Bucs Dugout: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: RSL Soapbox for Real Salt Lake Fans!

Bucs Trade Gonzalez, Lillibridge for LaRoche, Romak

Adam LaRoche (MLB.com)

The Pirates have apparently traded Mike Gonzalez and an unnamed player for Adam LaRoche. LaRoche just needs to take a physical. We should know soon who the other player is. Seriously, I can barely contain my excitement. Actually, I hardly even know how to feel right now. The last time I felt this good about a Pirates move was when they got Gonzalez back and got Freddy Sanchez in the Jeff Suppan deal. And in this case, I don't even know who the second player is.

UPDATE 5:11 PM: ESPN has a story up that doesn't mention a second player and says it's just LaRoche for Gonzalez. I doubt that's true, given that the Braves acquired Rafael Soriano since refusing a one-for-one trade back in December, but there it is. The Atlanta Journal Constitution (registration required) reports the Post-Gazette's version of the story, but the two papers seem to have sources in common.

UPDATE 5:16 PM: ESPN's story now says it doesn't know whether other players are involved.

UPDATE 5:25 PM: The Trib thinks the unnamed player might be Chris Duffy, although I'm not sure whether they have any reason to think that other than what we already know, which is that the Braves have shown interest in Duffy.

UPDATE 5:45 PM: KDKA reports that it's LaRoche for Gonzalez and a minor league pitcher. If that's the case, this is a fantastic trade - Brad Lincoln hasn't been around yet long enough to be dealt, and other than that, the Pirates don't really have any high-upside pitching prospects in the minors. If this is true, the worst-case scenario is that the Pirates lose Todd Redmond or Dave Davidson or something, which I can definitely live with.

UPDATE 5:52 PM The Pirates' website is reporting the trade, adding that

At least one prospect from each organization is also believed to be involved in the deal.
As long as we're not talking about Andrew McCutchen, Brent Lillibridge or Neil Walker - and I don't see the Bucs trading any of those guys - this sounds too good to be true.

UPDATE 5:59 PM: I feel like I'm playing a game of Clue or something. The Trib:

A source with the Braves indicated it is a four-player trade, with one player from each team still unidentified.

The agents for Pirates outfielder/first baseman Ryan Doumit and centerfielder Chris Duffy said they have not been told their clients are involved in the trade. Pitchers Paul Maholm and Sean Burnett said they are not part of the deal.

As long as it's not Professor Plum in the ballroom with the candlestick, I'm happy so far.

UPDATE 6:06 PM: From Macon.com:

The Atlanta Braves informed first baseman Adam LaRoche early Wednesday afternoon that he has been traded to the Pittsburgh Pirates in exchange for hard-throwing left-handed reliever Mike Gonzalez and another player, LaRoche's wife, Jennifer, confirmed a couple of hours later from the family's home in Kansas.

The additional player is most likely Pirates center fielder Chris Duffy, but neither the LaRoches nor Pittsburgh sources were able to confirm that. Industry sources said the player might also be a pitcher.

UPDATE 7:11 PM: Thanks to JimBibbySweat and Matskralc, who tracked this down. Apparently the trade is Gonzalez and Brent Lillibridge for LaRoche and minor-league outfielder Jamie Romak, who played last year in the South Atlantic League. This dampens my enthusiasm a bit, but less than you might think. Unlike Andrew McCutchen, say, Lillibridge is already relatively old - he'll play next year at 23. He seems to have a broad base of skills, but power isn't really one of them. I like Lillibridge a lot and am sorry to lose him, but I see him as someone who can be a solid player, not someone who can be a star. Meanwhile, the Pirates at least have some modicum of infield depth - not a ton, and Lillibridge was their best middle infield prospect, but some.

Romak, meanwhile, isn't just a throw-in. Here are his numbers last year at Rome, in the same league where Lillibridge started the year:

348 AB 26 2B 16 HR 59 BB 102 K .247/.369/.471

Obviously, that needs work, but Romak is two years younger than Lillibridge, and he possesses two skills that most other Pirates prospects lack: the ability to hit the ball hard, and the ability to take a walk. It's not easy to hit that many homers and draw that many walks in Rome, which is a very tough park for pitchers.

