2009 Big-League Losses: Not a Good Way to Judge Rebuilding Efforts
by Charlie on Aug 10, 2009 6:43 PM EDT
279 comments
I thought this bit from Dejan Kovacevic was interesting:
As noted in my Sunday piece, half of the 26 players acquired in Neal Huntington's many recent trades are on the current major league roster. That, obviously, is not all of them, and waiting for top-flight players such as Tim Alderson and Jose Tabata to arrive would be the fairest way to assess those. Still, 13 trade acquisitions is more than half the roster, which means the current roster will have to be something more than an unmitigated disaster for those trades, as a whole, to begin to look good.
Um, why? If the best players acquired in those trades are still in the minors, and if the major league roster has been pretty close to "an unmitigated disaster" for 17 years before the trades, and if most of the players Huntington acquired are young anyway, why should he be held to that standard?
Reading between the lines a little, I assume this line of thinking stems from the Pirates' play since the trades. I don't think Huntington should get a free pass by any stretch, and the Pirates' poor recent play disappoints me too. But it seems strange, in a week where we're getting very good news from the minors on a more or less daily basis, to focus too heavily on a handful of busted games at the major league level.
Of the thirteen Huntington trade acquisitions currently on the 25-man roster, more than half (Charlie Morton, Kevin Hart, Joel Hanrahan, Delwyn Young, Ross Ohlendorf, Ronny Cedeno, Evan Meek) have performed pretty well for the team, and others (Andy LaRoche, Jason Jaramillo, Jeff Karstens) have been at least serviceable. The only ones who have been outright disastrous by any stretch are Jose Ascanio (who's pitched all of two innings), Brandon Moss (for whom "disastrous" doesn't seem quite fair, given the quality of his defense), and Lastings Milledge. That's it.
Milledge has been a disappointment to me so far. And the Jason Bay trade continues to be a bad one. But to judge the guys who've been acquired in trades by the poor performance of the entire roster, when half the guys who were acquired aren't even on the roster and those who are on the roster aren't actually playing that badly, seems very strange to me. Let's take a more nuanced, long-term view, please.
Deadline acquisition Jeff Clement has posted a 1239 OPS for Indianapolis so far. Another recent trade acquisition, Jose Tabata, has a .922 OPS there in a small sample, despite only turning 21 this week. Last year's top pick, Pedro Alvarez, is tearing the cover off the ball at Altoona. Tim Alderson has pitched well in two starts there. Jeff Locke, acquired in the Nate McLouth deal, has pitched well in three straight starts for Lynchburg. New Lynchburg infielder Josh Harrison, acquired in the John Grabow deal, has hit well too, and Nathan Adcock, acquired from Seattle in the Jack Wilson deal, has had two good appearances there. Huntington acquisitions Tony Sanchez, Hunter Strickland, Brett Lorin, Robbie Grossman and Casey Erickson have all played well for West Virginia. The Bucs have spent millions in the past couple weeks on a number of talented high school pitchers. Today, two of them, Trent Stevenson and Zachary Fuesser, pitched four innings of shutout ball for Bradenton; it was Stevenson's pro debut.
My point is not that all these players will turn out to be good, or that things are all peaches and cream right now. My point is that, in a week where we've gotten so much good news from the minors and from a number of Huntington's trade acquisitions in particular, it seems like an extremely strange time to call out Huntington's trade acquisitions. The ones already in the bigs have actually, as a group, been decent, and the ones in the minors, along with a number of Huntington draftees, have played very well--better than I'd expected, in fact.
Losses at the big-league level stink. I hate them; we all hate them. But this has actually been a very good week in Pirates baseball, not a bad one. Blaming the new guys for the "unmitigated disaster" that the big-league team has recently been is silly, not only because they aren't primarily to blame but because most of the best ones aren't even there yet. And trying to "assess" the trades based on only a week or two of bad big-league play seems sillier still.
Personally, I prefer to evaluate trades based on the information available when they were made, since the futures of baseball players are inherently unpredictable and all you can do, as a GM, is to position yourself so that you're likely to be on the crest of the wave rather than being smashed by it. But if we're going to evaluate trades based on the results, and only at the big-league level, well jeez, shouldn't we wait a little while for those to come in? Kovacevic notes that "waiting for top-flight players such as Tim Alderson and Jose Tabata to arrive would be the fairest way to assess" the trades. Well, no kidding. If we're going to assess the trades based on big-league results, waiting for the best players to actually play in the big leagues would, in fact, be the only fair way to assess them.
1 recs |
279 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nice piece...
Charlie. I had about a two hour debate with some people on this very topic. I wish I could have just handed them your article. I think you hit it out of the park with this one.
Dejan continues to disappoint. He acknowledges that he lost some “good acquaintances” with all the trades. I love how he constantly points to the success of Gorzo or Freddy but doesn’t mention the recent terrible performances of Snell or Jack. I can’t tell if he is shilling for the people on his blog so they have a voice or he is giving his own opinion, but he certainly seems to have one.
And I will be the first to acknowledge that I am impressed and happy for Morgan and Burnett (though he’s an ass) for their professional success. I don’t want the guys we trade to suck, I just want the ones we get to do well.
by dtoddwin on Aug 10, 2009 6:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dejan continues to make me feel like an idiot, because I could not even determine exactly what his point was. Thanks for the article Charlie.
by chodan11 on Aug 10, 2009 7:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dejan....
I couldn’t figure out what DK meant either. Now that I see it without the first paragraphs and without the last sentence; it does seem slightly more understandable. It still, as Charlie points out, doesn’t make any sense. We shouldn’t feel bad for not understanding DKs write-up; though maybe Dejan should.
by lighthouse913 on Aug 10, 2009 9:52 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Well the players are young
even if half of the pro roster is young guys we acquired. We probably could of held on to Jason Bay until this year when his value would have been even higher. Oh well. I say division contention in 2010
Carlos Guillen, the Latino Nick Punto
by The_Fan on Aug 10, 2009 7:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No way Bay’s value is higher this year. Both because he’s a 3 month rental, and he’s basically sucked since May.
by TravisDW on Aug 10, 2009 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bay's Value Higher?
How so? Now you would be trading a 2 month rent-a-player with numbers that are going down faster than….that girl on prom night.
My view is that we classically traded Bay at his highest value point. He has only dropped since that fatefule day.
Unfortunately, the return hasn’t worked so well yet
by GeneClines on Aug 10, 2009 7:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
woops sorry
I totally forgot his stats on the 31st. Dur on me
Carlos Guillen, the Latino Nick Punto
by The_Fan on Aug 10, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Red Sox Yinzers are this close to turning on Bay. He played only 1 of 4 games in the Yankee sweep and was 1-for-4.
A true Red Sox would play with a bad hammy, they say.
by WstCstBucco on Aug 10, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know quite a few
that have already turned on him. They started to about a month ago.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 10, 2009 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bay could disappear for stretches in Pittsburgh and barely be noticed. That would never happen in Boston. He enjoyed a rare season at full health last year, so it’s convenient to forget that he’s been kind of wonky over the past few years. The Pirates were even concerned that his knee condition was degenerative. Does extending him at 2007 pay scales (ie pre 2008 offseason) still seem like a good idea? I’m not saying the return was great, but it was absolutely the right move at the time. Bay may regret not taking up the Sox extention offers.
by chicos_pants on Aug 11, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
May regret?
Custer regretted Little Big Horn. Bay will have a similar view come November 1. $48/4 is a pipe dream now.
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dejan's editorialising
Dejan continues to disappoint me. I honestly think from his body of work that he must know what he is writing here is garbage. But he is pandering to an audience (the PBC blog) generally hostile to NH and the FO’s work.
by allymac06 on Aug 10, 2009 7:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't know......from the Chat today
when he writes things like:
Dejan Kovacevic: I am not sure why, but the Pirates seem reluctant to accept that what Jones is doing is real. I cannot offer you pinpoint quotes, just a general feel from hearing various assessments. If they did believe it, he would be there right now, getting ready for a full 2009 and as accustomed as possible to his fellow infielders, rather than mostly struggling in the outfield.
-——
Then he isn’t paying any attention to Jones’ history or he isn’t asking anybody the right questions. (And this is coming for a guy who hopes as much as anyone that Jones isn’t a one month fluke.)
And things like this:
Dejan Kovacevic: The Pirates say repeatedly — and Neal Huntington reiterated it yesterday — that part of the problem is that these players have come from different organizations and still need to be instructed. The Pirates will have to prove over the long term if that is the case, if they really are better at teaching. … I know this: Nobody teaches things better than the Twins, and Garrett Jones, who came out of that system, was not trusted to attempt a bunt in extra innings the other night, with Andrew McCutchen at second and Lastings Milledge at first. If Jones gets a bunt down, the Pirates win.
Jones getting a bunt down there certainly doesn’t guarantee a win. And, when four guys in two days can’t get a bunt down, I’m not sure I would cite the one situation where a guy was not asked to bunt as the example that the team is playing bad fundamental baseball. There are plenty of other examples.
I don’t know if it’s just late in the season or what, but he seems to be losing his edge.
by dtoddwin on Aug 10, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How much more obvious can it get?
DK is clearly a Yinzer himself. As much as I enjoy this site and reapect most of the opinjions here, the fact that many here seem to give respect to DK is really inexplicable. His"reporting" has continually and consistently been loaded with the yinzer attitude and , truthfuly, ignorance. He may have shown some writing ability in the past (I can’t judge that), but for the past 4 months, he has been absolutely pathetic and a disgrace.
by Wizard Imp on Aug 10, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To really appreciate Dejan...
…you need to have lived through Paul Meyer’s time as beat writer.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you remember how Meyer would write about every other week that the Pirates needed to get a veteran thirdbaseman because Aramis Ramirez was a failure?
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a really bizarre criticism.
Dejan really wants to complain about the team letting its #3 hitter swing away with the winning run in scoring position?
To say nothing of the fact that regardless of how well-taught Jones was, he hasn’t laid down a sac bunt in a game since 2005. Or that he’s done it a grand total of eight times in his eleven-year professional career…
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dejan seems unaware of his past career except to the extent he played in Minnesota, as evidenced by the fact he simply cannot imagine why the front office does not see Jones as the 1B of the future.
by CptnAwesome on Aug 11, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, he spends all day hanging around Russell.
