Federal Baseball Takes One More Look at the Matt Capps Signing
by Slizeezyc on Feb 15, 2010 2:58 AM EST
Email
Print
Click here to check it out. Not to bring up the old argument again, I just thought you all might want to read about it from a Nats perspective one more time -- there' also some talk about the Pirates' motivation behind the move. Spring training can't come soon enough...
(However, beware of some of the comments because there is some Bucco bashing and a declaration that Neal Huntington is among the worst GMs in the game.)
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
132 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I just learned something new....
I just learned something new. Honestly, I had always thought that it was only the DC politicians that were smoking crack. I really never understood that everyone there is hittin’ the pipe large…
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
They also seem to think
that the Nats are poised to turn into the 1991-2005 Braves. Yikes!
It's a good day to be a Pirate
I have that sort of optimism every season.
Usually it’s gone by April 25th.
by IAPiratesFan on Feb 15, 2010 8:07 AM EST up reply actions
yeah,
…but we just keep on doing it, every year. I’m thinking that in 2011 the optimism will last longer into the season, and may show that the Pirates could be headed that way.
Hang in there!
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
by lighthouse913 on Feb 16, 2010 12:16 AM EST up reply actions
certainly...
The Strasburg signing is the main reason for their optimism. Still most fans still evaluate players with traditional stats so the morgan and Burnett trade looks like a steal for the Nats and Capps gets a lot of saves.
You know, people actually value defense now
The Nats had both Milledge and Dukes who are two high-ceiling guys who hadn’t proven anything, plus Willingham in LF. The Bucs had Morgan but also McC who needed to play at the MLB level. So each team had depth and made a deal. The Nats got a great defensive CF to help their atrocious outfield defense, the Bucs got a really immature headcase with boatloads of talent. And I don’t understand why this isn’t a win-win trade. You should check out Fangraphs and learn about defensive metrics.
by docholliday3 on Feb 15, 2010 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
If you hang around
You will realize there’s more than a little talk about defensive metrics, so no worries.
Cool
Maybe you can explain to me why appreciating an average bat/good defense CF is wrong or whatever.
by docholliday3 on Feb 15, 2010 8:45 PM EST up reply actions
There's nothing wrong with it
But most of us here don’t think Morgan will remain an average bat, based on what he did prior to ’09.
I do think it was a trade that made some sense for both teams, as Washington’s defense was dreadful in the first half of last season, so Nyjer probably was more valuable to the Nats than to the Pirates.
Well
I don’t think Slick was saying anything about the defensive stats in his statement. He was saying it was a steal to most “casual” fans in DC because going by SBs (and not looking at the pickoffs/CS) and looking at the AVG and ERA of Nyjer and Burnett were easy ways to sum it up as a win for Washington.
A win is a win any way you get it, so there’s no issue with liking a guy with good defense and just an average bat for the position like I said.
And like I said somewhere else in this thread, I am with you that it was win-win. Lastings was mishandled/wore out his welcome. Nyjer was praised for his D in Pittsburgh (he went from horrendous to great in one offseason so it was a shock to see him playing well), but he was going to have to play out of position in Pittsburgh. Burnett is a solid LOOGY and Hanrahan had no confidence left after his rough start/bad D behind him. The Pirates went for the little more risky players with a bit more upside and Washington got two guys who filled roles that were lacking.
Thanks...
you put that much better than I did. I did come off as a bit pompous in my post and that was not my intent.
Alright
I think we’re on the same page now. I do like Milledge and think he will be a good player. And I think Morgan won’t be as bad with the bat as some think.
BTW, here’s what Federal Baseball says about the Bucs:
I really like the Pirates…I’d pay to watch their outfield alone…McCutchen’s exciting as “heck”…
And I still want to see what Lasto can do…
And
I think the Nats improved some this offseason
But the Bucs could easily suprise you. I really like their rotation, and their defense is better. We will probably outscore them, but maybe not. Depends on Millage’s advancement. So I am not sure I would bet them.
by docholliday3 on Feb 15, 2010 9:46 PM EST up reply actions
MGL has said...
…that there’s a flaw with the way UZR is calculated for PNC Park LFs. As such, while Nyjer’s a good glove, his raw UZR probably shouldn’t be taken at face value. For instance, Milledge’s UZR in PNC’s LF after the trade last year was +16.4. Does that pass the smell test for you?
I also think that a lot of Nats fans are underestimating the difficulties created by Nyjer’s platoon splits. He’s pretty helpless against LHP, but by a quirk of the schedule you didn’t happen to face many last year after the trade, so his raw batting line in Washington was inflated somewhat by situational usage.
I think Nyjer’s capable of being a perfectly adequate starting CF for a couple more years, and I’m glad you’re happy with the trade, but I don’t think it’s Rizzo’s best move from a strategic standpoint, and I say that as a guy who likes Rizzo in general.
So Bay’s performance in PNC LF was worse than the numbers?
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 15, 2010 9:32 PM EST up reply actions
Certainly possible.
I think the working hypothesis is that it’s a function of the team’s approach to outfield positioning (i.e. players’ zones of responsibility not actually lining up with the defensive metric’s zones). As such, we’d need to confirm that the same positioning was used during Bay’s time with the team.
by Vlad on Feb 15, 2010 9:47 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I'd like to see where MGL states that if you have a link.
Positioning is considered an aspect of defensive skill as a part of UZR, which I like.
Hitters are also subject to the strategy of the manager and hitting coach as well.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 15, 2010 10:07 PM EST up reply actions
In other words, it doesn’t matter how you get to a ball, whether you were positioned correctly and had to move half a step, or if you were positioned incorrectly and had to leap to catch it, or if you took a bad route and still managed to catch it because of your amazing speed.
It all counts the same.
As far as UZR being somehow inaccurate at PNC, I’m very skeptical of that comment. Regardless of the no-triples positioning, the role of the CF on the Pirates is to catch all the balls he can reach. This is the same as any other CF.
If he can’t catch it and the LF does because the LF is playing closer to the CF, that’s great, and yes it will help raise the UZR of the LF (and the CF as well because he is not docked for that ball).
However, if that comes at the expense of balls dropping down the 3rd base line, then the LF will get docked full rate for all of those balls, whereas balls that drop in between the CF and LF get docked half and half (roughly).