The main problems with Romak, at least as far as the Pirates are concerned, are as follows. He's been moved a lot from position to position, so he's probably not good defensively. Also, he's a righty who hit lefties harder than righties last year. Romak's strikeouts are also pretty likely to cause problems as Romak moves up the chain. Unlike with Brad Eldred, though, the walks give me hope that he knows what he's doing at the plate and isn't just a big guy who can hit the ball hard. The plusses for this guy outweigh the minuses so far.

Speaking of being a big guy, Romak is listed at 6'1", 220. Baseball America has this to say:

Doug from Georgia asks: The Braves seem to be high on big Canadians...Scott Thorman, Jamie Romak, Cole Armstrong and Adam Parliament. All of which are at least 6'2 and 220lbs. What does the future hold for these lumberjacks?

Bill Ballew: They're all big boys, no doubt. If they can avoid swinging as if they're trying to cut down a tree with one swing of the ax, they could lose a lot of balls over the fences at the game's highest levels.

That sounds pretty good to me. Obviously, Lillibridge is a lot more polished than Romak at this point, and I'd rather have Lillibridge than Romak. But some of Lillibridge's strengths (speed, ability to handle middle infield positions) are relative strengths for the Bucs' minor league system, while Romak's biggest strength (power) is almost entirely absent elsewhere. Lillibridge's chances of having a big league career are much, much better than Romak's, but Romak may have more upside simply because of his youth. Anyway, to get LaRoche, this is a tradeoff I'm willing to make. The Pirates dealt two players from relative strengths and got two players who address glaring, glaring weaknesses. Lillibridge could burn them, but I still love this deal for the Bucs if this is the form it ends up taking. I'd still have preferred LaRoche for Gonzalez and Duffy, though, and I'm not sure why the Pirates were willing to trade Lillibridge but not Duffy.

Actually, I have a feeling that I'll start to have second thoughts about this deal in a couple hours, but I'll try to keep reminding myself about what we got: a young, left-handed, 30-homer player who finished in the Top 10 in the NL in OPS last year. I like Lillibridge a lot and am more concerned with losing him than with losing Gonzalez, but Lillibridge is still barely out of Class A ball, has never shown much power and has been old for his levels. If the Pirates had some magic plan to compete in 2010, this wouldn't be the best deal, but they don't, so I won't worry too much about this.

0 recs  |  Comment 84 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

PTBNL?
so was it duffy in the end?

by johnnycuff on Jan 17, 2007 4:52 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

PTBNL
It's not a PTBNL - the deal just hasn't been formally announced yet. I have no idea who it is. If someone finds out, please posted here.

by Charlie on Jan 17, 2007 4:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

re: PTBNL?
yeah you're right.  i just meant that the "L" is for later aka not "NOW" which is when we'd all like to know

by johnnycuff on Jan 17, 2007 4:57 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

IT'S ABOUT FREAKIN TIME
Although I've got 5 cents on LaRoche failing the physical or some other Krazy thing happening to throw this off.

by matskralc on Jan 17, 2007 4:53 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Whoa, no joke?
Do we honestly have something to be excited about now?

by Willton on Jan 17, 2007 4:55 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

I can't believe it
It seems like the Pirates may have done something smart! I can barely even remember what this feels like.

by Charlie on Jan 17, 2007 4:57 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Depends
Depends on who the other player is. If it's Duffy, I can live with that, though I think it's too much. If it's a starting pitcher not named Chacon, then we just got hosed.

by sisyphus on Jan 17, 2007 5:01 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I am hoping the Pirates aren't trading damaged
goods in Gonzalez. The Post-Gazette said he's been "long-tossing" for the past two weeks and hopes to be ready for spring training. Shouldn't he be 100 percent by now? We all know how Neil Walker's minor surgery turned out to be more than minor and the minor setbacks suffered by a host of pitchers where anything but that. I could see whatever trade is consumated being reversed if Gonzo is worse off than the Pirates are letting on. Please let the second Pirate be someone like McLouth and not Duffy.    

