News Roundup: Nyjer Morgan's Value

by Charlie on Sep 14, 2009 2:48 PM EDT Comment 69 comments

Pat has a good article about Nyjer Morgan's value. UZR is among the best available defensive statistics, so it's easy to be cowed by Morgan's UZR into thinking that Morgan is an otherworldly defender rather than just a very good one, but the thing is that Morgan's UZR is so ridiculous that it's almost impossible he'll sustain it. In fact, since 2005 the only outfielders with a UZR/150 near Morgan's 2009 mark of 28.1 are Andruw Jones in 2005 and Alex Rios, Jayson Werth and Franklin Gutierrez in 2008. Jones was probably the best defensive outfielder of our era, and Morgan doesn't belong in that category yet. Rios and Werth ostensibly took enormous steps backward in 2009 and were average defensive outfielders, at least by UZR/150.

Gutierrez is probably the most telling example. He's widely regarded as a great defensive outfielder. He posted a UZR/150 of 26.9 in 2008, and has posted a 17.6 in 2009. 17.6 runs above average is still great, but I'd think expectations for Morgan next year--assuming he's healthy--should start around there, or maybe a little below. Morgan made huge steps forward this season and he deserves credit for that, but he's not as good as his UZR makes him look.

In addition, as Pat notes, he's probably going to run into what we might call the "Bourn Fluctuation," the script of which was, incidentally, rejected by Universal. Players like Michael Bourn, Willy Taveras and Morgan depend on their batting averages as the basis of their offensive games, and batting averages fluctuate a lot from year to year, so Morgan is, in my opinion, just as likely to have a complete stinker of a season next year as he is to have a good one. Morgan has done a lot this year to change my opinion of him, but I'd still rather have Lastings Milledge.

Ten greatest moments in recent Pirate history

The Hardball Times lists the greatest moments in the Pirates' 17-year losing streak.

Wilbur Miller's Pirate Player Profiles

WTM's excellent site is updated for most of the low minors.

0 recs | Comment 69 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

"Jones was probably the best defensive outfielder of our era"

not even close to being so. Dude could run, but……played too shallow often and had a noodle arm.

by Hitman Easler on Sep 14, 2009 3:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

UZR certainly loves Andruw, and it’s not even available for several of his younger, prime seasons. It likes his arm pretty well, too.

And the Gold Glove voters certainly thought he was great. And everybody in MLB, and sportscasters and fans. In fact, it appears to be a rare case where everybody from every part of the stats/observers spectrum agrees. Everybody but you.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We believe in Golden Gloves now, do we?

I mean seriously, Wilbur, would you ever take GGs as evidence if they didn’t support your position?

Stark’s book – for whatever it’s worth – argued that Jones was the most overrated CF of all time, so I don’t think Easler is quite alone on this.

Actually, the nut of Stark’s argument is that, by 2005, Jones was in a steep decline (from heights during which he was absolutely not overrated). UZR evidently differs, but what that suggests to me is that his UZR probably ranged higher during his peak. Which in turn suggests that NyjMo’s numbers may not be as crazy as they seem.

IOW, if Jones at his best was, I dunno, 45 UZR/150, then Morgan’s numbers for this year don’t seem so improbable. That said, I agree that he’s probably due for some regression, both in BA and UZR (although he’s always – always – hit for average, including a very high BABIP; it’s the lack of power and walks that people bitch about, but the walks, at least, increased noticeably this year, albeit to a still-low level).

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My point was that it doesn’t matter whether you buy GG voting or stats or something else, Andruw at one point, by any measure you want to cite, was a fabulous defensive player. That he declined badly when he started getting fat can’t be disputed, but I assume Charlie was referring to the period before that.

I read Stark’s book recently, btw. He had a few good points to make but on the whole I thought it was crap. Derek Jeter the most underrated SS ever? Please.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve only read excerpts which were ok, but I’m not a big Stark fan in general. I think the book was at least 50% “this’ll start ’em talking” bluster, rather than seriously-argued claims.