What do you think Russell’s telling him about Jones? Even if he wasn’t inclined to believe it, that’d be bound to affect his perceptions at least a little bit.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but I know full well Dejan is capable of checking into things.
A cursory examination of minor league records might lead Dejan to a possible answer. He’s been quick to raise counter arguments in the past, so I don’t see why this should be any different.
Just to be clear (not just to you, but everyone), I generally really like Dejan’s reporting, which makes stuff like this all the more glaring.
by CptnAwesome on Aug 11, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dejan seemed to go off when the pitchers "refused to talk" to the press.
He started bitching about no “leadership” on this team, when for years he says leadership is overvalued. All because they didn’t want to talk with the press? Seemed hypocritical to me.
by SFBucco on Aug 11, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No he never.....
said leadership was overvalued until he got crucified here and other places for his constant praise for Dougie M. Leadership and what he brought to the table. What he brought was a hard-nosed attitude, very little talent and no wins. But, clearly his not being here to smack Snell around is why he regressed. (Sarcasm).
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s too early to judge the most recently traded Pirates, but it’s not like Bay, Nady, and McLouth are setting the baseball world ablaze with outstanding play.
Good response, Charlie, to more NuttingHostage bait from the P-G.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Aug 10, 2009 7:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And for several of the ex Pirates who’s performance DK is trumpteing, like Freddy and Gorzo, don’t forget the saga of Chris “Babe Ruth for a Month” Shelton.
Small sample size will get you every time.
by WstCstBucco on Aug 10, 2009 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, Shelton has hit well over his entire career.
The Tigers dropping him as their starter was an example of NOT respecting sample sizes. If they’d kept him in the lineup, he probably would’ve hit his way out of the slump.
It’s not like April of 2006 was his only ML success. He’d hit .299/.360/.510 with plus defense in 431 PA the year before.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kind of off-topic, but I was away from the PBC scene for a few weeks in WV, and I just want your opinions on something—
Do you think the Bucs should have taken the Kotchman for LaRoche offer over Diaz and Strickland? I certainly think it would have been a better idea.
by Suffering Buc on Aug 10, 2009 7:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I believe NH thinks Clement has more upside than Kotchman...
not to mention that he we have control of more service time with him as well. Strickland has pitched pretty well so far. The K’s could be better but he is a GB pitcher and his GB/FB ratio has been pretty good.
by Slick1 on Aug 10, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Slightly OT but
Speaking of Kotchman reminded me.
Now that all the dust has settled, I think the Atlanta Braves traded away (to Texas) Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Elvis Andrus and three pitchers: 100+ MPH RP Neftali Feliz, LH SP Matt Harrison and AA RP Beau Jones.
And in return Atlanta received . . . Mike Gonzalez?
(And from the Angels a AAA RP named Stephen Marek, who’s 0-1 with a 7.94 ERA since being promoted. And you can’t count Mario because they started and finished with him.)
Next time somebody says Huntington didn’t get enuff for Jason Bay, remind them of this series of trades.
by WstCstBucco on Aug 10, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That sort of savage beating is why its so tough to pry away prospects for rentals though. You almost have to blunder into a perfect storm to get that deal…plus Tex is a much better player than J Bay.
by MrPedriqueIfYoureNasty on Aug 11, 2009 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For me, the classic Pirate example...
…has always been Willie Randolph, Ken Brett, Dock Ellis, Tony Armas, Doug Bair, Rick Langford, and Mitchell Page for Phil Garner and one season of Doc Medich.
Ouch.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better that than two seasons of Doc Medich.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But...
At least Garner was productive in the 79 World Series. It’s unlikely that Gonzalez will have that same opportunity with Atlanta.
by IAPiratesFan on Aug 11, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a better summary of it all:
Braves traded Jamie Romak, Beau Jones, Elvis Andrus, Neftali Feliz, Matt Harrison, Jon Gilmore, Santos Rodriquez, Tyler Flowers and Jarrod Saltalamacchia for Steve Marek, Ron Mahay, Mike Gonzalez, Javier Vazquez and Boone Logan.
by IAPiratesFan on Aug 11, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently the Braves did offer the Pirates Kotchman for LaRoche
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9919850/Dodgers-almost-had-dream-'pen,-but-balked
Near the bottom of the article is where Rosenthal says this proposal happened
NH preferred Diaz and Strickland instead.
by Jett on Aug 11, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So this is great deal the Pirates were offered but were too cheap to take. Kotchman is kind of like a younger Dougie M…I prefer Pearce myself.
by maguro on Aug 11, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Glad he turned it down
Kotchman is like the dinner guest who won’t leave. He just eats up at-bats without producing all that much, especially not enough to play 1B, and a bonehead manager like Russell would never have the sense to sit him down because he’s a “proven major leaguer.” He’s in the right role now on a wealthy team that can afford a $3M bench player. Next year he’ll end up as a hugely overpaid, everyday player dragging down the offense of some dumbass team like the Royals or D’backs.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
When LaRoche was traded from Boston to Atlanta, it was Kotchman plus cash to Atlanta for Adam. I’m sure the deal on the table was the same for the Pirates. It was not a straight up deal as many think…
by God Loves on Aug 11, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Back when the second deal was a "mystery offer"...
…Huntington said that it was a veteran and a fringe prospect coming back. Since there’s no fringe prospect in the Atlanta/Boston deal, it’s obviously not 100% identical to whatever we were talking about with them.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you Charlie for writing this
Basically, I view the rest of this season somewhat like how I would view a minor league team throughout the year which is, ignore the record and look at individual performances. It would certainly be nice to win, but the most important part is that the players that have a future perform well and get better and whatever they need to get better at.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 10, 2009 7:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It's so obvious . . .
that Dejan had a man crush on Jack, Freddy and Nate. Especially Jack. I noticed a clear detachment from objectiveness once the Bucs traded Nate. He’s been annoying me since, seeming to take shots at NH, whether it be citing Gorkys’ early struggles everyday, or his subjective critique of Jeff Clement (stating his HR rate was unimpressive and citing an anonymous player who said Clement did not have light tower power, as if we care).
Clearly, Dejan misses his buddies and he is allowing it to influence his work. I used to think he did a great job, but I’m starting to move him into the enemy section of my brain.
by Scranton on Aug 10, 2009 7:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not that I have any insider knowledge
but I agree with you. DK’s attitude towards the front office and the rebuilding process since the McLouth trade has seemed more in tune with the mindset of a mediocre, frustrated veteran player than anything else.
by maguro on Aug 10, 2009 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good stuff, Charlie...
Perfect timing after another DK disaster-piece. As much as I appreciate the hard work that DK puts into the PG, I have been wondering why he has been such a D!@K lately? I think the blog thing has gone to his head this year and the pain meds for his back have taken him over the edge.
by ElliottBayBucco on Aug 10, 2009 7:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
DEJAN not enough FACTS
Great article Charlie! Dejan is omitting the main facts of these trades, as are so many others – MOST WERE EXPIRING CONTRACTS. Why shouldn’t the Pirates trade 2 month rent-a-players for good prospects? Other cases included getting rid of McLouth (who is a .250 hitter who doesn’t fit in the 1 or 3 hole well) to improve with Cutch, getting rid of sleep-walker Adam Larouche, head case Ian Snell, and another sleepwalker in Gorzo. Most of those traded had very little personality or passion. Only Nyger Morgan was a great player, BUT guys who rely on speed so much who start to turn thirty end up on the DL with hamstring blowouts for half of every year. So this was also a good trade. Burnett was the childish boy who built a memorial to McLouth, etc. So WAY TO GO Front Office. Dejan, get a clue and stop whining about the class of losers who are gone, finally!
by BucsFaninCA on Aug 10, 2009 8:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I hate sounding like a blind apologist, but teams go on losing streaks. It’s a thing that happens. The Pirates have lost 8 in a row, and have looked bad in doing so. The Red Sox, Trade Deadline “Winners,” have lost 6 in a row. It sucks, but it happens, particularly to bad teams. It doesn’t mean the Pirates have gone from good to “unmitigated disaster” purely because of the timing of the losing streak, unless the lack of Jack Wilson’s leadership caused Capps to give up a game-blowing homer to Skip Schumaker.
by Dan H on Aug 10, 2009 8:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Fantastic post, Charlie
Expecting wins at the major league level right now is ridiculous.
- This team has no left-hander in the bullpen.
- This team is pretty much devoid of power.
- This team. for all intents and purposes, is fielding an experiment at second base.
But you know what? I’m fine with that.
Given what we have and what is gone — a collection of overrated role players who NEVER would’ve been part of a winner in Pittsburgh — this had to be expected.
I don’t get all the outcry, especially since the farm system looks better than it has in years.
Didn’t the Pirates have an eight-game losing streak earlier in the year? Didn’t the Pirates lose something like 13 in a row in 2006, including being swept by the Royals, despite having legendary names like Sanchez, Wilson and Nady on the roster?
Where was the anger then? What makes now so much worse?
I just don’t get it.
by woobie on Aug 10, 2009 8:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Anger was there 3 years ago...
just more people with that anger makes the overall volume considerably louder.
by Thunder on Aug 10, 2009 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This team has no left-hander in the bullpen.
Lefthanders from the bullpen are overrated, woobie.
So NH has spoken, so say we all.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless. . .
The opposing team has Pedro Alvarez. The man has been pretty brutal against lefthanders, essentially turning into Jack Wilson the batter. I think part of the explanation for the improved performance of Alvarez at Altoona is he is not facing lefthanders as much; he saw a disproportionate amount at Lynchburg.
by Scranton on Aug 11, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't tell me that
It’s like finding out Superman isn’t hurt by Kryptonite, but by copper.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nyjer Great????
Nyjer not great…nyjer nice…nyjer fast…nyjer no good
by GeneClines on Aug 10, 2009 8:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nyjer more...