by JimBibbySweat on Jan 17, 2007 5:11 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Duffy v. McLouth is a wash
McLouth is the better hitter, Duffy is the better defender, and both are 4th outfielders. I see little value of one over the other.

by Willton on Jan 17, 2007 5:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

McLouth vs Duffy
McLouth is the better pure hitter but Duffy may be the better offensive weapon. He stole 26 of 27 bags. McLouth stole bags in the minors, too, maybe he can still do it in the bigs. I just wonder who goes and who stays.

by JimBibbySweat on Jan 17, 2007 5:45 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It may be moot
KDKA says the second player is a minor league pitcher.

by Charlie on Jan 17, 2007 5:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The Trade
Gonzo is, for now, still up on the banner at Pirateball.com...

by bryanzane on Jan 17, 2007 5:14 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

The banner
They already got burned on that once.

by WTM on Jan 17, 2007 5:28 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

lol
I have the link to the banner in my bookmarks, I check it daily.  They're too smart for us.

by ILLZ on Jan 17, 2007 5:47 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

LaRoche
I hope this makes you happy now:)
I hope the minor league pitcher isn't Sharpless, that guy has an awesome offspeed out pitch.

by JimBibbySweat on Jan 17, 2007 6:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Holding my breath...
We have to see who the other player(s) involved are.  I'm cautiously optimistic.

by ILLZ on Jan 17, 2007 6:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Brad Lincoln is actually a possibility
By the PTBNL rule, a team has 6 months to send another a "player to be named later". Seeing as Lincoln was drafted in June and you can't technically traded a player until 1 full year after he was drafted, he's a possibility because the 1 year anniversary of him being drafted occured in that 6 month period.

Jeremy Bonderman is the last player that was traded like this.

However, I hope for Pirates fans that this isn't the case.

by Red Eyed Jake on Jan 17, 2007 6:30 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Again, not a PTBNL
It's just an unnamed player. He will become a Brave at the same time Gonzo will become a Brave. Lincoln is precluded from being traded prior to a year after he was drafted. Therefore, Lincoln is staying with the Pirates.

by Willton on Jan 17, 2007 6:42 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

(crosses fingers and toes)
As y'all probably know, I hope it ain't Duffy. But if it is, we are about to become one of the slowest teams in MLB history. LaRoche appears to be extremely slow (two triples and no SBs in his three MLB seasons). We already were 15th in the N.L. in triples (Duffy tied for team lead with 3) and 13th in stolen bases (Duffy was the easy leader with 26). That would be interesting, but not in a good way. On the plus side, we were last (or first, if you will) in the league in getting caught stealing, obviously because we didn't run much, being slower than most dead people. But at least that position would be unlikely to change.

by bucdaddy on Jan 17, 2007 6:51 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Brent Lillibridge
The Beaver County Times says it's Lillibridge going to Atlanta with outfielder Jamie Romak coming to PNC Park.

by JimBibbySweat on Jan 17, 2007 6:59 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

If true
This just went from a solid A to a D-.

by matskralc on Jan 17, 2007 7:02 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Matskralc
Did you look up Romak's numbers? He's actually really interesting:

http://thebaseballcube.com/players/R/Jamie-Romak.shtml

by Charlie on Jan 17, 2007 7:07 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Link?
Do you have a link? I can't confirm this anywhere.

by Charlie on Jan 17, 2007 7:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Hosed
We got hosed.

I'll probably feel slightly better about this deal in a day or two, but we have just been sentenced to Jack Wilson for the remainder of his feeble, hitless wonder career. What the hell would the Pirates want Romak for? I like him a bit myself, but they just acquired another Craig Wilson type without the versatility.

Does anyone know why Romak did not play in 2005?

by sisyphus on Jan 17, 2007 8:49 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

he didnt play
the tail end of 2005 because he broke a bone in his hand. dont know which bone or which hand, thats all i got.

by Geeves28 on Jan 18, 2007 12:37 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I do.
Link.

"The Pirates agreed on Wednesday to trade closer Mike Gonzalez and minor-league shortstop Brent Lillibridge to the Braves for LaRoche and minor-league outfielder Jamie Romak. The deal is not expected to be announced until Thursday or Friday as the players must undergo physical examinations."

by matskralc on Jan 17, 2007 7:07 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

If it is Lillibridge/Romak
then at first glance I think it doesn't look too bad.  Romak is younger and seems to be able to get on base and hit for some power.

by ILLZ on Jan 17, 2007 7:23 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm hesitant
Until I figure out/somebody tells me what the hitting environment is like where Romak played.

by matskralc on Jan 17, 2007 7:29 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

According to...
Park Factors listed at Baseball America and Baseball Prospectus, Rome plays as a moderate to severe pitchers' park.

by Charlie on Jan 17, 2007 7:32 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Check that...
It's a severe pitchers' park, plain and simple. It's a pitchers' park within the context of the league, and the league itself is pitcher-friendly.

by Charlie on Jan 17, 2007 7:36 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

In that case
The deal looks better. The only concern is that Romak is so young, there's plenty of time for things to go wrong (like too much contact with development coaches employed by the Pirates).

by matskralc on Jan 17, 2007 7:41 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

rome
Romak hit much better at home than on the road.

by bolton on Jan 17, 2007 7:53 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Romak
The Braves have a history of success in developing toolsy HS hitters, and Romak seems to be developing pretty well.

Unfortunately, the Pirates have had no success in developing HS hitters, period, and Romak has a ways to go.

Maybe they can get him to lose weight, stop hitting for power and learn to bunt, so he can become a speedy, slap-hitting centerfielder.

by WTM on Jan 17, 2007 7:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, but...
Yeah, but Romak is 21 now. He's not a high-school hitter anymore. He may be enough of a finished product that the Pirates won't be able to screw him up too much.

WTM, what's your opinion on losing Lillibridge? Do you think the Pirates gave up too much here?

by Charlie on Jan 17, 2007 7:57 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm just happy
That's all.  Just happy.  Littlebrain may have actually done something right.

by psk984 on Jan 17, 2007 7:32 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Win meter
  1. Duffy CF
  2. Sanchez 2B
  3. Nady RF
  4. Bay LF
  5. LaRoche 1B
  6. Bautista 3B
  7. Paulino C
  8. Wilson SS
Huh. Starts to look like a real lineup.

73 (up from 63 -- I'm feeling generous).

by bucdaddy on Jan 17, 2007 8:08 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

The sad part is
people are still considering Duffy as a good leadoff candidate.

by Willton on Jan 17, 2007 8:21 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Not me!!
  1. SS Freddy
  2.  C Paulino
  3. LF Bay
  4. 1B LaRoche
  5. RF Nady/Doumit
  6. 3B Bautista
  7. 2B Castillo
  8. CF Duffy
Maybe switch Duffy/Castillo in the lineup, though that hardly matters.

And we all know Jack Wilson will be at short and Freddy at third and Duffy in center so Bautista will ride the pine. Sigh.

by matskralc on Jan 17, 2007 8:28 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Whoa, Nady hits 3rd?
That's lunacy on its face. Nady is a platoon guy, and should be sharing RF with Doumit while hitting behind LaRoche.

Nady? 3rd? Really? Please....

by Willton on Jan 17, 2007 8:22 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I was looking
In the wrong thread - best ongoing bit at this site.

by Greg Schuler on Jan 18, 2007 4:46 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Econolodge
You would prefer ...? Look at Nady's numbers after the trade: low power, good OBP. Could be the small sample size, but if that remains his profile I want him on base ahead of the power core. I'll agree, Doumit hits behind LaRoche. But then who do you bat No. 3? Move Freddy down? Then who do you bat No. 2? Wilson? I think I read enough blog bitching about that last year.

And I've said all I need to say about Duffy and the leadoff slot.

by bucdaddy on Jan 17, 2007 8:30 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Bay hits third
You put your best hitter third in order to maximize his plate appearances with men on base.

by matskralc on Jan 17, 2007 8:33 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Cue
the "Bay-rod choks in teh cluthc lol"-ites.

by matskralc on Jan 17, 2007 8:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

No more choking
with LaRoche hitting behind Bay, and maybe Bay's Ks will decrease as well.

by The New Guy on Jan 17, 2007 8:46 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Re
If you play around with the Baseball Musings lineup tool, it suggests that your best player should hit second, and a high on base/low slug guy should hit third.

by regfairfield on Jan 17, 2007 9:00 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Bay Bats 3rd
Always. Batting Bay 4th last year was stupid, as it left a cypher in the 2-hole while pretending Sanchez is suited to batting 3rd.

LaRoche hits 4th. His power deems it necessary. Nady/Doumit hits 5th.

I have no idea what you said about Duffy leading off, but I'm going to guess it has little value. Leadoff is for a guy who gets on base well. Duffy does not do that. Bautista is a far better candidate for leadoff than Duffy.

by Willton on Jan 17, 2007 9:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Love the trade, but...
Will it get Littlefield another extension?

You guys projecting lineups are high.  Jack Wilson will bat 2nd.  Period.  Not saying it's right, I'm saying it just is.  I'll start to give Tracy a little credit when he proves he won't do that.

Lillibridge?  Eh, it's the price of doing business.   A good reliever and a good A-baller for a bonafide slugger would have been fine with me.  Getting a freeroll with Romak is a bonus.

azibuck

by azibuck on Jan 17, 2007 9:46 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

And Bautista's OBP is ...
I'll save you the trouble of looking it up: Bautista's lifetime OBP is .318. Duffy's in a terrible year was .317. Duffy's speed is wasted in the 8-hole. Why put him in a spot where by stealing he risks an out ahead of the pitcher, or he's stuck at 2B when the pitcher fans, or where if anyone's on base the pitcher's going to bunt him over anyway? I think some of you guys way underestimate speed as a weapon. At least this kind of speed. I know, I know, sabermetric types don't much like the SB because the trade-off of getting caught begates its value unless you're stealing 75%. But this isn't a guy who's stealing 75%, this is a guy who's stealing 96%. From my POV, he doesn't HAVE to get on a whole hell of a lot if every time he DOES get on he turns a bunt single or infield hit or walk into a double (well, he winds up on second anyway).

Then Freddy cranks a double right behind him.

Um, OK, I guess I HADN'T said everything I had to say about Duffy/leadoff.

by bucdaddy on Jan 17, 2007 9:53 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

OBP
The problem is that Duffy's terrible year my end up being a typical Duffy year. Bautista had a higher OBP last year and throughout his minor league career. His lifetime OBP is dragged down because of the Rule 5 fiasco. He should have spent that season tearing up AA ball instead of flopping in the bigs.

You say that Duffy's speed is wasted in the eight hole. I say that Duffy's speed is wasted because he can't get on base. "You can't steal first." It's a cliche for a reason.

by sisyphus on Jan 17, 2007 10:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree
with your logic.  The only thing is with a team far off from contention I don't see any reason not to give a guy like Duffy (speed, defense) another shot to take some walks and hit some singles.  We do get into the argument of how many more chances can you give him...

by The New Guy on Jan 17, 2007 10:42 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Begates?
That should be "negates." Sorry.

by bucdaddy on Jan 17, 2007 9:53 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

The thing is....
making up theoretical lineups is pretty futile because we all know what Tracy is gonna trot out there.... Duffy, Wilson, Sanchez, Bay, LaRoche, Nady, and then fill it in however you want from there.

by ILLZ on Jan 17, 2007 10:00 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

bingo
That's what I expect to see.

by bolton on Jan 17, 2007 10:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Also...
I think this is the all time high for comments on one thread.

by ILLZ on Jan 17, 2007 10:05 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

