Tigers close to dealing Granderson to Yankees
Latest version: Yankees get Curtis Granderson, Tigers get Phil Coke, Austin Jackson, Max Scherzer, and Daniel Schlereth, D-Backs get Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy.
3 months ago
Ryan
256 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Sadly, this is a great deal for the Tigers.
by JP_Frost on Dec 8, 2009 2:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agree. I also don’t like it at all from Diamondbacks perspective, but am probably a little to negative on E. Jackson.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 8, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah i’m not sure what they’re doing…
by mixmasterasia on Dec 8, 2009 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll say. I can’t believe the D-Backs dealt Scherzer. Edwin Jackson is still far from a proven commodity (at least in my mind), but he is moving to the NL. But is he really an upgrade over Scherzer, who has good k-ability?
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
by gorilla_baller on Dec 8, 2009 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My first reaction was that same as yours, but maybe Jackson is an upgrade, and then they’re getting the flyer on Kennedy as well. I don’t know much about Schlereth, except that his dad is Mark.
by dgcambridge on Dec 8, 2009 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Even if you call Jackson an upgrade in terms of talent, you have to factor in contract issues. Scherzer is team-controlled for something like four or five more years. Jackson has to be close to arb-level. Schlereth is from U of A and can miss some bats, but he’s a bit wild. However, I could still envision him in the back end of a bullpen at some point. Frankly, with Kennedy’s injury and performance record, I’d take Schlereth over him. Tigers and Yanks both won this one, while AZ got kicked in the nads.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
by gorilla_baller on Dec 8, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am sad that this would mean that Curtis Granderson is dead to me.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 8, 2009 2:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agree. Along with Joe Mauer, he’s one of the few players I really enjoy watching in the AL Central.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 8, 2009 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I enjoyed watching him play to the extent that I almost hated him since he wasn’t an Indian, therefore this progression is natural for me.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 8, 2009 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As an Indians and Dbacks fan, I hate this deal from all perspectives. Tigers got an amazing haul of players. I don’t get the exchange for Scherzer for Jackson from AZ’s perspective. I just can’t grasp it.
by xrickx on Dec 8, 2009 2:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This deal seems like a win for everyone but the D’Backs.
For them, it seems like someone might have been drunk.
by FallsTribeFan on Dec 8, 2009 2:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comment from the Yankees blog asserted that Granderson was cheap. Only in Yankee world
by Roger Dorn on Dec 8, 2009 2:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think the Scherzer love is a bit over the top. Scherzer is not even a year younger than Jackson and he struggled with run prevention in the NL West.
I think the Diamondbacks screwed up more or less but I’m not terribly afraid of Scherzer. He’s got good stuff but he averaged 5.6 innings per start last year and his year as a full time starter in the minors (2007) he averaged 5.2 per start. I’m not going to read too much into that minor league stuff as I don’t know the usage pattern but I think the major league start length is a real problem and going to get worse in the AL.
I don’t see any evidence of a pitch count. This is a guy who pitched over 6 IP in only 7 of 30 starts last year. Jackson did it in 19 of 33.
I don’t love having a lesser Scott Kazmir in the division but, frankly, I think I’ll survive.
The biggest thing here is that everyone wants to think of Scherzer as a developing pitcher and I think he’s just older developmentally than he’s perceived.
Again, Scherzer’s a good player and I’m no fan of Jackson or Kennedy but I think Jackson is probably worth as many WAR in the NL West and they also added a guy that can probably eat 170 innings over there.
by afh4 on Dec 8, 2009 2:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Even if there is a disparity in performance, Scherzer is going to on the cheap for the next few years. But you’re right, In a strict number’s sense he’s probably in the same mold as Masterson: misses bats but also has some issues with control, leading to pitch count concerns, hindering his ability to throw deep into games.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
by gorilla_baller on Dec 8, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s no question it looks like a screw-up by Arizona on the basis of cost but everyone’s acting like there’s an obvious talent problem here.
I don’t really think so and, if AZ thinks Kennedy is healthy, I don’t know that he’s not a lot better than people think.
by afh4 on Dec 8, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They screwed up the contracts, no question.
I just don’t think there’s a huge talent moving in this deal and, if there is, hell, it might be Jackson. Granderson seriously can’t hit lefties, Scherzer can’t go deep and Jackson has a host of issues associated with being ‘thrower’ not ‘pitcher’ or whatever.
If they can keep Kennedy healthy, though, I think he can probably be a 4.00 ERA starter and maybe a bit better in that division.
by afh4 on Dec 8, 2009 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and, to a lesser degree, Chris Gimenez.
Is this the whale section?
by sarcasmdave on Dec 9, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really? I just don’t think Kennedy is going to be any good which is why I hate the deal for the DBacks.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 8, 2009 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why, because you read his fastball sits at 89? His numbers say he ought to be at least reasonably effective, especially in that division.
by afh4 on Dec 8, 2009 5:51 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, based on scouting reports I have read, I do not think he will be good.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 8, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. I’m not sure how much respect people give Keith Law around here, but he labels Kennedy a fringe 5th starter. Doesn’t seem like anyone to get excited about. Certainly wouldn’t be someone you wouldn’t trade for Granderson.
by Cols714 on Dec 8, 2009 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think people give Law a lot of respect around here
by APV on Dec 8, 2009 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m more or less baffled. Goldstein has always liked him (once said he might top out as high as Mike Mussina), Sickels always seemed confident he’d be an innings eater, and Law once ranked Kennedy the 45th best prospect in baseball, labeling him as a guy with a 3 ceiling and 4 potential.
Now, Law did that in January 2008; since then, Kennedy has thrown 40 terrible major league innings, 100 lights out innings in the minors and had a brain aneurysm.
I don’t know how I made myself this big IK supporter but acting like he’s garbage on the basis of 40 bad major league innings and some prognosticators reversing course on the basis of said innings strikes me as foolish.
by afh4 on Dec 8, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think he would have been a 3/4 in the AL Central, but in the NL west…
by westbrook on Dec 8, 2009 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FYI, the aneurysm was in his arm.
