Prev: Zito the headcase
Next: A Different Hero Every Night - Tonight it's Edgar Renteria!
From: Grizzlie Antagonist on 2 Aug 2010 09:58
On 2 Aug 2010 10:52:43 GMT, Awesome Lincecum <Lincecum(a)sf.giants>
wrote:

>Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanford(a)yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:jqfc56d3oa8ecslrphnh3ris5hanhkjte9(a)4ax.com:
>>
>>
>> Really? Well, check out Barry Bond's numbers after his first year
>> on the Pirates (413 AB).
>
>Bonds was 21 yrs old, and he played CF in his first year, not RF. Do
>you know the difference between CF and RF? *Big* difference.


Neither age nor position is important for the purpose of this
analysis, however important they might be for others. The purpose of
this analysis is to look at an individual's first 400-500 major league
AB's and prognosticate his future as a hitter.

Bowker had 15 home runs after what might be regarded as the equivalent
of his first full season. Bonds had 16.



> Bonds
>was #6 in the Rookie of the Year race.



Oh, come on! #6! He got 4 points. 13 points fewer than Charlie
Kerfeld. Three points more than Bruce Ruffin. Come on.




> Bonds has already won an MVP
>and gold glove by age 25.



Unimportant for the purpose of this analysis.



> Bowker still can't hit major league pitching
>at age 26/27. He seems like another Todd Linden: all-star minor
>leaguer, can't hit major league pitching. Maybe Bowker will develop
>into a good hitter if he gets to play everyday on a shitty team, and
>I'd be happy for him, but he's not gonna get playing time in SF.




That may very well be, though they might miss him when the roster
expands to 40 and the situation calls for a left-handed pinch hitter.

But my point is that they did not get enough value for him in return.



>Another thing is that offensive numbers were lower in the 1980s.
>Bonds' OPS+ was 103; Bowker 75.



Right. So Bowker's numbers are worse than Bonds's -- somewhat but not
astronomically so -- at similar stages of their careers. My point is
NOT that Bowke's career is likely to project to the equivalent of
Bonds's.



>> Check out Andres Torres's stats before he ended up with the Giants
>> last year at the age of 30-something (285 AB). I'll wager that
>> Torres anyway didn't produce like Bowker did at the AAA level.
>
>Torres is an exception. The Giants essentially got lucky here
>(assuming he can keep it up). How many Torres examples can you find?
>Not to mention he's another CF.



And considerably older than Bowker.



>> But the point is not that Bowker should have been regarded as
>> "untouchable".
>>
>> The point is that the Giants did not get full value or anything
>> close to full value for him.
>
>1) You're overvaluing Bowker. Major league numbers trump minor league
>numbers. See Todd Linden.



Are you sure that you're not overvaluing Javier Lopez?



>2) Giants needed a trade at the trade deadline, so they were at a
>disadvantage on the bargaining table. If this was an offseason trade,
>maybe they have more leverage. I don't know who else in the minors
>that other teams would want, and the Giants willing to give up, but I
>won't lose any sleep over losing Bowker.
>3) You were counting on Affeldt's return to help our playoff run?
>Really? Looks like you're overvaluing Affeldt too. Most people cringe
>when he pitches.




Are you sure that you're not overvaluing Javier Lopez? His career
numbers are roughly similar to Affeldt's.

Affeldt did have a stud year last year as one of the better middle
relievers in the game and he also got a mention in the MVP balloting,
if you're going to use that as a yardstick. Lopez has never had such
a year.




>4) I'm pretty sure Sabean's phone wasn't ringing off the hook from
>other teams' GMs inquiring about Bowker, or else we probably would've
>gotten better value for him.


By that argument, it would be impossible for one GM to ever take
advantage of another GM and there would be no such thing as an
especially good trade or an especially bad one.

Sabean has a rep for not returning calls, and why should anyone ring
his phone off the hook if Sabean might just as easily come back in
desperation at the deadline with his hat in one hand and the store in
another?

You might just as well argue that no one was ringing Sabean's phone
off the hook inquiring about Joe Nathan and Francisco Liriano. That
may or may not be true. But why should they, if Sabean is going to
eventually ring their phone off the hook inquiring about A.J.
Pierzynski?
From: Greg Lentz on 2 Aug 2010 14:21
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 06:58:05 -0700, Grizzlie Antagonist
<lloydsofhanford(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2 Aug 2010 10:52:43 GMT, Awesome Lincecum <Lincecum(a)sf.giants>
>wrote:
>
>>Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanford(a)yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:jqfc56d3oa8ecslrphnh3ris5hanhkjte9(a)4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>> Really? Well, check out Barry Bond's numbers after his first year
>>> on the Pirates (413 AB).
>>
>>Bonds was 21 yrs old, and he played CF in his first year, not RF. Do
>>you know the difference between CF and RF? *Big* difference.
>
>
>Neither age nor position is important for the purpose of this
>analysis, however important they might be for others.

LOL at you trying to act smart.
--
Greg Lentz
From: Awesome Lincecum on 7 Aug 2010 04:47
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanford(a)yahoo.com> wrote in
news:qnid5618gfm8agmj13br6h2as8jui4fpjf(a)4ax.com:

> On 2 Aug 2010 10:52:43 GMT, Awesome Lincecum <Lincecum(a)sf.giants>
> wrote:
>
>>Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanford(a)yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:jqfc56d3oa8ecslrphnh3ris5hanhkjte9(a)4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>> Really? Well, check out Barry Bond's numbers after his first
>>> year on the Pirates (413 AB).
>>
>>Bonds was 21 yrs old, and he played CF in his first year, not RF.
>>Do you know the difference between CF and RF? *Big* difference.
>
>
> Neither age nor position is important for the purpose of this
> analysis,

If you don't understand the important of age in evaluating the
likihood of a prospect's success at the major league level, then
it's very difficult for you to see the point. Age is a *VERY*
important factor in this argument. Maybe the statheads can provide
some stats for you.


>> Bonds
>>was #6 in the Rookie of the Year race.
>
>
>
> Oh, come on! #6! He got 4 points. 13 points fewer than Charlie
> Kerfeld. Three points more than Bruce Ruffin. Come on.

I didn't make that up. It's straight from the website.


>> Bonds has already won an MVP
>>and gold glove by age 25.
>
> Unimportant for the purpose of this analysis.

Age could be the most important factor in this analysis.


>> Bowker still can't hit major league pitching
>>at age 26/27. He seems like another Todd Linden: all-star minor
>>leaguer, can't hit major league pitching. Maybe Bowker will
>>develop into a good hitter if he gets to play everyday on a shitty
>>team, and I'd be happy for him, but he's not gonna get playing
>>time in SF.
>
> That may very well be, though they might miss him when the roster
> expands to 40 and the situation calls for a left-handed pinch
> hitter.

How much can we miss a .220 hitter? And Ishikawa is doing quite
well as a lefty pinch hitter.

> But my point is that they did not get enough value for him in
> return.

Maybe, but sometimes that's what happens when you're the team that
needs a trade on the trade deadline.

>>Another thing is that offensive numbers were lower in the 1980s.
>>Bonds' OPS+ was 103; Bowker 75.
>
> Right. So Bowker's numbers are worse than Bonds's -- somewhat but
> not astronomically so

Almost 30 points difference *is* astronomical.


>>> Check out Andres Torres's stats before he ended up with the
>>> Giants last year at the age of 30-something (285 AB). I'll
>>> wager that Torres anyway didn't produce like Bowker did at the
>>> AAA level.
>>
>>Torres is an exception. The Giants essentially got lucky here
>>(assuming he can keep it up). How many Torres examples can you
>>find? Not to mention he's another CF.
>
> And considerably older than Bowker.

Which is why Torres is an exception. If you're using Torres as an
argument, you're hoping Bowker to get lucky, which means you're
conceding that Bowker is a long shot to have a decent major league
career.


>>> But the point is not that Bowker should have been regarded as
>>> "untouchable".
>>>
>>> The point is that the Giants did not get full value or anything
>>> close to full value for him.
>>
>>1) You're overvaluing Bowker. Major league numbers trump minor
>>league numbers. See Todd Linden.
>
> Are you sure that you're not overvaluing Javier Lopez?

I never mentioned anything about Lopez's ability. The Giants needed
a lefty, and they needed to give up somebody that other teams
actually want, so this trade happened.


> Are you sure that you're not overvaluing Javier Lopez? His career
> numbers are roughly similar to Affeldt's.

I have no idea how good Lopez is (but he's doing great so far).
Affeldt might've been good last year, but this year he stinks, and
it doesn't appear that he can turn it around for the stretch run.
Don't tell me you think he's been doing well this season and we can
count on him, if you've been watching the Giants.

> Affeldt did have a stud year last year as one of the better middle
> relievers in the game and he also got a mention in the MVP
> balloting, if you're going to use that as a yardstick. Lopez has
> never had such a year.

That was last year. A lot of bullpen guys vary greatly from year to
year. This year he has a 4.11 ERA, walks over 5 guys per 9 innings,
and has a whip of 1.657. This is the guy that you think we can
count on for the playoff run?


>>4) I'm pretty sure Sabean's phone wasn't ringing off the hook from
>>other teams' GMs inquiring about Bowker, or else we probably
>>would've gotten better value for him.
>
>
> By that argument, it would be impossible for one GM to ever take
> advantage of another GM and there would be no such thing as an
> especially good trade or an especially bad one.

Huh??? I *just* told you that the Giants probably were taken
advantage of, because they were the team that needed the trade on
the trade deadline, while Pittsburgh had no incentives to make the
trade unless they think it's a good deal. I doubt they'd lose any
sleep over losing Lopez.

> Sabean has a rep for not returning calls, and why should anyone
> ring his phone off the hook if Sabean might just as easily come
> back in desperation at the deadline with his hat in one hand and
> the store in another?

Why should he answer the phone when 99% of the calls were probably
asking for Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, or Posey? I screen my calls
too because most of my calls are from telemarketers. You didn't
even want to give up Bowker, so who else do you think other teams
would want from the Giants? Sabean seemed to have picked up the
phone very quickly when someone called for Molina. :-) I bet he'd
do the same if someone calls for Rowand.

>
> You might just as well argue that no one was ringing Sabean's
> phone off the hook inquiring about Joe Nathan and Francisco
> Liriano. That may or may not be true. But why should they, if
> Sabean is going to eventually ring their phone off the hook
> inquiring about A.J. Pierzynski?

Do you believe everything that the media writes? Do you think the
media never write stupid stuff to sell papers? Do you know for a
fact that Sabean never answer calls? How much weight do you put on
a survey of a couple of GMs, who were probably pissed that Sabean
ignored their requests to trade Lincecum, Cain, and Posey? Do you
pick up every telemarketer's phone call and waste time chatting with
them? If you do, you probably have too much time on your hand.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Zito the headcase
Next: A Different Hero Every Night - Tonight it's Edgar Renteria!