So, this means if the LF is gaining an advantage from the positioning, then the no-triples defense must really be working very well, since he is being blamed for all its faults and only reaping half its benefits.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 16, 2010 12:35 AM EST up reply actions
What that sounds like to me
is not positioning being a part of UZR but rather it not being a part. Positioning well improves defense. UZR can’t adjust for that. Fielders are docked for balls that land in their zone (or are believed to land in it).
There isn’t anything to demonstrate that UZR is accurate anywhere. I lack faith.
It's not that it can't adjust. It's that it doesn't care and doesn't want to.
It’s by design. UZR tells you the approximate run value compared to average of the balls hit into that player’s zone. Period.
It’s the same as any offensive stat. If a hitter rolls a grounder through the infield that Jack Wilson would have gotten but Ronny Cedeno didn’t, the stat sheet only registers a single. UZR is just doing that same thing from a fielder’s perspective.
As far as evidence of its accuracy, UZR does correlate very well to ERA-FIP. That’s just as one would expect. If it weren’t accurate, it wouldn’t correlate.
Pitchers with higher ERA than FIP are more likely to have negative UZR defense behind them, while pitchers with lower ERA than FIP are likely to have positive UZR defense behind them.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 16, 2010 1:18 AM EST up reply actions
No its not by design
its probably the most oft stated flaw. It rates players based on an artificial standard. Period. It works the opposite of your example with grounders. Cedeno gets a negative mark.
The conclusion you can draw from your correlation, if that is indeed true over time, is that it might be crudely correlative. It might have something to do with the pitching as well. Fielders play differently depending on baserunners and score. For example, 1st base would position themselves to hold runners. Grounders that go through his zone advance runners and are also scored as negative fielding.
I really am not understanding what you are saying.
First, it is by design, since the creator of the system has explained that he purposely set it up that way and why. The people who state it as a flaw also have no problem relying on offensive stats that also depend on a fielder’s positioning for a certain hit ball to be called a single or an out. So why the double standard?
Secondly, what “artificial standard” are you talking about? The average amount of balls fielded in a player’s zone? How is that artificial? Just seems logical to me.
Thirdly, I don’t even understand what the “opposite of my example” means. Any ball that isn’t fielded gets a negative mark, but obviously all fielders get negative marks because no fielder catches everything. In the end, they are compared to each other and those who got less negative marks are considered to have saved runs.
Don’t you want to know which shortstop got to the most grounders and what that was worth to his team?
The reason why UZR and FIP correlate is because the reasoning behind them is sound to a high degree. If they did not correlate, then both FIP and UZR would be worthless. They are based on exactly the same principle.
The principle is that pitchers have little control over what happens to the ball once it is hit. BABIP has be proven to be nearly identical for all pitchers over time. This is why we now consider FIP and tRA to be better metrics than ERA.
So, if that is the case (and it is), then the logical conclusion is that fielders have an almost equal chance at making plays no matter who is pitching. The location where balls are put into play can not be exactly defined by the batter, no matter the skill of the pitcher or the batter. The batter can direct the ball into a general area, but not precise enough to thread the needle between the SS and 3B. That part is pure luck. As such, the logical conclusion is that bad luck and good luck will even itself out over time, and the amount of plays made in an area will reflect the underlying skill of the player.
Will it always reflect the exact skill of the fielder? No, no more than Nyjer Morgan’s .400 BABIP induced .350 BA with the Nats in 2009 is reflective of his true skill. We can look at that stat and say – yeah, he got lucky there and we should expect a correction.
In the case of UZR, there’s no stat yet where we can look at a fielder’s performance in relation to a metric like “fielder’s degree of difficulty” and decide whether a fielder just got lucky or was unlucky over a certain time period. That’s why small samples of UZR can not be used for long term projections at this time. But seriously, no offensive numbers can be used in that way either. That’s why we have the Garret Jones question.
UZR is no different than offensive metrics in its validity. Nyjer DID hit .350 and that DID seriously help his team win games.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 16, 2010 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
Without question
It is a limitation of the design and there is no current way to overcome it. I’ve read plenty of MGL mumblings and have never encountered anything like you describe. I’d love to hear why player positioning is ignored other than necessity.
The artificial standard is the standard that UZR uses. I have to wonder if you know how UZR attempts to rate players. The zones aren’t produced through Newtonian physics. They don’t move. They don’t adjust.
You’re confused about negative marks as well. A fielder with greater range who fields more balls can score more poorly than a player who is a statue in the middle of UZR’s guess at where the hell someone thinks they should play. Fortunately no team plays that way, but unfortunately there are lots of fans who don’t understand that.
Oh my god, the babip sermon. Please, save it. And its not nearly identical for all pitchers for all time. The quality of FIP is questionable and the notion that their values are established by their correlation is illogical. FIP’s reliability and validity are unknown. Regardless it wouldn’t represent a “true test” and there is no way to apply it to fielders other than an average of a pitching staff. That would be insanely crude.
They aren’t based on the same principle either.
Who is the “we” that you refer to?
Your description of UZR sounds like a slightly improved fielding percentage – its a lot more ambitious than that.
The idea that UZR has the same validity as all offensive metrics is wrong.
Don’t you want to know which shortstop got to the most grounders and what that was worth to his team?
Sure. Knowing who got to the most grounders is easy. Valuing that is hard.
Ol Pete...
I think it is you who doesn’t grasp the concept of UZR. You said
“A fielder with greater range who fields more balls can score more poorly than a player who is a statue in the middle of UZR’s guess at where the hell someone thinks they should play.”
That is flat out an incorrect statement. Every fielder has the same opportunity to field a ball within a given zone whether they are a statue or not. Given that, the player with more range has a better opportunity to get to a ball on the fringe of a zone. You are not rewarded for not attempting to field a ball. Maybe I am missing your point but your explanantion seems to be more in line with fielding percentage than does MarkInDallas’.
out of curiosity
How do you evaluate defense, ol Pete?
I'm not ignoring positioning...
Positioning is a skill and thus an integral part of defense. A player who positions himself well and has superior range should have a better than average UZR. I’m not bashing your point I’m just trying to understand it.
UZR
assumes positioning. It just picks the likeliest place a defender would stand or at least tries to. If a ball goes through your zone because you’re edging one way or another, you are penalized. The penalties and rewards aren’t the same either.
What's your issue with that?
Although the zones roughly correlate to where most players stand, they are weighted as to the percentage of plays all other fielders of the same type actually make in that zone.
Let’s say a SS is shaded toward 2B in DP position and a grounder goes through the 3B-SS hole. Both the 3B and SS get docked for that in the percentage that all 3B’s/SS’s make that play even though it might be the “fault” of the positioning. So what? That hit is also credited to the batter even though with normal positioning it might have been an out. That’s just the chance part of baseball.
The fact is that luck plays a huge role in baseball and a single unlucky bounce can hurt a player’s stats. It is that way for all hitters as well. Are you trying to say that luck plays a bigger part in fielding than in hitting?
In the other example, what if that bouncer went right over the 2B bag and the SS got an easy DP? In normal positioning it could have been a single.
The point is that fielders should position themselves where it is going to bring the most benefit to preventing runs. Over the course of time, their positioning and skill act together to prevent runs in a way which can be measured against all other fielders of the same type.
This system not only makes perfect sense to me, but also coincides with what I see with my own eyes in 99% of cases. In the cases where it doesn’t, I don’t immediately discount the system. Instead, I try to look to see if there might be something I’m missing in the player’s performance.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 17, 2010 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
I honestly have no idea what ol Pete is saying on this topic. It’s like he is speaking Chinese to me.
That said, I do think there will be a better UZR system that develops out of hit f/x data. That should help to clarify things as far as degree of difficulty is concerned.
That should also be applied to a new tRA type system for pitchers and also hitters as well.
What I see right now is there is a kind of discrepancy in how we deal with hitters as opposed to pitchers/defense. Hitters are judged by their results, whereas we are trying now to judge pitchers by their performance.
Hopefully we’ll be able to put all on a more equal footing with the hit f/x data and better determine how much of hitting performance is actually luck.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 16, 2010 11:00 PM EST up reply actions
Its really not that complicated
Here is a nice, simplified, plain English discussion of reliability and validity.
You’re saying a lot of things that just aren’t true.
Hit f/x will basically eliminate UZR. That’s not to say the information might not be used to produce something with that same label.
It would seem that you are getting more...
into something close to Dewan’s +- minus system which I think is a better evaluation of defense than UZR. That said these two systems often align themselves pretty close. I don’t think that what Mark said is as off the wall as you are implying.
We'll see
I think MGL will either keep UZR as a parallel system and create a different weighting system based on hit f/x or will incorporate hit f/x weighting into UZR.
I’m not sure what things I’m saying that you think aren’t true, since I can’t understand what issue you have.
Sounds like you may like the +/- system better than UZR. UZR makes more sense to me because the skill of the player affects positioning as well as the other way around. Derek Jeter’s UZR is a great example of that. Last off season he worked hard on lateral movement because it was discovered he was shading toward the middle too much since he felt he couldn’t get to those balls. He improved that and it made all the difference. That’s something that wouldn’t be necessarily as visible to the eye, which is why I prefer UZR.
Trying to evaluate defense without a metric like UZR is like trying to determine who was the fastest in the grand slalom without a stopwatch. Who looked faster coming down the hill? Who could have made that turn faster?
by MarkInDallas on Feb 17, 2010 1:14 AM EST up reply actions
I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. You don’t believe UZR has any validity, and I do. You can just skip any of my posts that reference UZR, and I’ll just put your posts in that context as well.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 17, 2010 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
UZR is pretty accurate...
…as far as telling you the run value of a particular defensive player’s contribution.
The difficulty in this case is coming from using the value of a player’s defensive contribution as a proxy for that player’s defensive ability. This is often the case, but not always.
I'm amazed, Vlad...
this Morgan and UZR discussion has occurred several times over the last year…and I’ve always been told that fielding statistics like UZR that are based on small sample sizes are flawed. And you were usually the one to bring it up. Yet nowhere in this discussion has anyone brought it up.
It was suggested that it would take at least a season’s worth of stats to effectively assess a player’s defense. Morgan has started 87 games in CF, 79 in LF…basically a half season at each position. Milledge has about a season’s worth in CF…a half season in LF and a quarter season in RF.
Are we saying now that a half season is enough to validate a UZR stat??
I think you are confusing 2 different things.
One is that UZR (or any stat) reflects a players performance, and the other is that it reflects a player’s talent.
As Vlad is saying, UZR tells you, in terms of runs, how many plays the defender made given an average distribution of balls hit into his area.
This is similar to wOBA or batting runs telling you how many runs a player would generate given an average distribution of players on the base paths and other players in the lineup, etc.
Neither is a correct judge of talent. Both are equally valid ways of measuring performance.
Is Garrett Jones a .396 wOBA hitter? Maybe not, but that’s what he did in 2009. Does a half season of his performance validate wOBA? Is that half season of hitting stats flawed, and that’s why you need more data to determine how good Jones is?
No, obviously.
Neither is Milledge’s UZR flawed, nor is Morgan’s. It is what it is. The question is, what conclusions can you draw from that about what they might do in the future?
Millidge really did catch more balls than the average left fielder did when with the Pirates. And the runs those extra outs saved are estimated to be 5.8.
Can he continue to catch more balls in the future? That is just as valid a question as is the one about whether Garrett Jones can be a .396 wOBA hitter.
Milledge had 99 “expected outs” in left field, and he turned more balls into outs than that.
Jones had 358 PAs, which is about 3 times the chances that Milledge had in the field.
That is why people say you need more UZR data to be secure in your analysis of it.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 19, 2010 11:28 PM EST up reply actions
You can assess the value of a player's contribution...
…from one game, one inning, one at-bat. He played in that situation, and he did what he did, and he didn’t do what he didn’t do. It’s pretty straightforward. But that one small sample doesn’t tell you much about that player’s overall level of playing ability, or how he’ll perform going forward. In and of itself, it doesn’t even tell you how much that contribution was worth within the context in which it was generated.
Mark’s explanation is a good one.
You are correct...
and I would view this as a short term win-win. I’m well aware of defensive metrics and I didn’t mean to be as condescending as I came off. Certainly defense is important and Morgan was a clear upgrade from what you had. Fortunately for us Milledge performed at a very high level as well achieving + UZR/150 over 16 for us. Hanrahan was struggling for the Nats so Burnett was an upgrade. I suppose most Buc fans view this as a win because we did get a very high ceiling talent in Milledge and have not seen any of the headcase you guys had. We also see limited upside in Morgan and don’t believe he will sustain the same offensive levels he achieved last season. We also believe that Burnett pitched way over his head. He had a .208 BABIP, 4.57 FIP, 4.31 xFIP and a 5.15 tRA. I think the general consensus believes the Bucs received more upside while the Nats got immediate improvement, though both players did perform well for the Pirates so we really did not downgrade.
Given that the Nats were as bad as the Pirates last season a lot of people think they shouldn’t have given up on the higher ceiling players. That being said it appears that Rizzo had tired of Milledge and Milledge admitted himself that he really did get the wake up call until he was traded to the Pirates. So, it can be argued that the Nats got decent value for a player they deemed not part of their future. In that context this trade can definitely be viewed as win-win.
If NH is the worst GM then why are we in better shape than the Nats
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"the earth moves when Sean Payton walks...Because his balls are just that huge." Anarchon after Super Bowl XLIV
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan
The dumbest part...
Is how people in Washington talk like the Nyjer/Milledge trade was a key piece in their rebuilding…How they got the piece they really needed in that one…Somehow an “upgrade” equals a few extra years of age and less talent…right. People in Washington are going to continue to try and rationalize their bonehead moves and they’re going to continue to not win so who cares what they think? We’re gonna blow past them in the next 3 years anyways.
Benny Benack III
I hear some pretty high praise for Nyjer
at different blogs. Its not juts DCites who are high on the guy.
Tony Plush
is a favourite. What a showman!
by BlindSquirrel on Feb 15, 2010 6:51 PM EST up reply actions
wait, what?
Don’t you have to start behind a team to blow past them?
by BlindSquirrel on Feb 15, 2010 6:50 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
I mean the Nats have Adam Dunn at 1B. He’s no Jeff Clement.
by docholliday3 on Feb 15, 2010 8:13 PM EST up reply actions
I don't have a huge sweet spot for Jeff Clement
But Jeff Clement has a better chance at being worth more than 1 WAR in 2010 than Adam Dunn does.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 15, 2010 8:26 PM EST up reply actions
That's the defense thing you were referring to earlier...
even with all of the offensive value Dunn has provided he has only managed 1.2 WAR the last two seasons. However he did spent most of that time in the OF so I would think that he would be less awful next year if he plays 1st the entire season (though he did have a -25 UZR/150 at 1st last season which is terrible). Clement’s defense is a huge question mark right now so who knows how that will turn out. I wouldn’t put money on Clement having more value than Dunn next year but given how horrendous Dunn is on defense it is not a slam dunk that he will be worth more WAR either. It will be interesing to see.
Dunn is absolutely horrible anywhere in the field
He is a major liability even at 1B, which his -25 UZR/150 indicates. It’s almost not supposed to be possible to be that bad at 1B. Yet having seen him play I don’t doubt the validity of that at all.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 15, 2010 9:44 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not arguing about Dunn
It’s pretty clear what his shortcomings are and what his value is. What I’m saying is that putting Clement out there at 1B this season would be laughable. His time with the M’s shows that he can’t hit. But maybe you guys know something about his defense and base-running that I don’t.
by docholliday3 on Feb 15, 2010 10:01 PM EST up reply actions
Everyone is suspect that he will be good enough at 1B right now. I myself am expecting that he will spend time in AAA this year.
But, you are wrong to say Clement’s time with the Ms shows he can’t hit. Barry Bonds, Aramis Ramirez and Roberto Clemente didn’t hit in their first years in MLB.
Clement had a very bad 2 months adjusting to MLB with a lot of Ks. He also hit some monster HRs. Finally he looked to shorten his swing and hit well over .300 for 30 days before having his season end in injury.
Just sayin’, the book is not closed on Jeff Clement.
I’ll also go out on a limb and say Clement’s defense at 1B will be much superior to Adam Dunn’s defense there. So, I’m not sure I would be throwing out the word laughable there. If Clement isn’t better than Dunn at 1B defense, I can assure you he will not be there for long and Garrett Jones will be at 1B.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 15, 2010 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
"His time with the M’s shows that he can’t hit."
So much for the predictive value of minor league performance, I guess.
Kind of a surprising stance for a guy who was touting UZR higher up in the thread…
MLE
So much for the predictive value of minor league performance, I guess.
Kind of a surprising stance for a guy who was touting UZR higher up in the thread…
The guy hit .335/.455/.676 in AAA in 2008, which is awesome. Then, he hit .224/.295/.360 in 203 ABs in Seattle. And in 2009 his combined Tacoma/Indy MLE was .240/.303/..411. Sure, he could break out, but the guy looks like a quad-A hitter.
by docholliday3 on Feb 16, 2010 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
It's fine to use 2009 as a reason for skepticism.
But I don’t think that it constitutes, in and of itself, affirmative proof that he can’t hit in the majors. Particularly given his health problems, which potentially affected his performance with the bat.
That's fair enough
Perhaps the switch to the NL’s weaker pitching will help him. But he has about a season and a half of sub-par performance and I don’t think you can make the injury argument with him. He has been injured for the past 4 years!
by docholliday3 on Feb 16, 2010 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
It's certainly fair
to question whether Clement will be healthy enough to fulfill his potential. I’m sure every person on this board shares that. That’s probably his main obstacle to being a solid player.
Much of his 2009 season with Tacoma was affected by his 2008 knee surgery. After being traded to the Pirates, he went bezerk on AAA pitching for a week, then strained a muscle which affected him the rest of the year.
If he can stay healthy, I think he’s got a huge ceiling. The guy really does have major power potential. Much more so than Adam LaRoche, for example.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 16, 2010 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
some one over there is insane
But morgan is the best defensive CF in the game right now
obviously someone must not actually watch the Nationals play because Nyjer is running around ouy there liek a drunk Usain Bolt
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"the earth moves when Sean Payton walks...Because his balls are just that huge." Anarchon after Super Bowl XLIV
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan
psh...
not just “Someone”…more like “everyone”
Benny Benack III
by benny benack on Feb 15, 2010 10:37 AM EST up reply actions
true
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"the earth moves when Sean Payton walks...Because his balls are just that huge." Anarchon after Super Bowl XLIV
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan
by WVPiratesfan on Feb 15, 2010 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
I’ll say I do agree that he is an excellent defensive CF. Much better than Cutch right now. However, I expect Cutch to get better.
Where Nyjer will not do as well is at the plate. I don’t see where he can keep up the .400 BABIP from his Nats’ time last year.
I think the trade was very good for both teams. The Nats got a center fielder, which Milledge clearly is not. The Pirates had an extra center fielder, and got someone who’s probably going to be a better left fielder with the bat than Nyjer would be, and also above average defensively.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 15, 2010 1:04 PM EST up reply actions
Morgan might be the hardest player in the MLB to project. He could do what he did last year (which, make no mistake, was very good) for the next 4 years, or he could turn into Willy Taveras. In 2013, is he an All-Star, mediocre regular, 5th outfielder, AAA, or out of baseball? I’d bet on a more negative outcome, but the rest of his career could really go either way.
The thing I don't understand
about that comments thread is the Nats fans who are saying that both the Bucs and the Nats got what they needed out of the Nyjer trade. I don’t understand that. I mean, sure, they got a good defensive cf, but so what? Milledge played cf for them in ‘08 and it wasn’t a disaster or anything. They could have just kept him. They also have Dukes, who won’t totally embarrass himself in cf. Or they could have signed Cameron or Byrd or Crisp this offseason if they really didn’t like any of their in-house choices. Saying that Nyjer was what they needed suggests to me that they either think that the second half of 2009 was really important for them or that they’re going to compete in 2010-12 and that Nyjer is significantly better than Crisp, et al. That is delusional. I don’t think, all things being equal, that the Nyjer trade was bad for the Nats, but given their circumstances, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Milledge was -18 UZR in 134 games in 2008 for them.
You don’t think that’s a disaster? Nyjer has a career +33 UZR/150 in the outfield for his career, and +39 UZR/150 in CF. Even if you feel that is too high to be his true level, he is at minimum +20. That is a 4 win swing from Milledge in center. That is really significant.
Plus, guys who are thin and fast like Nyjer don’t decline suddenly when they hit 30 years old. He could be a very good center fielder for 5 or 6 more years easily.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 15, 2010 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
No, I do not think a -20 UZR/150 is a disaster. McLouth was -14 UZR/150 for us in 2008, and then we signed him to a 3-yr contract. It’s not good, but you can live with it, especially for half a year. Plus, as I said, the Nats also had Dukes (plus Willie Harris, who I forgot to mention). They didn’t need a CF unless they thought that it was urgently important that they play well in the second half of 2009. My point is that it wasn’t, and it would be delusional to think it was.
Saying Nyjer is “at minimum” a +20 defender in CF is hyperbolic, as is saying that Milledge is a true talent -20, but you’re right that the swing in defensive abilities is large. Is it significant? Again, only if you think the Nats are in a position to contend anytime soon. And again, my argument is that such a belief is delusional. And again, they could have just used Willie Harris in CF (career UZR/150 +0.7). Or Roger Bernadina. Or signed Coco Crisp this offseason. Or anything that didn’t involve trading a high-upside 24-year-old. For a team in the Nats’ position, that is ridiculous. They just didn’t need a CF that bad.
Please do not defend the delusions of Nats fans to me.
What I think
I think Milledge’s true talent at the time was around -10. I think he had not really worked on defense prior to him coming to the Pirates, and the Nats were not in the mood or mind to teach him. Huntington saw something in him and thought he could improve if given the correct training and knowledge. I think those results were pretty evident already and I predict a +17 UZR for him in 2010.
I think Nyjer’s true talent in CF is +30 right now. Normally the difference between the best and worst fielder up the middle is twice as great as the difference of defense on the corners. So, that is why you generally go with the better fielder in CF and SS, and go with offense on the corners.
Regardless of whether the Nats could have gotten a free agent centerfielder who would be only 3 wins worse than Nyjer instead of 4, why would they want to, when they decided they didn’t have the teaching skills to turn Milledge around and he was going to be of little use to them?
That may mean that the Nats are not that good at bringing out the best in their young players, and if true, then it’s a good move for them.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 15, 2010 3:44 PM EST up reply actions
This is ridiculous.
If you think Nyjer is the best defender in history, then sure, great trade. That’s not delusional at all. I stand corrected.
But now I’m a little pissed that we traded a perennial MVP candidate with 5 years of team control left.
Nyjer > Milledge
Did you guys happen to see what Tony Plush brought to the Nats clubhouse along with his blazing speed? His personality alone beat whatever Milledge could bring to the table as an overrated bat and uncoordinated outfielder. He gave us a legitimate lead off hitter with the ability to steal a base or two a game. While Blastings Milledge just swings for the fences and tracks flyballs like a more athletic version of Helen Keller.
Before you go blast the Nats some more just look at the difference in our roster, notably the bullpen, from last year at Opening Day to today. There’s no way that these Nats finish behind your present day Buccos, taste it, savor it, and tell me how it goes down. We’re one leg out of the gutter right now, Strasburg and Harper are coming to save the day. Optimism 101, learned on the streets of S.E. DC
Children Please
Simmer.
I made this post for one last look at Capps and instead war is being waged for the other deal. It was a win-win deal for both sides that got something they wanted and needed. You can argue about who got the better of what in another 3 years.
What you don't realize
Is that Morgan also was not good at tracking flyballs when he first got to the bigs. He just made up for some of that with his speed. Many people on this site are still thinking that is the Nyjer Morgan that will re-appear at some point with the Nats. However, I saw a huge improvement in his outfield play after beginning work with Varsho on outfield technique. And his UZR numbers really mirror that.
When Milledge came to the Pirates, I saw that he was terrible at defense as you say. However, after about 2 weeks working with Varsho, he got noticeably better and his UZR/150 went from -25 to +16. He made some spectacular plays in the outfield.
So, what we might surmise is that Varsho is pretty good at teaching outfield defense, and whoever is doing that on the Nats is not.
We’ll see if Nyjer can continue to get on base at the pace he did with the Nats last year. Personally, don’t see it, because his BABIP was .400, which is 35-40 points higher than both he and Ichiro normally attain as guys that try to beat out a lot of infield hits.
I do still think the trade works well for both teams, because Milledge is neither a leadoff guy nor a centerfielder. We’ve got both of those in McCutchen. We needed a left fielder, and I think Milledge is going to be a better left fielder than Nyjer would be for us.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 15, 2010 8:23 PM EST up reply actions
Morgan...
also gone thrown out over 40% of the time so that makes his baserunning a negative and not a positive. We also did not receive the version of Milledge you are describing above. So while a lot of us have undersold the value you received with Morgan last year you are doing the same with Milledge. So while Nyjer was better than Milledge last season there can be no arguing that Milledge has a much higher ceiling. I as Bucs fan feel it was worth the gamble because we do not have a lot of players with Milledge’s talent in the system. Like I said earlier, given that Rizzo had tired of Milledge and did not see him in the long term plan the trade was a win-win.
Nyjer's a great guy.
But Milledge has been awesome since he came here, too. He’s been working extra-hard, he’s been getting along great with everybody (particularly Cutch), and his play has been improving by leaps and bounds.
If there was an issue with him, I have to think it must have been more about the culture of your team than anything else. Because he hasn’t put one foot wrong since the moment the trade went down.
[Not] one foot wrong...
OH REALLY? Seems like someone is forgetting about some very brightly colored shoelaces!
He was clearly trying to draw attention to himself; exactly the behavior I except from the selfish, high-fiving, rap-making, (probably) promoter of domestic violence and pitbull fighting that he is!
by CptnAwesome on Feb 16, 2010 12:51 AM EST up reply actions
Yes
Shoelace-gate was an embarrassment to the league. Shameful.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 16, 2010 1:22 AM EST up reply actions
I know from personal experience
how wearing flashy shoelaces can be a gateway offense to criminal activity. I once wore flashy shoelaces and I suddenly found myself wanting to hold up a convenience store with a double barrel shotgun. Luckily, my pimp performed an intervention and I was saved.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 16, 2010 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
I'm very interested to see what happens with Capps
I’ll be watching his pitch f/x data to see if the vertical movement comes back on his fastball. As you might remember, I looked at the trend of his FB movement over the last 3 years and noticed that his ball was moving a lot more previously. I believe that is the key to him regaining success.. We’ll see if I’m right.
The Nats-Pirates big trade last season benefited both sides; leave it at that.
In early 2009, Hanrahan couldn’t get anyone out and Milledge had talked his way into a demotion to AAA. Neither player was featuring in the Nats future, so we traded them for guys that we needed (a defensive-minded leadoff hitter and a reliable reliever).
I’m glad both guys are working out for Pittsburgh. Maybe they both just needed a change of scenery to regain their mojo. I’m a Nats fan and i’ll attest that yes, we really are happy with the trade. We were horrible defensively and Morgan helped. We had no true leadoff hitter and Morgan fit right in. We had a first-half bullpen era in the 6s and Burnett helped. All those points are inarguable.
What also is inarguable
is that the Nats were going nowhere last season, trade or no trade. Even with Morgan and Burnett, the Nats ended up with the worst record in the league in 2009. So while you may say that Burnett and Morgan helped the Nats last season, it was not enough to catapult them into contention. Now the Nats have to hope that Morgan and Burnett continue to play over their respective heads in 2010 and beyond, or else the Nats will be left with no cognizable benefit as a result of the trade.
Make no mistake: the trade for the Nats was a win-now move. Given the Nats’ circumstances, such trades will only cause the team to spin its wheels. Pirates fans fully know the consequences of such trades. The trade was downright Littlefieldian, and from a Nats’ standpoint, it should be condemned as such.
Formerly known as Econolodge
Littlefieldian trade?
I’d have to disagree.
Morgan probably has more years of team control left than Milledge. Burnett/Hanrahan years are a wash, though I like Hanrahan more.
The trade is Littlefieldian if:
1. Milledge becomes a superstar, and that’s far far from given. Remember, community projections only just had him touching .800 OPS.
2. Morgan suddenly shows his age in 2012, and turns pumpkin-y. Again, no reason to think that will happen. He’s fit and fast, and has value in his glove without doubt. Will Milledge be a better LF than Morgan as a CF: I doubt. Add in the bat, and they might grade out equal, but only might.
Morgan will regress some, but there’s a good chance of his having as good or better a WAR as Milledge. Completely don’t see how it’s Littlefieldian…
In fact, this should be an interesting trade to follow for the next 2-3 years.
I expect Morgan will regress pretty substantially with the bat back to his Pirate level, and I think Milledge will improve with the bat. I think you are right, though, that they will probably be approximately equal in WAR.
I expect Nyjer to be worth about 1.5 wins less with the bat next year, which would make him worth about 3.5 WAR.
I am predicting Milledge to be worth about 4 WAR. 2.5 when not counting defense, and about 15 runs defensively.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 15, 2010 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
One thing I find offensive about the Federal Baseball post ...
… is the poor grammar. The guy’s first two paragraphs were each one sentence. Honestly, who writes one-sentence paragraphs?
Formerly known as Econolodge
Why are we even arguing this?
The Nats are atrocious. We are literally arguing whos worse. This thread is embarassing. If you think us giving away Morgan for Milledge is anything less than a great move, you belong in a mental institution.
I agree to some extent that the Nats are going in the right direction. They’ve got some legitimate players, and will be ok for now, but they arent even close to as stocked for the next decade as the Bucs. That’s absurd.
Pudge is pudgey, Dunn in done, and Strasburg is a scrub. Yep I said it. A scrub! Nyjer is too for all I care.
seems you got a bite there omar… nice work!
Makes me wanna cast my own troll rod
by BlindSquirrel on Feb 16, 2010 7:45 PM EST up reply actions
You, sir, are an idiot. If the Nats are ‘atrocious’, what are your pirates? Your post is laughable, really.
I’m not gonna debate the Morgan/milledge deal it’s been over-debated already, good deal for both teams leave it at that. Now as for your witty comment about pudge being pudgy, etc bravo you are quite the witty comedian. But pudge was signed as insurance for a catcher who hit .300 last year before injury. Dunn is done? Again, clever. Yet untrue. He is a very good offensive player and is nowhere close to ‘done’. I would take him—as would any rational baseball fan—over Clement on opening day. Finallt, strasburg a scrub? Really? Get your head out of your ass and stop being stupid. I’m not gonna talk about stats or scouts but just that if he were on your team you’d be praising him. For the record he’s better than anybody in your farm system. Now, you made some ludicrous comment about the bucs being more stocked? Okay AT BEST, Alvarez will be as good as Zimmerman (doubtful though because while he hits for power, his average is suspect and his defense is bad). I’ll give you McCutchen, I love the guy. Wish we had him. Instead we have a Nyjer clone in eury perez, .357. Strasburg is miles ahead of anybody in your farm system, Storen was lights out in the minors, we have the aMiLB player of the year in Derek norris. Espinosa, Desmond, two future MLB ss/2b, Dessie played astoundingly well for the club in his call up last year while espinosa tore up the Arizona fall league. Now on the ML roster, jordan Zimmermann is a future number one (read the reports if you don’t believe me) and already better than ohlendorf, duke, etc. I won’t even bring up John lannan, Jason Marquis, the other pitchers on our roster—all of whom are better than yours. Just stop this idiocy.
C: bucs
1B: nats
2b: nats
ss: nats
3b: nats
lf: nats
cf: bucs
rf: nats
sp: nats
rp/cp: nats
by StrasburgSavior on Feb 16, 2010 8:57 AM EST reply actions
Riddle me this, Batman:
Did we jump all over your board when statements like
I think we have enough ancillary evidence by now that the Pirates GM is among the worst in the game.
At least PIttsburgh has its Penguins…and the Steelers I guess.
The Pirates non-tendering Capps, then turning around and spending equal money on Dotel is like the Tigers trading away Curtis Granderson as a salary dump, then turning around and offering Johnny Damon 2 years/$14 million. Stupid.were made?
…
?
No?
Then relax.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 16, 2010 9:37 AM EST up reply actions
Should have? For what purpose?
It’s not my team’s board – why should I care?
I have better things do to with my time than spending it trolling. If only more people felt the same.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 16, 2010 9:39 PM EST up reply actions
I think it's a bit aggressive to tout Zimmermann as a "future number one"...
…particularly before you know how he’s going to recover from surgery. They’re pretty good at TJ nowadays, but there’s still something like a 5% outright fail rate on the procedure, so it’s not a slam dunk (and in any event, he won’t be back to full effectiveness until 18 months after the surgery, i.e. 2011, which would certainly limit his value in any head-to-head comparison of the two clubs’ fortunes for 2010).
A lot of your other points of analysis are similarly slanted by hometown bias. A truly objective analysis of both teams would indicate that both are improving, and both are still among the weakest clubs in the league. For example, the 2010 CHONE projected standings see us finishing with identical 74-88 records.
Also, I really shouldn’t pick nits this small, but Eury Perez has almost nothing in common with Nyjer. Nyjer is a LHB who throws from the left side, while Perez is a RHB who throws from the right side. Perez has been successful in the pros at 19, while Nyjer is a late bloomer who didn’t even start playingpro ball until he was 22. Perez is a fairly high-percentage base stealer, while Nyjer was very inefficient in that regard until his age 26 season. Perez has also been significantly better at conrolling the strike zone… there just isn’t much similarity there at all, apart from both being dark-skinned outfielders.
I don't think I'd give the SP to the Nats...
And I like the feistiness of both blogs. Reading comments from both sides, it seems that we all have hometown biases. Honestly, the Bucs should be the better team, remember: the Nats came to DC with almost nothing. I proposed this over on the Nats blog, but the Bucs Dugout and Federal Baseball should start a cross-blog fantasy baseball league to decide who’s an idiot.
by docholliday3 on Feb 16, 2010 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
Honestly, the Bucs should be the better team
You’ve reckoned without Messrs David Littlefield and Ed Creech.
by BurgherKing on Feb 16, 2010 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
While I don't agree with omar's post
There is something that is interesting in the way the Nats are operating that concerns me for them. They seem to want to act like a large market team, and I see them making some of the same mistakes as the Mets and Cubs, for example.
I really do think the Morgan pickup for them was a good thing as I said, but you might say they paid a lot for him.
The fact that they are looking to extend Dunn, when it’s pretty clear his defense is such a liability that he doesn’t add wins in proportion to his salary is puzzling.
They grabbed Capps and paid him a bunch, while the Pirates got a seemingly better pitcher for less money in Dotel. That will be an interesting comparison as the year progresses.
It just seems they are throwing a lot of money at their issues, and it’s not exactly in the smartest way sometimes. But I’m sure they have a decent amount of money and they are going to operate in a way which uses that money. It will be interesting to see if they become the Mets/Cubs in wasting money, or if they are wiser than that. One thing is sure, they have more money than the Pirates, and that should give them a theoretical advantage in their building process.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 16, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
The Dotel/Capps money difference
Is pretty marginal unless the Dotel option is picked up next year — if Capps bounces back you would think he gets paid more than Dotel would if he has a similar season since there is a team option on Dotel.
I think omar was just messing around a bit with his final point, but sarcasm on the Internet is a tricky thing, which made someone with a Strasburg name fly off at the handle a bit.
The Nats are better at 3B and SS, but as the said in the Looney Tunes, “That’s all, folks”.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 16, 2010 9:56 PM EST up reply actions
Nats vs. Bucs
Catcher: Ryan Doumit vs. Pudge Rodrigeuz. -buccos- nats
1B: Adam Dunn vs. Jeff Clement
2B: Akinori Iwamura vs. Christian Guzman—buccos
SS: ROnny Cedeno vs. Ian Desmond— push
3B: Andy LaRoche vs. Ryan Zimmerman— nats
RF: Garret Jones vs. Elijah Dukes—buccos
CF: Andrew McCutchen vs. Nyjer Morgan—buccos
LF: Lastings Milledge vs. Josh Willinghma—nats
SP: Maholm, Duke, Ohlendorf, Morton, McCutchen vs. Lannan, Marquis, Zimmermann, Mock, Strasburg—Buccos
SU/CL: Donnelly, Dotel vs. Bruney, Capps—Buccos….
I’m sorry how do the Nats win this matchup? I know I’m biased towards the buccos but I really don’t see how they match up against each other…
by smokedpretzels on Feb 16, 2010 10:57 PM EST up reply actions
Just as a note:
For the start of the year, at least, the Nats are probably going with Adam Kennedy at 2B and Guzman at SS, with Desmond picking up AB as a rover. That’s what their FO is saying, anyway.
Actually Omar has a point on Strasburg
Whether or not he’s just messing around, a lot of people think the guy’s going to blow out his arm:
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/2008/9/5/607023/on-strasburg
Smokedpretzels you are insane. Kennedy is our 2b, he hot .289 with 12 hrs last year. Versus Iwamura…..huh. Nats. And the idea that cedeno is better than either Dessie or Guzman is ridiculous. I’m not sold on Garret jones, neither are most people for that matter, but I’m feeling charitable so I’ll give it to you. And please, don’t make me laugh—you have a better starting rotation than us, not to mention rbullpen? That’s hilarious. Really, too funny.
Oh and I forgot to mention Bryce Harper earlier.
Btw….what I meant about perez is that both he and nyjer are high average/base stealers, fundamentally they are similar players.
by StrasburgSavior on Feb 17, 2010 8:49 AM EST reply actions
2010 2B CHONEs:
Iwamura: .284/.365/.393 (+1 offense, -2 defense)
Kennedy: .265/.327/.380 (-12 offense, -3 defense)
If Kennedy’s able to sustain his well-above-career-norms 2009 production, he could potentially make it into a tie. I certainly wouldn’t put any money on that, though.
Bryce Harper doesn’t count toward anybody at this point. He’s still the property of the College of Southern Nevada.
With Zimmerman hurt and out, you would probably need to progress a very high level of production for Strasburg right out of the gate, as well as a significant rebound from Wang, in order to get the rotations close.
As for a fantasy baseball league, I’m game, I can set it up and get guys from federal baseball in; how many of you are interested? It would be a great idea. Two divisions; buccos dugout and federal baseball, head to head if we want it to be ultra-competitive.
by StrasburgSavior on Feb 17, 2010 8:52 AM EST reply actions
Yeah
I don’t like H2H for baseball. If it’s roto I’m game though.
Because
You can pretty much just give up on certain categories in H2H. In roto you have to field a balanced team. That’s just one reason. Another is that baseball is a long season. I want my stats to equal out to a correct result rather than a bad luck of the draw.
What he said.
Also, I already play a 5×5 roto keeper league, and I don’t have the time to draw up two dramatically different sets of pre-draft rankings.
Free Yahoo league.
We just keep our own records on who had whom on his roster at the end of the year, and pick and manually enter our keepers in the spring, then do the rest of the draft by correspondence.
I need to pick 15 keepers from the following:
Hitters: Gordon Beckham, Ryan Braun, Carl Crawford, Nelson Cruz, Adam Dunn, Prince Fielder, Carlos Gonzalez, Howie Kendrick, Russ Martin, Hunter Pence, Geovany Soto, Ian Stewart, David Wright, and Ryan Zimmerman.
Pitchers: Josh Beckett, Matt Cain, Yovani Gallardo, Aaron Harang, Phil Hughes, Joe Nathan, Leo Nunez, Roy Oswalt, Jonathan Papelbon, and Max Scherzer.
Pretty Stacked
How many people were in the league?
And what cats?
12 team league.
Standard 5×5: (R, HR, RBI, BA, SB) (W, ERA, K, SV, WHIP)
I actually finished 4th, if you can believe it. Probably would’ve been 3rd, but I saw I wasn’t going to be in a position to win with about a month left and worked to maximize 2010 value instead.
Next week or two, I need to start trading quantity-for-quality to get down under the 15-player cap.
With that roster, it looks like you can very easily trim some pitchers like Harang, Hughes, Nunez, and Oswalt (although picking which of the young starters could be a challenge). The only hitter that sticks out is Stewart. Maybe Kendrick. So making some deals looks like the right course of action.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 19, 2010 1:49 AM EST up reply actions
I would try to hold on to Stewart
In a keeper league a guy who can hit bombs and is still young is huge — but he does have Zimm and DWright at 3B. Either way, I think he’s going to be better this year. I’d rather try to move Nellie Cruz since he’s an OFer to get another starter or closer if I had his roster.
Anyway, I figured those were the cats Vlad just was making sure.
League positions are:
C, 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, OF, OF, OF, MI, CI, UT. As such, the shallowness of 2B/SS gives Stewart a bit more value in this particular format, since he still qualifies as a 2B for next year.
Harang’s only still there because I had a DL slot that I never needed to use, so why bother cutting him (particularly since there’s a relatively low transaction limit). But he’s technically my property, in case anyone wants him, so I listed him for the sake of completeness.
I’d be interested. If we want a head-to-head league, what about Scoresheet?
(FWIW, although I’m a Pirate diehard, I did enjoy being the Nats’ neighbor from August 2005-August 2007, when I was stationed at Bolling AFB and lived on East Capitol. Those years were the height of my disenchantment with the Pirates’ organization, and I wound up going to a lot of games at RFK (27 games in ‘06, easily the most I’ve ever seen in a year…).)
by Traco Bucco on Feb 17, 2010 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
Yes it was the strasburg…‘sarcasm’ that made me fly off the handle, apologies.
As fir the injury concept, while he may have a somewhat inverted ‘w’, his shoulders are pulled back toward 1B line and his arms are below shoulder height which minimizes the risk of injury. I’m not saying he won’t be injured—he probably will—but it’s no guarantee.
by StrasburgSavior on Feb 17, 2010 1:15 PM EST reply actions
Fantasy Baseball League
I put up a fanpost on bucs dugout, post if you’re interested, along with what you prefer—H2H or roto. I personally prefer roto but whatever everybody wants.
Btw, sorry about the ‘rbullpen’, I’m using an iPhone.
by StrasburgSavior on Feb 17, 2010 1:43 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