I’m with you on this one. IK had shown some good results when he was up in ‘07. Moving to the NL West, he might’ve gone from being a #5 on the Yankees to being a #3 in Arizona – if he stays healthy. In the 2 years since that initial call-up, he’s had some bad innings, but they seem to be surrounded by injury, so maybe he threw poorly as a result of the injuries.
FWIW, Scherzer had TJ surgery in HS, and I cringe every time I see him pitch. I hate his motion and think he’s gonna blow out his elbow again. That motion reminds me very much of BJ Ryan’s motion.
Overall, AZ now has a rotation of Haren, Jackson, if he’s healthy Webb, and a bunch of young arms for the #4 and 5 starter spots. In a winable division, that’s a really solid starting rotation.
by lenred on Dec 8, 2009 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My bad on the aneurysm. That’s a swing and a miss.
Yeah, that rotation ought to be enough to get them to the playoffs if it’s healthy.
by afh4 on Dec 8, 2009 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
any time I hear aneurysm I think brain too. the only reason I knew it was in his arm is b/c I just read it on another site. coincidence.
by lenred on Dec 8, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am probably a bit influenced by my die-hard Yankees friends. I am a bit more exposed to Yankee talk than normal living here, but my friends constantly overhype their own prospects. Not a single one of them likes Kennedy.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 8, 2009 9:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yankees fans overhype prospects and throw under the bus guys who fall short of expectations, regardless of reason or actual performance: Alex Rodriguez, Carl Pavano, at opposite ends of the spectrum.
by afh4 on Dec 8, 2009 10:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This.
Dorn, your friends are idiots who know nothing about baseball. You would be better off assuming the opposite of everything they say.
by Jay on Dec 9, 2009 11:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would say they aren’t the typical moron Yankee fan (and they aren’t), but I won’t get into that here.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 9, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I imagine your friends are well above average among Yankees fans … and still morons.
by Jay on Dec 9, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think Kennedy is considered too much of a prospect anymore. Plus who wouldn’t trade a guy like that to get Granderson for the next few years?
by Cols714 on Dec 9, 2009 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lots of fringy guys have nice MLEs but can’t actually cut it at the major league level
i’m with roger dorn on this one. . . it’s pretty rare to see a righty who can’t touch 90 with his FB be successful. he might be able to cut it in the NL west i guess.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 8, 2009 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I just think this is much ado about nothing with him. He was always projected as a 4 in the AL then he had some bad innings and got sick. I think there’s a rush to damn him on the basis of not a lot. If everybody thought he was a 4 before, what changed?
by afh4 on Dec 8, 2009 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok, he can touch 90, but as a starter he still seems to sit in the upper 80s.
i think some of the skepticism has to do with the fact that he’s a soft-tossing finesse righty, which isn’t the easiest thing to be in the major leagues, and some of it has to do with his age (he’ll be 25 in 11 days). he’s not garbage by any means, and might very well hit his #4 ceiling. . . but it still isn’t very much for the yankees to give up in a package for a cheap, premium-defensive-position all-star.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 8, 2009 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Yankees did very well, no question.
Honestly, I think the Yankees clearly won and the Diamondbacks and the Tigers are a push.
I think there’s a lot of vague denouncing of Kennedy and hyping of Scherzer and not a lot of actually dealing with Kennedy’s minor league numbers or Scherzer’s clear inability to pitch deep (let alone the injuries everyone’s been predicting for 2 years). I guess that’s my hobby horse right now.
But, this was about the Tigers clearing payroll and the Yankees let them do that, delivering them cheap arms and a CF by way of AZ.
I think Arizona wanted out on Scherzer, probably because of mechanical/injury concerns, and thought they could roll the dice on Jackson and Kennedy solidifying a rotation that’s already strong. If they accomplish that, they’ll probably make the playoffs.
by afh4 on Dec 8, 2009 6:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i mostly agree. . . still not a fan of kennedy’s but part of that probably has to do with him being over-hyped a few years ago by yankees fans (“generation tre” or whatever that bull ish was).
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 8, 2009 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s my problem, too. IPK has been a curse-word for a couple of years.
by Jay on Dec 8, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My amateur video analysis of Scherzer is this:
When I saw him pitch a game live on mlb.tv this past season, I was blown away how the ball just explodes out of his arm. It looks [from behind at least] like it’s going 105 MPH. With some sink, if I remember correctly.
by westbrook on Dec 8, 2009 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and I’m just saying there’s something of a difference between “can’t touch 90” (Paul Byrd) and a guy who sits 88-91.
by afh4 on Dec 8, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
true
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 8, 2009 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll agree with this. He will need to really thrive on his changeup and have excellent control to make it just as a 4-5 starter.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 8, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Tigers were wise in moving Granderson now.
by Toxicadam on Dec 8, 2009 3:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
OT, but putting this here since this will be a heavily viewed thread:
by Toxicadam on Dec 8, 2009 3:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
One less reason to go to espn.com
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 8, 2009 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Funny, I thought it was one MORE reason to go there.
by FallsTribeFan on Dec 8, 2009 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t read anything by Gammons since 2001.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 8, 2009 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know, I genuinely enjoyed his take on some things. Others? Meh. But I enjoyed it enough to always read it when it was there.
I just wanted to believe.
by mjmarble on Dec 8, 2009 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
NBC has an interesting take on Gammons leaving. Say it was a bit of a surprise to everyone, even ESPN guys covering the meetings.
I just wanted to believe.
by mjmarble on Dec 8, 2009 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow – hope this isn’t health related, although at 64 no one would fault him for wanting to slow down. I remember one of the first things I did when I first “got the internet” a dozen or so years ago was to go each Sunday to read his baseball notes column on the Boston Globe website.