This is what happens
when the Pirates do something that's actually exciting.

by Willton on Jan 17, 2007 10:12 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Batting Order
I just hope LaRoche can handle pressure cuz he mostly batted seventh in a lineup that pitched around others to get to him. Welcome to the Bucs. As of now I see about 450-500 at-bats with him sitting against tough lefties. A 55:128 BB:K ratio scares me.

by JimBibbySweat on Jan 17, 2007 11:02 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

To complete the deal for the Braves...
all they have to do is sign Thor to play 1B.

by rogero on Jan 17, 2007 11:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Econolodge and Sisyphus
"Leadoff is for a guy who gets on base well. Duffy does not do that. Bautista is a far better candidate for leadoff than Duffy."

"I say that Duffy's speed is wasted because he can't get on base."

Second-half splits, 2006:

Duffy: .307 BA, .362 OBP
Bautista: .207 BA, .313 OBP

I, at long last, rest my case.

by bucdaddy on Jan 18, 2007 2:01 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

That's very misleading
as it conveniently leaves out how abysmal Duffy was in the first half of the year. You can't just pretend that didn't happen.

Bautista clearly has better plate discipline than Duffy does, as evidenced by the difference between their AVG and OBP. You're placing a lot of hope on Duffy being able to hit .300 regularly. Considering his low power and high strikeouts, I consider this doubtful.

by Willton on Jan 18, 2007 2:07 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Not that I don't see your point
but Bautista strikes out too much for a leadoff hitter as well.  

Duffy stunk last year, but I'm willing to give him another shot, at least for a little while, because of his speed.

We're not going to miss the playoffs next year because Duffy starts off batting first instead of Bautista or Freddy.

by The New Guy on Jan 18, 2007 2:11 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

strikeouts
The most important trait for a leadoff hitter is the ability to get on base. How he makes his outs is irrelevent.

I agree that Duffy should get another shot this year, but I'm not optimistic that he'll hit enough to keep the job.

You are correct that we aren't going to miss the playoffs next year because Duffy leads off. We'll miss the playoffs because Duffy leads off, Wilson bats second, Castillo neither hits nor fields his position worth a damn again, Nady can't hit right handers and Tracy is too stubborn to give his at bats against them to McLouth and Doumit, Cota gets any at bats at all, etc., etc,, etc.

by sisyphus on Jan 18, 2007 4:14 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Why do so many bury Duffy after 440 ML at-bats?
You also can't pretend that his 2006 second half didn't happen.  I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to consider his 2006 final numbers as what he's capable of, when he played two parts of the season with an extended break in between.  And the two parts were wildly different in terms of production.

Gee, ever see a prospect back out of the garage with the parking brake on, get sent down, get straightened out, and come back to be a good player?  Happens all the time.

My point isn't that Duffy will be great, though I have a higher opinion of him than most.  It's that we don't really know, and as a matter of fact, he did hit .300 regularly through the minors.

azibuck

by azibuck on Jan 18, 2007 4:12 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

gravedigger
I'm not burying Duffy. I just think he is unlikely to be worthy of playing every day in the major leagues. I still think he should play every day until the All Star Game. He could prove me wrong.

by sisyphus on Jan 18, 2007 4:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Adrian Brown
And Jermaine Allensworth. Probably not Wil Pennyfeather, though.

by Greg Schuler on Jan 18, 2007 4:50 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

reply
Way to ignore evidence. By your logic, the Pirates are the best team in the NL Central because they had the best record in the second half last year.

by sisyphus on Jan 18, 2007 4:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Dejan says...
it'll likely be Sanchez, LaRoche, Bay, 3-4-5.  Why the organization still sees Wilson as a number 2 hitter is beyond me.  Obviously OBP isn't a big thing in Tracy's eyes, but I'm sure a high BA is, and Wilson does't even possess that.  Granted, batting order barely affects run scoring in the grand scheme of things, and this type of blunder will end up amounting to.... nothing, but still.