I was always dismissive of Jones’ D because of a game at 3 Rivers his rookie year when he let a simple ground ball up the middle go under his glove and roll to the wall, then jogged after it. I don’t think it became an inside-the-parker, but it was close. It was just such a Little League play, I had trouble getting past it (of course I accept that he was great for awhile; that play just stuck with me, as things you see in person tend to do).

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I think you’ve had the last laugh, so to speak. That play was probably a foreshadowing of the attitude that would keep him from realizing about 60% of his career potential.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now I wish I could look it up

I suppose it wouldn’t be impossible. Actually, it’s conceivable that I have the scorecard filed away. Hmm.

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Try retrosheet.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good tip

But I can’t find it. How maddening. I know I’m not misremembering, which makes me think it must not have been scored an error? But that seems impossible.

Hmm.

Well, that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it (BTW, in scanning through, Chipper sure committed a lot of errors considering it was turf. I know he wasn’t a brilliant 3B, but it seems that he committed at least an error or two every year, even though they never played more than 7 games here).

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Every time I look up the box score of a game I went to years ago, it turns out stuff I was sure happened didn’t happen.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One thing I know for sure

With the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th, tie game, Tony Womack took one right in the head to win the game. The other team had left the field by the time he hobbled to first. I loved that guy.

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

4/15/97 against San Diego. Greg Vaughn homered in the top of the ninth off John Ericks to tie the game. Jason Kendall and Jose Guillen singled to lead off the ninth against Andy Ashby before Joe Randa bunted into a force out at third. Sterling Hitchcock then gave up a single to Kevin Yong (pitch hitting for Midre Cummings) before Womack was beaned for the win.

Can’t find the Braves game you mentioned earlier, though.

by matskralc on Sep 15, 2009 6:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I used to know the date. That was such an amazing season.

I’m trying to figure out how I could have gotten the Jones thing wrong. I mean, I can still picture the play, and I know where I was sitting, and everything.

I noted via retrosheet that he didn’t play cf his rookie season, but I also know that I was not in Pittsburgh the only time he played here, so I know for certain that it was not his rookie year (that was always a guess; it was early in his career at any rate).

by JRoth95 on Sep 15, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember that play

Turner Ward hit a ground ball up the middle, the 2B tried to cut it off, it deflected off his glove, into the left-center field gap and out of the reach of Jones, who was charging in. The ball rolled all the way to the wall and Jones simply trotted after it. Ward easily circled the bases. I think it was ruled a home run, although I could be wrong. At least that’s the way I remember it. I was only 13-15 years old when Ward was here, so I could be mistaken on a few parts.

I think that was just a few weeks after Bobby Cox pulled Jones from a game for a lack of hustle in center. Same with me, I have never really liked Jones because of that play.

Pittsburgh Lumber Co.
http://mvn.com/pittsburghlumberco

by MBandi on Sep 18, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

.........and why are we still talking about Nyjer Morgan?

Geeze.

by Hitman Easler on Sep 14, 2009 3:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I’m trying to make do a round up of all the things that I was wrong about before 2009 started and that seemed like a logical place to start.

http://www.whygavs.com
http://mlb.fanhouse.com

by whygavs on Sep 14, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also spent a big chunk of the off-season disparaging the Pirates’ choice to start Nyjer Morgan in left field in 2009.

Yeah, I can’t remember anybody else doing that. Just you. (-:

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't the smiley face...

supposed to go in the other direction?

by Trogluddite on Sep 14, 2009 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Morgan and UZR

Here’s something to take into consideration: Lastings Milledge’s UZR/150 since he joined the Pirates is 20.0 Milledge supposedly is awful defensively (although I strongly disagree with that bit of CW after watching him for a while now). Granted, Milledge’s rating is the product of a small sample size, but so is Morgan’s, albeit not quite as small.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 4:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree...

I think Milledge has looked much better than his reputation defensively. I also think Jones has as well. Not that I think Jones is a “good” defensive player (although I do think Milledge is pretty good), but he just hasn’t proven to be the butcher that so many people suggest he is.

by dtoddwin on Sep 14, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not "proven", per se...