Although I am sure some will say good riddance to the East Coast bias, Gammons is one of the bigger Shapiro / Indians fans among the national media. Of course, some will say good riddance to that as well. :)
by IndyDave on Dec 8, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, that second paragraph is what I was gonna say.
by westbrook on Dec 8, 2009 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Surprising press release today: legendary journalist Peter Gammons will leave ESPN to
pursue other endeavorstour heavily with his kick-ass band after the Winter Meetings.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
by gorilla_baller on Dec 8, 2009 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He did name-drop James Taylor and Tom Rush in his portion of the press release.
by FredOx on Dec 8, 2009 4:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
HUGE coup for MLB Network. Baseball Tonight just took a very large hit.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 8, 2009 11:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you just assuming Gammons is going to MLB Network or do you have a link your not sharing?
ESPN has been dead to me since January of last year. I really never needed NASCAR, college sports or golf news (I’m sure their Tiger Woods coverage is outstanding and thorough, but I get way too much already.) I haven’t felt the need to tune into Baseball Tonight and catch their lead story about NYY and/or Boston. Although I like Gammons—he seemed to have sources—I don’t know if MLB Network needs his services. They do a pretty good job of not dwelling on the Red Sox and subsequent Yankees storylines.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 9, 2009 8:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, wait. Found it.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 9, 2009 9:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone else think ESPN has too many ex-athletes and not enough professional television journalists?
by APV on Dec 9, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. All I can think of is Trent Dilfer confidently yelling his opinion every time I turn the channel on.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 9, 2009 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, this is especially true with their NFL coverage. Though Adam Shefter has salvaged something.
On the baseball side, I’m trying to think of who they have left actually doing reporting/journalistic work. There is Olney. And Jayson Stark. But Phillips and Gammons are gone. Is Nate Silver done trying to be on ESPN? It was pretty brutal when he started, but I appreciated the effort.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 9, 2009 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Silver was syndicated on ESPN via Baseball Prospectus. His presence on both has decreased.
Stark does damned little actual reporting, and his “analysis” is beyond worthless. Most of his sources seem to be the staff of Stats Inc.
I think they still have a fairly large staff of reporters, they’re just not the big names.
by Jay on Dec 9, 2009 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sure they do have a ton of reporters. I was talking about the baseball-writer types who would actually get stories. I guess Pedro Gomez would be one, though he files more feature pieces and follows specific happenings as opposed to hot stove type information.
I think Gammons leaves a big hole at ESPN.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 9, 2009 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the big hole actually plays SS for the yankees.
by Brick. on Dec 9, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I forgot that Silver was there through BP.
Any chance Keith Law agrees to more (if he has done any at all) tv time?
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 9, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
IN! … The… N-you know what, I can’t muster it.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Dec 8, 2009 3:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I actually want to see this disappear for a long while, only to rise mysteriously, executed to perfection, at a later date.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 8, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And to a lesser degree, the Chris Giminez meme.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Dec 8, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
kicking-myself-for-not-having-thought-of-this rec.
by Logodaedalus on Dec 9, 2009 12:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The deal is supposedly done. I hate the Yankees. They got Granderson for basically nothing. Nice work Cashman.
by Cols714 on Dec 8, 2009 3:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
interesting take.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 8, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think the Yankees gave up a whole lot either, Kennedy is a non-entity to me. Granderson costs a lot, but what does that money matter to the Yankees? It was worth it to lose A. Jackson and Coke for a player of Granderson’s caliber.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 8, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but what does that money matter to the Yankees?
it doesn’t, and neither do prospects, because they’re just going to go out and outspend everyone in free agency anyhow.
from the Yankees point of view, yes, they gave up nothing. if it was, maybe, the Blue Jays (or on the extreme opposite end, KC) giving up Kennedy, Jackson, and Coke, it’d be a fleecing.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 8, 2009 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
really? jackson is a legit prospect (my impression is that he’s a raw-ish tools guy). kennedy and coke, however, are pretty marginal. i don’t think they gave up much for an all-star caliber CF who is making just 5.5 million next season (and is under club control thru 2014)? not to mention grandy’s in the prime of his career
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 8, 2009 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hmm, i’m not sure why i ended that 2nd sentence with a question mark.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 8, 2009 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“fleecing” was an over-the-top description. I’ve been doing that often today.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 8, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know about this. Giving up Kennedy, Jackson and Coke for an all-star caliber CF seems like a good deal no matter who made it. Especially since the Yankees have a giant hole in CF.
by Cols714 on Dec 8, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you’re not giving up Jeter, A-Roid, Rivera or Texeira, then to the Yankee mind it is automatically cheap. I know nothing about any of those prospects, but I know that nobody in Yankee world is probably all that concerned about losing them.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 8, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I still like that nickname. I laugh every time.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 9, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, hemorrhoids are funny.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 9, 2009 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
actually, a few of my friends out here are upset to lose austin jackson. whether it’s warranted or not, he was kind of looked at as one of the few position player prospects to get excited about. Believe it or not, some Yankee fans actually like the idea of growing their own talent and watching them come to fruition. Not many, but a few.
if he came up and turned into Trevor Crowe, though, the fact that fans over-valued him would’ve caused the fans to turn on him quicker than they did Hideki Irabu.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
by Ockus_NYC on Dec 9, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Like the idea of growing their own talent, but the point, albeit a biting one, was that I’m doubting there is any concern that this will actually affect their future.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 9, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough. I’m sure the World Championship bric-a-brac found underneath the Christmas tree this year will help cushion the blow for the Austin Jackson lovers among the Yankee faithful.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
by Ockus_NYC on Dec 9, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kennedy, b. 12/19/1984
Career Minor League: 1.95 ERA, 273 K, 77 BBs, 248.2 IP. 9.9 K/9. 2.8 BB/9.
Scherzer, b. 7/27/1984
Career Minor League: 2.79 ERA, 215 K, 72 BB, 164.1 IP. 11.8 K/9, 3.9 BB/9.
The backlash on Kennedy reminds me a great deal of the way people talked about Buchholz 18 months or so ago.
by afh4 on Dec 8, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and that’s where the similarity between buchholz and kennedy ends, i think.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 8, 2009 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Basically my feeling. I had read Kennedy tops out at 88-89, you don’t see many RHPs in the majors that throw under 90. Paul Byrd is the only one I can think of.