Nyger great asset, but a regular candidate for hammy blowout. Also, can’t help himself not to get picked off 1st or overslide 2nd, etc. Bottom line is good trade!
by BucsFaninCA on Aug 10, 2009 8:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nyjer is great...
as long as he only plays against RHP. He’s STILL only hitting .167 against LHP this season…and not far from that for his career. He’s still only about 67% on baserunning (officially 18-23 with the Nats, but 4 PO on top of that, and thrown out trying to advance 4 other times). He’s had 31 PA against LHP in 35 games for the Nats. THAT is why he’s hitting .350 something with the Nats. And he’s hitting almost .700 on balls hit to the OF. I doubt that is sustainable…when you consider Freddy…and even Pujols…2 pretty darn good hitters…only average between .500 and .600 on balls hit to the OF>
by Thunder on Aug 10, 2009 8:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The thing is
all the casual fans see batting average, RBIs, and home runs as the be all, end-all statistics.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 10, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hey
where can i get such split stats?
like, on balls hit to the OF, etc?
by BurgherKing on Aug 10, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At...
Then select your player’s page…then select splits and it’s near the bottom of the page.
by Thunder on Aug 10, 2009 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Thunder!!
So this site says that since his recall, in 57 PA Steve Pearce is:
BA .265 OBP .368 SLG .510 OPS .879
with a very respectable OPS+ of 130.
Of course, to JR and DK, Pearce hasn’t proven he’s worthy of regular starts since his recall.
Over the exact same time frame, Garrett Jones numbers in over 100 PA are:
BA 283 OBP 347 SLG .587 OPS .933, with an OPS+ of 141.
It’s like night and day. :)
For giggles, Brandon Moss over the same time frame (58 PA) is:
BA 196 OBP .293 SLG .314 OPS .607, with an OPS+ of 61
by WstCstBucco on Aug 10, 2009 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep...
small sample size alert…but facts is facts.
Pearce IS performing during this callup…even though it’s being ignored. Next game Jones sits will be his first. Considering that the next 2 stops are Colorado and Chicago…I’d say both should be playing and Moss and Salazero sitting.
by Thunder on Aug 10, 2009 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're both absolute butchers with the gloves though
Its important to remember that as we go merrily down our losing streak.
by MrPedriqueIfYoureNasty on Aug 11, 2009 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jones is a butcher.
Pearce is, at worst, adequate at 1B, IMO. He doesn’t look bad there to me, and UZR actually has him as a plus glove at that position (small sample, though).
Now, OF, I agree. He shouldn’t be playing there, unless we’re out of other options.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Jones....
in his limited time at first has looked much better than I anticipated. Made a couple very nice scoops. Pearce I think has been very good fielding batted balls and is much more mobile. I don’t think he’s been very good on low throws in the dirt and the one throw I saw him make on a pickoff was a disaster in to left center. They both are a big downgrade from Adam and a huge downgrade from Moss in RF.
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
I think Pearce is as good or better than LaRoche at 1B. I think LaRoche was vastly overrated at the position. He does pick a good amount of balls, but his range was not so great. Pearce and Jones are night and day in comparison, too. I don’t trust Jones at all at 1B.
by Slizeezyc on Aug 11, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been unimpressed by Jones at first.
Hands are OK, I guess, but he’s got two-steps-and-a-dive range.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is UZR with first basemen?
When I’m at the games I find myself saying “Laroche would’ve picked that” a lot with Pearce and then it ends up as E-5 or an infield single. Does UZR take that sort of thing into account?
Or its entirely possible that my eyes are fooling me too.
by MrPedriqueIfYoureNasty on Aug 11, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
UZR doesn't see stretch
Or any other aspect of receiving. IOW, Pearce could miss every throw from here til October, but his UZR will still be better than Adam’s.
Not actually saying Pearce is awful out there, but it’s a HUGE flaw in UZR that makes it nearly useless for 2 of 8 positions.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, I didn't think that it did
but I wanted to check…
Butcher was an overstatement on my part because he does have solid range but if given the choice between range at first and receiving at first I’ll happily take receiving every time.
And right now Pearce has just not been very good in that department and its bringing down everyone’s defense, not just his.
by MrPedriqueIfYoureNasty on Aug 11, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you're going by options
Then he’s picking the ball better than GJones. Is everyone calling Pearce out because he didn’t dig out one bad pickoff throw?
by Slizeezyc on Aug 11, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, he's missed a few digs
I don’t know if people are being fair, but it’s definitely not just 1 or 2 plays.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not just on him for that one throw
Its only anecdotal from when I’m at the games and its a very small sample size too but Pearce is quite simply been bad picking things so far. I’m not saying that Jones would be better, I’d wager that he’d probably be worse, but calling Pearce a good defensive first baseman because of his small sample size UZR doesn’t match what I’ve been watching.
I’m happy with his bat but not enough where it cancels out his glove right now.
by MrPedriqueIfYoureNasty on Aug 11, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The pickoff throw I saw him miss...
…I’m not sure anybody could’ve gotten. It was high and away, to the runner side. He would’ve basically had to hurdle the runner to even have a shot.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think people...
are mistakenly citing the play. Nobody in the world catches that pickoff throw from Duke. It was the play when the picked the runner off and Pearce missed DY by ten feet high and wide throwing to second.
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Of course, to JR and DK, Pearce hasn’t proven he’s worthy of regular starts since his recall."
DK hasn’t said that at all. In the chat that we’re all here supposedly discussing, he commented on how odd it is that Pearce has been sat, and that Jones has not.
(essentially he said that JR & Varsho sit people based on esoteric considerations, not previous-game performance, and that Jones has been the only exception)
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nyjer...
Someone over at WHYGAVS made this comment a few months ago, which I thought summed up Nyjer perfectly:
Nyjer Morgan is the black Rico Fata; lots of speed, little production.
by IAPiratesFan on Aug 10, 2009 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How many players on the 25 man roster were around in April 2008??
On a full time basis?? Duke, Maholm, Capps, Doumit. On a part time basis, Pearce, Cruz, Chavez, Meek (and am probably missing one or two others). So about 3/4 of the roster…management had a direct impact on acquiring over the last 2 years. Should we not assess management on the quality of players on the major league roster?? Should we ignore the talent level of the ML league team entirely…even though management is responsible for that talent??
by Thunder on Aug 10, 2009 8:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And yes...
I realize what shape the minors were in. Front office said before the season…decisions based on results. That being the case…NH and JR would be very uncomfortable…but accountability by players and by management are not the same.
by Thunder on Aug 10, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two years.
IMO, in two years (around July 31 2011) Huntington will have responsibility for what the talent on the major league team looks like. If the Pirates are still really bad then, it will be mostly NH’s fault.
But until that time, the Pirates are like the 2008 George W. Bush economy. It won’t be fixed in a week.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Aug 10, 2009 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
on the topic of good milb news
Dan McCutchen: 7IP, 6H, 0R, 7K
by BurgherKing on Aug 10, 2009 9:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
BTW...
Trent Stevenson made his first appearance for Bradenton today (already) 1 IP, 1 K. Bradenton won 2-0 in 12 innings on a walkoff by Freeman.
by Thunder on Aug 10, 2009 9:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
In case anyone cares
Gorzo just gave up a 2-run bomb to Troy Tulowitzki in the 1st inning and at about the same time, Jason Bay hit a Fenway Park home run, aka, a fly ball out in any other park.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 10, 2009 9:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
add a solo shot to Gorzo's totals...
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 10, 2009 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He IS throwing strikes though...
24 pitches, 15 strikes…last I looked. It is in Coors…so we will see what happens tonight…and see him for ourselves on Saturday.
by Thunder on Aug 10, 2009 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well at least he’ll be fresh on Saturday.
by WstCstBucco on Aug 10, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bay.
I saw that. He was standing at home watching it cause he thought it was a pop out or foul ball. In PNC Park, it would have been an out.
by IAPiratesFan on Aug 10, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's true for a lot of parks
PNC has the biggest sea-level LF in baseball (maybe Petco is about equal). It’s saying nothing interesting that a HR in another ballpark’s LF would be a flyout here.
Just as the Polo Grounds cost Willie Mays 50+ HRs, PNC cost JBay a dozen or two over his time here. If he’s getting a few cheap ones now at Fenway, it’s only payback.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So true . . .
check out Bay’s home to road HR splits. I know he hit a great deal more on the road, and it may even be close to a 2 to 1 ratio.
by Scranton on Aug 11, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
44/70
from ’04 to ’07.
So PNC cost him about 6 HR/year. Damn.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even more stark
When you realize that just about all of those HRs turned into FOs. Think 24 extra bases per year would bump that SLG a bit?
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
White Sox get Alex Rios...
from Toronto…for nothing (except maybe the $1 waiver claim fee).
by Thunder on Aug 10, 2009 9:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The White Sox
eat the contract. So that’s something…i guess
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 10, 2009 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And we thought getting Andy LaRoche/Brandon Moss for a solid outfielder was bad…
by Gorkys n' Beans on Aug 10, 2009 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ricciardi’s rebuilding plan in Toronto makes me feel a lot better about our’s. Letting assets go for free and holding teams hostage when they try to trade for players is not a real recipe for success.
by MrPedriqueIfYoureNasty on Aug 11, 2009 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice snag by the White Sox.
Rios is a great glove, and he’s been hitting into bad luck all year.
JP should be fired for selling that low on an asset.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, obviously
the point is, that contract makes that asset a whole hell of a lot less valuable.
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When I say "asset"...
…I’m talking about the player AND the contract.
If Rios goes back to his pre-2009 hitting, as he probably will, the contract is market or better (depending on how aggressively you forecast salary growth in the future).
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well....
you know my view. I see contraction in salaries. I don’t take Buster as gospel but in today’s column he suggested if Rios were a free agent this year he might get $20/2 and would be very lucky to get $30/3. If he were to perform like 2007 sure those numbers could be higher so I guess in my view the best they can hope for is it is market value.
Having said all that I think it was a great move by the Sox as they can get rid of Dye, Thome and Contreras in the offseason if they so choose. They have the dough.
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think there has ever been...
…an multi-year contraction in salaries (post-Flood) that wasn’t driven by collusion.
His expected return as a FA this offseason would be down, of course, because he hasn’t played well this year. If he were coming off of his 2008, rather than his 2009, he’d have no trouble getting his current deal, IMO, even in the current economic climate.
Some good numbers on Rios’s market value in this post by Dave Cameron.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes....