…but the only evidence I’ve ever seen (prior years’ scouting reports, 2009’s small-sample defensive numbers, my own lyin’ eyes) is all pretty unanimously negative.

by Vlad on Sep 14, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"not quite"

993 innings vs. 327. Is this comment a joking reference to my rant last week that seamheads reflexively say “small sample size” whenever there’s data they don’t like?

Granted that 1000 innings is still slight for UZR, but 327 is essentially meaningless.

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you’ve read Vlad’s posts in other threads, he’s consistently pointed out that UZR requires about two years of data to be useful. Compared to that, 993 innings or 327 doesn’t mean a lot. Either way, there’s reason to be skeptical about UZR ratings for Pirate left fielders, absent more data.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eh

I’ve read Vlad’s posts, and read the articles he’s linked. I get the point, but it’s absurd to say that – to use the more-familiar offensive stats – 3 months’ OPS and 1 months’ OPS are equally useless, because you need a full season to know anything. If a guy has a monster OPS for 3 months, he’s probably not a complete bum. A monster OPS for a month tells you almost nothing at all.

Plus, of course, we have hundreds of innings from Morgan’s 2008, which were not exactly awful. His career UZR/150 is 28.1 over 1500 innings, the exact same as his 2009 numbers. He’d have to turn into Brant Brown to reach 2000 innings with a UZR below 20. At some point you have to admit that there appears to be a trend.

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be clear, I’m not arguing Morgan sucks defensively. He’s clearly very good. I’m just skeptical of numbers that show him to be one of the all-time greats.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you buy my argument that AJones ca. 1999 may have had a huge UZR, in which case Morgan doesn’t look like an all-time great, just great? There’s no particular reason to think that the 5 years of the UZR era have given us a good sample of the possible ranges.

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's certainly possible...

…but in the absence of any actual evidence, I don’t think it’s fair to advance it as a serious contention.

by Vlad on Sep 15, 2009 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't ground a whole argument in it

I just think it needs to be kept in mind – there’s no logic to the presumption that 2002-2009 represents the complete range of possible defensive achievement by major leaguers.

Also, Jones’ 2005 (also bolstered by a good arm number) was 25% better than Morgan’s 2009 – that’s not peanuts.

by JRoth95 on Sep 15, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In this case...

…the more appropriate analogy might be one week to one month, rather than one month to three.

by Vlad on Sep 15, 2009 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

When I was poking around last night, I read a discussion about UZR and WAR (including Mike Silva, Tyler Kepner, James Kannengieser, Rob Neyer) suggesting that defensive stats should be looked at as 1/4 – 1/2 the rate of offensive stats – IOW, that 4 months of defensive stats is worth 1-2 months of offensive. So Nyjer’s 990 innings this year is about as predictive as 27-55 games of hitting (I was thinking 3 months as half a season, forgetting that Nyjer got injured a month ago).

If you’re trying to tell me that 990 defensive innings is worth a month of hitting, I’m going to start thinking that UZR is pretty damn useless, since hardly anyone plays consistently enough to have 6000 innings at a position at the same basic level. After all, we don’t judge a player much by just a single season of hitting – we treat that as some kind of indicator, but no one points to a guy’s first full season and says, “That’s who he is.” So if it takes 4 years of defense to reach that low level of confidence, then what the hell does UZR tell us?

by JRoth95 on Sep 15, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, with that level of sample needed...

…one of the things it tells us is that defensive value for a player of a given level of ability can be highly variable.

by Vlad on Sep 15, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So if the average player falls into decline at twenty-seven...

he’ll be past his best before there is enough data to figure out how good he is defensively (-: © wtm

by RDV across the sea on Sep 15, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's like electrons.

You can know the position, and you can know the momentum, but you can’t know both at the same time.

by Vlad on Sep 15, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Awesome.

by JRoth95 on Sep 16, 2009 8:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice list

I’m still quite fond of the Pittsburgh Marathon of 2006.

weak-hitting left fielder in coffee league baseball

by Bukanier on Sep 14, 2009 4:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But depressing

That probably is the top 10 list and that’s not a heck of a lot to show for 17 years.

by MDBuc on Sep 14, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kind of surprised...