by ILLZ on Jan 18, 2007 2:34 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Batting order affects # of PA's
That's why batting Bay, the best hitter on the team, behind Sanchez and LaRoche is a mistake. You don't limit the number of plate appearances of your best player. Nor should you give the most PA's to one of the worst hitters on the team (Duffy) by batting him first.

by Willton on Jan 18, 2007 3:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes,
I'm aware of that aspect of it.  There was alot of research done somewhere regarding batting lineup, and a completely jumbled lineup wasn't significantly less apt at scoring than one with an "ideal" setup.  I understand my assertions seem bottomless because I don't remember where or when I read all this, but understand that I did read it somewhere credible (BTBS?), and I'm not making it up.  Does anybody else know what I'm talking about?

by ILLZ on Jan 18, 2007 4:40 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

"Was Billy Martin Crazy?"
That's the title of the chapter in Baseball Between The Numbers which talked about the batting order. I know what you're talking about, as the same concept was echoed in that chapter. I found it intriguing, but personally, I tend to get bent out of shape when a team does not do everything it can to maximize the team's production. While a poor construction doesn't have much effect on offense, it does have some effect.

My opinion: the top 2/3 of the order should have the best hitters, with OBP favored in the top third and slugging favored in the middle third. The #3 spot should be reserved for the player that is best in both categories.

by Willton on Jan 18, 2007 5:37 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree...
with everything you wrote.  I too get bent out of shape when teams do stupid things like bat Jack Wilson 2nd.  I agree with your theoretical lineup construction as well.  What I was saying, was that although annoying and nonsensicle it doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things.

by ILLZ on Jan 18, 2007 11:42 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, I remember
What I disagreed with is that, OK, over time the difference in lineup is not much, but in the context of a single game, it could matter significantly.  Consider a game where we're down by a run, Duffy and Wilson could get a 5th at-bat, and Bay may not, if he's hitting 5th.
azibuck

by azibuck on Jan 19, 2007 11:27 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Sisyphus
Who's ignoring evidence? Does it occur to you that maybe one of the reasons the Bucs went 37-35 the second half is BECAUSE Duffy got on base .362? I'll have to do some research on that.

by bucdaddy on Jan 18, 2007 4:13 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

second half
Regarding that claim, the Bucs' offense scored runs at a much slower rate in the second half than in the first.

BTW, Bucdaddy, please use that "Reply to" button in long threads like these, if you don't mind. It keeps things from getting too confusing.

by Charlie on Jan 18, 2007 4:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Right Charlie
And what would their rate have been if Duffy wasn't getting on at .362?
azibuck

by azibuck on Jan 18, 2007 4:25 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

ignoring evidence
You are ignoring evidence, namely Chris Duffy's performance for the year. You want to focus entirely on the good half and completely ignore the bad. They both happened, and both have equal weight.

The Pirates performed better in the second half because their pitching improved. They scored less runs in the second half than they did in the first. Certainly Duffy's improved second half was a help, but not enough of a help to keep them from declining in runs scored..

by sisyphus on Jan 18, 2007 4:25 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

They don't have equal weight
His first half shouldn't be ignored, but he was clearly lost at the plate, possibly due to any combination of:  tinkering by Tracy/Manto, adjusting to pitchers he'd never seen, pressure.  Just because those things can't be quantified doesn't mean they didn't exist.
azibuck

by azibuck on Jan 18, 2007 4:32 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

lost
And what leads you to believe he won't be lost at the plate this year? A guy who goes home in the middle of a season doesn't strike me as being the most stable individual.

Since he doesn't walk much and has no power, Duffy must hit close to .300 to be worthy of a starting position. That's a high standard to meet for anyone. I don't think he can do it.

by sisyphus on Jan 18, 2007 6:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Duff
Econolodge, who is debating on your side, is ignoring Bautista's gawd-awful second half and touting him for leadoff. I'm simply going with the most recent evidence. Yes, the pitching improved too. When I get some time, I hope to look into Duffy's impact on the run distribution in the 37 wins after the break, see what I can see, if anything.

by bucdaddy on Jan 18, 2007 6:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

save yourself some time
"When I get some time, I hope to look into Duffy's impact on the run distribution in the 37 wins after the break, see what I can see, if anything."