Watch him have success in the NL west though.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 8, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yep. . . i’m of the opinion that the yankees got a straight-up steal here
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 8, 2009 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is my opinion too. I thought I said something similar in the AL central thread earlier, but looks like I was only thinking of saying it.
by westbrook on Dec 8, 2009 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, it’s terrifying. He might hit 40 in that park.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 8, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not really our problem, if you think about it. We’ll go there for one series and probably start two lefties if not three.
by Jay on Dec 8, 2009 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Terrifying in the sense that the Yankees are heavy favorites to repeat. (even though they were before this deal)
by Roger Dorn on Dec 8, 2009 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess from the Tigers point of view this isn’t a bad deal. Yes they give up Granderson who is a pretty good player but they got some young pitching and someone who can at least take over in CF.
Not too bad, but it still sucks that the Yankees now have Granderson.
by Cols714 on Dec 8, 2009 4:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It’s better the Yankees have him. The bad news is it gives the Tigers a couple of young players.
by odradek on Dec 8, 2009 8:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, making the Tigers worse does help the Indians in the Central.
by Cols714 on Dec 9, 2009 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh. We don’t know that the Tigers got worse. More importantly, we don’t know that the Tigers got worse in 2012.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Dec 9, 2009 5:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think they are worse without Granderson. Sure they added a couple of pitchers but I don’t believe that offsets a big loss in CF for 2010.
by Cols714 on Dec 9, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
His numbers prior to last year were better. Grady Sizemore put up a .248/.343/.455 last year.
by Cols714 on Dec 9, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sizemore was also injured all year
by The Grimace on Dec 9, 2009 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So injured Grady is better than healthy Granderson? Is that your argument here?
by fwembt on Dec 9, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
injured Grady is better than healthy Granderson
fixed
by westbrook on Dec 9, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No my argument is that Granderson is a good player. That’s pretty much it.
by Cols714 on Dec 9, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, I just don’t see that he leaves that big of a hole out there for them.
by fwembt on Dec 9, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He was 6th in the AL in CF OPS in a down year for him while playing pretty great defense. Sounds like someone that is going to be hard to replace.
by Cols714 on Dec 9, 2009 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure. But pieces, man. Pieces. The Tigers needed more than Granderson.
And from an Indians fan’s perspective, all that matters to me is how good they’ll be when the Indians are good.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Dec 9, 2009 5:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, but it still leaves the Tigers with a big hole to fill for the next couple of year. That’s really all I’m saying.
by Cols714 on Dec 9, 2009 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn’t that what Austin Jackson is for?
by The Grimace on Dec 9, 2009 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you really think that Jackson is going to be as good as Granderson for the next few years? I don’t think so.
There is the possibility that Jackson plus the pitching they received will make up for the downgrade, but I certainly don’t think so.
by Cols714 on Dec 9, 2009 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know, but Jackson is already a couple of years ahead of Granderson’s minor league development, albeit with weaker numbers.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Dec 9, 2009 11:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well this should have been a reply to the post right above me, but you get the point.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Dec 9, 2009 11:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
See, this is the kind of thing Progress Score is for.
by Jay on Dec 9, 2009 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
F the yankees man
phil coke, austin jackson, and ian kennedy for granderson? that’s all they have to give up?
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 8, 2009 4:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
man remember when we used to dabble in the free agent market?
Those were the days…
by ASP on Dec 8, 2009 5:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Last I checked, none of the players in this story are on the free agent market.
by Jay on Dec 8, 2009 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean like last year when we signed a top closer free agent to a high dollar contract?
by The Grimace on Dec 8, 2009 7:15 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Am I the only one that thinks this is good for the Indians? At least as it indirectly affects Grady. I mean, now, any time someone on cleveland.com says “well only 2 years until we lose Grady to the Yankees” we can now say “no dumb^&*, they have Granderson for several years.”
It really does limit the places Grady could go. Unless there’s some other big trades in the next year or two, Boston has Ellsbury, LAA has Hunter, NYY have Granderson, NYM have Beltran. Seems like the biggest teams are set at CF when Grady would be a FA.
by lenred on Dec 8, 2009 6:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I spoke a little early.
contract run-down:
Grady’s contract has an option for ‘12.
Hunter’s expires after ‘12.
Granderson’s has an option for ‘13.
Beltran’s expires after ’11.
by lenred on Dec 8, 2009 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You have to wonder how willing Grady would be to move to LF if he’s out on the market in a few years. Who knows, he could end up playing alongside Gootz.
by Jay on Dec 8, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
His defensive range allows him to play CF, but his arm is pretty bad. In a few years his arm won’t be any better than Damon’s. So I think a shift to LF is just a matter of time.
by lenred on Dec 8, 2009 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I continue to dispute that his arm is much below average — if at all. Throwing was always Grady’s weakest tool, but the magnitude of its weakness essentially has become a fish tale.
I’d also like to see some data supporting the idea that throwing strength declines rapidly in the late 20s. I don’t think there is any such data, just more random conjecture once again.
by Jay on Dec 8, 2009 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you. I’ve long been off the opinion that Grady’s arm only appears so weak in contrast with all of the other things he does so far above average. Gootz, he is not. Also! DD, he is not.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 9, 2009 2:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think his arm appears weak when he throws.
by lenred on Dec 9, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think you don’t know what an average arm in CF looks like.
by Jay on Dec 9, 2009 12:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that’s quite an assumption. a wrong one, I might add.
by lenred on Dec 9, 2009 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, we disagree. I think that the CF position is not generally populated by players with tremendous OF range and also what appears to be a very strong arm. I think the average CF has less range than Grady, about the same arm strength, and somewhat less arm accuracy.
by Jay on Dec 9, 2009 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
His throws don’t have much pep, but to my eye, he seems to get himself into good position and I very rarely see him miss the cut-off man. There’s more to outfield throwing than power.
by fleerdon on Dec 9, 2009 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I mean, dude was a nationally recruited high school quarterback. He’s no Wily Taveras, but then … he’s no Wily Taveras.
by fleerdon on Dec 9, 2009 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was gonna tag this point on with Jay’s, but I’m glad you brought it up. There is much to be said for not being a liability in totally missing your target. The rocket arms in the outfield often live with the risk that the bomb they fire in is going to be well off the mark.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 9, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Precisely. I love watching him throw the hammer down but he will occasionally be way off the mark.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 10, 2009 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec for AC quote taken totally out of context.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 11, 2009 12:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
From deep in the LGT…
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 11, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m so glad someone took the bait. Yes he was a QB, but no, it doesn’t help defend his arm. He was a QB in an option-offense, setting the school record for rushing yards. Here’s his bio. Notice the complete lack of reference to his passing yards.
by lenred on Dec 9, 2009 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A more serious response, in three acts.
