Neal Huntington Interview Highlights
Here are the highlights of the bloggers' chat with Neal Huntington yesterday. Thanks so much to Matt Nordby for putting this together for us.
-P- On how Huntington might judge the Pirates' season differently than the fans might judge it:
"I think the fans are excited that this club has played well, and we're right there. We want to share it with them. We want to celebrate our small successes. But we've got a long ways to go. I think there's an element of the fanbase that would be happy with 82 wins, and I get that. I respect that. But that's certainly not why we do this. If 82 wins is where we end up ... we'll take a look back on it, try and evaluate why is was only 82 wins, or how did we get to 82 wins. But it won't be [an excuse for] a celebration ...
"It's not all about breaking the streak. It's all about putting us in a position to be a consistent championship-caliber team, and that's going to continue to be logical, rational decisions. And that's where fans ride the emotional high and the emotional low. We as a front office, and we as an organization, have to try to stay away from the emotional high and the emotional low."
-P- Huntington noted that Josh Bell and his family are interested in what he could get out of the college experience, but that "we also believe that he wants to play professional baseball. Now, can we convince him to play in 2011? We obviously believe that we could convince him that we were the right fit for him, that we were the best organization in baseball for him, given the infrastructure that we have beneath the surface that we think is a significant advantage for us over every other organization in baseball ...
"We felt it was a worthwhile gamble. We felt he was one of the better bats in the country, and we felt that the opportunity-cost of losing a player ... that we would have taken at [No.] 61 and wasn't available there when we picked at 91, we felt that was worthwhile, because we get pick 62 in the country next year ... We're going to work as hard as we can to sign him and add him to the organization."
-P- I asked what it would take, at this point, for the Pirates to trade Paul Maholm or Joel Hanrahan at the deadline.
Huntington said that the Pirates would try to take advantage of market trends, and might consider selling if he thought they could get a key part of the Pirates' future in return.
"We're always gonna look to be opportunistic," Huntington said. "We'd love to add. But there may come a point where we add here, subtract here, but we add again, and that's where we've got to look to be creative."
-P- On Alex Presley: "How does Alex fit? Well, the guy has swung the bat the way he has, the speed on the bases beginning to play more. He's beginning to gain more confidence on the bases. But if he can drive a ball gap to gap, play plus defense in a [corner outfield spot], get on base and wreak havoc on the bases, he can be a very interesting player for a long time. People want to continue to talk about the game and power ... for whatever reason, power isn't where it once was in the game, and guys that are athletic, guys that can get on base, guys that can wreak havoc on the bases, guys that can play great defense, they're beginning to find their way back onto major-league fields in important roles again."
-P- On Rudy Owens: "We think Rudy's going to be a very good major-league pitcher. Rudy's learning ... there's a reason why there's levels in minor-league baseball, and why guys jumping from Double-A to the big leagues is rare. He's being taught some lessons by some Triple-A hitters right now, and some of the pitches Double-A hitters either put in play weakly early in the count or chase later in the count, the veteran Triple-A hitters aren't."
-P- I asked what had changed with Chris Leroux, and what the Pirates had seen in him that we didn't see a few months ago, when many of us were wondering what he was still doing on the 40-man roster.
"We claimed Chris last year because of the arm strength and the makings of a breaking ball ... We carried him on the roster during the offseason because of the same upside. [We] saw some good things out of him in Spring Training. Saw the breaking ball play consistently, saw the fastball command down in the zone. Maybe not dotted, but down in the zone, out of the middle of the plate."
I asked if the Pirates had changed his arm slot.
"Yeah, this year our pitching coordinator and pitching coaches decided to drop his arm slot a little bit. It gives him more life to the fastball. Makes it a little more difficult to command, but it makes it more difficult to hit as well."
-P- On Tony Sanchez: "Tony got himself in trouble a little bit earlier this year because his home-run numbers were down ... It's bad when a young hitter tries to hit home runs. That's a lesson we try to teach every one of our young hitters: Be a good hitter first. For most hitters, home runs are mistakes. They get just under a ball that they've squared up, and it leaves the ballpark, and that's a great thing. [But] when you sit in the box and sit and rip, you become an out, you become a much easier out, you open up a lot of holes."
-P- Brian from Raise The Jolly Roger asked about reports from a few weeks back that said teams had been asking a lot from the Pirates in return for catchers because they perceived the Pirates as desperate. When asked whether that had changed, Huntington simply said "no."
"I know I was aggressive, and I think my first year or two here took some criticism for being aggressive in our [asking prices]. Ironically enough, then I took criticism for not getting enough for the players, but that's neither here nor there.
"Teams have been aggressive. It's early, the trade deadline is still a ways away, there's still more buyers than sellers, there's still a limited number of players out there. Teams are really looking to hold onto players that have a chance to be on their club for the next year or two because the free-agent class continues to project as not a very good one again, so yes, teams are continuing to be aggressive ... and understandably so."
Huntington also talked a bit about the 2008 trade deadline, and how the Pirates might approach the market now that they are likely to be buyers rather than sellers.
"A team ruled out their entire South Atlantic League [roster] in a trade for Jason Bay. A team ruled out their nine top prospects, one for one, in a trade for Jason Bay ... the key for us is going to be ... we've got to know our own players better than everybody else does. There will be players that we'll move that may raise some eyebrows. There will be players that we'll hold that may raise some eyebrows."
-P- Huntington said that the Pirates would be willing to sacrifice a bit of power from his outfield in the future in exchange for having fast players who can cover a lot of ground in PNC. It sounds like he won't be at all shy about, for example, using Starling Marte in a corner spot if need be.
-P- Huntington said the number of players drafted from Louisiana this year was "probably more of a coincidence than anything else."
299 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great work Charlie
Huntington is the man.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Jul 19, 2011 7:32 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Hmmmm
Huntington said that the Pirates would try to take advantage of market trends, and might consider selling if he thought they could get a key part of the Pirates’ future in return.
“We’re always gonna look to be opportunistic,” Huntington said. “We’d love to add. But there may come a point where we add here, subtract here, but we add again, and that’s where we’ve got to look to be creative.”
Add a SP, Trade Maholm, Add a Bat?????
I jumped to that same conclusion, for what it’s worth. Those statements were the most insightful into how Huntington is thinking about the trade deadline. It wouldn’t surprise me to see the type of transaction sequence where, for example, Maholm is dealt for a hitter, then Slowey acquired to battle with Ohlendorff and Lincoln for the open SP slot.
I had similar thoughts a couple weeks ago
Maybe when we were talking about Ubaldo (who, in retrospect, isn’t going anywhere). But yeah, if we could actually find a SP upgrade, now you’re free to trade Maholm, and I think he can easily return you a nice bat.
That said, I don’t particularly want to trade him – he’s a good fit, he wants to be here, his option is totally reasonable, and if he renegotiates for more years at (somewhat) less salary, it’s all to the good. But I wouldn’t complain if it meant a clear upgrade for 2011.
Trading Maholm is just dumb
He has been our most reliable pitcher for the last 5 years or so. I would hate to see him go.
by Joey Mooney on Jul 19, 2011 8:42 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
He's pnly pitched
142 innings since arriving in Pittsburgh, he may be reliable, but it will kae him 2.5 years to reach the 200 IP mark. Replacing those innings is not as hard as you may imagine.
by Wizard of Woz on Jul 19, 2011 8:45 AM EDT up reply actions
What?
Maholm agreed to sign for less… And what are you talking about innings? Maholm throws like 200 a year. Correia, Morton, Jmac, Karstens never threw as many as maholm.
by Joey Mooney on Jul 19, 2011 9:03 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Wow,
I’m an ass. I read Maholm, and though Hammer. Sorry man.
by Wizard of Woz on Jul 19, 2011 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Are you on your phone?
I always read the wrong line… sucks! Ha all good!
by Joey Mooney on Jul 19, 2011 11:53 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm cautiously optimistic about signing Bell
I really believe the Pirates are going to drop some cash in front of the kid.
Don't see why
the kid can’t take classes at Point Park in the morning and then walk across the bridge to the ballpark in the afternoon. I’m sure his professors would cut him some attendance slack when the team’s on the road, give him online assignments and such. Bucs could give him a $100,000 tuition bonus.
No reason everybody can’t get creative.
We
don’t need to start this discussion again, but I will anyway. Let’s break it down.
Most people go to college to get a degree (notice I didn’t say education) so they can obtain a career job and support themselves or themselves and a family. Clearly, because Josh Bell could sign now for enough money to support himself and a family for years to come, not even considering the money he will make actually playing baseball, he doesn’t want to go to college for the money.
If he doesn’t want the money, he might want an education. He might desire to learn new things or study a certain subject. In that case, bucdaddy, your scenario would make sense. I seriously doubt that’s all Bell wants though.
The last scenario, is he wants the college experience. Not the college experience of getting an education. The college of experience of going away from home (granted he would do that if he signed with the Pirates), staying in the dorms, meeting new people, going to Texas football and basketball games as a student, eating cafeteria food. Personally, my three years in undergrad were the best years of my life, and I already regret how fast they passed me by barely a year out of college. Bell could get also get a unique, once in a life time experience by signing and joining the Pirates organization. However, I believe his thinking is that he could get the college experience now, then the pro baseball experience later. I can’t fault him for that.
Or it could all be a leverage ploy, which as a Pirate fan, I’m hoping for, because the we will sign him.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jul 19, 2011 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions
If he wanted all those other things,
then he shouldn’t have been so good at baseball.
Just sayin’.
(/sarcasm)
College.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 19, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Co-eds
So, basically, you’re saying that he may want to go to college so that he can be the BMOC, lounge around all day, and nail a bunch of co-eds. Because I can’t see any reason why taking the money and becoming pro isn’t the better and smarter thing to do.
University of Phoenix is a joke.
Not only do they not offer a good education, their degrees are worthless.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
by Stealing First Base on Jul 19, 2011 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Don’t see why the kid can’t take classes at Point Park in the morning and then walk across the bridge to the ballpark in the afternoon.
Because he wants the typical college experience. Living in dorms, going to parties, picking up coeds, playing frisbee on the quad, that kind of thing. Working as a professional athlete while you take a few classes on the side isn’t the same thing.
He has
September (when the minor-league season ends), October, November, December, January and February to go to college full time. He might have to do just a little catch-up work for fall term and then get his second-semester work done ahead of schedule, or have a special program devised for him that allows him to take core classes in his subject in the off months and lighter stuff, electives and such, when he’s in spring training and while riding the buses in the minors.
He can live in the PPU dorms during those months and roger all the coeds* he wants — and there’d be no shortage of them for a guy with a multi-million bonus — if he wants, and he’d be a 10-minute walk from PNC and its major-league training facilities and major-league trainers all winter.
Just saying, there’s no reason the team and a college can’t get together and work out a creative solution so special kids can do both.
*—It’s been a long time since I’ve been on campus at my alma mater, but I’m going to hazard a guess that Texas still has a few more hot chicks.
My wife assures me
That all the young women at the University of Texas are beautiful, intelligent, and more or less perfect in every way. It is possible that she holds this opinion because she is an alumnae, I’m not sure.
that and it's pretty close to true...
UT women are HOOOOOOOT!!!
#AllTheBuntsAreBad!
by Slick1 on Jul 19, 2011 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
September (when the minor-league season ends), October, November, December, January and February to go to college full time.
And I’m sure people at college will treat him exactly the same if he goes one semester a year as a filthy stinking rich professional athlete as they would if he were just another kid playing a sport that isn’t football, right?
Right.
I’d expect a line of girls outside his dorm door every night.
I can assure you, that didn’t happen to me.
Live in Pittsburgh during the winter instead of Texas?
I love the burgh, but come on. Glad you aren’t the pirates draft prospect director.
by Central*Scrutinizer on Jul 19, 2011 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Is this a legitimate thing we can do?
At least for this year and next year, can we guarantee Bell he’ll be on campus in Austin for the start of fall semester? It’s not the same thing, I know, but he’ll get that taste of the college experience, and many million dollars.
It is entirely against my belief system to root for someone not to go have the time of their lives in college for three or four years, but I will make the exception for Mr. Bell.
but
wonder if goes to college and sucks or gets hurt and is drafted in 20’s round. the millions he turned down would look pretty good. allways take the money “now”.
57-105 come on "sale the team"
wonder if goes to college and sucks or gets hurt and is drafted in 20’s round. the millions he turned down would look pretty good. allways take the money "now".
We can play the what-if game all day. What if he goes to college and rakes, plays A+ defense and gets drafted first overall and signed to a historic bonus? Then he can look at our comparatively small offer and laugh. We can’t bank on him being rational about the odds, because part of what makes an athlete successful is an “I can do anything” attitude.
Also, if you think he’d fail in college, he’d surely also fail in the minors.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
by Stealing First Base on Jul 19, 2011 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions
bird in hand is worth
2 birds in bush…..
57-105 come on "sale the team"
Working as a professional athlete while you take a few classes on the side isn’t the same thing.
While I get your point, let’s not mistake the kid’s “profession” as being a coal miner and risking black lung at the age of 50. His options are play a professional sport, where he would still get many of the same experiences with other kids his age, still get the girls, play to his strengths, and be incredibly wealthy no matter how he plays……..or pay thousands and thousands of dollars to eat bad food and take classes.
Also……Andrew Lambo will likely still be in Double-A Altoona when Bell reaches that point, so the partying wouldn’t have to be sacrificed either!
by Woo! on Jul 19, 2011 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
His options are play a professional sport, where he would still get many of the same experiences with other kids his age…
Sure, if by “many”, you mean “none”.
Nope
I mean “many”. You don’t think a busload of teens/early twenties males aren’t going to make penis jokes and talk about chicks between games? Guaranteed there’s still goofing off and midnight pizza too. You can change the circumstances, but you can’t change DNA. Boys will be boys.
by Woo! on Jul 19, 2011 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If he signs, he won’t have a lot of the experiences of dorm life because he won’t be living in a dorm and going to classes. He’ll spand half of his week on ass-numbing road trips, living out of a suitcase in a cheap motel room, and the other half as a boarder with a host family. Similarly, he won’t get to grow and discover new interests at classes and clubs and his work-study job at the library, because he’ll be spending all his time lifting weights or getting cage time at the ballpark. And his peers won’t treat him like a normal guy because he won’t be a normal guy. The money will subtly create a distance between him and his teammates, and he’ll never know whether anyone he meets is interested in him or in his wallet.
Well, it's not as though...
…college campuses are communitarian utopias. If he chooses Texas, he’ll remain a big shot jock who turned down millions of dollars, but will likely become a millionaire in a few years.
s.zielinski
You don’t get a typical college experience on a sports scholarship anyway. 5 hours a day working out/practicing on top of classes, plus mandatory study halls for athletes on top of that. At least that’s the way it is in many cases…
by Adam Reynolds on Jul 19, 2011 12:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
And there it is. Especially at a big time program like Texas.
Just let the kid make his decision.
"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-Roberto
by blackjackfishtaco on Jul 19, 2011 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Don’t see why the kid can’t take classes at Point Park in the morning and then walk across the bridge to the ballpark in the afternoon.
It’d be a long walk from Bradenton. Or Charleston, even. I hear there’s a school in State College, though.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jul 19, 2011 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Don't
know about Bradenton, but University of Charleston baby.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jul 19, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
If, as McCutchenIsTheTruth says, Bell could be looking for an education, then I don’t think he’ll be swayed by the opportunity to go to PPU. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the students at Point Park care about their education just as much as those at any other school, but the fact remains that UT is nationally one of the top-50 schools academically, something that Point Park can’t even come close to competing with.
Basically, our only chance at signing Bell is to convince him that the money he’d be getting would be worth the potential drop off moving from UT to PPU.
Carnegie-Mellon, then.
Somewhat longer commute to the ballpark.
I picked PPU
for convenience’s sake.
Anybody have any idea what his academic interest is? PPU has a strong theater and dance department, if he’s into drama and/or jazz.
A quick google search turned up nothing on what Bell intends to major in, but chances are that you’re right; between Pitt and CMU, one of them is bound to be a good school in his area of choice, seeing as both are solid academically. The issue then becomes how the team would deal with him needing to play in the minors and get an education, because while I’m sure they’d be ok with him just working out at PNC or something for maybe the first few months, he’d eventually have to start getting in some time in the minors.
Or Pitt, or Penn State
Penn State is ranked 47th in America by US News And World Report’s Best Colleges 2011 for undergrad degrees, and 15th for public universities. Pitt is 64 overall.
www.stealingfirstbase.com
by Stealing First Base on Jul 19, 2011 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
"for whatever reason, power isn't where it once was in the game"
Steroids…HGH,the cream, the clear u name it. The game has changed for sure since the late 90’s. Speed and defense are more important and Pitching is just a little less valuable.
Presley/McCutchen/Tabata = Beep Beep
“P Huntington said that the Pirates would be willing to sacrifice a bit of power from his outfield in the future in exchange for having fast players who can cover a lot of ground in PNC. It sounds like he won’t be at all shy about, for example, using Starling Marte in a corner spot if need be.”
Tabata in left, add a hitter not a masher to 1B! BUTLER!!
I'm beginning to get on board
the Butler train.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
I would be more on board the Butler train...
…if there were any indication whatsoever that the Royals were willing to trade him.
its still early
but im pretty positive the Royals would deal him. just gotta pay em.
by white angus on Jul 19, 2011 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
at what cost and whats he got left on his contract.
id love to see butler in the burgh, but not if it requires selling the farm to get him
" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009
by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 19, 2011 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
whats the point in having a farm if you dont sell some of the crops?
by white angus on Jul 19, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Has anyone floated McDonald as a trade candidate?
He could be attractive out there to a team like the Royals.
depends on his return
we could possibly get a clint robinson in that deal, but no way we get a top prospect in return.
mcdonald is still looked upon as a high pitch count guy who cant get to the late innings, a guy who has a hard time in games when he cant control his fastball, and a possible future injury risk.
wow, good question... i would probably say yes...
mcdonald and marte could get the job done, IMO… if we have to add one more player, we should ask for another in return… like a jeff bianchi, but he would have to be added to the 40 man for that to happen. ive always like Aviles as a utility guy, but we probably have more than enough of them
the royals need alot of help, and mcdonald is major league ready
I'm thinking that he may have the most
value to a non-contender as far as mlb level talent goes.
Less questions than Morton/Karstens, with years of control.
I would be sad to see him go, but I think Ohly/Lincoln could fill in.
My true hope is that we wouldn’t have to deal Marte then. Maybe a slew of C arms + McDonald gets it done.
its technically not a farm if you grow the food for yourself
then its just called a home with a huge ass garden
great anology
" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009
by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 19, 2011 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Arms
The fanbase wants arms, and generally wants him gone.
I hadn’t looked into the GIDP numbers before now… that’s a bit scary though!
yeah, 32 last year... pena only had 2... then again, pena K's more than he actually touches a ball
this season, Butler has 10, pena has 6
butler in the burgh
there’s already a street named after him
by Central*Scrutinizer on Jul 19, 2011 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions
ACME
Signs in LCF and RCF, anyone?
Stupidity should be painful.
@elwreckingball
by wrecking_ball on Jul 19, 2011 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Bell
“we would have taken at [No.] 61 and wasn’t available there when we picked at 91, we felt that was worthwhile, because we get pick 62 in the country next year”
This does not leave me the feeling that we are going to sign Bell
I think
he was talking about the risk involved in taking Bell. I wouldn’t read into it as having any implications on his actual chances at signing. NH is smart enough to seperate the two.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jul 19, 2011 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah
I was hoping to hear more confidence out of NH that they knew he was going to sign (i.e., the Boras/negotiating ploy argument).
charity standing orders
You always have to worry about what you say during negotiations. If the other side hears that confidence in what you say, they will raise the price. If you sound uncertain, they certainly won’t go out and demand more. If they really want to sign, NH appearing less confident in public is a good thing.
"in the country next year" made me laugh because it kinda sounded like a college football ranking or something. . .
not an exclusive baseball draft.
Everything that guy just said is bullshit . . .thank you
Reminds me of the Chappelle Racial draft

“Good bye fried rice, hello fried Chicken”
by Wizard of Woz on Jul 19, 2011 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Adding? Subtracting?
I realize we’ll need to judge the net effect of trades, and not overreact to individual deals without seeing the big picture…but these comments worry me.
If NH makes moves like trading Maholm and/or Hanrahan, and the only returns are future returns (which I read to mean minor league guys), I will be more depressed than at any point in the 18 years of losing.
They are freaking IN IT right now, and if they throw away a legitimate chance to win the division this year, I think it would be a travesty. I understand not wanting to damage the year-in, year-out hopes of the team, but I still think they have to make an effort to win when they have a chance.
I'd say it depends
on how well Ohlendorf comes back, and I still insist that Resop or someone else can close efficiently, now that Hammer has proven himself vulnerable.
Unfortunately, the window on learning whether Ohllie can step in and be Maholm before the trade deadline is closing fast.
Hammer has proven himself vulnerable?
He inherited a runner from Veras and gives up 1 hit….now he’s vulnerable? He came back in the 9th and mowed down the ‘Stros with like 8 pitches if I remember correctly. Not to mention making short work of the Reds last night. He was bound to blow a save sooner or later, but I still don’t think it classifies him as vulnerable.
I would really hate to see him moved.
Perhaps I should have phrased it:
Now that he’s no longer INVulnerable.
did you hurt your knee during that knee jerk reaction?
" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009
by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 19, 2011 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
You mustn't have been around in 2007
After the Moskos pick and Morris trade, if trading 2 months of Paul Maholm would be the most depressing point over the last 18 years.
I disagree
When you’re mired in 18 years of losing, no individual move or set of moves is really that depressing. I was more mad about Moskos and just dumbfounded about Morris, but my emotional attachment to the Pirates didn’t wane at all as a result of either of those decisions.
If they make net subtractions from the big club in the midst of a pennant race, that would be WAY worse for me than anything they’ve done in the intervening period.
That's a good point
But if things get bloody against the Cards and Braves and you get a nice offer for Maholm next weekend, you’ve got to consider it, especially with Lincoln humming along in AAA and Ohlendorf set to return.
Agreed. Right now we’re in first place and right in the pennant race, but if the wheels fall off the next 2 weeks against Stl and Atlanta, we have to face facts that going for .500 may not be the best choice. If we get the right offer for Maholm in that situation, then we should take it the same way we traded Nady 2 years ago when he was in the midst of a career season.
Yeah there's some truth here
If we get pounded by the Cards, Braves, and Phillies and it’s clear we won’t win the Central, then maybe you consider shipping someone if you have a chance at some great returns. My issue is that when you have a chance to win now, you need to show the commitment. There’s no guarantee we can reproduce this type of season in the future.
but there's no guarantee we wont either
" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009
by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 19, 2011 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Great stuff Charlie
I find the comments about trading guys that will raise eyebrows very insightful into what NH would at least like to do. It also point to the fact that he knows he can’t keep everyone the fans expect them to keep on the 40 man roster this year.
This comment, combined with the speed and wreak havoc on the bases theme, makes me wonder . . .
is Pedro being discussed?
Everything that guy just said is bullshit . . .thank you
It would certainly be consistent with his comments
A guy who loves contact and hates swings and misses can’t love Pedro.
Still, I think no.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions
pedro isnt going anywhere
even the cardinals had a jack clark.
by white angus on Jul 19, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Didn't say they should. . .
just that the comments possibly indicate they may.
Everything that guy just said is bullshit . . .thank you
i dont see it
NH was talking about the outfielders for the most part. i dont see anything about having speed at every position on the field.
I'd be irate if...
…Huntington made that deal.
s.zielinski
Interesting what he said about Sanchez trying to hit HRs earlier in the year
Looking at his stats from earlier in the season — zero power, relatively high BB rate, relatively low K rate — you’d think he was primarily trying to manage the strike zone and make contact at all costs with defensive swings, not grip it and rip it.
Also interesting with Josh Bell. Seems like other teams had better things to do with those picks than pick the number one guy on the BA board even if he won’t sign for anything approximating his worth. “Best high school bat in the draft” or not, he’s still a guy with a great, big, loopy, loose-wrist swing that is all arms and no hands and who is as likely never to make the majors as any 16-ranked draft prospect out of high school.
Also interesting acknowledgment from Huntington that he was out of step with other GMs when he started. Funny that the man who got nothing for all his trades (except two pitchers have amazingly unlikely seasons) would note with some edginess that he was criticized for getting nothing from his trades.
Take-home lessons:
Huntington = clueless
Sanchez = suckpile
He brought us Thrilledge!
Not another word!
by Joey Mooney on Jul 19, 2011 11:51 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, saying he got nothing in all of his trades doesn’t exactly lend merit to your opinion. No matter how much you dislike Huntington, there are at least three trades that were absolute steals.
by thecheeseisblue on Jul 19, 2011 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
If it were my thing . . .
It should be noted that I had lots of takers when I called Sanchez a suckpile last year. Not so much this year.
My real thing is pointing out how absolutely bleak things are on the farm and (the feel good story of four pitchers pitching over their heads aside plus two legit major-leaguers from the previous regime) at the majors. In the midst of a really glorious division race, it should be apparent to people that the Pirates have no trade-eligible prospects or young players of any value to anyone to trade for anything.
The guy who put the Pirates in this position is remarking bitterly about having been criticized for getting zelch on trades that he got zelch on, talking about how they had nothing better to do than take a flier on the BA top-ranked guy who won’t sign except for an outrageous waste of money (if that) — another of my points has been that Huntington only goes by BA — and speaking nonsensically about how a player with no extra base hits and (until recently) more walks than Ks was swinging for the fences.
Forget about the manner in which I make my points and instead consider whether this is the guy you want making decisions at this deadline.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
"Forget about the manner in which I make my points and instead consider whether this is the guy you want making decisions at this deadline."
Fair enough, you have an argument. But I gotta tell you, it’s a tough debate with all the bitterness flowing from your keyboard.
So, after due consideration, my answer is: yes, I’d stick with him for now. This has been a great year so far, not that I’m of the opinion that it had a significant amount to do with any NH decisions (other than hiring CH). But, I’m willing to give him a little more leeway—maybe 2 more years to see this plan through. Then, obvious results are needed.
But I gotta tell you, it’s a tough debate with all the bitterness flowing from your keyboard.
this isnt bitterness…its outright hate
" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009
by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 19, 2011 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Strong criticism is what MBs are for
I think the GM is failing. This is a forum for saying why, no?
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
50-44 when everyone said we would stink, plus 5-6 prospects in the top 100...
shows you are just angry that you were wrong
I really don't see 5-6 top 100 prospects
I don’t think anyone else does, either.
And of the three I do see (Cole, Taillon, Heredia) two of those are gimmes given where they were drafted and the lack of opportunity to go down much since they were drafted.
Also, the best position player prospect, Starling Marte, was a DL acquisition.
50-44 is terrific. Doesn’t show that I’m wrong, just that the games aren’t played on paper.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
And the list did not inlcude Heredia and Bell
s.zielinski
Gonna hafta sign Bell, which still seems like a longshot. If he doesn’t sign, I don’t like this year’s draft.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I wasn't happy with this year's draft
Getting Bell won’t be easy.
I only included Bell because the Top Prospects list included unsigned draft choices.
The amazing thing is the apparent quality of the players in the GCL. And, the last I looked Dilson Herrera had an OPS of .850 at age 17. It’s hard to reasonably claim that the Pirates lack prospects, that the farm system is a wasteland, etc.
s.zielinski
If he doesn’t sign, I don’t like this year’s draft.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad draft if they don’t sign bell, but not signing him would mean they’d need to pull off a hell of a lot of their late-round lottery tickets.
Coonelly indicated yesterday that the team is expecting 25-33 signees in total (in very approximate numbers – he didn’t want to give real figures).
It has been a great year
And Hurdle has been a breath of fresh air.
My point is that exactly the same as yours, though: That it doesn’t look like NH has had much to do with it. Now that it’s time for him to do something with it or add to it, it’s fair to point that out and reflect on the fact that his comments do not inspire confidence that he will do the right thing, and the system he largely created now (re-tooled or re-stocked or whatever) is too weak to expect any pieces to be added by trade unless salary dumps.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
OK
So help NH out here. What would you do that would be “the right thing” before 7/31? Inspire some confidence in the rest of us and please be specific. Not being snarky here, just want to see what you would suggest.
I don't follow other teams closely enough to know
I agree with what WTM and others have said, though, that they need to look for salary dumps and guys whose values are down, because they don’t have the ammo to get anyone else. I also agree that Carlos Pena would be a perfect fit if they could swing it.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions
You say look for guys whose value is down
and then bitch about Andy LaRoche and Milledge, who were the epitome of getting guys with potential whose value was down.
by Wizard of Woz on Jul 19, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
it's definitely your thing...
you make an outlandish hyperbolic statement like all his trades suck. People call you out on it by providing examples and refute the claims with more hyperbolic comments that can’t be refuted or supported because they are not based in reality. Your comment of Sanchez is a suckpile is not based in reality so it’s not worth commenting on; that’s why people aren’t taking your bait. Try again troll.
#AllTheBuntsAreBad!
I didn't say "all his trades suck"
I said he got nothing of any consequence from all of his trades. Those are two different things. A trade like Dotel for McDonald and Lambo doesn’t “suck,” maybe it’s even “good,” but it is of little consequence. In the end, both sides dealt the players they thought they were dealing.
A trade like McLouth for Morton, Hernandez, and Locke judged at the end of last season doesn’t “suck” either, but it is of no consequence. In fact, most of NH’s trades have been swaps of players of no consequence. Bay and Sanchez, however, stand out on the negative side for me much more than Nady stands out on the positive side, perhaps because I don’t value Tabata nearly as much as most here.
I specifically noted that two exceptions to the “nothing of any value” rule on NH’s trade returns are this season’s performances of Karstens and Morton. I’m just not sure that we can not count Bautista as a strike against NH while counting Morton/Karstens as feathers in his cap. All three seem to me to be examples of amazingly unexpected advanced-age turn-arounds that are probably fluky or a, at most, a credit to the coaches. (Pitchers tend to be more prone to half-season or even full-season aberrations, though.)
While I don’t deny that I have a negative view of NH’s track record, I did not say the things you said I said, and that makes your characterization of my statements hyperbolic, not my statements.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
what amazing cherry picking
I didn’t say “all his trades suck”
I said he got nothing of any consequence from all of his trades. Those are two different things. A trade like Dotel for McDonald and Lambo doesn’t "suck," maybe it’s even "good," but it is of little consequence
A trade like Hinske for Fryer (and another guy) is of little consequence. So is a trade like PTBNL for McKenry — though we’d be up the creek without those trades. Trading for a legitimate number 5 starter is not of little consequence; those guys aren’t worthless, and you need someone to start those games.
…. Bay and Sanchez, however, stand out on the negative side for me much more than Nady stands out on the positive side, perhaps because I don’t value Tabata nearly as much as most here.[etc.]
OK, so your argument is:
The pitchers he acquired in trades who are doing well don’t count because they’re pitchers who are doing better than they had before they were traded (because teams are lining up to trade ML-ready pitchers who are already doing well)
The starting outfielder he got in a trade doesn’t count just because,
The closer he got in a trade.. well, huh, didn’t hear anything about him,
The starting catcher he got, didn’t hear anything about him either,
and besides the trade everyone agrees was unsuccessful, his other big failure was giving up the 0.1 WAR that Freddy Sanchez put up for the duration of his contract.
OK.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jul 19, 2011 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Remember when you said that the Pirates and Gayo deliberately collaborated with Heredia’s Mexican club to defraud him of a large percentage of his signing bonus, because you had no understanding whatsoever of the mechanics of the transfer agreement between the MPL and MLB?
That was fun. Hard to imagine why nobody’s taking you seriously now…
by Vlad on Jul 19, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I remember something along those lines, yeah
If no one is taking me seriously now because of that, then that’s too bad for them.
That system of paying tribute to Mexican teams rather than players when the players are noticed before the teams even contribute to them (as in Heredia’s case) sucks, but I suppose I jumped the gun in pinning that particular inequity on the Pirates.
The bigger man admits he was wrong. So, remember the pounding I took for calling Sanchez a suckpile a year ago? I see that you have come around to my view on the matter, albeit stated more generously.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
You're a sad, strange little man, Beliup
Your little victory lap over Sanchez’s bad season so far is beyond pathetic, not to mention premature.
The bigger man is one thing you’re not.
I see that you have come around to my view on the matter, albeit stated more generously.
Come around? I freaked the fuck out when we drafted Sanchez. Go check your archives…
I don’t think he’s necessarily as bad as he’s looked so far this year, but he’s not the guy I would’ve chosen.
Not if you take him, Morton, Karstens, Tabata, D.McCutchen and everybody else, put them in a pot — let’s call it the All-Trades-Are-Bad Pot — wave a wand over it, and declare all of them of no consequence.
That’s how it’s done.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Ahh yes
the old “wand over pot” trick. It is the logical equivalent of hiding by closing your eyes. My niece does that and it works every time. Flawless.
by Wizard of Woz on Jul 19, 2011 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s pretty funny when you think about it. Five-twelfths of a staff that’s fifth in ERA came in those trades, but NH got nothing of consequence.
Fair and balanced.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
More like
.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 19, 2011 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Wait, what?
Why is it fair and balanced to dismiss the transformation of Bautista because “no one could have seen that coming,” but give credit for the similar (if slightly less dramatic) transformations of Karstens and Morton, both of which occurred well after the trades and well after the players had lost prospect status?
The pitcher NH thought he was trading for when he acquired Morton was a conventional overhander with a standard repertoire of four-seam fastball, curveball, and change-up. What emerged is an unlikely 75% two-seam guy who tries his level best to hit the exact same spot with just about every pitch and usually misses, yet still succeeds. If the Bautista that NH dumped was the .235/.325/.425 headcase, then the Morton NH acquired was the guy who went 1-9 while leading the league in I-need-a-hug faces. I love Jeff Karstens, too, but aren’t these all examples of players who unexpectedly, at an advanced age (27-30), find themselves some secret mojo that no one saw coming?
Also, as I said, it’s not the “all-trades-are-bad” pot. It’s the all-good-players-on-the-team-are-Littlefield-acquisitions-or-fluky pot. It’s the minor-leagues-are-horribly-terrible pot. Those are two pots that you probably will sort things into when the argument is framed more delicately.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
“If the Bautista that NH dumped was the .235/.325/.425 headcase, then the Morton NH acquired was the guy who went 1-9 while leading the league in I-need-a-hug faces.”

Why are you quoting Morton’s worst stretch after his trade? If you want to talk about what Morton was when he was traded, why not talk about the guy who had a 2.94 FIP in AAA when he was traded? Or the guy who was average as a starter next year? For heaven’s sake, you couldn’t even be bothered to cherrypick a whole season of Morton’s stats.
For a guy to put up 4 1/2 mediocre-to-awful seasons — I’m excluding his Rule 5 year because it shouldn’t have happened — and suddenly turn into the best player in baseball is much more unprecedented than for a guy to be OK for a year, terrible for a year, and above-average for a third year.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jul 19, 2011 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I said nothing about Bautista, although fwiw I don’t give NH a complete pass on that.
What’s laughable, and what my post was referring to, is the view that NH obtained “nothing of consequence.” When five guys he obtained are all pitching well on the league’s fifth best staff, that’s certainly “of consequence,” regardless of whether you think they can sustain it. If all it does is buy the team one year of quasi-contention, it’s “of consequence,” not least because the assets NH gave up certainly weren’t going to do that.
As to Morton, you’re conveniently ignoring the fact that NH continued to insist that Morton would eventually be a productive major league pitcher, even after last year’s disaster when virtually everybody wanted him gone. If a coaching staff (which NH hired) had to intervene to make changes in order for that to happen, NH still deserves credit for it. You can’t dismiss it — well, not fairly, anyway — by saying Morton’s changed his motion.
You also can’t simply dismiss everything that’s worked out well because nobody saw it coming. Nobody saw Andy LaRoche being a complete flop, either. He was still highly regarded when NH traded for him, which was why many people around the league thought the Bay trade was a good one. You’re doing the same thing Dejan repeatedly did, looking at the trades in hindsight for some players and without hindsight for others, depending on which leads to the result you want, which is to blast NH.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I'm not, you are
As I said, I’m accounting for all older players who transformed themselves dramatically (Bautista, Morton, and Karstens) as the product of luck not talent evaluation.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I know you are but what am I?
As I said, you can only say that Morton transformed himself dramatically, in terms of results, by cherry-picking your starting point.
And even then, the transformation is nowhere near as dramatic as Bautista’s.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jul 19, 2011 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think so
Coming into this season, Morton had an ERA+ of 69 in 251 innings, with a WHIP of 1.595. That’s over 3 seasons. He was 27. That’s terrible. In his best season, his ERA+ was 92, which is roughly equivalent to Bautista’s OPS+ over his pre-2010 career.
Jose Bautista was a 29 year old with a career OPS+ of 91, .238/.329/.400 heading into 2010.
Morton arrived later and had pitched less, but he had been worse as a major leaguer at the time of his transformation.
But to say that Morton was a more promising player in 2011 than Bautista was in 2010 is completely false.
The transformation is nowhere near as dramatic as Bautista’s only because Morton is nowhere near as good now as Bautista is.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions
do you understand the difference between "coming into this season" and "when he was traded"?
If you’re going to evaluate the trades without benefit of hindsight, you should do it from the time that they were traded, right? At the time Morton had pitched less than a year in the majors (with terrible results) and was pitching well in AAA. At the time Bautista was traded he’d been thoroughly mediocre for five years. Barely above replacement. According to Fangraphs Bautista put up less WAR as a Pirate than Andy LaRoche (due to horrible defense). I know you don’t like WAR much, but if any semi-respectable stat has a player as worse than Andy, that isn’t a very good player.
And yes, defense counts. A pitcher who has had one mildly OK ML season and two bad ones may well be more promising than a hitter who has been consistently somewhat below average with the bat while providing awful defense at corner positions.
All this is ignoring the fact that Huntington got two more players back in the McLouth deal, and McLouth’s complete collapse since then.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jul 19, 2011 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions
There's no logic to this
Huntington should get credit for seeing what Morton would become because Morton sucked for a year and a half after he got him rather than for a year and a half before he got him? How does that work?
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions
NH spoke very highly of Morton from the moment he was acquired, whereas the Blue Jays expressed no such optimism about Bautista (and were in fact on the brink of non-tendering him that offseason).
If you can’t see the difference between the two situations, there really isn’t anything we can do for you.
i see what you did there
+1
" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009
by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 19, 2011 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
My real thing is pointing out how absolutely bleak things are on the farm
Yeah, ’cause guys like Marte and Cunningham are chump change.
They see me trollin’, they hatin’…
Marte and Cunningham
Marte is the best and brightest position player on the farm. But that says as much about the bleakness of the farm as anything else.
Cunningham still strikes out a whole lot and walks not much at all. We’ll see how he does as he moves up, but my guess is not well. He plays poor defense, too, which will not help him. NH should be down on him, at any rate, given his love for contact.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Marte is the best and brightest position player on the farm. But that says as much about the bleakness of the farm as anything else.
Yes! In the future, God save us from being cursed with the leadoff hitter and center fielder from this year’s Futures Game. Oh, the ignominy!
Cunningham still strikes out a whole lot and walks not much at all.
That’s why he’s a prospect, rather than a current MLB star. The minors are the place where prospects fix that kind of stuff.
NH should be down on him, at any rate, given his love for contact.
Since when does NH “love contact”?
You're right
The Buccos farm system must be the envy of MLB.
And Marte was a Littlefield acquisition.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I suppose you're from the Ricky Bobby school of...
if you’re not first you’re last though.
#AllTheBuntsAreBad!
And Marte was a Littlefield acquisition.
That beeping sound we’re hearing is you moving the goalposts. Your original position was that the situation on the farm is “bleak”. That’s a pure consideration of value – the source of the players currently in the system doesn’t enter into it at all.
Now that you realize you screwed up, you want to retroactively change the question you were answering. Things don’t work that way here – people will call you out for it if you try.
by Vlad on Jul 20, 2011 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think you've got things reversed
My point all along has been that NH is a bad talent evaluator and a bad GM (because of it).
One piece of evidence I’ve used is the general suckiness of the farm system.
You responded (paraphrasing) with, hey, what about Starling Marte, is he chopped liver?
I replied: No, he’s not, but the fact that the Pirates have one prospect (and only one) who looks like he might one day be a serviceable or even better piece of a major league team is no great accomplishment. Marte may be a fine prospect, but if he’s your best prospect above the SAL, your system still sucks.
(I might add: Marte isn’t even likely to be a top 100 prospect and I think this upcoming year will be the first year in a long while in which the Pirates will not have a single top 100 prospect who has played or pitched in a game above the SAL.)
You said: DURR Futures game DURR
I said: He’s a Littlefield prospect anyway.
In other words, I offered a subordinate proposition in support of a larger proposition, and later pointed out that your attempt at refuting the subordinate proposition (while failing at that, as a system with Marte as its top and only true prospect above SAL still sucks) was in any event irrelevant to my larger proposition because it falls within a narrow exception to the general relevance of my subordinate proposition to the task at hand, which is and has always been proving my larger proposition.
Another way of saying this is that if you are trying to prove that NH doesn’t suck by pointing to the performances of a DL-acquisition, you fail. If you want to try to win by refuting a smaller point even though the refutation is irrelevant to the larger point, because it makes you feel good, and then you can use one of your pithy MB analogies (moving goalposts and all that silliness that is beneath us), have at it.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 20, 2011 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Which trades are those?
More importantly: Any players of consequence?
I’m happy with Karstens and Morton, obviously, but what those guys have done this year was no more foreseeable than Bautista’s break out last year. In the case of Morton, at least, it looks unsustainable. He can’t keep putting up decent numbers when leaning on one pitch and one pitch location and having so much trouble locating it.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Jason Bay and Freddie Sanchez
Bay was a premier trade chip, a career .380 wOBA guy with 1.5 seasons left.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
and Freddy was an injury-prone rental who put up 0.1 WAR for the duration of his contract
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jul 19, 2011 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
what does consequence mean then?
Jason Bay, looking great right now…Freddy Sanchez, he’s the epitome of healthy.
While guys like Tabata, Karstens, Morton, Hammer, Jmac all making contributions to a first place team right now.
#31 All Day...
Bay played out his 1.5 years in great form
Hanrahan was definitely a win, but relief pitchers are the most unpredictable and probably least valuable piece.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
ok
but protection in the lineup and the green monster had something to do with those “great form” years too.
#31 All Day...
Green monster yes, protection probably not, it's been shown protection really isn't as big of a deal as most people think it is, but that's a topic for another day
Bay had a great 1.5 years, but keeping him for those years wouldn’t have really been the thing to put the Pirates over the top. Trading him was the smart decision, but it turned out a lot like Andrew Friedman’s big trade of Julio Lugo, (Lugo’s offense in the 2 years before he was dealt was extremely similar to Bay’s, Lugo had a shorter track record, but Lugo also played a more premium position). Both teams (Pirates and Rays) ended up with a former top Dodgers prospect that busted as the centerpiece of the deal.
I'd say that Tabata is a player of consequence, and I think just about anyone here would say that
22 year olds with 2.0+ WAR in their first 162 games don’t grow on trees.
I don't really get WAR
I think it overwieghts (in the plus direction) above-average defense at non-demanding positions and overweights (in the minus direction) below average defense at demanding positions.
At the end of the day, you have a left fielder, who maybe could be a bad centerfielder in a pinch, with no power, good but not great hitting, and with a body type that suggests his speed will decline rapidly (and that his body will wear down faster). Don’t see good teams having much use for that.
I recognize that others disagree. That’s just my opinion.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
His plate discipline is what makes me think he's good
.350+ OBP when his BABIP is down in the tubes says that he can get on base even when he isn’t getting a ton of infield/seeing eye singles to up his BABIP.
I think it overwieghts (in the plus direction) above-average defense at non-demanding positions and overweights (in the minus direction) below average defense at demanding positions.
You have any math to back that up? Or just a gut feeling?
(Which version of WAR are you talking about, BTW? That’s kind of an important distinction…)
Yeah, no math
Gut feeling. Not sure how I would have math to back it up, unless we knew the “true” value of a bad centerfielder vs. a good left fielder.
I know BR tries to take positional value into account, but I think not enough. Fangraphs positional adjustments were virtually indecipherable to me when I looked them up, but it seemed like it started with a very large positional adjustment and then made a very large UZR-type adjustment, and (anecdotally) it seems the size of the UZR adjustment was too big in comparison to the beginning positional adjustment, and maybe just compared to offense, too.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I should say that
On the eyeball test, I think Tabata would end up being docked (net) points as a CF, but ends up being given (net) points as a LF. Walker has the same going on in reverse: He would probably get (net) points as a 3B, but loses them as a 2B. If you agree (you may not), then I submit that as evidence that the weighting system is flawed.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions
maybe it indicates that Tabata is a better LF than CF, and Walker is a better 3B han 2B
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jul 19, 2011 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Right, sure, but, but, but
Isn’t Walker a more valuable ballplayer because he can play a competent second base, even at a below average level, than he would be if he could just play a good third base?
In the OF case, it is obvious that CFs around the league tend to be way, way better OFs than LFs. We are comparing the most athletic set of OFs to the least athletic.
But an OF is still an OF, the basic skills are the same, and a player’s value should be based on that skill set regardless of whether his team decides, based on its make-up, that the best place for him to play is LF, RF, or CF.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
you have a point, but I don't think it validates your general idea
If you look at a guy like Ben Zobrist, WAR values him more when he plays consistently at 2B, and so he takes a hit when he moves around between 2B and 1B and RF, even though he may arguably be making the team better than if he could only play 2B.
On the other hand, you have to try to measure actual production. One of the excuses made for Chris Coghlan’s bad corner OF defense in his rookie year was that he was playing out of position, and was really a 2B. Well, you have to measure the performance on the field; Coghlan was still providing bad D at a position where it’s usually easier to find decent players. In Walker’s case, it’s good that he can play 2B, but I don’t think a statistic should give him credit for his superior defense at 3B when he isn’t playing there.
(Incidentally, I think WAR rates 2B and 3B as basically equivalent positions — and in this case the team could probably improve itself overall, in the short term, by playing Walker at 3B and d’Arnaud at 2B, if Cedeno were healthy. I think they want to leave Walker at 2B so he can improve there, instead of moving back and forth when Pedro is ready to take over 3B.)
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jul 19, 2011 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
The rating of 3B and 2B as roughly equivalent
is part of the problem with BR’s WAR. Just about every 2B can or could play 3B, and has the skills required to do so, but it does not work the other way at all. Walker is competing with better athletes at 2B than he would be at 3B, and his rating suffers for that, not because Walker has skills that are more uniquely suited to 3B than 2B.
I agree that a d’Arnaud/Walker flop would be better in the near term.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Just about every 2B can or could play 3B, and has the skills required to do so…
Except for the ones who have the range but not the arm strength, of which there are more than a few.
2B is mostly for ex-shortstops who don’t have the arm to play short. 3B is mostly for ex-shortstops who don’t have the range/mobility to play short. (Plus a few ex-Cs who move to 3B, and a few ex-CFs who move to 2B).
Right, got it, but
The increased demand on range from 3B to 2B is much greater than the increased demand on arm strength from 2B to 3B. 3B get the ball in time on most plays to make soft throws; 2B still have to make crisp quick throws on double plays.
Now, I suppose if guys have mental problems making accurate throws, that would be a much bigger issue at 3B.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
What makes you think (as you seem to) that the positional adjustments were just pulled out of thin air (or are "assumptions")?
They’re based on comparing defensive contributions for players who play multiple positions. They have plenty of acknowledged problems but given that they’re rooted in data they’re a better answer than hunches or conventional wisdom. Tango and co. found that the aggregate overall level of defensive ability required to play third base and second base were about the same. Second basemen tend to be regarded as better fielders, since their dominant tool (range) is flashier and leads to more memory-creating highlight reel plays. But the arm strength necessary to play average defense at third base is a rarer bird than you seem to imagine.
by tobynotjason on Jul 19, 2011 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm sorry, how did they go about this, again?
You write: “They’re based on comparing defensive contributions for players who play multiple positions.”
What is the measure of “defensive contribution” in the first instance?
Also, how does comparing players “who play multiple positions” tell you whether the players who don’t play multiple positions would have an easier time playing second or third, for example?
I had assumed that if it was based on any data, it would be based on the relative offensive contributions of players who play the positions, with average offensive ability used as a sort of inverse measure of positional difficulty (I actually think this is what B-R does). Obviously you need a large sample over many years and you need to exclude selection bias, for example, what might occur if star players are kept at premier defensive positions like CF, 2B, SS, etc. to enhance their fan appeal, while other positions are treated as the halfway house to retirement.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Nope. But that's actually a VERY common assumption about WAR.
That (comparing offensive contributions) was the first pass guess, and is, I’ve found, what most people decide is the basis of WAR’s positional adjustment. If you read the primer, here, you’ll see it isn’t. There was a longer piece on this on Tango’s site (I think) that went into greater depth as to how they ended up doing it, but basically it involves looking at players who are exactly what Vlad was talking about: marginal at SS or CF, for example, but still get playing time there, and comparing their performance above/below average relative to their performance above/below average at the less demanding positions they also play (2B for range-y IF, 3B for guys with an arm, LF/RF for the OF). As they say, it gets tricky with handedness and some other things, but that’s how it’s done.
by tobynotjason on Jul 19, 2011 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
The link doesn't decribe how they did it
And the adjustment is obviously eyeballed.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions
You say “eyeballed”, I say troll.
Since players move around (albeit infrequently) from position to position, and we have decent defensive measurements, we can compare positions more or less directly.
by tobynotjason on Jul 20, 2011 2:43 AM EDT up reply actions
I meant that they don't describe how they identified the players
And so on. Was there a minimum number of innings played at any given position? Was age considered? A whole bunch of possible confounders come up, and there is no description as to whether or how they considered them. There’s really no description of method, just a statement that they did something along these very general lines.
Then the actual adjustments are clearly order of magnitude, with everything a multiple of 2.5 runs.
The actual fluctuations in UZR dwarf the position adjustments. It is reasonable, in light of all of that, to wonder whether they’ve accurately adjusted for the fact that LFs are being compared to 6 years worth of play by LFs, while CFs are being compared with 6 years of play by CFs.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 20, 2011 7:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Here are some links going into the details you’re talking about.
(When looking at these links, keep in mind that he’s generally talking about RUNS, not wins, so when he says there’s a gap of, say, 3 runs between two positions, that’s like .3 wins [i.e. positional adjustment of .3] over a season. Also, the comments are always necessary reading, esp. when Tango continues his main post there as an organizational device.
Link (expand the comments – this was a first pass back in 2006 and made fewer adjustments for selection biases), Link (this regards bUZR, but is a great look at his guesstimates for overcoming selection biases of various sorts), Link (whole discussion fantastic), Link, Link (great summary of his work and concerns about it), Link (generic “Misconceptions of WAR”).
You may find some edification in the fact that at various points it seems likely that second base may be a run or so per season “harder” than third base (although at other points it does not, which is why in the end Tango equates them).
Remember that WAR models reality. They found 2b and 3b to be equally difficult defensively overall. But in reality MLB third basemen are better hitters overall than second basemen. They generate more WAR. They are accordingly paid more.
Along the same lines, ACTUAL often-referred-to as “replacement level” first basemen are NOT equivalent, WAR-wise, to “replacement level” shortstops, because there are a relative plethora of MLB-passable AAAA first base bats floating around in AAA and semi-retirement. The value of playing competent first base is independent of how good actually existing available AAAA first basemen are. WAR compares a real player to a theoretical GENERIC player with average handedness, an average mix of positions, etc., NOT to “an average really existing replacement level player at his position.”
by tobynotjason on Jul 20, 2011 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Tango and co. found that the aggregate overall level of defensive ability required to play third base and second base were about the same.
In recent years, the difference between the two positions is usually around 30 points of raw OPS (in a league-average environment), with the offensive baseline for third being higher than that for second.
That’s not a huge difference compared to some other positions, but it’s real enough.
Isn’t Walker a more valuable ballplayer because he can play a competent second base, even at a below average level, than he would be if he could just play a good third base?
You’re going to have to define precisely what terms like “valuable”, “competent”, and “good” mean before anyone can answer that question with any degree of precision.
No, I don't
Try that with someone else.
Use the common meanings of the words, If you don’t like these definitions, make up your own:
Value: worth something to a team in the ordinary sense, by some standard measure. Any marginal increase (no matter how slight) in value => more valuable. Something a GM or manager might weigh in favor of a player, no matter how slightly. If you prefer: Something a GM or manager should weigh in favor of a player, no matter how slightly.
Competent: acceptable based on some standard criteria; in this context, it generally means that a typical major-league manager would be willing to consider using the player at the position in a situation that might be reasonably expected to arise in a game at least once during the course of a season, including a limited extra inning game or because of expectable injuries, but not including an in-game emergency caused by extraordinarily unlikely injuries or an extraordinarily long extra inning game. If you prefer, you can predict the results of a poll of major-league managers and use greater than 50% say yes as the benchmark. If you prefer, you can assume that ordinary injuries means exactly one relevant injury, no more, and an ordinary extra inning game is no longer than 12 innings. Or, if you prefer, you can set yourself up as the manager.
“Good” doesn’t need to be defined at all for these purposes, but above average based on some standard criteria, or your (Vlad’s) personal subjective evaluation.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
actually if you want the quesiton answered
yes you do. but you don’t want the question answered because you’ll be proven wrong yet again.
" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009
by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 19, 2011 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions
common meanings of the words
There are no common meanings for words. Meaning is use. Accordingly, any attempt to narrow the manifold ways each individual might inhabit the terms which they use is very helpful if we are to have any sort of coherent discourse.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
It's a vacuous question anyway.
It’s is an utterly banal truism that ANY baseball player provides more value to his team by being able to play “a competent second base, even at a below average level, than he would… if he could just play a good third base.”
That is, he is more valuable than a baseball player who is good at third base but can’t play second to save his life. Exactly like the good second basemen who can also play a below average third base is more valuable than the one who cannot play even a below average third basemen.
This, unfortunately, has NOTHING to do with the relative value of the two positions.
by tobynotjason on Jul 19, 2011 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not debating the relative value of two positions
That’s a different question.
I’m discussing the value of a player who can play multiple positions.
I think what you are getting at is that Tango and Co may have done some sort of analysis that factored in number of chances and degree of variance between players in converting those chances into outs as a “measure of defensive contribution.”
That’s fine, so far as it goes, and helps managers and GMs understand the relative importance of having a good 3B vs. a good 2B vs. a good 1B.
But one player’s positional performance is still judged relative to that of one’s position peers, correct?
So then if managers are lagging behind the curve on this, and playing inferior defensive players at 3B and better defensive players at 2B, then this sort of weighting system will kill second basemen and reward third basemen, even though average second basemen (because of manager lagging) might be much more likely to be average or good third basemen than the other way around.
Hence, a penalty applies to second basemen, because they are compared to a superior group of players, although their actual abilities are superior to those (on average) of third basemen.
Same thing definitely goes with LF compared to CF. Based on chances, a good LF definitely is more valuable relative to a CF than the actual disparity based on the actual use of those positions by actual teams and managers. Hence, weighted this way, a mediocre outfioelder playing LF gets way good points for it because he’s being compared to the Manny Ramirez’s, while a good outfielder gets hammered for playing CF because he’s being compared to the Michael Bourn’s.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, it's not like BR or FG's assumptions are tested
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't they explain things that have already happened?
there is data there. It’s not like they just made hypothetical stats in a vacuum.
But is it weighted correctly?
Question: What happens when you cross sophisticated analyses of positional value based on actual distribution of balls in play with entrenched ideas about where to put your best athletes?
Answer: You overweigh being better than one’s peers at positions traditionally viewed as places to hide sluggers (perhaps not 1B, because so few chances based on the distribution of balls in play, but LF and 3B), and overweigh the penalty for being worse than one’s peers at positions viewed as places to put your best athletes (particularly CF, SS, and 2B, although shortstops probably do very well still on the distributional analysis).
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I misunderstood the someone else's post
Fangraphs uses a very crude positional adjustment that swings about 10 runs (from +2.5 to -7.5 from CF to LF) that is quickly and easily dwarfed by minor variations in UZR.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions
You overweigh being better than one’s peers at positions traditionally viewed as places to hide sluggers (perhaps not 1B, because so few chances based on the distribution of balls in play, but LF and 3B)
LF is traditionally the place to put two kinds of players. The first type is the big, slow moose, who’s there because the position minimizes the cost of his lack of range. Greg Luzinski, Adam Dunn, Clank Lee, etc. The second is the speedy, athletic guy with CF range but no throwing arm whatsoever, who’s there because the shorter throw to 3B makes it harder for opponets to stretch hits on balls in his zone. Barry Bonds, Juan Pierre, Johnny Damon, etc.
Thus, there is a much wider spread in defensive abilities among players in LF than is typical for a position like SS, a circumstance that you seem to be completely ignoring when you are making the above criticism.
Yeah! Sanchez SUCKS!
…because there’s no such thing as a learning curve!
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 19, 2011 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay, then, we'll revisit the matter next year
Good luck with that.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Good idea -
Let’s do that, before writing someone off in their second of year of professional baseball. And after having their first season shortened drastically by an injury which caused him to lose 20+ pounds, and a lot of power.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 19, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Sanchez stopped hitting for power at Bradenton
more than a month before the injury, when the spring winds stopped blowing. He had ridiculous home-road splits last year, too. That’s a SSS, but that plus this season are what we have to go on. When someone who was called an overdraft looks like an overdraft, there’s a reasonable bet that he was an overdraft. In any event, nothing about his numbers this season remotely suggests swinging for the fences, which is a headscratcher.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
sorry
thought you would know a little about the player in which your name refers to.
#31 All Day...
by SmokyB on Jul 19, 2011 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
"In any event, nothing about his numbers this season remotely suggests swinging for the fences ..."
Yeah. Because the numbers tell the whole story, and the coaches who see him every day, and tape every performance and report to the FO about him don’t.
Gah.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 19, 2011 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Another possibility is this:
NH is a clueless GM with several copies of BA in his back pocket (a current one and several outdated ones) and a few mantras based primarily around body type (“bigger = better,” “taller = bigger”) and the desirability of contact.
Thus, when confronted by a situation in which one or two of his contact mantras is challenged (“contact = ultimate good”; “all good things follow from contact”) by the completely unacceptable performance of a player who is making consistent but ineffectual contact, he falls back on his mantra and claims, irrationally, that the mantra isn’t being followed.
Gah.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
that's a possibility
that you might want to consider, if you’re allergic to considering the evidence.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jul 19, 2011 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
facts are dumb...just ignore them...they be wrong
" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009
by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 19, 2011 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Except that I'm the one who keeps referring to facts and arguments
You guys are just trying to drown me in a Bucs Dugout sea of snappy one-liners that you use for the Sale the Team crowd. I’m not that.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
your cherry picking your facts
and ignoring obvious signs of improvement organization wide to support your own argument.you want to talk facts. lets talk facts smart guy. nearly every single trade NH has made to date has yeilded someone who has contributed this year. that is a fact. another fact is that you choose to ignore the injury that seriously hampered sanchezes development. you say mortons progress in unsustainable? prove it. and dont gimme this walked the bases loaded crap about last night. in the third fourth and 5th innings he threw 33 pitches…TOTAL. you say our farm system is woefully depleted, PRO scouts disagree. your arguments are worth about as much as the cost to run this site.
" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009
by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 19, 2011 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
no, seriously
You’re positing that “NH is a clueless GM with several copies of BA in his back pocket” while discussing his decision to pick Tony Sanchez fourth overall.
Think about the problem with this for a second.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jul 19, 2011 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions
No one knows why NH did this
Maybe because BA was so unclear as to whom he should draft . . .
But it worked out less well than blindly following BA has, so, back to that the past two years.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions
No everyone knows why he did it...
he’s been very clear about it. You may not agree with his thinking or you may think he made a bad choice (as I did and still do now) but you can’t say we don’t know what his thinking was.
Maybe because BA was so unclear as to whom he should draft . . .
But it worked out less well than blindly following BA has, so, back to that the past two years.
Again, more ridiculous nonsense and examples of why you are not being taken seriously. This is clearly troll vommit.
#AllTheBuntsAreBad!
Maybe because BA was so unclear as to whom he should draft . . .
But it worked out less well than blindly following BA has, so, back to that the past two years.
So if he drafts a player that BA likes, he’s just an uncreative hack following the herd, but if he drafts a player that BA doesn’t like as much, he’s a know-nothing moron?
Heads, you win – tails, he loses.
Another possibility is this:
Have you also considered that he might be a secret Kenyan lizard-man from Venus, sent to devour our earth-larvae and prepare for the coming invasion of the reptoids?
If we’re going to consider wildly implausible theories, why not shoot for the moon?
by Vlad on Jul 19, 2011 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Come on, fellas
I understand that you don’t like my style and that you feel the need to pound into the sand anyone whose opinions differ on this fundamental point about the “plan.”
But, seriously, doesn’t what he said about the cause of Sanchez’s failings strike you as strange? If the guy’s problem is that he’s trying to mash or elevate the ball, shouldn’t that lead to more swings and misses at curve balls and balls out of the zone because he’s trying to get out in front and pull pitches? Shouldn’t that result in fewer walks and more Ks?
If Sanchez is trying to elevate the ball or hit the ball slightly higher up the bat and that’s leading to weaker contact, shouldn’t that also lead to more swings and misses, swings below the ball?
Hate me if you must but at least respond to the point with some argument as to why one’s intuitive sense that a guy with Sanchez’s stats profiles as a guy locked into “manage the zone / ball in play” mode rather than “grip it and rip it” mode is or might be wrong.
I mean, I guess it’s possible that Sanchez is so much of a natural walk/don’t K guy that when he’s trying to rip it he still walks more than he Ks, and if he were trying something else he’d walk much more than he Ks, but that seems really unlikely, as no one without Bondsian power walks much more than he Ks, even in AA.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions
By "fundamental point about the plan"
I meant that it seems that you need to pound into the sand anyone who thinks NH is doing a bad job because you worry that it may be construed as an attack on the plan, even when (in my case) it isn’t an attack on the “plan” at all — or the idea of blowing up to rebuild — but just on NH’s abilities as a talent evaluator. Said that very poorly.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think people are attacking your position so much as...
your use of outlandish, nonsensical statements to support your claims. You can’t be taken seriously when you say things like: Sanchez is a suckpile, NH has not acquired anything of consequence, NH shouldn’t get credit for drafting his #1’s because they were no-brainers except he should get credit for Sanchez because he wasn’t a no-brainer and is struggling in AA, he doesn’t get any credit for guys acquired by DL even though NH implemented the player development program that helped develop many of the stagnated players acquired by DL who were going nowhere (Walker, Owens, Presley, McPherson, Crotta, Hughes, etc.), NH uses Baseball America to conduct his drafts except when he doesn’t, etc. I could go on and on with the nonsense but basically it all comes down to is you’re argument is shit because your position is Huntington should get all of the blame for the bad things happening within the org but none of the credit for the good things. When you make the statements you have, and argue to the death that your opinions are facts, you deserve to be appropriately flamed. I hope this clears things up, it’s been fun playing with you and may God have mercy on your soul!
#AllTheBuntsAreBad!
Why do you assume this is the GM's personal scouting analysis...
and not significantly or mostly an aggregation of the information given to him by Sanchez’s coaches and instructors? FWIW, isn’t it possible that Sanchez was falling behind early swinging for the fences, then falling back on his superior zone skills to avoid the strikeout (at the expense of putting good swings on hittable pitches).
by tobynotjason on Jul 19, 2011 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I understand that you don’t like my style
Your style is fine. Your substance, on the other hand…
Shouldn’t that result in fewer walks and more Ks?
It has resulted in fewer walks and more Ks. Look at his monthly splits. 11/9 BB/K in April, gradually slipping until he was at 7/17 in July. Now that they’ve been working with him on getting his approach back to where it was in past seasons, he’s got 6 BB and 3 K in his last seven games.
If Sanchez is trying to elevate the ball or hit the ball slightly higher up the bat and that’s leading to weaker contact, shouldn’t that also lead to more swings and misses, swings below the ball?
Probably more swings below the ball AND swings above the ball, since the period of intersection between the ball path and swing plane is shorter on both ends. Unfortunately, I can’t find 2011 minor league IFF rates anywhere to confirm or refute it in his case.
Except that he wasn't hitting the ball well earlier, either
No power, poor BABIP suggestive of weak contact. An alternative explanation for the change in BB/K rates over the months is that pitchers stopped worrying about grooving the ball to him once he demonstrated the complete lack of power.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 20, 2011 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions
"NH is a clueless GM with several copies of BA in his back pocket"
…and you know this because…..?
It’s a fact?
Or just wishcasting on your part to make your position seem tenable?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 20, 2011 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions
i love how guys having career years are doomed by everyone to not repeat thier performances
i guess CF2 is right there is no learning curves guys who suck continue to suck even though they have good years. just disregard joey bats, the fact that our defense generating outs on balls in play at a higher rate, and ray searage…damn facts always getting in the way
" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009
by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 19, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
In the post you replied to
I said that the years Karstens and Morton are having were “amazingly unexpected” seasons, not unsustainable seasons. In another post, I did say that Morton’s lack of control and one pitch/one location trick were bound to get him in trouble down the line, but I never sid anything bad about Karstens’ future. Some regression is obviously in order, but right now he’s clearly in a zone with excellent command and rhythm.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Also interesting acknowledgment from Huntington that he was out of step with other GMs when he started. Funny that the man who got nothing for all his trades (except two pitchers have amazingly unlikely seasons) would note with some edginess that he was criticized for getting nothing from his trades.
Willful misreading of the GM’s statement, ahoy!
Maybe I filled in a blank incorrectly
I took this — “I know I was aggressive, and I think my first year or two here took some criticism for being aggressive in our [asking prices].” — to mean criticism from other GMs and people around the league. Not sure if Pirates fans would criticize a GM for asking for too much in return. Anyway, if I’m wrong, it was not deliberate.
I think this — “Ironically enough, then I took criticism for not getting enough for the players, but that’s neither here nor there.” — suggests some continuing sensitivity to past criticism of his trade returns.
Perhaps a misreading (I can’t tell from the context, but you were there), but certainly not a deliberate or willful misreading.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe I filled in a blank incorrectly
No maybe about it, friend-o. You did.
Perhaps a misreading (I can’t tell from the context, but you were there), but certainly not a deliberate or willful misreading.
Why, exactly, is that “certain”?
I don't want to get into a Reservoir Dogs-style epistemological discussion
But let’s just say it’s certain to me.
Anyway, NH is definitely overly sensitive if he’s concerned about criticism from Pirates fans about him trying to get too much in return. Surely the reason for that criticism was some concern among Pirates fans that he was out of touch with other GMs, no. Otherwise, it sounds a bit like the job interviewee who declares that his biggest flaw is that he’s just too dedicated to his work.
Anyway, you lose this one.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Ooooh, epistemological
Someone’s ‘word of the day’ calendar came in handy today
Epistemological
Is that the root word for pissing contest?
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Jul 19, 2011 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I'm a professional epistemologist (true story)
and if you tried bringing that “it’s certain to me” nonsense in one of my classes, I’d make you sit in the hall. It’s what college kids say when they don’t have any evidence and they don’t want to admit they’re wrong.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jul 19, 2011 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Now, if you wanted to claim that you have privileged access to your own intentions, so that you can in fact be certain that your misreading was not deliberate or willful, you might have a talking point.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jul 19, 2011 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, that's the Reservoir Dogs reference
The point made by Steve Buscemi’s character in discussing with Harvey Keitel’s character whether they know that someone else is or is not an undercover cop.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok, then
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jul 19, 2011 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought that Richard Rorty
finished off the killing of epistemology in about 1979.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
But did Rorty exist in 1979?