Save yourself some time and effort and look instead at the ERA of the starting rotation before and after the break, as that's the most important factor in their improved record. The Pirates started winning when they stopped sending Perez, Santos and Wells out to the mound, when Dukes ERA went from 5.17 to 3.65, and when Maholm's went from 5.10 to 4.28. The team ERA went from 4.93 to 4.01. That's why they won more games in the second half, despite having their scoring decline from 4.11 runs per game to 3.88 runs per game.

by sisyphus on Jan 18, 2007 7:03 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Duffy, again
At a glance, I don't see a BIG correlation between Duffy's efforts and the Pirates' 37-35 second half, though he DID play a big role in four of their best series of the year.

When they swept three from the Cardinals in mid August, he was 7-for-11 and scored 4 runs. Two of the runs came in a 3-2 win (the pitchers gave up 3 runs that series).

In the next game he was 2-for-4 and scored 2 runs in a 4-2 win.

When they swept three from the Cubs in late August, he was 5-for-14 and scored 5 runs. (The pitchers gave up 21 runs in that series.)

When they took 3-of-4 from the Cubs a week later, he was 7-for-12 and scored 5 runs (plus 4 steals). (The pitchers gave up 21 runs in that series.)

And when they swept three from the Mets, he was 5-for-11 with 2 runs and 3 steals. Two of the runs came in a 3-0 win (the pitchers gave up 5 runs in the series).

So the pitching was half great and half lousy. But I'd say Duffy was a very key player in those series, wouldn't you? Guy was on fire in September, and if you want to discount him for the quality of opposition that month, what with call-ups and all, then I'll point out that playing most of the time that same month Bautista was worse than terrible, batting .159 with a .266 OBP.

Small sample sizes, I'll grant, if you'll grant me that Duffy got much better during the season while Bautista got way worse for 2 1/2 months. Bautista at leadoff? Right now Bautista's going to have to show me he deserves to play at all.

by bucdaddy on Jan 18, 2007 11:25 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

No ignorance here
I'm taking Bautista's bad 2nd half performance into account by looking at his season as a whole. Judging a player by half of a season is not seeing the forest for the trees.

I tout Bautista for leadoff because even if he hits somewhere around .250, he'll get on base at a rate around .100 points higher than that, which will likely give him a higher OBP than Duffy. Bautista will also provide power, which isn't a bad thing to have at the top of the order.

by Willton on Jan 18, 2007 7:58 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

But
If you give Duffy a shot, and he comes through (I know it may be a long shot), Bautista will be an excellent piece behind him.

by The New Guy on Jan 18, 2007 8:53 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Not if I were GM
Sanchez is the #2 hitter, not Bautista. Duffy hits eighth until he proves me wrong.

by Willton on Jan 18, 2007 9:18 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.
Start posting about the Pirates »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

101_0170_small
40-Man Moves
18470r_small
Rule 5 possibilities
20080124sgrammy_330_small
Small Market Teams Pocketing Spare Change
Small
Jeebus Cracker
Small
McCutchen's defense
Small
Roberto calling
20090612mf_fleury_cup_500hp_small
Pirates would trade Doumit!
Leo4_small
John Sickels' Comments on Donnie Veal
Pitt20_small
LaRoche to the Phils?
Bloody_mary_small
Ohlendorf Blogging: USDA can't keep him "down on the farm."

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Mariners Eyeing Doumit
Tabata 5-5 w/3 Ribbies - Hitting .390 @ EOS
Bay rejects $60M over 4 years
"[Chase D'Arnaud] does everything well enough," said an American League...
Pirates hire Steve Williams as Major League scout
Jim Tracy, Baby! NL Manager of the Year!
2009 Minor League Six-Year Free Agent Listing
NL Rookie of the Year: Chris Coghlan
2010 CHONE Projections
2010 UZR Projections

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SPONSORS


Managers

Charlie_small Charlie