ACT I, in which fleerdon directs lenred to the only actual statistics on outfield arms. They show, in summary, that while Grady Sizemore has been reliably below average in collecting assists, he has been league average in preventing the taking of extra bases. The article explaining the statistics also shows that the very best center fielders save 3 or 4 runs per season via the assist, due mostly to a lack of opportunity, confirming the above comments to the effect that assists just aren’t that important in center field.
ACT II, in which fleerdon observes that he cited Grady Sizemore’s quarterbacking experience as evidence not that Grady Sizemore possesses a strong arm, but that he is a well-rounded athlete capable of making the throws his position demands. The cited article highlights Grady’s footspeed and agility; it does not, however, say that he never passed the football. They could’ve made him a tailback.
ACT III, in which fleerdon wonders, “Since when the hell do LGT users bait each other?” and proceeds to chew off his own leg.
by fleerdon on Dec 9, 2009 11:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ACT I – I’m willing to give Grady the benefit of the doubt and say that his elbow probably contributed to his additional 3 runs below average this past year. That’s pretty cool analysis though. I’ve never seen it. thanks for sharing.
ACT II – I wasn’t arguing that he is a good athlete, just that he doesn’t have a good arm. Being an option-qb doesn’t immediately translate into great arm, it just means that he’s a good enough athlete that the football team is most dangerous when he gets the ball in his hands at the beginning of the play.
The baiting was actually not necessarily directed to the LGT community. I’ve just heard people at the water cooler talking about this subject through the years and knew that if I threw it out there as a topic, our very fine community would provide some statistical evidence supporting or refuting my claim. And I think you did a great job proving it, but making me believe it’s not necessarily as bad as I originally thought it was. But I still think he’ll have to be moved to LF as his arm certainly won’t improve with age.
by lenred on Dec 10, 2009 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tyler’s accusing himself of baiting, not you. Which he is, joking of course.
by afh4 on Dec 10, 2009 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Plainly, Grady doesn’t have much snap in his throws, and yet he’s preventing the extra base from being taken in spite of it. He’s doing something right.
Darn shame that THT shut down its in-house stats department. It was a nice mix of things you’d actually want to know, as opposed to FanGraphs, where I typically find myself thinking, “…the hell?”
by fleerdon on Dec 10, 2009 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, you and I ought to start a “not sure why anyone likes fangraphs” club.
I wish someone would give me mass pitch f/x data in a way that makes more sense. All I see is all those charts and I want the data behind them-the actual monthly averages, etc. I’ve seen those bots that can sort of give that to you but they’re annoying.
I also find BP’s stats pages irritating.
by afh4 on Dec 10, 2009 12:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like FanGraphs but have clicked over to THT for stats far more often. I liked having fast access to sortable, filtered leaderboards for FIP, PRC, RC and GPA — plus all the standard stuff. And I liked the simple package of defensive stats, too.
by Jay on Dec 10, 2009 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The fangraphs commentary is most grating for me. To them, every move is always as simple as converting a player’s WAR to a dollar value and then deciding if the contract they are paying is more or less than that amount.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 10, 2009 8:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. They seem quite oblivious to the word “context”.
by APV on Dec 10, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All I know is, I dial up FanGraphs, and I think, “Nerds.”
This coming from a guy who once asked for an MLA Handbook for Christmas.
by fleerdon on Dec 10, 2009 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you know what he’s doing right? getting to the ball very quickly.
by westbrook on Dec 10, 2009 1:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And sometimes just plain catching it. That makes taking extra bases quite hard I hear.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 10, 2009 2:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I continue to dispute that his arm is much below average — if at all.
Disagree. It’s pretty bad.
I’d also like to see some data supporting the idea that throwing strength declines rapidly in the late 20s.
It’s hard not to point to like 40 NFL players who prove this false.
by westbrook on Dec 8, 2009 7:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
For a non-pitcher who stays in top phsyical shape, I am inclined to think that arm strength stays mostly intact barring injury.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 8, 2009 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL is a completely different beast, even the throwing mechanics are different. Apples to oranges. As far as arm strength goes, there is nothing to suggest that Grady’s arm isn’t at least average.
by fwembt on Dec 9, 2009 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The fact that he had surgery on his left elbow might suggest his arm isn’t at least average.
by odradek on Dec 9, 2009 1:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also! One assist in 800+ innings isn’t good. The Tribe was 23rd in centerfield assists.
by odradek on Dec 9, 2009 1:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And what was the average?
And how many clubs had more than 3?
CF isn’t where you get your OF assists.
by Jay on Dec 9, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Assists are the batting average of fielding stats.
by fwembt on Dec 9, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wouldn’t rbi be a better comparrison? opportunity influenced, etc…
by Brick. on Dec 9, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
More like triples, I think. It does require special skill to rack up more than one or two, but it’s also influenced by opportunity.
by Jay on Dec 9, 2009 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hey, there’s also a side-symmetry to this in that triples and outfield assists can affect each other in a way… one kind of needs the other not to happen to happen.
by Brick. on Dec 9, 2009 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like this. I was mostly just saying it’s not much of a stat.
by fwembt on Dec 9, 2009 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I followed.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Dec 9, 2009 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fielding stats are the batting average of baseball stats.
by odradek on Dec 13, 2009 12:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
23rd out of 30 teams. Is that good? Of course there are all sorts of mitigating circumstances with assists, considerations which make it a flawed stat. Maybe runners don’t take chances when they know mighty Grady is out there.