…the Mackowiak doubleheader didn’t make the cut. That’s the first game I thought of, even before the no-hitter and the comeback and all that.

by Vlad on Sep 14, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The comeback was the first one I thought of, and I realized as soon as I finished that the Mackowiak doubleheader was missing.

by matskralc on Sep 14, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still wonder about the UZR...

as it applies to Pirates LF. Mainly due to the Pirates alignment of outfielders.

The Pirates have been consistent this season in playing their left fielders (Morgan…and to a lesser extent…Milledge) somewhat out of the “normal” outfield alignment…more toward left center field. From everything I’ve seen…the range portion of UZR is based on balls being hit into bins based on the NORMAL alignment of outfielders. If you are going to play outside that normal alignment…you are going to get to more balls in left center than a normal left fielder. Add Morgan’s speed to that…and his numbers are going to look better.

However…the other curious part is that a significant amount of Morgan’s UZR value is garnered from his arm. As a LF…about a quarter of his value was from his arm…and as a CF…it’s almost half. Overall…36% of his UZR value this season comes from his arm (10.1 out of 27.8). Nyjer doesn’t have a rifle arm. In fact his arm value last year was negative (-1.0). He’s credited with preventing 10 runs above the average with his arm. Here’s the list of OF with 5 or more runs prevented above average.

Nyjer Morgan 10.1
David DeJesus 7.4
Adam Jones 7.3
Bobby Abreu 5.8
Ryan Sweeney 5.5
Jay Bruce 5.3
Hunter Pence 5.3
Jeff Francouer 5.3

Not a lot of feared arms in there…are there??

I have no doubts that Morgan grades out above normal defensively…but I also believe that portions of his UZR are so high…as to not be repeatable.

by Thunder on Sep 14, 2009 7:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

as it applies to Pirates LF.

That was part of my point up above. I think it shows the wisdom of Vlad’s cautions about needing a large sample size with UZR.

Big numbers coming from OF arms are especially worthy of skepticism, as your discussion shows. Judging from what I’ve seen, a few OF assists seems to skew the UZR numbers quite a lot. Early in the year, Moss by UZR/150 was the best RF in MLB. I don’t feel like looking through box scores, but as I recall Moss had a few assists early in the year and I think that was the big factor in his UZR. Right now, his UZR/150 is still good (9.8) but not nearly as good as it was, and I think it’s because his arm rating has dropped to -0.6.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember that

During a lot of the Moss battles around here, his UZR was tossed around as proving that he was worthwhile in RF even if he didn’t hit, when it was pretty clear that he was a nice, but not brilliant, defender who happened to have (IIRC) 3 assists in the first 10 games.

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I certainly wouldn’t have argued that the Pirates could afford a RF who didn’t hit. I’m sure I might have argued that Moss was better than the alternative that some people were pushing at the time, which was Monroe, who couldn’t hit or field.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not you

I have no recollection of who was making the arguments, or even of when, exactly, the arguments occurred. I know that one of the epic July GJones threads included Moss’ UZR, which was still pretty high back then.

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m ready to release Moss, not to play him over Jones.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does he have bench value?

I mean, he was always predicted as a 4th OF kind of guy, with a ceiling of a middling RF. Does his good glove + serviceable bat with a hint of pop make him a worthwhile 4th (or 5th) OF?

I mean, obviously it depends on who else you have. But considering that you’d like to see Jones at 1B whenever he’s not in RF, you can’t just rely on 3 starters and an occasional PH/infill guy. He’s not a longterm solution, but if he could learn to pinch hit (which I’m convinced is a talent, only partly learnable), it seems to me he has value.

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since he just whiffed with the bases loaded against a pitcher who doesn’t fan many, this probably isn’t a good time to ask me.

