn't stop him from winning the Cy Young, and if I recall the 97 Expos weren't too good either.
This is kind of a side point but I really hate when writers (who vote for these awards) talk about how many awards a player has, or should have had. They don't vote for a certain player during his career, then hold it against him when they decide his Hall of Fame candidacy. I once read someone say that when Joe Mauer's career is over people will complain how he didn't win an MVP (unless he wins one in the future). The same voters that snubbed him in 2006 and 2008 (when he should have won both) will snub him in 2025 when Mauer is light on the hardware.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Last On Schilling, I Promise
It was no surprise that Schilling v. Mussina Hall of Fame arguments have been thrown around the internet and I have no problem with that (I've been guilty of it), but when you start mentioning David Wells in the same company I start having a problem.
From Was Watching:
So we know their ERAs weren't close. What about the postseason stats? I loved having Wells on the hill for the Yankees in a big game (save that time his back fell apart on him against Florida), but Schilling is on another level. Better record and better ERA in the playoffs, over a full run better.
Wells has more wins and a better overall winning %, but he pitched for the Yankees dynasty. Curt Schilling spent about a decade on some really putrid Phillies teams. Even with the difference in league, Schilling dominates Wells. Baseball Reference is an amazing site, and one great feature is how you can neutralize players stats putting them into the same league, park, with the same offenses. With that, Schilling gains a few wins and lowers his ERA to 3.15. Wells loses 19 wins and even though he lowers his ERA to 3.76, it still pales into comparison to Schillings.
How can you show us the stats and then tell us they are extremely close when we can see without analyzing a thing that they clearly aren't? It's from a Yankee fan site so I'm sure they don't think highly of Schilling but I'm a Yankee fan and I utterly hate the guy too. Sure they are similar players, but Schilling is significantly better. Schilling even comes up 5th on David Wells' similarity scores from Baseball Reference, along with Jamie Moyer, Kenny Rogers, Mussina, and Pettitte. Schilling's are Kevin Brown, John Smoltz, Drysdale, and Orel Hersheiser. I think I'll take Schilling's company there. When you compare very good players there will undoubtedly be many similarities, but that doesn't make them equal, and in this case both deserving of the Hall.
From Was Watching:
everywhere you turn, the question appears: “Is Curt Schilling a Hall-of-Famer?” (Michael Kay even asked Paul O’Neill the question during this evening’s YES coverage of the Sox-Yanks game.)They are right on one thing, they did pitch in the same exact era. But unless you can't read properly their numbers are not extremely close. Wells has an ERA over 4, Schillings is below 3.5. Schilling has an adjusted-ERA of 127, David Wells' is 108. That's not close, it's not even remotely close. Schilling's is the 41st best of all time career wise right there with Halladay (who has yet to hit a decline phase) and John Smoltz, Wells' is tied at 352, right there with Bronson Arroyo and Kenny Rogers. I didn't use ERA+ to help Schilling's case either, he ranks about 505 places above Wells on the regular old ERA list.Well, to that question, I offer two words: David Wells.
Curt Schilling pitched in the major leagues from 1988 through 2007 - playing for 5 different teams. David Wells pitched in the major leagues from 1987 through 2007 - playing for 9 different teams. Let’s look at each of these pitchers as starters, non-starters, and during the post-season:
As starters:
- Curt Schilling made 436 starts, pitching 3,079.3 innings, going 206-134, with an ERA of 3.43 during his career.
- David Wells made 489 starts, pitching 3,171.6 innings, going 221-144, with an ERA of 4.21 during his career.
As non-starters:
- Curt Schilling pitched out of the bullpen 133 times during his career - throwing 181.6 innings while allowing an opponent’s OPS of .686 and an ERA of 3.62.
- David Wells pitched out of the bullpen 171 times during his career - throwing 267.3 innings while allowing an opponent’s OPS of .680 and an ERA of 3.23.
During the post-season:
- Curt Schilling pitched in 19 post-season games, all starts, throwing 133.3 innings, going 11-2 with an ERA of 2.23.
- David Wells pitched in 27 post-season games, 17 being starts, throwing 125 innings, going 10-5 with an ERA of 3.17.
Two pitchers who threw in the same exact era. And, their numbers as starters, relievers, and post-season pitchers are extremely close. Therefore, if Curt Schilling is a Hall-of-Famer, then so is David Wells. Think about that the next time you hear the question “Is Curt Schilling a Hall-of-Famer?”
So we know their ERAs weren't close. What about the postseason stats? I loved having Wells on the hill for the Yankees in a big game (save that time his back fell apart on him against Florida), but Schilling is on another level. Better record and better ERA in the playoffs, over a full run better.
Wells has more wins and a better overall winning %, but he pitched for the Yankees dynasty. Curt Schilling spent about a decade on some really putrid Phillies teams. Even with the difference in league, Schilling dominates Wells. Baseball Reference is an amazing site, and one great feature is how you can neutralize players stats putting them into the same league, park, with the same offenses. With that, Schilling gains a few wins and lowers his ERA to 3.15. Wells loses 19 wins and even though he lowers his ERA to 3.76, it still pales into comparison to Schillings.
How can you show us the stats and then tell us they are extremely close when we can see without analyzing a thing that they clearly aren't? It's from a Yankee fan site so I'm sure they don't think highly of Schilling but I'm a Yankee fan and I utterly hate the guy too. Sure they are similar players, but Schilling is significantly better. Schilling even comes up 5th on David Wells' similarity scores from Baseball Reference, along with Jamie Moyer, Kenny Rogers, Mussina, and Pettitte. Schilling's are Kevin Brown, John Smoltz, Drysdale, and Orel Hersheiser. I think I'll take Schilling's company there. When you compare very good players there will undoubtedly be many similarities, but that doesn't make them equal, and in this case both deserving of the Hall.
Keith Olbermann Baseball Blog
I have my sports biases, more specifically my baseball biases so it should be no real surprise that I have certain political bias. I enjoy Keith Olbermann and I'm pretty excited to see what he puts out in his new baseball blog, http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/.
Keith obviously knows his sports being on ESPN, part of Dan Patrick's radio show, a member of SABR, and he always tells the story about Fred Merkle. He's a smart guy and a baseball nerd (as the blog suggests), I look forward to reading what he has to say.
The only problem I see and it's not really a problem of Olbermann's but he wrote:
Also, since the election Countdown has been pretty mellow, hopefully this won't be.
(ole tip of the cap to BTF)
Keith obviously knows his sports being on ESPN, part of Dan Patrick's radio show, a member of SABR, and he always tells the story about Fred Merkle. He's a smart guy and a baseball nerd (as the blog suggests), I look forward to reading what he has to say.
The only problem I see and it's not really a problem of Olbermann's but he wrote:
The skinny blond guy in the Rangers’ uniform staying low-key in the tunnel between the clubhouses and the field was not a minor leaguer summoned to take the road trip in hopes of a late-game at bat. It was actor Owen Wilson, getting into what is apparently his next character - that of pitcher - in his next film, opposite Reese Witherspoon.I'm a fan of Owen Wilson, but I don't think that movie will be one I'm running to see.
Also, since the election Countdown has been pretty mellow, hopefully this won't be.
(ole tip of the cap to BTF)
Reyes or Hanley?
In a recent fantasy draft I drafted Reyes with the first overall pick, over Hanley Ramirez and Albert Pujols because he deserves to be considered as well. Was this the wrong move?
It may bite me in the ass but I feel it's the correct pick. Reyes may seem like a "risky" pick but he's actually been very very stable the last 3 years. In those three years he has averaged .292 with 118 runs, 16 HRs, 69 RBI, and 66 SB. Every year he has finished inside the top 10 fantasy seasons, and in 2006 he had the best fantasy season. He's still only 26 years old and has proven on a bad year he's still a top 10 player.
Hanley Ramirez is a stud player, he's 100% my number two pick, but he's not quite as good as Reyes. He's younger than Reyes, has batted as high as .332, stolen 51 bases, and has hit 33 homers in a season, and has averaged more runs the last three years than Reyes. So why is he worse?
Although I absolutely love Hanley as a player and would gladly take him on any team, a lot of his career highs are due to luck. Hanley has a career BABIP of .344. In 2007 when he batted .333 his BABIP was .355. Last year when it was .332 he batted .302, in 2006 with a .344 BABIP he batted .292. The point of this is to say don't count on Hanley to hit any higher than .300, or at least not any higher than Reyes.