I’ve seen Cameron’s post. As far as salaries well agree to disagree and watch it play out. But, if bastkeball and hockey are any indication we are going to see overall payrolls lower for consecutive years. Whether that means going with cheaper, younger players or a pullback in overall salaries is unclear.
I also think we seen the peak price for franchise values across sports for at least a five year time frame. Sure, some may command more but as we are seeing in the Premiership in London, the debt levels aren’t sustainable (and with Hicks’ francises) and it is going to be harder to borrow money.
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hockey and basketball are different.
Different sports, different markets, different TV deals, different financial structures. You can’t extrapolate from their performance.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You certainly can....
extrapolate owners behavior on players salaries. Absolutely you can.
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, you can't.
Is it fair to compare the auto and dirigible industries in this country, just because they both involve transportation? Or to draw conclusions about the one from information about the other?
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To provide just one example:
On a macro level, payroll is driven by league revenue, and when looking at NHL revenues, you have to consider things like this:
The increase in the value of the Canadian dollar may be responsible for as much as half of the league’s revenue gains since the NHL went through the lockout of 2004-05, say several sources familiar with NHL finances. – The Toronto Star, May 2008
I’m pretty sure that half of MLB’s profit over the same time period didn’t come from currency fluctuations…
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
First of all,
the several sources are wrong. And your singular point doesn’t really disprove my point. Anybody can cite a singular quote from unnamed sources that hedges the point by saying “may be responsible” to prove the anything from the sky is red and the earth is flat.
Secondly, are you really going to say that watching owner behavior is not a fairly good comp. A guy who owns a hockey team AND a baseball team, in fact there are two who are the same person, is probably going to take a similar approach to running each business.
I’m not going to argue with you about this one, if you don’t see the similarities I’m surprised. But, I will ask what you think is a better comp? I’m totally amused that you think salaries are just going to continue to go straight up forever unless owners collude. Not that any other industry in this country has seen a pullback—-unions, bankers, etc.
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Past baseball salary trends are a better comp...
…than present salary data from other industries (football, basketball, soccer, hockey, etc.). The economic systems are too different for a close translation. Just look at the length of the schedule, or the distribution of the markets, or the state of the TV contracts.
Baseball salaries will only experience a steady decline if gross industry revenues also experience a steady decline. And it doesn’t look like they will:
And the economic meltdown has not drastically shaken MLB. In fact, even though attendance is modestly down, Selig said he expects gross revenue to replicate last year’s record $6.5 billion. – MLB.com, two weeks ago
by Vlad on Aug 12, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't entirely disagree
I’m simply saying that while you don’t normally do this (for obvious reasons), I’m sure JP is under pressure to shed some salary, so it probably softens the blow if Snider is ready to be called up. I am in no way saying his contract is anywhere near as bad as Vernon’s or anything, but he has been only so-so this year, though, it’s nice to see that his power has come back.
by Slizeezyc on Aug 11, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn't agree more
Even the “bad” trades are defensible. At the time, the conventional wisdom was the Pirates did well in the Bay deal, and not so well in the Nady deal. These things are calculated risks. Same with Milledge. Sean Burnett is what he is, and even if Morgan continues at this pace for another year, I’ll defend this deal. Someone may yet be able to harness Hanrahan’s stuff, and Milledge still has time. Even if both deals prove to be unproductive, one or two gems in the other deals will more than make up for them. We all knew they had to do what they are doing, and I’ll go a step farther. It would be unfair to judge Huntington for at least three more seasons, and that is the low side. That is how bad a train wreck he inherited.
by RichieHebner on Aug 10, 2009 9:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
PBCblog vs. Bucs Dugout
why the rivalry?
by Danatural08 on Aug 10, 2009 9:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The commenters on PBC blog
Are complete yinzer idiots.
by thecheeseisblue on Aug 10, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t want to be harassed for not having an avatar.
by WstCstBucco on Aug 10, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I pulled my avatar...
just on principle…because they were being so pissy about people not having one. Nobody has said word one to me about it.
by Thunder on Aug 10, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As for other people's problems...
Just what Dusty Baker needs…another pitcher with an injury. Johnny Cueto pulled after 2 innings tonight. His replacement…Kip Wells.
by Thunder on Aug 10, 2009 9:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Cueto hurt? Cohaagen must have finally got to him.
Give those people air!
by WstCstBucco on Aug 10, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guys at Red Reporter...
say cueto is a left hip injury…but earlier had been talking about a dead arm. Wonder if one is related to the other.
BTW…their game thread tonight is the sign of a bad ball team. More talk about soccer…MMA…and Tara Patrick than baseball…much more.
by Thunder on Aug 10, 2009 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep
I dropped Cueto after his previous start from my FB team – and that was his 5th straight loss.
by BlindSquirrel on Aug 10, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dusty Baker may have a pitcher with dead arm? Say it ain’t so!
by matskralc on Aug 10, 2009 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kip Wells plays for Cincy?
When did this happen?
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 10, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
More importantly
When do we get to play against him?
by ravidesai1984 on Aug 10, 2009 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No rivalry
People here have been pretty laudatory of Dejan Kovacevic’s work. Some of his analysis over the course of the past month or two seems a little skewed, and it deserves note.
by RichieHebner on Aug 10, 2009 9:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I think
Everyone really likes Dejan’s reporting, it’s his editorializing that gets to some people, but any opinion is going to get someone riled up I suppose.
I just think Dejan has a problem looking ahead when it’s so bad now, which is a hard thing to do for most people.
by Slizeezyc on Aug 10, 2009 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
when you spend all day in the sewers,
you’re gonna smell like shit
by Danatural08 on Aug 10, 2009 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gorzo
Knocked out in the 2nd inning tonight.
He and Snell do have something in common…
1.1 IP 4 ER and counting, responsible for 2 guys still on base
by God Loves on Aug 10, 2009 9:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Now he’s up to six earned runs.
by thecheeseisblue on Aug 10, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair to Gorzo
it was in Colorado…
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 10, 2009 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
But the yinzers were screaming that NH made a terrible trade after Gorzo pitched well against a dreadful Reds lineup last week, so it goes both ways.
by biggyv on Aug 10, 2009 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lets just say that I didn’t bench Helton or Tulowitzki on my fantasy team when I saw that they were facing Gorzo in Coors.
by MrPedriqueIfYoureNasty on Aug 11, 2009 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A bit off topic but...
Where did Salazar come from? He obviously can’t hit – why is he there? Is he a spectacular fielder? Is he just warming a spot for someone else?
Is he on his knees for JR in the lockeroom?
(We don’t have baseball on TV very often in Aus and it’s only on in mornings when normal ppl go to work)
by BlindSquirrel on Aug 10, 2009 9:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
did he put up respectable numbers in the minors?
by BlindSquirrel on Aug 10, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i m also curious as to this
but i will admit, i was not particularly pissed with salazar added. I had heard of him before (not much) and my instinctive opinion was “not bad”. Clearly, my instincts are not good :)
by BurgherKing on Aug 10, 2009 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he's better than he's shown this year.
But there’s no question that he’s really struggling right now.
He’s probably also being rewarded somewhat for being a good organizational guy. He was basically promised a bench job when he signed as a NRI, and then right after that we stumbled into signing Hinske, pushing Salazar out of a job. He didn’t complain at all – just went down to AAA and did his thing, which was pretty decent of him, and I’m guessing that they want to reward him with some service time for not kicking up a fuss.
Doing that kind of stuff makes it easier to add quality NRIs in the future, since they know that you’ll treat them as fairly as possible.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he's not good . . .
but who would be up in his place? I wouldn’t want a real prospect on the bench when he could be getting regular ABs.
by biggyv on Aug 10, 2009 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trade him.
for Mookie Wilson and Omar Moreno.
by IAPiratesFan on Aug 10, 2009 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
R. Diaz...
at least with 3 catchers…one could pinch hit…instead of having at most…one guy on the bench that might get a hit.
by Thunder on Aug 10, 2009 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Harsh on Milledge...
a little too harsh I think. You did state that he’s still young, but lumping him into the same discussion as “disastrous” seemed a little bit much.
The OPS hasn’t been there, but the guy is hitting .293 as a Pirate, which I’m sure we’d all take.
Although he’s not a prospect anymore, I think it’s still important to note his full season success last yr: 14 HR, 24 SB, .731 OPS as a 23 year old.
Still alot of room for Milledge to grow into a solid everyday player. Gotta think Cutch is going to be a positive influence on him, and hopefully vice versa.
by jlk9697 on Aug 11, 2009 3:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And what with his coming back from a wrist injury the lack of power may be expected the rest of this season. Hopefully next season he can get it going power-wise when he’s fully healed up.
by TravisDW on Aug 11, 2009 7:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was a finger
not a wrist. Could be wrong?
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, right. Forgot. Oh well, then the power needs to show up this year at least a little bit
by TravisDW on Aug 11, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anything related to the hand affects power.
Fingers not as much as wrists, maybe, but there’s still an effect.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Damn straight.”
— Jason Kendall’s thumb
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But Kendall’s thumb was dislocated landing on first base, wasn’t it?
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he tore the tendon...
…on defense, trying to grab a ball in the dirt. I could be misremembering, though.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was a joke
Although I don’t recall how it happened. It surely was not from swinging too hard, a la Doumit.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes....
I think the crowd here has been a little tough on Milledge. Particularly his defense. He isn’t Nyjer (would have been laughed out of here for saying that last year), but his routes are not nearly as bad as people are making them out to be and he is throwing to the right base and hitting the cutoff many every time.
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
People are giving him a hard time for his fielding...
…because he’s not hitting. They don’t actually know or care much about his glove, but it’s a club they can use to whack him right now, so they are.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
but did you see some of the flyballs he misplayed against St Louis? His defensive number have always been terrible and seeing him play left field just coonfirms that.
by maguro on Aug 11, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His defensive numbers have been bad in part...
…because he was being miscast as a CF. All corner OFs look bad in CF.
I’ve watched him several times in person since the trade, and he doesn’t look bad out there. He doesn’t look anything like an actual bad OF defender, like Jones.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's Milledge's future?
Does Tabata profile well in LF? Does Milledge have the arm for RF? Does Hernandez-Cutch-Tabata look better to you all than Tabata-Cutch-Milledge? I realize that this is egg-counting, but I’m curious what the consensus is. Let’s say Milledge finally comes around – solid bat, tolerable D. Is he a clearly better choice than Hernandez, especially if we can hide him glove in RF?
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tabata belongs in RF. He has a very good arm.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you worry about that down the road.
In April, we had a big pileup in CF, between Cutch and McLouth and Nyjer.
Now, no pileup. If guys play well, they’ll be tradable commodities, and if they don’t play well, we have replacements on hand.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well yeah
But the alternative is thinking about this team. So I’m thinking about that one.
Mostly I was trying to figure out Lastings’ upside vs. the other 2 guys (plus Grossman!). I guess if he can get his D solidified and his power shows up, he can hold down LF until someone pushes him out.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Milledge has a career UZR of 0.1 in LF, -16.2 in CF and -26.2 in RF, so overall his numbers are pretty bad. The huge difference between LF and RF is probably just due to small sample size (about 50 games each) and his true performance as a corner OF has probably been about halfway between the two.
And he looks kinda bad out there to me, though maybe I’m biased against him because I know what his UZR numbers look like.
by maguro on Aug 11, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those numbers make no sense.
I don’t think there’s a player in the game legitimately capable of being 10-15 runs worse in RF than in CF. Maybe a Juan Pierre type, with plus range and absolutely no arm whatsoever. That certainly doesn’t sound like Milledge, though.
I think all that ZiPS is telling us there is that it doesn’t have enough data.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How much data for UZR
I’ve heard people saying often that UZR is wonky for small sample sizes, which I totally get, but when does it become reliable? A full season? Half season? 2-3 seasons?
I’ve said that I really dislike the way it bounces around from season to season, but if we think it has merit, it must become reliable at some point. Right?
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think MGL has said...
…that you can start to draw semi-firm conclusions after ~1,000 innings at a position. I could be misremembering, though.
Some of that jitter is just a function of players’ year-to-year performance bouncing around. We don’t notice it as much in other statistics because we’re used to it, but it’s there if you look. When Darin Erstad’s BAs from 1998-2002 go .296 – .253 – .355 – .258 – .283 (in 600+ AB every year), that’s not coming from an inherent flaw with batting average.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The way I look at it now is that he’s played about 100 games in the corner OF positions and is about 13 runs below average there so far. It certainly seems within the realm of the possible to me…what’s 13 runs over the course of a season? Maybe he doesn’t get to a ball an average RF/LF would get to once every 5 games or so? You’d hardly notice that if you were just watching at home.
by maguro on Aug 11, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know it is late in the thread....
….but thanks Charlie. You summed it up well.
by vanslyke on Aug 11, 2009 8:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
if the major league roster has been pretty close to "an unmitigated disaster" for 17 years before the trades
Case not proven. The current roster is a .200 team (despite Charlie’s insistence that Smizik was stupid to think that this team could ever lose 100 games). And those 2 wins came against a team that Charlie used to think was laughably worse than this one. Which team of course turned around and beat us twice.
I understand – completely – the point that none of these trades were supposed to improve the team in Pittsburgh, except in the future. But to pretend that the bums running onto the field at PNC Park right now are of a piece with the 67-75 loss teams that we’ve seen for most of the past 17 years is simply dishonest. If not for the presence of average starting pitching, this team would be a good bet to lose 105, despite being staked to a .460 first half. In a 162 game season, this team would be a cinch to lose 110.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 10:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ah, but a .200 team on performance...
…or a .200 team on talent?
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I think they've earned it
That’s kind of a joke. I don’t really think they’re a .200 team. But I have no doubt they’re a sub-.333 team. For every player you can imagine doing better than he’s done (DY improving his D, Pearce becoming more solid) there’s another who’s outperforming his talent (Jones, Cedeno’s bat).
The bullpen isn’t as bad as it’s been, but the bullpen isn’t the only reason they’re losing – not by a long shot.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Jones is outperforming his talent.
Over the last two weeks, he’s hitting .220/.319/.415. Sounds about right to me.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But over the past 6 weeks....
Hell, if you want to be silly, you could say that the Bucs were a .350 team while Jones was hot and are a .200 team with him cold….
Actually, Fangraphs does show him around +4 WAR.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course you don't ........
but you, as the Adam LaRoche supporter knowing that all hits count the same, recognize that in 150 PAs Jones is hitting .297 and OPSing 1.014. So I know you picking sample size to prove something irrelevant isn’t important to you thank god.
by dtoddwin on Aug 12, 2009 5:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I used the last two weeks...
…because JRoth was talking about the performance of the team since the latest round of trades, which happened about two weeks ago.
Why is that unreasonable?
by Vlad on Aug 12, 2009 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.....
the whole argument you guys are having is ridiculous. Just tired of your constant Jones bashing when the guy now has 152 PAs and is .297/.362/1.014. And don’t tell me you don’t bash him because you have cited how he has cooled off at least three times in the past week. Let it play out and see what happens. It’s getting old.
Pearce was 0-4 last night with a strikeout and left five on base. Sounds about right to me. Give it a rest, man.
by dtoddwin on Aug 12, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mentioned it twice, IIRC.
Both after other people made positive remarks about what he’d done over the specified time interval (one week in the other case, two weeks in this one).
I always try to correct wrong facts when I see them, whether they’re connected to Jones or someone else. If he heats up again, and people talk about him being a millstone on the team over the last week’s worth of games, I’ll point that out, too.
by Vlad on Aug 12, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know you will.....
I just think the whole discussion has gotten out of hand. My ideal scenario is that Jones an Milledge sit at least one day a week and Pearce and Moss get at least 4-5 starts a week. If there are seven games a week and there are 21 starts available, nobody should be getting less than four and nobody needs to get 7.
by dtoddwin on Aug 12, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The bullpen....
is largely responsible for 6 of the last 8 losses. Unquestionably.
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The bullpen stranded 6 runners in 2 innings?
Don’t let the pattern of early lead/late loss deceive you. The offense has been pretty bad, and the D has played a role in the bullpen collapses as well. Not only does Duke have a shutout entering the 7th Sunday if the D is competent, but he also throws ~10 fewer pitches. It snowballs.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That said
I’ve actually been pleasantly surprised by a number of the new guys – DY is showing fast improvement at 2B, Cedeno has of course been a very pleasant (if unsustainable) surprise with the bat, Milledge has been fine, if unspectacular….
Yet, even though the losses have mostly been on the bullpen, the fundamentals have looked awful. The failed PO & CS on Sunday, the incompetent bunting (and look, say whatever you want about the value of the bunt, it’s a fundamental skill that even the worst Little League player can master), etc.
Dejan is absolutely right that NH’s comment about instruction and different organizations is stupid. Are the Pirates the only org in baseball that teaches players things? Do the Mariners have their players work on square dancing in the offseason? There may be incidental aspects of the “Pirates Way” that you have to inculcate with new players, but the idea that, because a guy was in the Dodgers organization last month, he can’t be expected to catch a throwdown is insulting to everyone.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 11:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you underrate
How hard it is to lose 110 games. It’s an accomplishment to do that. But again, you seem like someone who just wants to go on a tirade, so flame on.
by Slizeezyc on Aug 11, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a tirade
I don’t think that this team will likely lose 110 games next year, because I don’t think “this team” will play 162 games. There will be bullpen help through FA (maybe a lefty?), Alderson, Tabata, and/or Pedro will show up some time next year… who knows?
BUT, since the Burnett/Morgan trade, this team has a pythagorean win percentage of .333. Which, granted, is not quite a 110-loss season. But then, most of those games featured several manifestly more talented players than are currently on the squad. This is a legitimately awful team, and I’m not interested in seeing people whitewash it. A few weeks ago, Charlie said it was ridiculous to say the Bucs might lose 100 this year, and everyone cheered him on. Does anyone still think that?
I just get frustrated at the tendentious arguments I see constantly deployed around here, even from Charlie, whom I esteem highly. To say that this group of 25 is about the same as the previous 16 25s is, as I said, dishonest. Maybe Charlie will say that’s not what he meant, but it’s what he said, and he said it so that he could switch from talking about Pittsburgh to talking about Indy, Altoona, and points south. His piece reads differently if he acknowledges the obvious, starting off by saying, “Yes, this is possibly the worst team of a 17 year losing streak. But it doesn’t matter, because….”
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course I still think it.
You’re assuming that a few weeks’ worth of performance will extrapolate seamlessly across the remainder of the season, and that’s a flawed assumption.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The old “Steve Balboni is on a pace to hit 67 HRs” fallacy.
by maguro on Aug 11, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did Balboni ever hit 17 HRs in 6 weeks?
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dunno if Balboni ever did.
But Garrett Jones, on the other hand…
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh...
I don’t know, maybe he did, but that was just an example. I remember Bill James (I think) using Balboni’s early-season HR totals to show how wrong it was to make full-season projections based on small sample sizes. I didn’t research those numbers and didn’t mean for it to be taken literally.
And announcers really did (maybe still do) say stuff like that, so I thought it was kinda funny.
by maguro on Aug 11, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just making a joke
But also pointing out that the silly projections usually happen in April, well before the 1/4 point of the season.
A quarter season isn’t definitive, but it’s not a tiny sample, either. I don’t think this is a secretly good team that’s just had an unlucky 6 weeks.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
caution regarding small sample sizes should apply any time of year, not just in April. And no one is suggesting that the Pirates are a “secretly good team”, I know I’m not.
They’re a bad team, a very bad team. But are they really a .333 team, much less a .200 team? That has yet to be established.
by maguro on Aug 11, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think they're "secretly good", either.
But a sub-.333 W% is extremely rare. Over the last ten years, you’ve got the 2004 Diamondbacks (.315), The 2003 Tigers (.265), and that’s it.
For a team to be that bad, you need to have a whole bunch of things go wrong at the same time. It’s technically possible that we’d do it, in the sense that it’s technically possible for us to lose every remaining game, but I wouldn’t put money on it.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Full season
As I said elsewhere, they won’t be this bad next year, because, if nothing else, NH will find bullpen help. A big part of the reason that almost no one has been that bad for a full season is that no one would enter a season with a roster like the current Pirates one – with long-shot experiments at 3-4 starting positions, no lefties in the bullpen, and no established relievers at all (other than a mediocre “closer”). A GM would be suicidal to show up with the current 25 on Opening Day. But we are what we are, for the rest of the year. I think we all agree that the “help” coming from Indy in September won’t make a difference, right?
Hey, look, there’s no guarantees. This team could rip off 4-5 wins and then play OK against some good teams (maybe the Phils will rest everybody), and that would be that for 100 losses. But I think it would take better play than what we’ve seen, not just better luck.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Teams do enter the season with those lineups, on occasion.
And they’re bad teams, 90+ loss teams. Just not .333 teams.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
The Pirates have had a lot of 90+ loss teams over the past 16 years. I’d say that nearly all of them would win a 20 game series against this team. Furthermore, I’d say that nearly all of them had more realized talent* than this one.
- By which I mean that there are talented guys on this team who may or may not ever realize that talent – Milledge may never pan out, Morton may never throw 7 innings, etc.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, let's look.
Start by picking a 90-loss season at random. I went with 2005. That was a 95-loss team, 72-90 by Pyth.
Here’s the Opening Day lineup:
Matt Lawton, RF – .273/.380/.433
Jack Wilson, SS – .257/.299/.363
Tike Redman, CF – .251/.292/.332
Jason Bay, LF – .306/.402/.559
Daryle Ward, 1B – .260/.318/.405
Ty Wigginton, 3B – .258/.324/.465
Jose Castillo, 2B – .268/.307/.416
Benito Santiago, C – .261/.261/.391
Pitcher
And here’s the rotation at the start of the year, in order:
Oliver Perez – 5.85 ERA, 103 IP
Kip Wells – 5.09 ERA, 182 IP
Mark Redman – 4.90 ERA, 178 IP
Josh Fogg – 5.05 ERA, 169 IP
Dave Williams – 4.41 ERA, 138 IP
Does that squad take a 20-game series against our current team? Weak rotation, marginal defense, and only one really dangerous hitter in the lineup.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is absolutely a worse team than the Pirates are fielding right now.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Santiago?
I mean, come on. He was cut after what, 5 games? I don’t think anyone on this roster is going to get cut anytime soon.
RF – depending on what you think of MVP, maybe a wash
SS – 2009 has worse D, worse O
CF – 2009 better D, better O
LF – 2009 wash on D, big downgrade on O
1B – wash?
3B – 2009 worse bat, better D
2B – 2009 better bat, D a wash at best
C – Cota/Doumit, 2009 better-better
So the 2009 team has a worse bat at 3 positions, better at 2, with better D at only 2-3 positions.
I’d say 2005 was a better everyday lineup, with worse pitching. More or less a series split.
WTM is nuts in his certainty. Other than CF and C, where do the current everyday players stand out? And “potential” doesn’t count.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The pitching was much worse, which I suspect is why you don’t bother analyzing it. No way is this a split.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
After Duke and 6-inning Morton, it’s not exactly lights-out. I suppose it depends on Hart a lot – I don’t think anyone believes his 2.94 is real, but if he’s sub-4, then that’s pretty decisive. But among Maholm, Ohlie, Fogg, Wells, and Redman, I don’t see big differentiation (Ohlie’s half a run better on straight ERA, but his FIP is 4.88).
Perez, obviously, was a disaster. 2005 probably spots 2009 3 wins right there.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the scheme of things
there really isn’t a difference between a 90 loss team and a 100 loss team. They both are pretty f-ing bad.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 11, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you undervalue the defensive problems of 2005.
UZR had Lawton as a -19.5 per 150 as a RF, for example, and Wigginton as an eye-popping -52.3 per 150 as a 3B.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I went with Santiago...
..because in your prior post you said that “no one would enter a season with a roster like the current Pirates one”, full of “long-shot experiments”. Santiago was acquired in the expectation that he’d be the team’s everyday catcher, until his health and performance put paid to that notion, so I listed him with the rest.
There were numerous unproven/shaky commodities in that lineup. Santiago was a 40-year-old coming off a season where he’d managed only 175 AB. Castillo was a second-year player who’d hit .256/.298/.368 the year before, with poor defense. Ward was a longtime bench bat without an above-average ML season to his name. Williams was coming back from shoulder surgery. Redman was returning from a 77 OPS+. Wigginton had hit .220/.306/.341 with the Pirates the year before, after coming over in the Benson trade.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few weeks?
The Burnett/Morgan trade was 6 weeks ago – 1/4 season. Every season has its ebb and flow, but it’s not as if 6 weeks is a tiny sample, or it’s at all surprising how this collection of players is playing. Is there a single everyday guy outside Cutch and Doumit who would start for a good team? Andy, I guess, but he wouldn’t be one of that team’s better players, merely an acceptable warm body.
So what’s your over-under? A .350 pace gets them 63 wins. Do you think they’ll do better than that?
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Six weeks can be highly misleading. Check out the 2006 Pirates. They started off 30-60, then, with largely the same personnel and almost the exact same run differential, they finished 37-35. Extrapolating a quarter season over a full year is not a sound method.
Now, what that says about the current team I don’t know.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Point taken
But, as I said, run differential says this is a 100-loss team, not the last 8 games.
Put it this way: every trade since McLouth has made the on-field product worse*, even if potential and years of control have improved. I don’t think it’s irrational to assume that the cumulative run differential since July 1 is more or less indicative.
- Depending on how you want to think about RF, I guess.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure.....
from your statement if you mean after the McLouth trade or including the McLouth trade, but that one made the product better. Cutch has outperformed Nate since the trade and Morton was certainly an upgrade over VV or whomever you want to choose to start games (Snell, Gorzo).
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought that might be ambiguous
NOT including the Nate trade, which I think was a good baseball trade.
I’m still not sure it was a trade that was made to improve the 2009 team (to my mind it was waving a white flag on 2009), but it was a trade with an intent beyond accumulating prospects. I think NH saw an opportunity to improve pitching depth without manifestly harming the big league club, while also getting an attractive MiL OF.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
every trade since McLouth has made the on-field product worse
I’d probably disagree about the Cubs’ trade. Hart has started only one game and should ultimately be a massive upgrade over Virgil. Despite his initial outing, I also think Ascanio has a good chance of being an upgrade over the overrated Grabow. (I can’t figure out why Dejan goes on and on about Grabow. Burnett was the Pirates’ best reliever, and by far their best against LH batters. That was the real blunder.)
Anyway, I don’t really see the point here. (Admittedly, I haven’t read much of this thread.) In immediate, on-field performance, the team has gotten much worse. In talent, there are more potential pieces of the long-term puzzle here than there have been throughout most of the streak. (Not nearly enough yet, but that’s a different issue.) This is especially true of the pitching staff, which has far more upside than most staffs during the streak.
If the point is to look at the team right now, as a snapshot in time, and say it’s the worst they’ve been through the 17 years, that’s not even close to true. Check out the 1998 team in September. That was FAR worse.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gorzo also would have been an upgrade over Vazquez
And yes, I know what he just did in CO.
The Grabow thing by DK is partly a joke (he referred to himself as “untouchable” at a time when everyone knew he was the most likely to be traded), but it’s been spurred by the utter implosion of the ‘pen since his departure. Burnett was better, but the bullpen held up OK after his departure. 33 ER in 33.2 innings since Grabow left kind of stands out, even if Grabow wouldn’t have made it all better.
As for the larger point, I was simply saying that this was a pretty bad team in June, and it’s gotten steadily less talented, with ample results to show that. It doesn’t have to be the absolute worst 25 in Pirates history for that to be true.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if the idea that Chavez suddenly sucks because Grabow is gone, that’s a pretty hard point to sustain. He’s the same guy. His talent level hasn’t changed. The bottom line is that Dejan is constantly beating a correlation = causation drum.
If the overriding point here is simply that the trades made the major league team worse on the field (you’re the one who brought up the issue of this possibly being the worst team in the 17 years), well, duh. Is somebody disputing that?
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Charlie did
The whole reason I brought it up is that, in the original post, Charlie wrote, "if the major league roster has been pretty close to “an unmitigated disaster” for 17 years before the trades." Which is stating an equivalence between this team and those. And this team is far worse than most (not all) of those.
Now Charlie did include the weasel-words “pretty close,” but I’m not buying that. There have been 2 or 3 rosters that were worse but, for the most part, the teams of the past 17 years have been uniformly better, and sometimes significantly better. It’s BS to say that this team is more or less the same as all those other teams.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's unfair
To call someone out for that because it seems like you’re saying each other Pirates teams at the start of the season are not as bad as this team has been for six weeks-post-trades. That’s kind of insane.
I mean it seems fair to compare this squad to every other team in a six-week vacuum, but then there really is no point. Plus, even if we’re not talking about that, there are more people on this team who have a future than on plenty of the other Pirates teams who clinged to the side of the boat or faked everyone out by having a somewhat strong final stretch — which was a DL classic when he was here, I guess because he probably felt it helped him save his job by trying to squeeze out some extra wins.
AND, what are we really even arguing about. Those past teams were bad and this team is bad. We’re arguing about how much one team sucks over another? NOW THAT’S CRAZY.
by Slizeezyc on Aug 11, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's my problem, actually
I don’t think you get to the right solutions if you don’t distinguish among things. If every team below .500 looks alike to you, then you’re not going to evaluate things correctly.
Look, this team is awful because most of the talent NH has accumulated is in the minors. That’s fine. But I don’t see how it helps to pretend that this team is “pretty close” to being 10-15 games better than it is.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you’re mischaracterizing Charlie’s comment in several different ways. Most of the teams over the past 17 years have been better performance-wise, but not potential-wise. And it’s a perfectly accurate statement to say that the roster has been “pretty close” to an unmitigated disaster for 17 years.
I also don’t see how his use of “pretty close” is weaselly, certainly no more weaselly than your use of “for the most part.”
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
quality versus quantity
I’m saying that every Pirates roster over the past 16+ years, with a couple of identifiable, specific exceptions, has been superior to this one in terms of major league talent. Charlie is implying that there’s not much difference, in major league talent, between those as a group and this one. And I think that’s crap. The fact that the example YOU chose – late 1998 – doesn’t appear to meet the bar is, to me, indicative of how far off you are.
I say “pretty close” is weaselly because it pretends there’s almost no difference between a 90 loss team and a 100+ loss team. Is Washington “pretty close” to Cleveland?
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the bottom line is that I agree with Charlie and not you, because your analysis depends entirely on a portion of a season to the exclusion of all other considerations. It’s a classic small sample size.
And, yes, Washington actually is “pretty close” to Cleveland. In fact, they’re probably the better of the two right now. Which is a good example of why focusing only on a portion of a season, even three-quarters of one, can be a problem. Every team is a work in progress and can’t just be frozen in time the way you’re doing it.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then why stop at 1 season?
If 3/4 of a season is meaningless, then presumably 4/4 is as well.
Anyway, the reason I’m looking at this as “frozen in time” is that we’re not likely to see changes in the everyday players, or the SPs, from here on out. I’ve said repeatedly that next season will have a different team. But for 2009, this is what we’ve got. And it’s abysmal.
If I had a radio station that broadcast games from 2012, I wouldn’t give this team another thought. But this is the only team that we have right now. I admire your ability to ignore its actual performance.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great, take the players’ whole careers into account, not to mention their future potential. That’s Charlie’s point. But you said you’re only looking at the period since the trades. And, as I said, that renders anything you’ve got to say completely irrelevant, other than “this team sure has sucked lately.” I don’t need help with that one.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Be careful.....
in thinking next year’s team will be markedly different. The point is management thinks these players have potential. Sure there will be changes but much of the staff including all five starters will probably be the same as now as will at least five if not seven of the position players.
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Washington actually isn't far off from Cleveland in my opinion
I fully believe Washington isn’t as bad as a 100+ loss team. Of course, Cleveland isn’t as bad as a 90 loss team either but but if you were to set 90 losses as a point, then yes, the Nationals could very well have loss only 90 games this season.
You are acting like the difference between a 90 loss team and a 100 loss team is gigantic when, in fact, it takes more analysis of the teams to see how gigantic of disparity there is. Using wins as the be all, end-all analysis of a team’s performance isn’t the way to go about things. It’s the only thing that counts, yes, but analyzing the overall performance requires using more than wins and losses.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 11, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cleveland
Has traded away some guys too…better and more valuable players than the Pirates traded. But hey, they’re 6-4 over their last 10, so they’ve magically turned themselves into a .600 team by getting rid of Cliff Lee, Victor Martinez and Carl Pavano.
by maguro on Aug 11, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Philly
got Cliff Lee and they are 3-8
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is quite weird...
Baseball that is
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 11, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Cliff LEe has been fantastic for them too
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
by glass0941 on Aug 11, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
How many of those 33 disastrous innings would have Grabow thrown? Something like a quarter. Instead those innings have gone to guys who are either worse (Hanrahan), less suitable (Chavez), or more tired (all of them at this point). Correlation may not equal causation, but it’s pretty silly to claim that trading away a good pitcher who throws a lot of innings for one who has thrown very few innings, and poorly, has had no impact.
Long term, Grabow for Ascanio should be fine, but over the past 10 games, it’s been a disaster.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hanrahan
Has been pretty darn solid since he got to town. I think his ERA is around 3.20 and he hasn’t given up any gopher balls. I guess the WHIP is a little high but he’s K’d like 18 in 13 innings or somewhere in there.
by Slizeezyc on Aug 11, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Hanrahan's performance thus far
and am glad I’m not the last person that does as I had thought
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 11, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he could have ......
made a simple throw to second I think everybody would be pretty damn pleased. There is a lot to like.
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes
his inability to throw to a base other than home is perturbing. But I’ve seen worse throws form pitchers that are better and I’m sure they all can do it.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 11, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re really reaching here. Grabow is a reliever, Hart at least for now a starter. He’ll throw far more innings through the end of the year than Grabow would have. Your “a lot of innings” vs. “very few innings” is extremely inaccurate—even by your own calculations it’s about eight innings vs. six. And you’re indulging in some outlandish cherry-picking based on the fact that Hart had just started when they acquired him and thus has had only one start so far. He’ll get his second start in another day or two and will probably go ahead of Grabow permanently in the innings-pitched department.
Basically, you’re confining your analysis to a very carefully restricted period of time in order to suit your ends. Charlie is talking about the big picture and you’re obsessed with the last ten games. It’s apples and oranges, or more appropriately, apples and specks of dust.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What the hell does Hart have to do with Grabow?
Did he relieve when I wasn’t looking?
I – as is Dejan – am talking about relievers. I’m fascinated by your theory that starters’ innings are interchangeable with relievers’. If the Yankees traded Rivera for Halliday, would that represent a bullpen upgrade?
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I can’t just focus on the minutiae that you do. What I care about is whether or not it was a good trade, and Hart was the main piece in it. Upgrading one rotation spot for the price of downgrading one bullpen spot is a good deal to me, so I forgot you’re just focused on little pieces of things. Yes, Ascanio has pitched just two innings. Damn, what a waste he must be, pitching in only two innings in the three days he’s been up.
We’re obviously talking at cross purposes here. You’re concerned solely with what’s happened the last ten days as a measure of the quality of this team. I’m not, and I think it’s pretty clear that wasn’t Charlie’s focus, either.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1998?
That team had a Phythagorean record of 74 wins, and won 69 IRL. They had KYoung in his prime, Kendall OPSing .884, Guillen, Womack in his prime (such as it was – .680 OPS, 88% SB, plus-D). For starters they had Lieber, Cordova, & Schmidt. For potential, they had ARam. And I’m not sure what they did – other than add Todd van Poppel – to make themselves obviously worse in September.
I’m not saying it was a good team; I’m saying I don’t see where it was obviously worse than this one (clearly worse overall SPs, but beyond that?).
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They went 5-22 in Sept. and were outscored by almost exactly double. You’re the one who’s into looking at pieces of seasons, and that team, for that month, was a lot worse than the current one.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Got it
But of course that was more or less the same roster that had gone 64-71 the rest of the season.
The reason I’m focused on the recent past is that that’s the only evidence we have for these guys as a unit. It’s ridiculous to say that “this team” is a 66-win team when 3/4 of their wins to date were accumulated by a different – and manifestly more able – group of players. We know who will be playing for the Pirates over the next 6 weeks. It’s a bunch of guys who have played between .200 and .333 ball, depending on how big a window you want to look at.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What, exactly, is the value in analyzing them "as a unit"...
…as opposed to individual components, which would allow you to use a much larger data sample?
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This actually clarifies for me, better than anything Vlad or myself has argued, that your method is flawed and irrelevant.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I knew that was a red flag
And I didn’t like writing it. But until they start awarding runs based on 2007 AA performances, we’re stuck with the team on the field. Which, when they have to do things like throw the ball to each other, plays very poorly.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They did award runs based on 2007 AA performances.
They awarded them in 2007.
Nowadays, we can look back at a statistical record of those runs and how they were scored, and use them (as part of a weighted projection, after applying uniform translation factors) to determine the likely future production of current players.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What we’ve learned from the “recent past” (the last 8 games I suppose) is that the bullpen sucks for that period. That’s why we lost those games.
But if you’d rather have Osoria and Denny Bautista, etc. than the current assortment then by my guest.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Aug 11, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not the only reason
This is more of the crap reasoning that leads me to blather on. It was not the bullpen that made 5 consecutive outs with the bases loaded the other night. It was not the bullpen that has been incapable of fielding and throwing (well, Hanrahan…). It is not the bullpen that lacks the Little League skill of bunting.
This is shoddy, correlation/causation argumentation. But, because it supports the general tone of this blog – NH good, yinzers bad – it’s given a pass.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmmm........
I think you just pointed out that the pen has given up 33 runs in the last 33 innings. An ERA of nine out of the pen is certainly the leading cause of losses in the last 8 games.
by dtoddwin on Aug 11, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Overly Critical of DK
I think this group is overly critical of DK and his reporting. This group would do well to consider that you are probably the most patient and forgiving bunch following this Building process. Half of the players may not have reached the bigs yet, but the facts are that the hit rate of prospects isn’t that high. Couple that with the failures of many of those who are on the Pirates, and the prospects look bleak TODAY…not 3 or 5 years from now necessarily, but TODAY. I think he is trying to feed the blog mill to maintain interest while this team is in the middle of a complete tank job. Say what you will, but the articles lately are thought provoking.
By the way, I am not so sure that everyone has as easy a time forgiving the 100 loss pace as you are.
Also, I asked the question about Instruction because I am tired of hearing about problems with fundamentals and comments forgiving minor league errors because of field quality. These kids are being taught since they were very young how to play the game. If they don’t know how to play by now, it is a sad state of affairs. It also may speak to our talent evaluation…are we picking up players with poor fundamentals on the cheap under the assumption that we can teach them the right way? I don’t see anything in our recent history to suggest that the Pirates are capable of getting the most out of players. As to the minor league field quality…I’m sure that the fields are not like bombing ranges. They may not be pristine, but noone can tell me that Argenis Diaz is a defensive wizard with his number of errors and you cannot justify it by saying he makes the hard plays but not the easy ones.
by wietersforpresident on Aug 11, 2009 11:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Diaz’ error totals are unremarkable for a minor leaguer. Check just about any good major league SS, including Jack Wilson, and you’ll see similar or worse error totals in the minors. Error totals are higher in the minors for a number of reasons apart from just the fields. Diaz’ totals aren’t the least bit out of line with his rep.
by WTM on Aug 11, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is absolutely true.
Diaz had 24 errors last year, and has 23 thus far this season.
A few SS with 25+ errors in a year in the minors:
*Omar Vizquel – 25 in 1987, 25 in 1988
*Jack Wilson – 34 in 1999
*Edgar Renteria – 34 in 1993, 33 in 1995
*Orlando Cabrera – 27 in 1996, 29 in 1997
*Jay Bell – 25 in 1984, 59 in 1985, 47 in 1986, 39 in 1987, 28 in 1988, 26 in 1989
*Neifi Perez – 25 in 1993, 39 in 1994, 27 in 1996
*Cesar Izturis – 29 in 1998
*Jimmy Rollins – 26 in 1997, 29 in 1998, 27 in 2000
With the exception of Jack, all of those guys won at least one GG. In fact, the only recent GG winner I could find who didn’t make 25+ errors in at least one minor league season was Barry Larkin, and he was a HOF-level talent.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In fact, I heard the exact same objections when we acquired Jack.
“We got an all-glove shortstop from St Louis who made 34 errors? Boo hoo etc.”
by MrPedriqueIfYoureNasty on Aug 11, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where the hell did JBell play in '85?
Craters of the Moon NP?
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mostly Visalia in the California League.
Handful of games at Waterbury (then an Eastern League franchise) as well. Bell’s ’84 is nearly as bad, in that it came in only 64 games.
He isn’t the only modern GG SS to put up a 50-spot, either. Jeter had 56 in 1993. I left him off the list because he didn’t earn those GGs he won, though.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Dejan is a very good reporter . . .
but lately he’s been editorializing and it’s getting annoying. Further, he’s always made a point about being above the fray and objective and it’s not true, at least anymore.
by Scranton on Aug 11, 2009 11:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Would you...
rather read stories from DK every day that say everything is all sunshine and roses?? He’s reporting on a BAD baseball team.
by Thunder on Aug 11, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would prefer. . .
reading stories that don’t so obviously convey Dejan’s pissy attitude since his boys were traded. Yes, the Pirates are playing awful and that needs to be reported, but reporting that the team is an unmitigated disaster and that that unmitigated disaster is on the hands of NH is editorializing. Further, it is disingenuous, suggesting that NH’s plan is complete, when, using rudimentiary reasoning, it is clear that Huntington is building for the future and we won’t know if his plan was executed properly until a few years down the road.
by Scranton on Aug 11, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beat Writing vs. Blogging
I suspect that part of your rather strong response to his writing is due to the blurred line between beat writing and blogging. I think his game stories tend to communicate the information you are looking for and his blog is a way of communicating with the fan base the day-to-day stuff going on with the team. Perhaps he uses more adjectives than he ought to, but I think the basic points he makes are important and I am glad that he spends the amount of time he does to keep us up-to-date.
As for the Diaz comment, I know I am out of my depth when a guy quotes minor league error stats for former gold glovers. I think my point was that there is a disconnect between General Management and the average fan (me) when it comes to things like this. It is hard on the face of it for me to accept that DIaz will be a tremendous defensive SS if the stats do not support it and there is no further explanation provided. I don’t necessarily buy the explanation that minor league fields are bad, therefore errors are more common. I have been to a few minor league fields and they do not look like Pittsburgh highways (full of potholes).
For what its worth, it was also difficult for me when DL put in the Moskos draft press release that BA rated him the 5th best pitcher in the draft…never mind that 3 of the others were still available. I also do not necessarily care if the prospects we acquire were rated well at one point in the past by BA as if it justifies the pick. Either the players we acquire are talented and can contribute or not. Nobody will care if Milledge was rated one of the top prospects in all of baseball if he hits .250 with little power and sub-par defense. It will not make the acquisition good, it will confirm that we bought the hype on a player that did not turn out as expected…I am not suggesting LM will end up that way, only illustrating a point.
by wietersforpresident on Aug 11, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're not a fan of the Moskos pick?
I never would have guessed…
by maguro on Aug 11, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We bought into the hype on a player nobody wanted?
We traded for an undeniably talented player at his lowest possible value, giving up nothing of real value for him.
by thecheeseisblue on Aug 11, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So basically....
Even after the minor league error numbers were shown for present Gold Glovers, you say in return I don’t care about the past, Diaz still has this many errors and minor league fields aren’t that bad….OK cool. You do realize maybe the first basemen aren’t picking the ball or maybe a 2B isn’t in the right position to receive a throw etc. etc. as well, right? I mean if you can’t at least take those error numbers in and say, well, maybe I’m wrong or I should back off on my claim that Diaz is bad, then nothing anyone says is going to change your misconceptions about a particular facet of the game.
Beyond that, no one is saying that you have to accept the methodology behind acquiring prospects, but when a risk-reward situation doesn’t work out, that’s just baseball. Yes, it’s a mistake, but if you’re going to hold someone over the fire every time an error is made, then you’ll never be happy with any GM.
And the fact that you don’t care if someone is highly regarded or not is just as perplexing to me. So you don’t like the fact that someone said Diaz is a defensive whiz who could play MLB defense right now, but you don’t like the stats argument either since you think Diaz makes too many errors — even though he clearly doesn’t you refuse to accept that argument — so what the heck do you want in terms of a prospect showing you he’s worthy of being picked up by the team?
by Slizeezyc on Aug 11, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To clarify
1. I prefer that we get well regarded prospects, but actually being talented is more important than the fact that a group of scouts once thought a player might be great. Things change over time, so the fact that Milledge used to be a top prospect does not mean that he still is. I care about the past, but frankly, the present and future is what counts.
2. I merely pointed out that the average fan has little to go on when evaluating a prospect. Transparent stats like errors tend to get the focus. 25 sounds like a lot, though when put into context, perhaps isn’t. Minor League baseball isn’t exactly played on a bombing range, so it is hard to accept that field quality would account for a dramatic uptick in errors.
3. I did not say that picking up Milledge was a mistake, in fact I liked the acquisition. I was only pointing out that if the pickup fails, the fact that he was once a highly regarded prospect will be little consolation.
In other words, I do not care about GM spin; I care about results. If these prospects do not pan out and the guys that are already in the majors fail as well, then all was for naught. I’m giving them a chance, but at this point it is still hard care more about a AA pitcher having a good outing than whether or not the Pirates will win games.
by wietersforpresident on Aug 11, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not just field quality.
Some of it is fielders with good tools developing consistent mechanics/technique, and experiencing growing pains while doing so. Some of it is on the minor-league 1Bs, who are generally less-skilled at making plays on questionable throws.
There are a lot of factors in play.
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone spins stuff
It’s up to you whether or not you want to go with it. But your second point is once again you not wanting to listen. It’s not just fielding errors as I and others pointed to, but a whole host of things beyond just field quality.
And yes if Lastings doesn’t work out, then it’s a shame, but I still wouldn’t consider it a bad trade.
And your final point is the one I made about Dejan. It’s certainly hard to look beyond the present, so it’s your call if you can/want to do that.
by Slizeezyc on Aug 11, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
regarding your second point
that’s why the casual fan’s opinon and (usually) the majority of fans’ opinons on a player can’t be trusted fully. Most fans use batting average, errors, and RBIs to evaluate a player when these numbers can be very hollow in their evaluation.
There is actual a correlation between better UZR and more errors, but most fans see, no or one error on the season (like Nate McLouth) and assume that he is terrific defensively when, in fact, he was downright awful. Many “analysts” and “experts” on stations like ESPN make the same mistakes and are normally the information source for casual fans so it is to be expected.
I’m not saying the casual fan is stupid, just that their opinion normally doesn’t do a player full justice in critiquing them. It’s why players like Nady and Bay are thought to have been superstars on PBC blog. They saw good average, high home runs and RBIs, and not many errors, and thought they were terrific players forever and ever and in every way.
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 11, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
more than just
minor league fields being worse (and they are…considerably), the subjectivity of the error statistic is a problem at all levels…some scorers might hand out errors loosely, some might not.
there’s also the “how good [bad] is the first baseman?” point…and that’s a hard one to judge without actually seeing the play.
by dirtyfrank on Aug 11, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, and I don't even really like the errors point either way
Because another factor could be that maybe he’s getting to balls and trying to make a play on ones that no other fielder could even get to.
by Slizeezyc on Aug 11, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
The Jose Valentin problem. He was a great defensive shortstop, despite high error totals, because he was gloving everything that came anywhere near him (and thus had many more total chances than the average SS).
by Vlad on Aug 11, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Womack too
This was always my observation about Tony, back when I saw 20+ games/year. I was pleased to see that, once UZR came around for his last couple seasons, it still showed him with a plus-glove at 2B. Imagine what it must have been like when he was 28.
by JRoth95 on Aug 11, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is a correlation between more errors and higher UZR
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 11, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense to me
That means more opportunities. My problem with errors is it is the official scorer’s opinion as to whether or not the play should have been made. How can we judge a player’s ability based on the opinion of official scorer when everything we look at his a much more consistent indicator?
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
by glass0941 on Aug 11, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also a good point
Show me a guy whos afraid to look bad, and I'll show you a guy you can beat every time. -Lou Brock
by Green_Wave on Aug 11, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like this article other than the inclusion of Joel Hanrahan
in the group of acquistions performing pretty well thus far.
I think he will prove by this time next year that we got absolutely nothing in return for Burnett.
On another topic: It seems to me that DK might be getting a little tired of the Pirates’ beat job. He’s been at it for several years now and most certainly knows it will be at least a few more before they will be competitive again. It’s got to be disheartening at some point to be around a team on a daily basis that has been so bad for so long now.
I still think he does an excellent job, though. It’s pretty easy to sit back and nitpick at one or two items here and there when the guy has to produce articles every day.
by patthatt on Aug 12, 2009 10:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hanrahan may or may not do well in the future.
But the early returns at this point are mostly positive. 3.14 ERA, 17 K in 14 IP. WHIP is a little high (mostly due to a .321 BABIP), but on the whole, I’d take that.
by Vlad on Aug 12, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was about....
to post the same thing as Vlad. Power arms in the pen striking out more than one an inning are very valuable. If he can keep his walks down he will be a big asset.
by dtoddwin on Aug 12, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see what you guys are trying to say so far
about Hanrahan, but I just don’t see the control for him to be much of anything over the long haul.
Burnett was a serviceable lefty that wouldn’t have cost the Bucs too much for at least a couple more years.
Let’s come back to this around the All-Star break next year when we’ve seen him in enough games to get a pretty definitive idea about whether he will be a long-term asset or not for the PBC.
by patthatt on Aug 13, 2009 11:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Burnett...
…is a no-stuff lefty who was out-pitching his peripherals (4.51 FIP this year), as part of basically his only above average season since A-ball. He was also a significant malcontent who, in light of subsequent events, probably would have kicked up a fuss about rebuilding.
Trading him for value while we could was an excellent idea.
by Vlad on Aug 13, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once again,
I basically agree with your first paragraph.
It’s just the thought that we didn’t trade him “for value” that concerns me.
I hope I’m wrong about Hanrahan.
by patthatt on Aug 13, 2009 1:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