I find this reaction kind of bizarre. A stat that suggests Sizemore doesn’t have a great arm, and the reaction is to denigrate the stat, rather than to acknowledge the possibility he doesn’t rank in the upper echelon of CFs in terms of throwing. If stats can be offered to dispute a point, the best response is to belittle the stat.
Watch the guy play. He doesn’t have a noodle arm, but he doesn’t have Suzuki’s arm, either.
by odradek on Dec 12, 2009 1:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, he doesn’t have a good arm and most likely is a little below average. But he is able to make up for it by doing other things well. And yeah, reliable stats on throwing arms are hard to find, which is why this is one argument that will probably never end.
by Cols714 on Dec 12, 2009 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are we talking about last year though? Because ranking 23rd in a counting stat category while missing significant time doesn’t really tell us anything at all.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 12, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
(and I do think Sizemore’s arm is a bit below average)
by Roger Dorn on Dec 12, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s the general consensus of people outside of LGT. I have no idea what the prevailing opinion is here.
The problem is that it is not easy to quantify so it’s mainly going by what you see. And we all know that people can see the same event differently.
by Cols714 on Dec 12, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think having one assist in 800-plus innings in center field is good or bad? Matt Kemp had 14 in 1355.1 innings. Mitch Maier had ten in 593 innings. I don’t recall seeing Maier throw, but I would assume, based on the number of assists, that he has a great arm.
There is enough of a difference—we’re not talking one or two assists here—to suggest Sizemore’s arm is now below average.
by odradek on Dec 12, 2009 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s bad, but it was an unusual season for him in many ways.
Grady had 16 assists total over his four full seasons. He’s trending down, though, and since that may be a real diminishing skill, so let’s call his norm 3 assists per full season. The median for a starting CF is something around 5.5.
Now, how much does it matter if Grady tends to be 2-3 assists short of the median? I telling you the answer is, not much. First, even if it means exactly what we think it means, the answer is cleary “not much.” Beyond that, we have much more sophisticated ways of estimating skill at holding baserunners. While you might suppose that Sizemore must be a liability when it comes to holding baserunners — based on what you would assume is a bad reputation — the numbers say the opposite. He’s actually above-average — despite his paucity of credited assists.
The main thing, though, is that you don’t get to compare to the very best guys in this category and then proclaim this other guy is “below-average.” You can’t say jack about “below-average” unless you can define — unless you actually grasp — what “average” is, and what it means.
by Jay on Dec 12, 2009 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I was cherry-picking with the best players. But that’s for dramatic effect. Whatever the median is, Sizemore is below it.
A reasonable person can make an assertion about players on the top and bottom of the list without “actually grasping” the essence of the average.
by odradek on Dec 13, 2009 12:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Major league average assists per game for centerfielders:
0.0499
Average assists per game for Sizemore:
0.0122
by odradek on Dec 13, 2009 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is almost exactly 6 fewer assists over 159 games.
Next question: How many more runs would a team tend to allow because of that?
Next question: Does Sizemore do other things to compensate, making him more effective at limiting extra bases than the assist stat seems to indicate?
Next question: Is 2009 a typical season for Sizemore, and is the 2009 variation from his career assist rate statistically significant?
Next question: How statistically significant is his career rate, in fact?
Bottom line: What should we expect his 2010 assist rate to be, and how many extra runs would that cause the Indians to allow — if any?
by Jay on Dec 13, 2009 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
His 2010 assist rate will continue to be below normal, because he is recovering from September elbow surgery.
His career assists are 17 in 6650.2 innings, a 0.023 rate (which is less than half the 2009 average for centerfielders in the big leagues).
I’m not arguing this is an important number in terms of runs allowed and losses. But it does seem to be an indicator of arm strength, which is what was being discussed.
by odradek on Dec 13, 2009 11:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that it seems to be an indicator of arm strength.
Again, you can’t get an assist if you (a) don’t get to the ball fast enough, or (b) get to the ball so fast that the runners aren’t tempted to take an extra base. Now tell me, based on the data, is it possible that Grady’s assist totals suffer from one of those two factors?
by Jay on Dec 14, 2009 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it’s possible nobody runs on Grady because he gets to the ball too quickly.
You have a guy with a bum elbow, and you’re saying he doesn’t throw anybody out because he gets to the ball too fast? Occam that for me.
by odradek on Dec 14, 2009 12:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We were talking about career numbers. He hasn’t had an arm injury for the bulk of his career. Occam.
by Jay on Dec 14, 2009 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And at least intuitively, it seems likely that you’re right, that his 2010 rate will also be lower than his career rate.
by Jay on Dec 14, 2009 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can someone tell me what the point of this argument is? Isn’t the key question how good Grady is at suppressing runs generally?
by FredOx on Dec 14, 2009 9:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We are just practicing, so we’ll be ready for a more important argument later on.
by Jay on Dec 14, 2009 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
This is the 5-minute argument in order to get ready for the full half hour.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 14, 2009 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Ah, so it’s like the Mexican Pacific League of argument.
by FredOx on Dec 14, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
23rd out of 30 teams. Is that good?
It pretty clearly is not good, but it isn’t necessarily bad. There may be no difference, or no significant difference, between #6 and #25. You actually have to check and see if it’s bad or not. A ranking alone doesn’t mean much. When I cite a ranking, I usually have done the legwork to make sure the implied meaning is reasonably consistent with a more detailed analysis.
Maybe runners don’t take chances when they know mighty Grady is out there.
More likely, he gets to the ball too quickly to tempt them, on a very consistent basis. At least, that hypothesis is consistent with the numbers.
I find this reaction kind of bizarre. A stat that suggests Sizemore doesn’t have a great arm, and the reaction is to denigrate the stat, rather than to acknowledge the possibility he doesn’t rank in the upper echelon of CFs in terms of throwing. If stats can be offered to dispute a point, the best response is to belittle the stat.
I know you will find this hard to believe, but you have the situation completely backwards.