Hanley has a good amount of it, but he doesn't have consistent 33 HR power. In 2006 Hanley hit 17 HRs with a 35.3 FB% and a 9.7% HR/FB, in 2006 he hit 29 HRs with a 41.9 FB% and a 12.7% HR/FB, finally last year he hit 33 HRs with a 36.7 FB% and a 19.2% HR/FB. The biggest outlier in those numbers is the 19.2 Homerun/Flyball ratio. Hanley hit a less percentage of fly balls in 2008, and a greater percentage of those fell for home runs. That just doesn't add up. It's easy to see his HRs increase from 17 to 29 to 33 and expect the trend to continue, but the only way it does is with continued luck. You obviously don't want to pay for luck. Hanley sure has some power, but it's closer to 25 than it is to 30+
Hanley can 100% steal a crapload of bases, he's done it before. In 2006 he stole 51 and got caught 15 times, in 2007 he stole 51 again and got caught 14 times, and last year in 2008 he stole 35 and got caught 12 times. You don't really want your best player really your best power hitter to steal that often, so Florida didn't have him go as often last year. They also toyed with putting him in the 3 slot last year, which would obviously hurt his attempts. One year could just be an outlier, but it's not a good sign that Hanley stole less times and had a worse SB%. You'd hope that he'd pick and choose his spots more and have a greater SB%. This year Hanley is expected to bat third all year long. At best I'd say you can expect him to repeat last years total of 35, but I would expect him to steal only around 30.
So batting third will decrease Hanley's SBs but it will increase his RBI. Instead of having the pitcher bat ahead of him he will have the 1 and 2 hitters. That sounds great except the Marlins are expected to bat Maybin leadoff, and Jeff Baker 2nd. CHONE projects Maybin to have a .325 OBP and Baker to have a .333 OBP. Really, when Livan Hernandez is pitching, the Mets' 8 and 9 guys will likely have the same OBP as the Marlins' 1 and 2. The point here is to say he'll get more RBI chances, but don't expect a ton more of RBI. Reyes won't hurt you in RBI, in 2006 Reyes had 81 RBI even, Hanley may touch 100, but it should only be 25 more. Also it would hurt his run total giving Reyes the edge there.
So, Reyes and Hanley should bat for the same average, Hanley will hit about 10 more homers, Reyes should have a few more runs, with Hanley having more RBI. But, Hanley will steal 30 less bases than Reyes. In fantasy we all want the HR/SB guys, and Hanley fits that mold perfectly. Reyes doesn't quite fit the mold because 15/65 doesn't look as even as a 30/30 threat. That doesn't make him any less valuable though, it infact makes him worth more. 25 HRs and 30 steals is absolutey from your SS, but its not better than 15 homers and 65 steals.
Reyes has been amazingly consistent the last 3 years and you know what you are going to get. Hanley has been just as good as Reyes the last 3 years, except he's also kind of been all over the place. One year he steals 50 the next 30. One year he bats .292 the next .332. Hanley has proven he will be an amazing fantasy player every year, but he hasn't proven he could put up certain stats consistently every year, and I didn't want to risk waiting to find out, neither should you.
(h/t to THT for some help and Fangraphs)
It may bite me in the ass but I feel it's the correct pick. Reyes may seem like a "risky" pick but he's actually been very very stable the last 3 years. In those three years he has averaged .292 with 118 runs, 16 HRs, 69 RBI, and 66 SB. Every year he has finished inside the top 10 fantasy seasons, and in 2006 he had the best fantasy season. He's still only 26 years old and has proven on a bad year he's still a top 10 player.
Hanley Ramirez is a stud player, he's 100% my number two pick, but he's not quite as good as Reyes. He's younger than Reyes, has batted as high as .332, stolen 51 bases, and has hit 33 homers in a season, and has averaged more runs the last three years than Reyes. So why is he worse?
Although I absolutely love Hanley as a player and would gladly take him on any team, a lot of his career highs are due to luck. Hanley has a career BABIP of .344. In 2007 when he batted .333 his BABIP was .355. Last year when it was .332 he batted .302, in 2006 with a .344 BABIP he batted .292. The point of this is to say don't count on Hanley to hit any higher than .300, or at least not any higher than Reyes.
Hanley has a good amount of it, but he doesn't have consistent 33 HR power. In 2006 Hanley hit 17 HRs with a 35.3 FB% and a 9.7% HR/FB, in 2006 he hit 29 HRs with a 41.9 FB% and a 12.7% HR/FB, finally last year he hit 33 HRs with a 36.7 FB% and a 19.2% HR/FB. The biggest outlier in those numbers is the 19.2 Homerun/Flyball ratio. Hanley hit a less percentage of fly balls in 2008, and a greater percentage of those fell for home runs. That just doesn't add up. It's easy to see his HRs increase from 17 to 29 to 33 and expect the trend to continue, but the only way it does is with continued luck. You obviously don't want to pay for luck. Hanley sure has some power, but it's closer to 25 than it is to 30+
Hanley can 100% steal a crapload of bases, he's done it before. In 2006 he stole 51 and got caught 15 times, in 2007 he stole 51 again and got caught 14 times, and last year in 2008 he stole 35 and got caught 12 times. You don't really want your best player really your best power hitter to steal that often, so Florida didn't have him go as often last year. They also toyed with putting him in the 3 slot last year, which would obviously hurt his attempts. One year could just be an outlier, but it's not a good sign that Hanley stole less times and had a worse SB%. You'd hope that he'd pick and choose his spots more and have a greater SB%. This year Hanley is expected to bat third all year long. At best I'd say you can expect him to repeat last years total of 35, but I would expect him to steal only around 30.
So batting third will decrease Hanley's SBs but it will increase his RBI. Instead of having the pitcher bat ahead of him he will have the 1 and 2 hitters. That sounds great except the Marlins are expected to bat Maybin leadoff, and Jeff Baker 2nd. CHONE projects Maybin to have a .325 OBP and Baker to have a .333 OBP. Really, when Livan Hernandez is pitching, the Mets' 8 and 9 guys will likely have the same OBP as the Marlins' 1 and 2. The point here is to say he'll get more RBI chances, but don't expect a ton more of RBI. Reyes won't hurt you in RBI, in 2006 Reyes had 81 RBI even, Hanley may touch 100, but it should only be 25 more. Also it would hurt his run total giving Reyes the edge there.
So, Reyes and Hanley should bat for the same average, Hanley will hit about 10 more homers, Reyes should have a few more runs, with Hanley having more RBI. But, Hanley will steal 30 less bases than Reyes. In fantasy we all want the HR/SB guys, and Hanley fits that mold perfectly. Reyes doesn't quite fit the mold because 15/65 doesn't look as even as a 30/30 threat. That doesn't make him any less valuable though, it infact makes him worth more. 25 HRs and 30 steals is absolutey from your SS, but its not better than 15 homers and 65 steals.
Reyes has been amazingly consistent the last 3 years and you know what you are going to get. Hanley has been just as good as Reyes the last 3 years, except he's also kind of been all over the place. One year he steals 50 the next 30. One year he bats .292 the next .332. Hanley has proven he will be an amazing fantasy player every year, but he hasn't proven he could put up certain stats consistently every year, and I didn't want to risk waiting to find out, neither should you.
(h/t to THT for some help and Fangraphs)
Monday, March 23, 2009
Peace Schilling
Schilling retired today, apparently announcing it on his blog. I never liked the guy, in fact I kinda really really disliked him, but he was a darn good pitcher. The Mussina/Schilling HoF debate will probably continue for a long time, but even with my biases Schilling was the better pitcher. Better ERA, better ERA+, less innings but more K's, three 20 win seasons compared to Mussina's one, and three rings.
I thought maybe the world would be a better place now that Schilling is retired, but the annoying part about him was his mouth. Now he's retired with a blog, way to much time to talk. Won't you please try a comeback Curt?
I thought maybe the world would be a better place now that Schilling is retired, but the annoying part about him was his mouth. Now he's retired with a blog, way to much time to talk. Won't you please try a comeback Curt?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Andruw Jones Not Making Rangers Roster
It looks like Marlon Byrd is healthy, and having a good enough to the point where Andruw Jones doesn't have a spot on the roster. That's pretty bad Andruw. Marlon Byrd hasn't lived up to his hype when he was young on the Phillies, but he's far from being a bad player. He can play all the OF positions, basically hits around 290 and has a little pop. He's pretty much the perfect 4th OF, and teams can do much worse than having Byrd as their starting LF.
But still, Andruw Jones isn't good enough to beat out Marlon Byrd for a spot on the Rangers? Let's recap this story a little. In 2005 Jones smacked 51 homers at age 28. It's safe to say that's a reasonable time for someones peak, and that the following years Jones should come close to that level albeit with a slow decline. In 2006 he hit 41 homers, not as much as his peak year the year before but certainly a gold glove caliber CF hitting 40 homers a year is valuable. It looked like Jones would sort of settle into that as he reached his 30s. In 2007 however at only 30 years old Jones hit only 22 homers batting .222/.311/.41, pretty awful considering it was his walk year. Jones seemed to confirm the belief about players magical 27/28 year seasons, and totally crush the belief about career years in walk years. Anyways, the Dodgers felt Jones' 2007 was more of a fluke and signed him to a 2 year $36m deal.