Releasing would be an overreaction, I guess. Moss probably does have some bench value, but I’m not sure that’s the case in the Pirates’ current situation. Milledge is set, and I’d like to see Jones and Clement both playing next year. They probably need a RH hitter. Plus, what NH is essentially doing is acquiring as many players as he can with potential. That kind of approach can work—you’re pretty much relying on quantity to produce quality—but you have to be willing to cut bait (except on clear, high-ceiling guys like Pedro and Tabata) and move on quickly to take advantage of the quality. I think they need to find another option with more of a ceiling than Moss.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was just thinking that today

Specifically, that if 20% of top 20 prospects bust, and 30% of top 30 bust (or whatever the exact rates are), your odds are already not-great. Combine that with a strategy of acquiring other teams’ castoffs – therefore guys who, by definition, have showed one set of ML eyes that they don’t have it – your odds are even lower. I get that it’s a buy low situation, and that it’s all about quantity, but jeez, it just seems that you start to get up against awful odds.

I guess what you do is rely on the draft for the relatively high percentage players, then fill out the roster with a few castoffs out of many, but…. Tell me again about how we’re going to be OK in 2012?

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the answer is you just keep looking everywhere you can, and you have to use good judgment. The odd thing about the Rays last year was that, with all those high first round picks, not that many contributed to their success. They made great trades with the Twins and Mets, found Grant Balfour somewhere or other, heisted Edwin Jackson from LA (then unwisely traded him), etc. The prospects are only part of the puzzle. The constantly debated issue isn’t prospects vs. free agents. It’s whether to go the FA route or exhaustively examine all other alternatives.

I also think the idea that every prospect who gets traded is being “rejected” by his team is misplaced. That was probably true of a couple guys (mostly Milledge and LaRoche), but I think the other guys the Pirates got were players whose teams just had to trade them to get what they wanted. And teams make major misjudgments all the time when they “give up” on “failed prospects.” Just ask Brandon Phillips and Carlos Pena.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Milledge and LaRoche were precisely whom I was pondering. I certainly realize that lots of prospects get traded simply because a team that wants ML talent usually has to trade prospects for it.

Clement I think is a marginal case. But these guys are the exception, not the rule.

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

FWIW, Jackson...

…was also regarded as something of a busted prospect at the time the Rays picked him up. He swiped a spot in LA’s rotation in late 2003, at the ripe old age of 19, and then when he needed a few years to adjust to ML ball, the Dodgers kind of gave up on him. Danny Baez and Lance Carter aren’t exactly the kind of guys you mortgage the farm to pick up, y’know?

by Vlad on Sep 15, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting post on FanGraphs the other day...

discussing the failure rate of top prospects. It was a little discouraging considering how many C level prospects we have acquired in trades. It’s an interesting read.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/dose-reality-prospect-watchers/

by Slick1 on Sep 14, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, that's what I was referencing up above

Thanks for the link tho.

What’s fascinating is that pitchers fail at least 1/3 of the time more or less regardless.

by JRoth95 on Sep 14, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shows just how difficult projecting pitchers is. I guarantee NH is familiar with that or similar data and that it’s one reason they drafted Tony Sanchez instead of one of those pitchers who was rated ahead of him.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed...

his talked about the low success rate of pitching prospects on several occassions.

by Slick1 on Sep 14, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought the Sanchez reaction was absurd

I have a lot of respect for someone in NH’s position looking at the ostensible first-rounders and saying, “Not worth it.”

Obviously, it helps that the kid’s played well, but I never thought it was indefensible, esp. since their later round strategy was so clear. It wasn’t like he locked away the checkbook after the Sanchez pick.

by JRoth95 on Sep 15, 2009 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t really see it as discouraging, because it’s clear from the determination to add quantity that NH understands the odds. DL and Bonifay would get a prospect and then write his name into the lineup card three years down the road.

by WTM on Sep 14, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Discouraging...

from the standpoint that I didn’t realize just how low the success rate was. I do agree with strategy I just didn’t realize exactly how much qty was needed to even get successful role players let alone elite talent. It was just another harsh reminder of how bad this organization was run into the ground under DL.

by Slick1 on Sep 14, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm kind of curious...