If you have a sound approach to statistical evidence, the first thing you do given any statistical argument is to find ways to belittle the stat. Someone is making an argument, and it sounds good, but is it actually apt? That ought to be the gut-level, first response to any statistical argument.
Why you do not do this, I don’t know. You may not have a sound approach to statistical evidence. You may simply see an argument denigrating a Cleveland player and assume that it must be right, discarding any filtering for critical assessment out of hand.
The onus is on the person presenting a statistic to make the case that it is relevant to the point at issue. We skip this step all the time, of course, because so many of these points have already been well argued or proven — OPS is a solid quick-and-dirty comparison between two hitters’ performances, for example, and OPS+ is even better, and we don’t have to demonstrate that over and over again. Whether OF assists is a significant stat to talk about a CF arm, however, doesn’t come up nearly as often.
Watch the guy play. He doesn’t have a noodle arm, but he doesn’t have Suzuki’s arm, either.
Yikes, did anybody claim that he does? Of course he doesn’t.
by Jay on Dec 12, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In fact only Suzuki has Suzuki’s arm. Or it wouldn’t be his arm.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 12, 2009 8:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
(1) I do not have training in the field of statistics. I’m terrible at math. Go look around on Baseball Reference and tell me Grady looks so great. Do I have to add up numbers of assists per inning for all centerfielders to “actually grasp” the average, and therefore be able to pontificate freely? That would be tedious and menial, and I have better things to do.
(2)
You may simply see an argument denigrating a Cleveland player and assume that it must be right, discarding any filtering for critical assessment out of hand.Are you accusing me of not thinking?
(3) A baseball anthropologist, having no other information about Tris Speaker other than his career assists, would assume (correctly, in this case) that (a) Speaker must have had a hell of an arm, and (b) baseball was a significantly different game in the 1920s. And we’re overlooking that the dude had surgery on his throwing arm.
by odradek on Dec 13, 2009 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am suggesting you may have a bias, which is the sort of accusation you make practically every day.
If you don’t have any training in statistics, let this be your first lesson. It cannot be presumed that what a statistic seems to suggest, even persuasively, is actually true. Skepticism is the appropriate stance, and you simply have to dig to find the right answer.
by Jay on Dec 14, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Skepticism is the appropriate stance
Much like any proper paranormal investigation.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Dec 14, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I do have a bias. And I am skeptical to a fault.
I have no training in statistics and don’t plan to get any training. But I am aware of epistemology, so i know the limitations of statistics.
Where would I see such an argument denigrating Grady Sizemore? In The Maui News?
by odradek on Dec 14, 2009 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I have corrected Grady enthusiasm when it (a) seems self-serious and (b) exceeds his actual attributes to a non-trivial degree. Hell, I think he probably doesn’t deserve any of those Gold Gloves, except for the fact that most of the other Gold Glovers don’t either. I also think he’s a disappointment as a contact hitter. I think his continued (or restored) all-around greatness is very possible but not necessarily probable. People haven’t really made points counter to those, though, so there isn’t much call for me to respond in that direction.
by Jay on Dec 14, 2009 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I want to add that I think Grady suffers in your estimation, and many others, because of a confluence of miscomprehensions that are common among baseball fans. Too much emphasis on arm strength, not enough on arm accuracy. Overemphasis on batting average and strikeouts. Underemphasis on walk rates. Total lack of consideration or even measurement of baserunning acumen. And the kicker, the simple fact that players who are well rounded, rather than leading the league in one specific category, idiot or otherwise, are always underrated.
So all of this works against the gut-level perception of Sizemore as a player, plus an anti-Indian bias in your specific case. The only things working for him are his renowned hustle and the cover of SI, neither of which probably carry much weight with you.
Bottom line, what I’m saying is that unless you are overly persuaded by intangibles OR have really dug in deep with all the numbers and really and truly get what they all mean and how they all add up … then you are likely to mistake Grady for being merely a very good player. He is an exceptional player, and I know this because of of the facts, not in spite of them.
by Jay on Dec 14, 2009 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jay, of all the low things you can say! Anti-Indians bias? I am a fan of the goddamned Cleveland Indians, and have been for many years. One can be critical of one’s team and not have a bias against them. Please. I like Tony Sipp, even.
I have no interest in really digging deep into all the numbers. I will admit to being occasionally over-influenced by intangibles. But in this case I have an intuitive feeling that we aren’t going to see restored all-around greatness from him. He will continue to be a very good player, of course, but he isn’t going to be a great one. That’s my opinion.
I recognize that I had extraordinarily high hopes for this guy based on his 2006 and 2007 seasons. Almost over-optimistic, it turns out.
You make a good point about somebody being very good in many categories—and that defines Sizemore. Well-rounded players don’t get credit for their well-roundedness.
by odradek on Dec 14, 2009 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I meant only an analytical bias against Indians players.
I know you are a devoted Indians fan and have no cause to question it.
by Jay on Dec 15, 2009 3:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Eight is the MLB average. The Indians have six, in 1434 innings. Sizemore contributed one in 800-something of those innings.
by odradek on Dec 13, 2009 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Brett Favre probably has a football he’d like to throw your way.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 9, 2009 2:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, although I hate the guy, that sentence of mine would be in defense of him. I do think that it’s a sentence that has the potential to be read two diff ways, though.
Let’s try again:
There are like 30 NFL players in their late 20s who still throw a ball with enough arm strength that it is unlikely to be true that throwing strength declines rapidly at such an age.
by westbrook on Dec 9, 2009 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oooo yeah, totally read it the opposite way. Ok, sweet.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 9, 2009 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Mussina, Kevin Brown, Mario Soto, Pedro Martinez. Players who used to throw hard but who lost MPH on their fastballs. The guys who kept their speed—Ryan, Clement—are the exception.
by odradek on Dec 12, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And what are the numbers for pitchers that aren’t the ones handpicked who threw mid to upper 90s?
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 12, 2009 2:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure I understand your questions. Do you think I hand-picked four pitchers out of thousands with evidence to the contrary? I think the general arc for pitchers is to throw hard through the injury nexus, and then suffer a decline in velocity over the course of their late-20s. There are many pitchers who have to learn to pitch not throw.
Also: Roger Clemens, not Matt Clement.
by odradek on Dec 12, 2009 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And when it comes down to it, you’re also still talking about pitchers. Guys who do nothing but throw the ball and throw it very very hard. All the time. You don’t think that THEY are more likely to decline in arm strength than outfielder? If you don’t, I don’t know what to tell you.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 12, 2009 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We were talking specifically about between age 27 and age 31. I believe this nullifies your point … which was my point.
by Jay on Dec 12, 2009 5:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t remember any anecdotal examples. Andruw Jones? You don’t hear broadcasters say things like, “So-and-so used to have a cannon in the outfield, but not anymore” (unless there’s an injury involved).
by odradek on Dec 13, 2009 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Based on Girardi’s usage of Coke in the playoffs this year, it appears the Yankees weren’t too high on him anyway, despite his very good performance (IMO).
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Dec 9, 2009 8:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Based on Girardi’s usage of Coke in the playoffs this year, it appears the Yankees weren’t too high on him anyway…
Pun intended?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 9, 2009 8:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I credit any team that sells high on a reliever.
by Jay on Dec 9, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of which, have the Indians done this at all in the past few years? I can’t seem to recall any.
by hans on Dec 9, 2009 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Arguably, the entire DeRosa trade progression.
by fleerdon on Dec 9, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
he counts as 2 people if he’s flying coach.
by lenred on Dec 9, 2009 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And by “usage” I of course meant lack thereof.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Dec 9, 2009 8:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ok, last thing I’ve got on this for now:
That’s via FanGraphs, of course.
Scherzer threw 1200 more pitches in 2009 than he had in 2008 and he lost his fastball velocity as the year went on. Coupled with the mechanics issues, I think Scherzer carries substantial risk.
by afh4 on Dec 9, 2009 9:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I do think he is one of those prime targets for the Verducci effect next year.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 9, 2009 10:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He pitched last offseason in the AFL. He went from 130s to 170s. Not horrible.
by xrickx on Dec 9, 2009 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Have nothing to add except that I gotcho back on this.
by fleerdon on Dec 9, 2009 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn’t the assumption that he was originally the DBacks closer of the future?
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Dec 9, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he was too valuable as a starting prospect for that to really hold water, but I’m not too close to the pulse of the Diamondbacks to know.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Dec 9, 2009 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s been a drawn-out debate on whether or not he had enough pitches or if his motion would stand up to being a starter. The Diamondbacks and their fans remained undecided after this season.
I know nobody watches the NL but there’s a lot of internet buzz about “How can you give away Scherzer!” and no one points out that he really wasn’t all that valuable as a starter last year.
by afh4 on Dec 9, 2009 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rangers trade Millwood to the O’s and replace him by giving Rich Harden 7.5 M in 2010 and an 11.5 million option for 2011.
Presumably, that’s a club option. If so, I love that contract for the Rangers.
by westbrook on Dec 9, 2009 7:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Seeing as how Texas also ate some of Millwood’s money on their deal with the O’s and that Harden is a major injury risk how is this an improvement?
by The Grimace on Dec 9, 2009 7:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love the contract. As in if we had given it to him.
I also like Baltimore’s side of the trade. Giving up Ray and a nonshaptbnl for Millwood is a good move.
Maybe Baltimore should have just signed Harden though and kept Ray.
Just thinking out loud at this point.
by westbrook on Dec 9, 2009 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why spend $8 million and a reliever on Millwood on a one-year deal? This is a “win now” move. Are the Orioles ready to win now? At all?
by Jay on Dec 9, 2009 8:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Their offense could be ready. Maybe they think Millwood will “rub off” on their other starters… who knows.
by westbrook on Dec 9, 2009 9:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think in the mlb.com story there was a quote about “mentoring the youngsters.”
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Dec 10, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
they could have brought in omar to do that
by Brick. on Dec 10, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It’s a little risky, but if he’s healthy, Harden is a significant upgrade over Millwood, who has looked like a #5 starter as often as he’s looked like a #2 starter. Harden can be an ace.
by Jay on Dec 9, 2009 8:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Aw man, Ben Sheets is pissed.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Dec 9, 2009 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Byrnes has a pretty compelling defense of the D’backs haul, and he doesn’t really sound defensive.
Many people in the game seem to consider Kennedy a low-ceiling, run-of-the-mill right-hander, a view the Diamondbacks do not share.
“He’s 89-93 (mph),” Byrnes said. "He has four pitches. He has a sub-2.00 ERA in the minors. He was a Friday night starter at USC. His first stint in the big leagues was dominant. He pitched well in the (Arizona) Fall League.
“If that’s a generic talent,” he concluded, “there’s more pitching out there than I realized.”
by Jay on Dec 10, 2009 10:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The Diamondbacks considered Jackson “a safer bet to rack up innings.”
I think that’s a much bigger deal to them than the people analyzing the trade realize, for whatever reason. I don’t know anything about their 2010 bullpen.
by afh4 on Dec 10, 2009 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Joe Posnanski does his best in making you feel really, really awful about this trade.
by Toxicadam on Dec 11, 2009 8:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
He’s letting his man-crush get the best of him, but I do think this was a good move for the Yankees.
by Jay on Dec 11, 2009 9:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am afraid about what Granderson is going to do against RHP in Yankees stadium
by APV on Dec 11, 2009 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It better be a lot to make up for what he’s going to do against LHP.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 11, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Without a doubt.
I mean, hey, I don’t know how the prospects they traded will turn out — none of them seem especially interesting to me — but it doesn’t matter.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 11, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But for the Yankees, it really doesn’t matter unless they gave up a superstar, they can always sign guys to fill holes that could have been filled by the prospects they gave up.
by Cols714 on Dec 11, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I’m not saying it isn’t for the Yankees (I haven’t really formulated an opinion on it), but that statement is basically saying the majority of the players swapped in the trade have no relevance.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
by USSChoo on Dec 12, 2009 1:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