They may have been overpaying, but for only a 2 year deal the Dodgers got a great fielding CF only 1 year removed from 40 homers and 2 years from 50 homers and only 31 years old. Even in his off year in 2007, Jones was worth almost 4 wins above replacement. Something in between his 2007 and 2008 would make him basically worth the deal the Dodgers were paying him. In 2008 as we all know, Jones was laughably bad. In 209 abs he batted.158/.256/.249, striking out 76 times. His fielding took a hit too. In the years prior his UZR was basically 20, in 2008 it was 1.2. Jones went from saving about 20 runs more than an average CF to being well, an average CF. In 2007 his glove carried his bad bat. In 2008 his bat got worse and his glove crumbled under the weight it had to carry.
Andruw Jones is 32 years old, and he's virtually done with baseball. AT 30 years old Jones had 368 HRs. He hit a home run in the World Series at age 19, the youngest ever. It's safe to say with a reasonable decline, or even a fairly rapid decline Jones would touch 500 homers. Jones didn't have a sensational start to his career, he didn't put up the numbers that Arod or Pujols did, but they were impressive nonetheless. Plus if you factor today's fielding metrics, Jones' dominant fielding would more or less make up for where his bat lagged. Basically, it's safe to say Andruw Jones was going to be a Hall of Famer, or at least was going to be deserving. 30 years old, 368 HRs and 10 Gold Gloves. But now it looks like Jones' line will more or less be what it is right now.
The Rangers have several quality OFs and don't have room at DH, but you still would think Jones would have enough left in the tank to make the Rangers. Jones' past is impressive enough for other teams to give him a shot so it's possible that he can resurrect his career I guess, I'm just not buying it. Mark Wohlers, Rick Ankiel, Chuck Knoblauch, and others have collapsed completely healthy because of the mental aspect of baseball. To my knowledge there is nothing wrong with Jones mentally. At 32 years old where most players are just exiting their prime years, Andruw Jones seems like a washed up 42 year old looking for one last hurrah. I'd love for Jones to prove me wrong, but let me ask you this, right now would you rather have Luis Gonzalez or Andruw Jones? Hell maybe you'd take Juan Gonzalez.
But still, Andruw Jones isn't good enough to beat out Marlon Byrd for a spot on the Rangers? Let's recap this story a little. In 2005 Jones smacked 51 homers at age 28. It's safe to say that's a reasonable time for someones peak, and that the following years Jones should come close to that level albeit with a slow decline. In 2006 he hit 41 homers, not as much as his peak year the year before but certainly a gold glove caliber CF hitting 40 homers a year is valuable. It looked like Jones would sort of settle into that as he reached his 30s. In 2007 however at only 30 years old Jones hit only 22 homers batting .222/.311/.41, pretty awful considering it was his walk year. Jones seemed to confirm the belief about players magical 27/28 year seasons, and totally crush the belief about career years in walk years. Anyways, the Dodgers felt Jones' 2007 was more of a fluke and signed him to a 2 year $36m deal.
They may have been overpaying, but for only a 2 year deal the Dodgers got a great fielding CF only 1 year removed from 40 homers and 2 years from 50 homers and only 31 years old. Even in his off year in 2007, Jones was worth almost 4 wins above replacement. Something in between his 2007 and 2008 would make him basically worth the deal the Dodgers were paying him. In 2008 as we all know, Jones was laughably bad. In 209 abs he batted.158/.256/.249, striking out 76 times. His fielding took a hit too. In the years prior his UZR was basically 20, in 2008 it was 1.2. Jones went from saving about 20 runs more than an average CF to being well, an average CF. In 2007 his glove carried his bad bat. In 2008 his bat got worse and his glove crumbled under the weight it had to carry.
Andruw Jones is 32 years old, and he's virtually done with baseball. AT 30 years old Jones had 368 HRs. He hit a home run in the World Series at age 19, the youngest ever. It's safe to say with a reasonable decline, or even a fairly rapid decline Jones would touch 500 homers. Jones didn't have a sensational start to his career, he didn't put up the numbers that Arod or Pujols did, but they were impressive nonetheless. Plus if you factor today's fielding metrics, Jones' dominant fielding would more or less make up for where his bat lagged. Basically, it's safe to say Andruw Jones was going to be a Hall of Famer, or at least was going to be deserving. 30 years old, 368 HRs and 10 Gold Gloves. But now it looks like Jones' line will more or less be what it is right now.
The Rangers have several quality OFs and don't have room at DH, but you still would think Jones would have enough left in the tank to make the Rangers. Jones' past is impressive enough for other teams to give him a shot so it's possible that he can resurrect his career I guess, I'm just not buying it. Mark Wohlers, Rick Ankiel, Chuck Knoblauch, and others have collapsed completely healthy because of the mental aspect of baseball. To my knowledge there is nothing wrong with Jones mentally. At 32 years old where most players are just exiting their prime years, Andruw Jones seems like a washed up 42 year old looking for one last hurrah. I'd love for Jones to prove me wrong, but let me ask you this, right now would you rather have Luis Gonzalez or Andruw Jones? Hell maybe you'd take Juan Gonzalez.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Most Underrated Baseball Records
ESPN had a column talking about the most underrated career records in pro sports. Pretty interesting stuff. They mention 3 baseball records. Ted Williams' .4817 on-base, Cy Young's 511 Wins, and Bonds' 688 intentional walks.
I agree with the intentional walks, I don't with the 511 wins. Everyone who should know about Cy Young knows about Cy Young. Most of those people are also aware that he has the most wins. This isn't underrated, everyone knows about it. Also, some could say it's overrated. It was such a different time pitching back then, I'd argue that Walter Johnson's winning 417 games, or Spahn winning 363 is more impressive.
So what are some other underrated records in baseball?
Craig Biggio, 285 HBP- Now this is an underrated stat. Nobody actually thinks of how many times a guy was hit by pitch do they? Not really, well I know Bill James does, and that's one reason he's talked so much about Craig Biggio being so valuable. On-base percentage is more than just your hits and your walks, it counts you HBP as well, and no player did that more often than Biggio. Biggio's career OBP is .363, if you take out his HBP it's .348. That's actaully a bigger difference than I expected.
Cal Ripken, 350 GIDP- Of course to have the most Grounded into Double Plays you have a long successful career. He's in good company on the list, Hammerin Hank, Yaz, Dave Winfield, and Eddie Murray round out the top 5. But, it's often overlooked how much GIDP hurt you. Cal Ripken is still one of the greatest short stops, as well as players of all time, but we shouldn't look past the fact he grounded into more double plays than anyone in league history, that's a lot of rally killers.
Everyone knows about a pitcher's wins, more people are now knowledgeable about on-base %, and even a few people know about intentional walks (although some people use it too much as reason for a certain players HoF case, cough cough Jim Rice cough cough), but I don't think too many people are going around talking about HBP, or GIDP.
I agree with the intentional walks, I don't with the 511 wins. Everyone who should know about Cy Young knows about Cy Young. Most of those people are also aware that he has the most wins. This isn't underrated, everyone knows about it. Also, some could say it's overrated. It was such a different time pitching back then, I'd argue that Walter Johnson's winning 417 games, or Spahn winning 363 is more impressive.
So what are some other underrated records in baseball?
Craig Biggio, 285 HBP- Now this is an underrated stat. Nobody actually thinks of how many times a guy was hit by pitch do they? Not really, well I know Bill James does, and that's one reason he's talked so much about Craig Biggio being so valuable. On-base percentage is more than just your hits and your walks, it counts you HBP as well, and no player did that more often than Biggio. Biggio's career OBP is .363, if you take out his HBP it's .348. That's actaully a bigger difference than I expected.
Cal Ripken, 350 GIDP- Of course to have the most Grounded into Double Plays you have a long successful career. He's in good company on the list, Hammerin Hank, Yaz, Dave Winfield, and Eddie Murray round out the top 5. But, it's often overlooked how much GIDP hurt you. Cal Ripken is still one of the greatest short stops, as well as players of all time, but we shouldn't look past the fact he grounded into more double plays than anyone in league history, that's a lot of rally killers.
Everyone knows about a pitcher's wins, more people are now knowledgeable about on-base %, and even a few people know about intentional walks (although some people use it too much as reason for a certain players HoF case, cough cough Jim Rice cough cough), but I don't think too many people are going around talking about HBP, or GIDP.
Astro's New Catcher is Pudge, New Battery Mate Pedro?
Pudge was HORRIBLE last year on the Yankees, in 96 abs he batted .217/.257/.323. Although for the season he was .276/.319/.394, a little more respectable especially at catcher, but really not that good.
However, the Astros are used to mediocre catching. They are actually used to absolutely pathetic catching. They have moved on, but Brad Ausmus was probably the worst regular in baseball the last few years, I haven't checked but I doubt this is even debatable. Jason Varitek is a poor hitter that plays because of his supposed good defense and impossible to adequetly qualify leadership. Ausmus was basically the same idea, except significantly worse, like infinitely worse. Put it this way, last year Varitek was worth 1.2 wins above replacement, the last 3 years combined Ausmus was worth 1.2 WAR. Comparitevly, Pudge last year was worth 1.9. So, for only 1 year $1.5 it's hard to argue with the Astros picking up Pudge. He's older and not that great, but it's still a really cheap price for a startable catcher, as debatable as it may be.
The only problem here is what does this mean for J.R. Towles. Towles started off last year in the majors but was terrible in 146 abs. He had a .157 BABIP, so it's pretty likely he's a little better than the line he showed .137/.250/.254. Towles is still just 25 years old and hit .304/.370/.500 in AAA last year. He has struggled so far in spring training, but he's still young enough to not give up on. If Pudge is just $1.5m as a just in case policy or as a backup than fine, but Towles should be given a chance to start, and a long leash if he struggles. There is little risk involved here so I can't say it's a bad deal for the Astros, it's actually far from it. But it could turn to a bad deal if it means Towles chances are done. Hmm, should the Yankees try to trade for Towles?
Ok, so onto the other news. MLBtraderumors reports that the Astros are close to signing Pedro Martinez. Last I heard Pedro wanted a deal similar to John Smoltz, $5m with incentives. Considering the market, it's hard for Pedro to be picky, but we don't know yet for sure if he has signed, and if he has for how much. Pedro hasn't been healthy the last 2 seasons, only throwing 137 innings, and when he has pitched he hasn't been all that good. I suppose it still is Pedro Martinez, but with the signing of Pudge and now rumors about Pedro, you figure the Astros wasting a little too much time/money on guys that are just a tad past their primes.
There has been great bargain bin shopping this offseason and many taems have benefitted, I guess the Astros are just looking at the wrong bin; Pudge, Pedro, Hampton. On paper their roster doesn't look exciting or all that good even. I doubt they go to the playoffs but I also doubt they are as bad as you'd expect them to be by glancing at the team. In August it's likely the Astros are a game or two around .500 and within 5-6 games of the division or wild card. With that said, I don't think Pedro is the guy that will put them over the top, or help them even get that far, so why even bother?
However, the Astros are used to mediocre catching. They are actually used to absolutely pathetic catching. They have moved on, but Brad Ausmus was probably the worst regular in baseball the last few years, I haven't checked but I doubt this is even debatable. Jason Varitek is a poor hitter that plays because of his supposed good defense and impossible to adequetly qualify leadership. Ausmus was basically the same idea, except significantly worse, like infinitely worse. Put it this way, last year Varitek was worth 1.2 wins above replacement, the last 3 years combined Ausmus was worth 1.2 WAR. Comparitevly, Pudge last year was worth 1.9. So, for only 1 year $1.5 it's hard to argue with the Astros picking up Pudge. He's older and not that great, but it's still a really cheap price for a startable catcher, as debatable as it may be.
The only problem here is what does this mean for J.R. Towles. Towles started off last year in the majors but was terrible in 146 abs. He had a .157 BABIP, so it's pretty likely he's a little better than the line he showed .137/.250/.254. Towles is still just 25 years old and hit .304/.370/.500 in AAA last year. He has struggled so far in spring training, but he's still young enough to not give up on. If Pudge is just $1.5m as a just in case policy or as a backup than fine, but Towles should be given a chance to start, and a long leash if he struggles. There is little risk involved here so I can't say it's a bad deal for the Astros, it's actually far from it. But it could turn to a bad deal if it means Towles chances are done. Hmm, should the Yankees try to trade for Towles?
Ok, so onto the other news. MLBtraderumors reports that the Astros are close to signing Pedro Martinez. Last I heard Pedro wanted a deal similar to John Smoltz, $5m with incentives. Considering the market, it's hard for Pedro to be picky, but we don't know yet for sure if he has signed, and if he has for how much. Pedro hasn't been healthy the last 2 seasons, only throwing 137 innings, and when he has pitched he hasn't been all that good. I suppose it still is Pedro Martinez, but with the signing of Pudge and now rumors about Pedro, you figure the Astros wasting a little too much time/money on guys that are just a tad past their primes.
There has been great bargain bin shopping this offseason and many taems have benefitted, I guess the Astros are just looking at the wrong bin; Pudge, Pedro, Hampton. On paper their roster doesn't look exciting or all that good even. I doubt they go to the playoffs but I also doubt they are as bad as you'd expect them to be by glancing at the team. In August it's likely the Astros are a game or two around .500 and within 5-6 games of the division or wild card. With that said, I don't think Pedro is the guy that will put them over the top, or help them even get that far, so why even bother?
Who are Baseball's Most Indispensable?
With the injury to Hamels, Buster Olney mentioned him as one of baseball's most indispensable players:
As for Cliff Lee, let's see him do this 2 years in a row before we deem him indispensable. The Yankees have more resources than any other team and Sabathia has not even threw a pitch yet. Joba Chamberlain is their 5th starter, and Hughes is in the minors. If Sabathia got Tommy John surgery tomorrow, the Yankees would still have a fine rotation.
Ok, I won't critique any more of Buster's picks and instead give my own, tell me what you think:
1. Albert Pujols- I think we can all agree here. He is the best player in baseball on a below average team. If you replace Pujols with the next best 1b in baseball (Berkman or Teix, take your pick), the Cardinals aren't sniffing contention. A lot of these guys, if you replace him with the next best player, still an allstar, there teams will fair similarly. That's not the case with Albert and that's why he's 1.
2. Joe Mauer- He plays the most difficult position in baseball, plays it very well, and hits enough to play any position on the diamond. When Mike Redmond plays catcher, the Twins aren't the same taem
3. Johan Santana- The Mets or Phillies take your pick are the best team in the NL. Both have great lineups and suspect rotations, it's why Hamels elbow is getting so much press now and why Johan Santana is so valuable. Put it this way, on sports talk radio in NY I hear updates about Tim Redding's health. When the status of Tim Redding matters to your rotation, your ace is pretty friggin valuable, it also doesn't hurt when that guy is the best pitcher in baseball.
4. Hanley Ramirez-The Yankees have the most resources and in contrast the Marlins have the least. All of their eggs are in one basket nicknamed HanRam. Miguel Cabrera wasn't good enough to resign, Hanley was.
5. Grady Sizemore- He may not play SS like Hanley Ramirez, but CF is pretty darn important and he plays it very well. Oh yea he also has averaged about 100 walks the last two years. He leads off for the Indians, but probably should be batting third. Buster has a point in putting Cliff Lee on the list, but if Grady goes down I think it hurts the Indians more.
6. Roy Halladay- The Blue Jays have played in the brutal AL East and therefore haven't really had a chance to make the postseason. But they have still been competitive, finishing 3 games behind the Yankees in 2008, and ahead of the Sox in 2006. Their teams have been built around pitching and defense, and that philosophy simply would not be successful without Halladay. They can't spend with the big boys but having Halladay allowed them compete.
7. Tim Lincecum- The Giants aren't a special team and likely won't make the postseason. But they have a future, and that's all because of Timmy. If the Giants were a better team I'd place him higher on the list, but unfortunately they aren't. However, with a little luck they could still make noise in that laughable NL West
8. Chase Utley- It's pretty incredible how underrated this guy is. He's by far the best hitting 2b in the league, and what people don't realize is he's also the best fielding 2b in the league. Last year Utley finished 2nd to only ALbert Pujols in WAR, better than Grady, Hanley, Chipper, Manny and basically every other player in baseball. Ryan Howard and Jimmy Rollins are great players, but it's Utley that makes the Phillies.
9. Brandon Webb/Dan Haren- I can't choose between these players, so I won't. Everyone talks about Webb, but Haren is basically his equal. I criticized Buster a little, but he still makes a good point. Without Webb the Dbacks are a really bad team. The same could be said with Haren, and god forbid both got hurt you probably have the worst team in the majors.
10. Lance Berkman- I kind of struggled with this one, but I chose Lance. Lance was really, really good last year. Every year the Astros team looks incredibly eh and every year they are in the thick of things at the end. Lance has been there the entire time, so it's time we give him some credit.
Notable ommisions: Manny- Just feel I can't say a 37 year old LF is that indispensable, if the Red Sox wanted him out of town and especially if one considers defense. Pedroia- The Red Sox have such a good farm system that guys like Lowrie could replace Pedroia enough where they'd still be competitive. Markakis- maybe in a couple years when the O's are respectable. Arod- it's the Yankees, how could one guy on a $200m payroll be indispensable, he's the closest at least. Hamels- same arguments as Johan but not as compelling.
1. Albert Pujols, CardinalsI agree with some of the names on that list but I definitely do not agree with all of them. Evan Longoria is a tremendous young player, but the Rays have an excellent bench including backup 3b Willy Aybar. He is no Evan Longoria but he could start on several teams. The Rays didn't have Longoria to start the year, and missed him during other parts of the regular season and they still went to the World Series. Again, he's a great player but he's not indispensable, that's not an insult to Longoria it's a compliment to the Rays.
2. Johan Santana, Mets
3. Joe Mauer, Twins
4. Tim Lincecum, Giants
5. Manny Ramirez, Dodgers
6. Cliff Lee, Indians
7. Brandon Webb, Diamondbacks
8. Cole Hamels, Phillies
9. CC Sabathia, Yankees
10. Evan Longoria, Rays
Roy Halladay, who is as important to his team as any player in baseball, but Toronto doesn't appear to be a contender this season. Ask this question: What would Player X's team be if this player was out of action for an extended period of time? Consider the example of Brandon Webb of the Diamondbacks. Last year, Arizona went 82-80, and in Webb's 34 starts, the D-backs were 24-10; in the games he did not start, they were 58-70. Quite simply, they would not have been in contention without him.Brandon Webb is clearly an integral part of the Dbacks. But he is essentially more indispensable than Roy Halladay because the NL West is a terrible division. The Blue Jays don't stand to be competitive this year, but they have been the last few years. The Blue Jays won 86 games last year, the Dbacks 82. The Dbacks wouldn't be in contention without Webb obviously, but they also wouldn't be in contention if they were in any other division in baseball. It's really hard for me to accept Webb on a list like this if that list doesn't have Halladay. Oh and Dan Haren is arguably better than Webb, just saying.
As for Cliff Lee, let's see him do this 2 years in a row before we deem him indispensable. The Yankees have more resources than any other team and Sabathia has not even threw a pitch yet. Joba Chamberlain is their 5th starter, and Hughes is in the minors. If Sabathia got Tommy John surgery tomorrow, the Yankees would still have a fine rotation.
Ok, I won't critique any more of Buster's picks and instead give my own, tell me what you think:
1. Albert Pujols- I think we can all agree here. He is the best player in baseball on a below average team. If you replace Pujols with the next best 1b in baseball (Berkman or Teix, take your pick), the Cardinals aren't sniffing contention. A lot of these guys, if you replace him with the next best player, still an allstar, there teams will fair similarly. That's not the case with Albert and that's why he's 1.
2. Joe Mauer- He plays the most difficult position in baseball, plays it very well, and hits enough to play any position on the diamond. When Mike Redmond plays catcher, the Twins aren't the same taem
3. Johan Santana- The Mets or Phillies take your pick are the best team in the NL. Both have great lineups and suspect rotations, it's why Hamels elbow is getting so much press now and why Johan Santana is so valuable. Put it this way, on sports talk radio in NY I hear updates about Tim Redding's health. When the status of Tim Redding matters to your rotation, your ace is pretty friggin valuable, it also doesn't hurt when that guy is the best pitcher in baseball.
4. Hanley Ramirez-The Yankees have the most resources and in contrast the Marlins have the least. All of their eggs are in one basket nicknamed HanRam. Miguel Cabrera wasn't good enough to resign, Hanley was.
5. Grady Sizemore- He may not play SS like Hanley Ramirez, but CF is pretty darn important and he plays it very well. Oh yea he also has averaged about 100 walks the last two years. He leads off for the Indians, but probably should be batting third. Buster has a point in putting Cliff Lee on the list, but if Grady goes down I think it hurts the Indians more.
6. Roy Halladay- The Blue Jays have played in the brutal AL East and therefore haven't really had a chance to make the postseason. But they have still been competitive, finishing 3 games behind the Yankees in 2008, and ahead of the Sox in 2006. Their teams have been built around pitching and defense, and that philosophy simply would not be successful without Halladay. They can't spend with the big boys but having Halladay allowed them compete.
7. Tim Lincecum- The Giants aren't a special team and likely won't make the postseason. But they have a future, and that's all because of Timmy. If the Giants were a better team I'd place him higher on the list, but unfortunately they aren't. However, with a little luck they could still make noise in that laughable NL West
8. Chase Utley- It's pretty incredible how underrated this guy is. He's by far the best hitting 2b in the league, and what people don't realize is he's also the best fielding 2b in the league. Last year Utley finished 2nd to only ALbert Pujols in WAR, better than Grady, Hanley, Chipper, Manny and basically every other player in baseball. Ryan Howard and Jimmy Rollins are great players, but it's Utley that makes the Phillies.
9. Brandon Webb/Dan Haren- I can't choose between these players, so I won't. Everyone talks about Webb, but Haren is basically his equal. I criticized Buster a little, but he still makes a good point. Without Webb the Dbacks are a really bad team. The same could be said with Haren, and god forbid both got hurt you probably have the worst team in the majors.
10. Lance Berkman- I kind of struggled with this one, but I chose Lance. Lance was really, really good last year. Every year the Astros team looks incredibly eh and every year they are in the thick of things at the end. Lance has been there the entire time, so it's time we give him some credit.
Notable ommisions: Manny- Just feel I can't say a 37 year old LF is that indispensable, if the Red Sox wanted him out of town and especially if one considers defense. Pedroia- The Red Sox have such a good farm system that guys like Lowrie could replace Pedroia enough where they'd still be competitive. Markakis- maybe in a couple years when the O's are respectable. Arod- it's the Yankees, how could one guy on a $200m payroll be indispensable, he's the closest at least. Hamels- same arguments as Johan but not as compelling.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Cole Hamels Injury
Everyone by now may know that Cole Hamels has a sore elbow, what nobody knows is the severity of it. He is apparently going back to Philly to check in with the team doctor to see what's up.
Maybe it's because I live in New York and there is clearly an east coast bias in sports coverage regardless where you live, but I heard more than enough this offseason about the pitching load that CC Sabathia has had to take the last 2 years. In 2006 CC pitched 192.7 innings, in 2007 250.3 innings, and in 2008 256.2. After a 55+ innings increase (30 more than the famous Verducci Effect) Sabathia showed no ill signs in 2008, infact he increased his load and pitched better.
I'm not saying that this means Sabathia definitely won't show any ill effects in 2009, but you'd think at this point he isn't any more an injury concern than any other pitcher. Also, not that no one has talked about it, but I'm surprised I haven't heard more about Mr. Hamels inning increase. Of course I am hearing more about it now that he's hurt. In 2007 Hamels pitched 189.3 innings, in 2008 he pitched 262.3 innings. He threw 227.3 in the regular season, but 35 extra in the post season, 73 more total innings than the year before.
This could be a nice segue into a fantasy. Evaluating pitchers is harder to do than hitters. Hitters are generally more consistent and they involve less luck. A hitter has more or less control over everything, a pitcher relies on the defense behind him. In addition to that there are pitching injuries which occur more than hitting injuries, at least the really bad ones. So, when you are evaluating pitchers for your fantasy draft, and your concerns about them, do not forget post season pitching.
Hamels finished the regular season with 38 more innings pitched, it fell into the Verducci Effect, but you can live with that. He then added 35 more stellar innings that won the Phillies the World Series, but as you see may cost him some of 2009. There is so much pitching depth in fantasy in rounds 7-15, it really doesn't pay off drafting a guy like Hamels in the 3rd or 4th. I have done some mocks and I can conceivably get Johan Santana 1st-2nd and James Loney 13/14th, or I can get Carlos Zambrano 13/14th and Mark Teixeira 1st/2nd. Which would you prefer? To me it's pretty obvious. You can get ace starter potential in the teens and get automatic hitting production early. Cole Hamels could easily come out of this unscathed and win the NL Cy Young, but it's not worth risking an early pick on him, or any pitcher, in my mind.
Maybe it's because I live in New York and there is clearly an east coast bias in sports coverage regardless where you live, but I heard more than enough this offseason about the pitching load that CC Sabathia has had to take the last 2 years. In 2006 CC pitched 192.7 innings, in 2007 250.3 innings, and in 2008 256.2. After a 55+ innings increase (30 more than the famous Verducci Effect) Sabathia showed no ill signs in 2008, infact he increased his load and pitched better.
I'm not saying that this means Sabathia definitely won't show any ill effects in 2009, but you'd think at this point he isn't any more an injury concern than any other pitcher. Also, not that no one has talked about it, but I'm surprised I haven't heard more about Mr. Hamels inning increase. Of course I am hearing more about it now that he's hurt. In 2007 Hamels pitched 189.3 innings, in 2008 he pitched 262.3 innings. He threw 227.3 in the regular season, but 35 extra in the post season, 73 more total innings than the year before.
This could be a nice segue into a fantasy. Evaluating pitchers is harder to do than hitters. Hitters are generally more consistent and they involve less luck. A hitter has more or less control over everything, a pitcher relies on the defense behind him. In addition to that there are pitching injuries which occur more than hitting injuries, at least the really bad ones. So, when you are evaluating pitchers for your fantasy draft, and your concerns about them, do not forget post season pitching.
Hamels finished the regular season with 38 more innings pitched, it fell into the Verducci Effect, but you can live with that. He then added 35 more stellar innings that won the Phillies the World Series, but as you see may cost him some of 2009. There is so much pitching depth in fantasy in rounds 7-15, it really doesn't pay off drafting a guy like Hamels in the 3rd or 4th. I have done some mocks and I can conceivably get Johan Santana 1st-2nd and James Loney 13/14th, or I can get Carlos Zambrano 13/14th and Mark Teixeira 1st/2nd. Which would you prefer? To me it's pretty obvious. You can get ace starter potential in the teens and get automatic hitting production early. Cole Hamels could easily come out of this unscathed and win the NL Cy Young, but it's not worth risking an early pick on him, or any pitcher, in my mind.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Getting Rid of Some Gnats
Jim Bowden was obviously, in addition to being a pretty substandard person (compared the union to Al Queda, drunk driving, skimming off bonus money to players), a terrible general manager. He did however hoard some good players, the problem seems to be they all play the same position, better yet they're all easily replaceable positions, first base and corner outfield. It's safe to say that the Nats roster is a mess then. Today Buster Olney talked about the new Nationals management cleaning up that mess.
The Nationals are in no business to compete, and have a pretty horrid farm system, yet they traded infielder Emilio Bonifacio for Scott Olsen and Josh Willingham. Ok Olson can pitch, and Willingham can play the outfield right? Well that's kind of hard when you have Elijah Dukes, Lastings Millege, Willie Harris, Willy Mo Pena, Ryan Langerhans and Austin Kearns out there. Ok well he can play 1b right? Wrong. In addition to paying 1bs Nick Johnson and Dimitri Young, they decided to add on another 1b, Adam Dunn.
These guys aren't getting paid league minimum either. Dunn-$8m, Kearns- $8m, Johnson-$5.5m, Young-$5m, Willingham-$2.95m, Willy Mo Pena-$2m and Harris-$1.5m. That's $32.95m on 6 1b/Of that can't field and aren't models of good heatlh, and a decent utility guy. The Marlins payroll is less than 6 Nationals players, only one of which, Dunn, would get regular playing time on a good team.
Lastings Millege and Elijah Dukes were good cheap pickups by Bowden. Both have tons of potential and need to play everday. Adam Dunn wasn't signed for $8m so he can sit on the bench, he's gonna start in LF or 1b. Unless they want to stump the growth of Dukes and Millege (which would be the dumbest thing in the world as those 2 players basically are the the only bright spots of the Nationals) that means the Nationals have ONE starting spot, either 1b or LF, for SEVEN players. That's basically a $25m 1b that they are paying. But instead of having it be an actual good player like Mark Teixeira, it's a combo of Nick Johnson, Josh Willingham, Dimitri Young, Austin Kearns, Willie Harris...ugh yuck.
This is just atrocious. The worst team in the league shouldn't have the best and most expensive bench, but that is basically what the Nationals have here. These guys aren't likely to be moveable either, no team is eagerly waiting for Dimitri Young to get on the trading block. If they were bad but saving money that'd be one thing, but they're wasting a hefty amount of money on a team that doesn't look to be good in the near future. I hope the distant future looks better, maybe with this guy.
The Nationals are in no business to compete, and have a pretty horrid farm system, yet they traded infielder Emilio Bonifacio for Scott Olsen and Josh Willingham. Ok Olson can pitch, and Willingham can play the outfield right? Well that's kind of hard when you have Elijah Dukes, Lastings Millege, Willie Harris, Willy Mo Pena, Ryan Langerhans and Austin Kearns out there. Ok well he can play 1b right? Wrong. In addition to paying 1bs Nick Johnson and Dimitri Young, they decided to add on another 1b, Adam Dunn.
These guys aren't getting paid league minimum either. Dunn-$8m, Kearns- $8m, Johnson-$5.5m, Young-$5m, Willingham-$2.95m, Willy Mo Pena-$2m and Harris-$1.5m. That's $32.95m on 6 1b/Of that can't field and aren't models of good heatlh, and a decent utility guy. The Marlins payroll is less than 6 Nationals players, only one of which, Dunn, would get regular playing time on a good team.
Lastings Millege and Elijah Dukes were good cheap pickups by Bowden. Both have tons of potential and need to play everday. Adam Dunn wasn't signed for $8m so he can sit on the bench, he's gonna start in LF or 1b. Unless they want to stump the growth of Dukes and Millege (which would be the dumbest thing in the world as those 2 players basically are the the only bright spots of the Nationals) that means the Nationals have ONE starting spot, either 1b or LF, for SEVEN players. That's basically a $25m 1b that they are paying. But instead of having it be an actual good player like Mark Teixeira, it's a combo of Nick Johnson, Josh Willingham, Dimitri Young, Austin Kearns, Willie Harris...ugh yuck.
This is just atrocious. The worst team in the league shouldn't have the best and most expensive bench, but that is basically what the Nationals have here. These guys aren't likely to be moveable either, no team is eagerly waiting for Dimitri Young to get on the trading block. If they were bad but saving money that'd be one thing, but they're wasting a hefty amount of money on a team that doesn't look to be good in the near future. I hope the distant future looks better, maybe with this guy.
Moises Alooooooooooooooooooooou!
I've been to one Florida Marlins game ever. Luckily it happened to be in 1997 when they were actually good. I remember the announcer calling up to bat Moises Alou and really getting into it, with all the fans yelling Aloooooooooou too. Not that anyone was ever going to get excited about Alou playing for their team now anyways, but it seems like Alou is going to retire.
This isn't new news, but I'm going to comment on it now I guess. Alou is obviously playing in the WBC but it doesn't seem like teams are rushing to sign him. He doesn't want to play just to be a part time player, and I don't think anyone is looking for Alou to start. Add in the fact he's always hurt, it's not a real surprise he's calling it quits.
Alou has had a really good career, I'm sure he's outhit several Hall of Famers but realistically he's not going to sniff that. He probably does deserve a little sniff though, we owe that to the guy who pees on his hands just for baseball, not survival.
When arguing the merits of someone's Hall of Fame case one often hears "this isn't the Hall of the Very Good", that the Hall is truly for the uber best. I don't disagree with that. They should make a Hall of the Very Good, maybe have a wing in the actual Hall of Fame with bobble heads instead of plaques dedicated to the guys who weren't quite good enough. They could then re-adjust the Hall of Famers who actually are just Hall of Very Gooders. Alou could then be the leader of the Hall of Very Good.
We can all agree Alou has had a great, not outstanding career, but should it necessarily be over? Alou's ego and GMs will decide that, but he clearly has something left. He can't stay on the field but in the last two years he's batted .342. Granted that's only in 377 at bats, but that's still .342. In 2006 in SF he batted .301 with 22 hr. And only a few years ago in 2004 he smacked 39 homers.
When he's been healthy he's hit. When he's not healthy he's not playing or if he is he still hits. Basically he doesn't have some wrist injury that he plays through, killing your team with a .240 avg in 400 at bats. So, Alou + replacement level is probably a pretty good player. CHONE projects him to go .276 14 and 46, not bad right? Alou had a 2.3 WAR in only 328 abs in 2007, and in a paltry 50 abs last year he was still worth about a million.
I'm not surprised Alou doesn't want to sit on a bench this year and I'm not surprised that no team wants to hand Alou a starting job, but the guy can still help a team.
This isn't new news, but I'm going to comment on it now I guess. Alou is obviously playing in the WBC but it doesn't seem like teams are rushing to sign him. He doesn't want to play just to be a part time player, and I don't think anyone is looking for Alou to start. Add in the fact he's always hurt, it's not a real surprise he's calling it quits.
Alou has had a really good career, I'm sure he's outhit several Hall of Famers but realistically he's not going to sniff that. He probably does deserve a little sniff though, we owe that to the guy who pees on his hands just for baseball, not survival.
When arguing the merits of someone's Hall of Fame case one often hears "this isn't the Hall of the Very Good", that the Hall is truly for the uber best. I don't disagree with that. They should make a Hall of the Very Good, maybe have a wing in the actual Hall of Fame with bobble heads instead of plaques dedicated to the guys who weren't quite good enough. They could then re-adjust the Hall of Famers who actually are just Hall of Very Gooders. Alou could then be the leader of the Hall of Very Good.
We can all agree Alou has had a great, not outstanding career, but should it necessarily be over? Alou's ego and GMs will decide that, but he clearly has something left. He can't stay on the field but in the last two years he's batted .342. Granted that's only in 377 at bats, but that's still .342. In 2006 in SF he batted .301 with 22 hr. And only a few years ago in 2004 he smacked 39 homers.
When he's been healthy he's hit. When he's not healthy he's not playing or if he is he still hits. Basically he doesn't have some wrist injury that he plays through, killing your team with a .240 avg in 400 at bats. So, Alou + replacement level is probably a pretty good player. CHONE projects him to go .276 14 and 46, not bad right? Alou had a 2.3 WAR in only 328 abs in 2007, and in a paltry 50 abs last year he was still worth about a million.
I'm not surprised Alou doesn't want to sit on a bench this year and I'm not surprised that no team wants to hand Alou a starting job, but the guy can still help a team.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Vlad Is Now 34
Everyone thought he was 33, but now he's really 34.
Apparently in an interview he said he was 34, eventhough every source said he was 33. He kept that hidden this long, and all the sudden he slipped? Pretty odd.
Anyways, Vlad is in the last year of his deal. Will this affect his next one? I think the economy will have the final say on that. If Vlad has a great year are the Angels going to really offer him significant less money because hes 1 year older than they thought?
I doubt he would get anything more than a 2 year deal anyways. Even at 35, he'd still be worthy or a 2 year deal. If they signed Abreu for $5m, and the economic climate stays the same, would they really think about giving Vlad 3 years $45m? I highly doubt it. Vlad could lose some money in this, but I don't think it's as obvious as this guy says.
Apparently in an interview he said he was 34, eventhough every source said he was 33. He kept that hidden this long, and all the sudden he slipped? Pretty odd.
Anyways, Vlad is in the last year of his deal. Will this affect his next one? I think the economy will have the final say on that. If Vlad has a great year are the Angels going to really offer him significant less money because hes 1 year older than they thought?
Guerrero, who will make $15 million this season, is in the final year of a contract, and any new extension he signs probably will be for one less year than he would have signed for, which would cost him millions.
I doubt he would get anything more than a 2 year deal anyways. Even at 35, he'd still be worthy or a 2 year deal. If they signed Abreu for $5m, and the economic climate stays the same, would they really think about giving Vlad 3 years $45m? I highly doubt it. Vlad could lose some money in this, but I don't think it's as obvious as this guy says.
Major League 4?
At Not Guts, No Glory they wondered who would star in a Major League 4?
To sum what they say:
Jake Taylor- Jorge Posada
Roger Dorn- Nomar Garciaparra
Ricky Vaughn- Joba Chamberlain
Lou Brown- Lou Pinella
Willy Mays Hays- Willy Taveras
Pedro Cerrano- Ryan Howard
Harry Doyle- Tim McCarver
Rachel Phelps- Bud Selig
Harry Doyle has some good qualities to him as an announcer, he at least makes it somewhat fun, comparing Tim McCarver to anyone other than maybe a few terrorists is just a total insult to that person.
Ryan Howard hits like Cerrano but he doesn't have the personality, although nobody does. Taveras has that speed of Hays, but does he have the power he showed in spring training of Major League 2?
Jorge Posada is spot on. Joba is pretty darn good too. Funny, the big bad Yankees in the movie now resemble the loveable Indians. Oh wait there's Arod...
To sum what they say:
Jake Taylor- Jorge Posada
Roger Dorn- Nomar Garciaparra
Ricky Vaughn- Joba Chamberlain
Lou Brown- Lou Pinella
Willy Mays Hays- Willy Taveras
Pedro Cerrano- Ryan Howard
Harry Doyle- Tim McCarver
Rachel Phelps- Bud Selig
Harry Doyle has some good qualities to him as an announcer, he at least makes it somewhat fun, comparing Tim McCarver to anyone other than maybe a few terrorists is just a total insult to that person.
Ryan Howard hits like Cerrano but he doesn't have the personality, although nobody does. Taveras has that speed of Hays, but does he have the power he showed in spring training of Major League 2?
Jorge Posada is spot on. Joba is pretty darn good too. Funny, the big bad Yankees in the movie now resemble the loveable Indians. Oh wait there's Arod...
Friday, March 6, 2009
A-Hip
By now I'm sure you know about Arod. He had a bum hip 10 months ago and after a MRI showed some abnormalities, the Yankees decided to be patient and wait until now to give him another one only to find out he has some sort of cyst and a torn labrum and could miss 4+ months. They pay Arod $275m, I guess whatever the costs are for another MRI were too expensive.
Like I said, it could require surgery which would keep him out for 4+ months but the Yankees have decided that the ole R &R (rest and rehab) is enough to get Arod through the season. I guess none of the Yankees were paying attention to Jorge Posada's shoulder last year? They said instead of surgery just rest and rehab will get his shoulder straight, well Posada got surgery in the middle of the year.
I'm no doctor, but I've read a tad of doctors talk about this thing and from that they say this is tt gets worse over time without surgery. That would tell me whatever Arod is feeling now is playable, considering Mike Lowell had a similar thing. And Mike Lowell sucked at the end last year and wasn't roster worthy in the playoffs. I assume in Aril Mike thought this is alright I can deal with this, and by October he couldn't. If Arod has surgery today, it's likely he could be back by mid July. That doesn't seem that bad, it's kind of like getting the best player in the league at the trading deadline.
Again, I'm not a doctor but I find it incredibly hard to believe that Arod is going to be even close to full strength come September, when they will need him most. Wouldn't the Yankees rather insure themselves of a healthy Arod for at least part of the season than rely on some patch work to get Arod through the year? I'm not going to be surprised in July when Buster Olney breaks this story, "Yankees Arod Shut Down, Plans to Be Back by the Spring".
For all we know maybe the Yankees figure Arod is useless when it matters most in September and the playoffs due to his knack for the unclutch. With that thinking it makes sense to push him to play, get what they can out of him from April-August and then let him have surgery, sure beats a couple ofers against Boston and the Rays in September right? All kidding aside, Albert Belle was out of baseball by age 34 because of a bad hip, I'm not going to assume Arod will go down that same path, but he's 33. If he opts to play over surgery it's not out of the question that he won't be the same player he is at 34 as he was at 33.
Like I said, it could require surgery which would keep him out for 4+ months but the Yankees have decided that the ole R &R (rest and rehab) is enough to get Arod through the season. I guess none of the Yankees were paying attention to Jorge Posada's shoulder last year? They said instead of surgery just rest and rehab will get his shoulder straight, well Posada got surgery in the middle of the year.
I'm no doctor, but I've read a tad of doctors talk about this thing and from that they say this is tt gets worse over time without surgery. That would tell me whatever Arod is feeling now is playable, considering Mike Lowell had a similar thing. And Mike Lowell sucked at the end last year and wasn't roster worthy in the playoffs. I assume in Aril Mike thought this is alright I can deal with this, and by October he couldn't. If Arod has surgery today, it's likely he could be back by mid July. That doesn't seem that bad, it's kind of like getting the best player in the league at the trading deadline.
Again, I'm not a doctor but I find it incredibly hard to believe that Arod is going to be even close to full strength come September, when they will need him most. Wouldn't the Yankees rather insure themselves of a healthy Arod for at least part of the season than rely on some patch work to get Arod through the year? I'm not going to be surprised in July when Buster Olney breaks this story, "Yankees Arod Shut Down, Plans to Be Back by the Spring".
For all we know maybe the Yankees figure Arod is useless when it matters most in September and the playoffs due to his knack for the unclutch. With that thinking it makes sense to push him to play, get what they can out of him from April-August and then let him have surgery, sure beats a couple ofers against Boston and the Rays in September right? All kidding aside, Albert Belle was out of baseball by age 34 because of a bad hip, I'm not going to assume Arod will go down that same path, but he's 33. If he opts to play over surgery it's not out of the question that he won't be the same player he is at 34 as he was at 33.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Manny Being Dodger
He's finally signed, 2 years $45m. That was pretty quick considering they were starting from scratch.
This makes the Dodgers the team to beat in the NL West. Don't put too much stock into that, as it means they will win 85 games basically, not a tough division.
Manny wanted $100 and got $45. Bobby Abreu wanted $45m and got $5m. It really makes Manny seem like he doesn't care about winning but just about money and comfort. Anyone who had their doubts about Manny when he more or less quit on the Red Sox clearly weren't convinced otherwise as they watched him holdout for more years and dollars in this economy.
Manny should be a good hitter on LA, but it will be very hard for him to earn this money.
This makes the Dodgers the team to beat in the NL West. Don't put too much stock into that, as it means they will win 85 games basically, not a tough division.
Manny wanted $100 and got $45. Bobby Abreu wanted $45m and got $5m. It really makes Manny seem like he doesn't care about winning but just about money and comfort. Anyone who had their doubts about Manny when he more or less quit on the Red Sox clearly weren't convinced otherwise as they watched him holdout for more years and dollars in this economy.
Manny should be a good hitter on LA, but it will be very hard for him to earn this money.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Dustin Pedroia- ROY, MVP, Child Molester?
I didn't say which Pedroia did what, did I? Because Dusin's brother Brett apparently has been accused of child molestation.
So tell me what's worse, A-rod's steroid injecting cousin, or Pedroia's peepee touching brother?
Oh wait, Dustin isn't involved with his brothers wrongdoing, goddamn you A-Fraud!
So tell me what's worse, A-rod's steroid injecting cousin, or Pedroia's peepee touching brother?
Oh wait, Dustin isn't involved with his brothers wrongdoing, goddamn you A-Fraud!
Monday, March 2, 2009
Next 300 Win Pitcher
After Randy Johnson that is...
In the Hardball Times Season Preview they have a section predicting career milestones, 3000 hits, 500 homers, 763 homers, and 300 wins. It's David Gassko's system and he created it because he felt Bill James' system "The Favorite Toy" produced predictions too optimistic.
Randy Johnson isn't listed in the results because he has 295 wins. It would be pretty meaninglses to see the number attached to that, 98.34% or something like that. So who is the next closest to 300 wins, if anyone actually ever gets there? According to Gassko it's Andy Pettitte. Pettitte has 215 wins so far and according to Gassko, a 14.4% chance of getting 300.
The top 6 are:
Obvious notable is Johan Santana who is at 5.6%. It's hard to call it a waste based on the results he's given, but Johan was brought up as a reliever/starter and it took him parts of 4 seasons to become a full time starter. If he was given the job outright in 2000 maybe he'd have something like 130 wins instead of the 109 he has. But he'd also have way higher ERA and a worse win/loss%. Bearing a bad injury (you never know with that elbow that I talked about) Johan figures to get around 200 wins with a couple Cy Youngs, not too shabby but not 300.
Back to Pettitte. He's a longshot to get to 300 at only 14.4%, but he's the shortest shot there is! It's doubtful Pettitte sticks around for another 3 years let alone long enough to get 300 the way he mulls retirement each year. But, let's just say for now that Andy has a solid year with the Yankees. The Yankees win the World Series and he has the best time he's ever had on a baseball team since 1996 with a mix of his old pals Jeter Mo and Jorge and the new guys like Teixeira Burnett and Sabathia. So much so that he signs a 3 year deal next offseason for a huge discount price. He's averaged about 15 wins the last few years, so let's say he does that next year, he'd be at 230 wins.
Then let's say he learns a new type of pitch in 2010, maybe some changeup of sorts, to the start of his fictional 3 year deal, and gets 15 more wins a year for 3 years. We're now looking at 275 wins for a 40 year old pitcher. Randy Johnson is 44, Tom Glavine is 43, Maddux pitched until he was 42. 40 years old could be considered young for an old pitcher, especially in 2013. If Andy is still pitching decent as the Yankees 5th starter, enjoying the teams success at a recent run of championships, if he's sitting there at 275 wins maybe he sticks around another 2-3 years to get 300.
This is insanely unlikely situation but it could happen right? If Andy Pettitte has 300 wins is he a Hall of Famer? 300 wins and an ERA north of 4. How do you not let a 300 game winner in the Hall? I'm not saying Pettitte with 300 wins is even deserving, but how could voters not think he is with 300 wins. Is Bert Blyleven still not in the Hall of Fame because he only had 287 wins, with more innings, strikeouts, lower ERA, and a better every other pitching metric besides wins? It's an interesting idea. Never in a million years would I think of Pettitte as a Hall of Famer, but now I'd say there is a 14.4% chance he is.
In the Hardball Times Season Preview they have a section predicting career milestones, 3000 hits, 500 homers, 763 homers, and 300 wins. It's David Gassko's system and he created it because he felt Bill James' system "The Favorite Toy" produced predictions too optimistic.
Randy Johnson isn't listed in the results because he has 295 wins. It would be pretty meaninglses to see the number attached to that, 98.34% or something like that. So who is the next closest to 300 wins, if anyone actually ever gets there? According to Gassko it's Andy Pettitte. Pettitte has 215 wins so far and according to Gassko, a 14.4% chance of getting 300.
The top 6 are:
- Andy Pettitte-14.4% predicts 250 wins
- C.C. Sabathia-10.3% predicts 195 wins
- Roy Halladay- 7.8% predicts 192 wins
- Brandon Webb -7.5% predicts 167 wins
- Roy Oswalt-7.5% predicts190 wins
- Chad Billingsly- 6.6% predicts 135 wins
Obvious notable is Johan Santana who is at 5.6%. It's hard to call it a waste based on the results he's given, but Johan was brought up as a reliever/starter and it took him parts of 4 seasons to become a full time starter. If he was given the job outright in 2000 maybe he'd have something like 130 wins instead of the 109 he has. But he'd also have way higher ERA and a worse win/loss%. Bearing a bad injury (you never know with that elbow that I talked about) Johan figures to get around 200 wins with a couple Cy Youngs, not too shabby but not 300.
Back to Pettitte. He's a longshot to get to 300 at only 14.4%, but he's the shortest shot there is! It's doubtful Pettitte sticks around for another 3 years let alone long enough to get 300 the way he mulls retirement each year. But, let's just say for now that Andy has a solid year with the Yankees. The Yankees win the World Series and he has the best time he's ever had on a baseball team since 1996 with a mix of his old pals Jeter Mo and Jorge and the new guys like Teixeira Burnett and Sabathia. So much so that he signs a 3 year deal next offseason for a huge discount price. He's averaged about 15 wins the last few years, so let's say he does that next year, he'd be at 230 wins.
Then let's say he learns a new type of pitch in 2010, maybe some changeup of sorts, to the start of his fictional 3 year deal, and gets 15 more wins a year for 3 years. We're now looking at 275 wins for a 40 year old pitcher. Randy Johnson is 44, Tom Glavine is 43, Maddux pitched until he was 42. 40 years old could be considered young for an old pitcher, especially in 2013. If Andy is still pitching decent as the Yankees 5th starter, enjoying the teams success at a recent run of championships, if he's sitting there at 275 wins maybe he sticks around another 2-3 years to get 300.
This is insanely unlikely situation but it could happen right? If Andy Pettitte has 300 wins is he a Hall of Famer? 300 wins and an ERA north of 4. How do you not let a 300 game winner in the Hall? I'm not saying Pettitte with 300 wins is even deserving, but how could voters not think he is with 300 wins. Is Bert Blyleven still not in the Hall of Fame because he only had 287 wins, with more innings, strikeouts, lower ERA, and a better every other pitching metric besides wins? It's an interesting idea. Never in a million years would I think of Pettitte as a Hall of Famer, but now I'd say there is a 14.4% chance he is.
A's Going To Disney World!
At least Orlando (Cabrera) is coming to them, for 1 year $4m.
This should end the Bobby Crosby era at short. Although I guess it was really the Bobby Crosby, Bobby Crosby/Marco Scutaro, and Bobby Crosby/Donnie Murphy era, as Bobby Crosby himself could never stay on the field. This is certainly an upgrade as Orlando Cabrera has consistently been worth around 3-3.5 wins and Crosby at his uninjured best was not even worth that much.
This is another solid addition to Oakland's ongoing successful offseason. Adding Giambi, Holliday, Cabrera to replace Crosby, Daric Barton/Dan Johnson, Emil Brown will clearly improve the lineup. The Angels on the other hand replaced Teixeira with Abreu and K-Rod with Fuentes. Both not bad replacements, but clearly not improvements like the A's have made.
I'll hold off my season predictions when all the rosters are fully set, but as of now I'd have to give the A's the edge o winning this division. They were probably close to even before, but O-Cab gives them about 2.5 wins putting them over the edge.
This should end the Bobby Crosby era at short. Although I guess it was really the Bobby Crosby, Bobby Crosby/Marco Scutaro, and Bobby Crosby/Donnie Murphy era, as Bobby Crosby himself could never stay on the field. This is certainly an upgrade as Orlando Cabrera has consistently been worth around 3-3.5 wins and Crosby at his uninjured best was not even worth that much.
This is another solid addition to Oakland's ongoing successful offseason. Adding Giambi, Holliday, Cabrera to replace Crosby, Daric Barton/Dan Johnson, Emil Brown will clearly improve the lineup. The Angels on the other hand replaced Teixeira with Abreu and K-Rod with Fuentes. Both not bad replacements, but clearly not improvements like the A's have made.
I'll hold off my season predictions when all the rosters are fully set, but as of now I'd have to give the A's the edge o winning this division. They were probably close to even before, but O-Cab gives them about 2.5 wins putting them over the edge.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)