Or was he just an entity in the Matrix?
s.zielinski
What's a professional epitemologist?
It’s someone who turns a “What the fuck was that?” into a research program and then gets paid to work on it!
s.zielinski
"That's neither here nor there"=very concerned
In Rafael’s world.
You’re too smart to be this stupid, dude.
But let’s just say it’s certain to me.
That doesn’t do me any good, though. Someone who was certainly making a deliberate or willful misreading in order to argue in bad faith would make exactly the same claim. How am I to tell the one from the other?
Anyway, NH is definitely overly sensitive if he’s concerned about criticism from Pirates fans about him trying to get too much in return.
Objection, your Honor! Assuming facts not in evidence!
I don't know how to quote
You ask: “How am I to tell the one from the other?”
I guess the rejoinder is, Why is proving my good faith or lack thereof essential in this? You can address the arguments without worrying so much about my soul.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
No one has access to the inner contents of your soul
Only you have that. Your certainty about X is not knowledge about X. Knowledge about X can be established only through the discursive redemption of a validity claim about X. Knowledge is intersubjective in character.
Your good faith because an issue when you based a claim about X on your certainty that X. Because of this your readers have to ask themselves if you are a liar, a nut job, stupid, merely wrong, etc.
s.zielinski
Why is proving my good faith or lack thereof essential in this?
Because in past discussions on the site, you’ve somewhat exhausted the benefit of the doubt that new posters get, with things like your Mexican League conspiracy theory. So now, people are less willing to trust your statements when they aren’t supported by evidence.
Everytime I read one of your posts you are..
…clarifying or taking back something you said.
s.zielinski
77% of BucsDugout readers agree that Huntington should stay
And that poll was taken while we were under .500. I don’t think people really care if a single prospect, or even 10 prospects don’t make it. He’s made the best moves with the information he had available at that time.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
He's had the benefit of four pitchers having career years at the same time
He’s got the benefit of two top picks from the prior regime maturing at the same time.
All this is covering up the fact that the minors are in worse shape than ever, there are no guys who look like average big leaguers playing above A-ball, his drafts are beginning to look terrible, and he has never acquired a decent position player in free agency.
What little there is in the minors, or that has a chance to stick from the recent call-ups, is left over from the previous regime.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 19, 2011 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
what part of
77% of BucsDugout readers agree that Huntington should stay
And that poll was taken while we were under .500
doesnt register
" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009
by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 19, 2011 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions
All this is covering up the fact that the minors are in worse shape than ever
Did you keep a straight face when you typed this?
by BurgherKing on Jul 19, 2011 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Have you been paying attention this year?
Marte and Presley have been the only arguable bright spots. Maybe Lincoln. Most players above A ball have fallen far enough that it seems unrealistic to hang on to hopes that they’ll ever achieve MLB replacement level.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 20, 2011 7:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Marte and Presley have been the only arguable bright spots.
Not so. Curry, Fryer, and Mercer have significantly raised their stock, for example. Kyle McPherson has showed that his 2010 was no fluke. Tim Alderson virtually came back from the dead. Etc.
Most players above A ball have fallen far enough that it seems unrealistic to hang on to hopes that they’ll ever achieve MLB replacement level.
If you’re talking about Huntington, why are you excluding players at Bradenton and levels below it? That’s where the vast majority of the Huntington draftees are – as you’d expect for a guy who took over starting with the 2008 season and has mainly focused on high school talent.
"...why are you excluding players at Bradenton and levels below it?"
Ummm… because it’s not convenient to his “argument?”
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 20, 2011 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions
And it would actually be convenient for me to include WV
As the pitchers there have sucked, and even Taillon has been unimpressive compared to his draft peers in the SAL.
And State College has been a disaster, unable to score runs at all.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 20, 2011 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't mean to be excluding Bradenton, so much
Sometimes I say SAL and sometimes A ball, but I mean SAL.
I exclude SAL and below because there’s not much to go on, one expects top prospects (guys with stuff and some control like Taillon) to do well there, and so on. So you can add Grossman to your list if you like.
Curry’s a bright spot in the sense that he outperformed expectations in the SAL, but I don’t know whether he looks like a likely major leaguer yet. Mercer is doing okay because he’s hitting for power, but he’s almost 25 (and in his second go around at AA), so the power should be there as he’s a man now, and his .268 average is more telling. McPherson is a fine story but overaged and a long way away. Perhaps I should have included him in my list of DL guys. Alderson is still scrap, even if he’s not embarrassing himself this year.
The primary disappointments are Sanchez, Locke, Morris, Wilson, and Owens (the DL guy), the guys who looked like they might be promising. Finding better than expected performances among huge long shots like Curry and Mercer and low-ceiling guys like Fryer is not really the point. (The unimpressiveness of pitchers at WV is another factor, too.)
Also, with respect to NH and the high minors, some time has passed since he started picking guys. Also, this is the man who gave us roster churn in the name of restocking, so you have waste like Hernandez and Adcock, Morris, Alderson, Harrison (no offense, but a singles hitter who can’t field is of little value), and so on.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 20, 2011 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
What little there is in the minors, or that has a chance to stick from the recent call-ups, is left over from the previous regime.
…I mean…WHAT? Is this for real? You’re crediting everything good in the minors to DAVE LITTLEFIELD? David. Freaking. Littlefield? There is no way that you’re being serious right now. No way.
I mean Alex Presley, Starling Marte, Brad Lincoln, and Rudy Owens
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 20, 2011 7:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Collectively have a better chance of sticking than
Chase d’Arnaud, Josh Harrison, Jarek Cunningham, Jeff Locke, Brian Morris, Justin Wilson, Jarek Cunningham, Jordy Mercer and anyone else playing above the SAL.
What’s outrageous about that claim? d’Arnaud is severely overrated. He hasn’t shown that he can hit above A ball. All those players are overrated, as prospects tend to be.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 20, 2011 7:55 AM EDT up reply actions
anyone else playing above the SAL.
But not the best prospects that Huntington has acquired: Taillon, Allie, Heredia, etc. It wouldn’t be surprising if Taillon ended up with more career value than all four of your guys combined.
d’Arnaud is severely overrated.
And your evidence for this is…?
He hasn’t shown that he can hit above A ball.
Someone apparently hasn’t noticed his 2011 performance at Indy. For most observers, a shortstop putting up a .766 raw OPS (in a league with an all-positions baseline of .730) with a 17/3 SB/CS is hitting.
As I said when he was called up
Chase’s average was a mirage driven by huge platoon splits and luck v. LHP. Platoon splits are particularly useful in looking at the minors, as unusual splits suggest, where there is sample size, a more generalizeable weakness that will be exploited at the majors. For example, Sanchez’s inability to hit lefties suggests he struggles with pitches outside (a side of the plate easier for lefties to work).
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 20, 2011 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions
He’s had the benefit of four pitchers having career years at the same time
Which four? Not Maholm – he had a lower xFIP in 2008. Not Correia – his was lower in 2010, and only 0.03 higher in 2009. Not McDonald – his was lower during his time in Pittsburgh last year.
What little there is in the minors, or that has a chance to stick from the recent call-ups, is left over from the previous regime.
The list of Littlefield prospects remaining in the system is very, very short: Marte, Owens, McPherson, Diego Moreno, Jhonathan Ramos, Mike Crotta, Eric Avila, Eliecer Navarro… I forget anybody?
And yet you’re trying to argue that Huntington is coasting on Littlefield’s coattails? Pull the other one – it’s got bells on it.
Why use xFIP in this context?
Because we are talking about this year’s results and explicitly including everything that goes into results, including luck, a measure like ERA or ERA+ is more appropriate. I was referring to Maholm, Correia, Karstens, and Morton.
Maholm’s ERA+ in 2011 is 123. His career ERA+ through 2010 was 94, and his prior best was 114 in 2008.
Karsten’s ERA+ in 2011 is 160. His career ERA+ through 2010 was 83, and his prior best in a season with at least 100 IP was 81 in 2010.
Charlie Morton’s ERA+ in 2011 is 104. His career ERA+ through 2010 was 69 in 251 IP, and his prior career best was 92 in 2009 (97 IP).
Kevin Correia is the only one of the four who arguably is not having a career best season. His ERA+ is 93. His career ERA+ through 2010 was 90, but that includes a lot of years as a reliever. Restricted to 2008-2010, the years he was used primarily as a starter, his ERA+ was 80. His prior career best ERA+ in a year in which he was used primarily as a starter was 97 in 2009, although he also had an ERA+ of 130 in 101 IP primarily as a reliever in 2007. (His WHIP and K/BB ratios are much better this year than any previous year as a starter.)
With the exception of Correia, who is basically average this year by any metric other than wins, and has been basically average or slightly below average as a starter throughout his career, I was right
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 20, 2011 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn't finish that
Anyway, I guess I included Correia because of the superficial stuff and his hot start. The other three are clearly getting better results than at any other time in their careers, and much better results than in their average years.
by RafaelBelliup on Jul 20, 2011 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess NH should get credit
for employing Searage then, eh?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 20, 2011 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
All this is covering up the fact that the minors are in worse shape than ever
Another of the most insanely wrong things ever written on Buc’s Dugout. The top 5 list is gonna be all you, RB.
You eleviated him to NuttingHostage level
s.zielinski
How late.....
……is the Troll Buffet open? I mean, he’s gotta be pretty well fed by now, right? Perhaps one more wafer thin mint………
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brush her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
Troll or not
at least I don’t feal dumber after reading it. Like I did after reading this late night early morning dronken (I hope) load;
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/7/19/2282396/another-happy-comparison
By the way, not the original posters fault.
wow
long thread that i started reading, but then it went belly up…
anyone else got the feeling this guy might be Jake, bored of trying to do whatever it is he’s doing with his blog?

by 



