…about whether Moss’s glove would play at all in CF. Even if he’s a little below average there, as long as he wasn’t a total disaster he’d look pretty good filling the Salazar role as Cutch’s designated backup.

by Vlad on Sep 15, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wouldn’t it make more sense for Lastings to be Cutch’s backup?

Of course, once Tabata gets here, that’s taken care of.

by JRoth95 on Sep 15, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Milledge's CF rep is pretty poor.

Scouts don’t like him there, and he’s got a -16/150 there in 1300 career innings.

It’s possible that Moss would bomb just as badly, but I don’t think he’s ever been tried at the position, and it’d be interesting to see how he’d handle it.

by Vlad on Sep 15, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Pirates are in the catch-22 with Moss because he’s out of options. There’s an even smaller chance of him breaking out in that age 27/28 season if he’s used as a 4th/5th outfielder, but even the Pirates aren’t in the position in the next 2 years to give him everyday work at the MLB level.

- Gorkys'nBeans

by Adam Reynolds on Sep 14, 2009 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The arm thing is kind of interesting.

I read in an article the other day that we’re leading the majors in OF assists.

The very best arms often don’t have huge assist totals, because runners are scared to try and advance against them. As often as not, the guys on the leader board are average arms incorrectly regarded as weak, who get lots of chances due to a lack of respect from baserunners, and who are solid enough to convert on a decent percentage of those chances.

by Vlad on Sep 15, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

IIRC, that described Bay for a season or two – he had a reputation for a noodle arm, and so people ran on him, but he was pretty accurate, so he got his share. Once his knees went, I don’t think it mattered because he couldn’t get to the ball and get set quickly enough.

by JRoth95 on Sep 15, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, we weren't wrong 'bout Nyjmo....

I’m not a stats guy, beyond the (very old) strat-o-matic game, which is how we entertained ourselves before Pong.

I love Nyjmo. He played his heart out for us, never complained (a lot), and seemed to be someone who added to, rather than corroded, the team spirit.

Be that as it may, I was stunned at how long he remained in left field. By all rights, McCutcheon should have been up sooner, starting alongside McLouth. I constantly projected that Nyjmo would return to a more realistic .240 BA. It didn’t pan out, but I still would not want him to be our starting outfielder in any given year. A fourth outfielder, pinch-runner, defensive specialist? Ok. But starting outfielder? Let’s get back Rajai Davis from Oakland as well.

And speaking of Nyjer’s defensive skills in the outfield, how many times in 2008 did you hear, “Well, he took a strange route to the ball, but he got there?” Must be his hockey background, going to where the ball would bounce, not where it would land. And I don’t recall him gunning down runners at home like Pops or Roberto.

Normally, I would come to praise NyjMo, not bury him. And here’s hoping he has a good year next year w/the Senators. But unless he turns into Vladimir Guerrero, we shouldn’t mourn this trade.

by Trogluddite on Sep 14, 2009 8:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well said, Troggs. Well said.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 14, 2009 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

At some point you have to worry about Morgan’s age. But I think he has 2, maybe 3 more years of close to 2009 production if he stays healthy and doesn’t have a BABIP drop well below his career average (which has always been comfortably above .330 due to elite speed).

- Gorkys'nBeans

by Adam Reynolds on Sep 14, 2009 11:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

It wouldn’t surprise me if he sees another bump up in walks next year, and smarter baserunning isn’t impossible, either or both of which would cushion a (modest) regression. I think, especially with his contract status, he’s a very worthwhile player for at least 2 more years (barring lots of injuries, which he’s still young for).

by JRoth95 on Sep 15, 2009 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

two other great moments from the last decade:

1) opening of pnc park… yeah, it’s not a game and maybe the author glossed over it because of that, but its importance can’t be understated…

2) the 2001 father’s day 1-0 win over cleveland to finish off a series sweep… todd ritchie outduels cc sabathia and brian giles barely beats the throw home as aramis ramirez wins the game with a walk-off double in the bottom of the ninth…

by Captain Easychord on Sep 15, 2009 3:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs