Transactions: Ryan Garko Traded
by Ryan on Jul 28, 2009 2:47 AM EDT
in Transactions
Email
Print
Traded 1B/OF Ryan Garko to the San Francisco Giants for LHP Scott Barnes (A+)
Several years ago, I thought Mark Shapiro hung onto Ben Broussard a year or so too long. Broussard was a nice complementary bat, but by the time he was traded in 2006 he was making $2.5M with another raise to come after the season. But thanks to hitting in a platoon, Broussard hit .321/.361/.519 that season, and Seattle's Bill Bavasi bit, sending the Indians Shin-Soo Choo and Shawn Nottingham.
This time Shapiro traded Ryan Garko at just about his peak value. Garko, thanks to a recent hot streak, is hitting .285/.362/.464, is still cheap, although he'll start getting expensive in 2010 as arbitration kicks in. Garko's a below-average defender at first, and a massive liability on the bases, so his whole value is based on his bat. And the Indians have depth at first base, with Matt LaPorta ready for the majors. In the short term, though, the Indians are utilizing the roster spot to give Andy Marte some at-bats.
The Giants are probably the only team in baseball that views Garko as enough of an improvement over what they have to justify dealing for him. Their current first baseman, Travis Ishikawa, is a good defender, but only hitting .269/.318/.411. And that's not their only offensive weak spot (they're 15th in the NL in runs scored), so any offensive upgrade is a priority for them.
In return for Garko, the Indians get more much-needed young pitching. Scott Barnes is a 21-year-old left-handed pitcher with good command (career 2.6 BB/9IP) and good stuff (career 10.3 SO/9IP). He's also positioned to make the jump to AA fairly soon, which means he'll be ahead of the normal starter development schedule. From all I've read, he's going to be a starter in the majors.
I really like the timing of the move. Garko is more than three years removed from free agency, but will become less and less of a value as he gets into his arbitration years. And if the Indians feel that Matt LaPorta will be best at first base, Garko needed to go anyway.
524 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I really like this trade. Barnes looks to be a solid prospect, good way to fill a need. As for waiting too long on a player until their value diminishes I’d say Shoppach fits that mold now. In the off-season when Boston was looking and Texas was asking too much the Indians should have swung him. It may not have brought a Buchholz but at least a good quality pitching prospect. Now the team is paying nearly 2 million for a player that excels at striking out and getting plunked. With Santana in line for the job and Gimenez and Troegas as possible back-ups that 2 million (even more next year since arbitration dictates a raise) could be better spent.
I don’t agree they should have traded him in the off-season. Coming off the 2008 he had and with us thinking we’d be contending it was pretty sensible to keep hold of him. Finding a back-up catcher with the potential not to be black hole in the lineup isn’t that easy.
The only problem with trading Shoppach now is that he’s going to be worth next to nothing and, as back-up catchers go, he’s still useful to have around. We’re better off letting him try to ride our two-month drive to .500 and then deciding what to do. It’s unlikely he’ll get any worse and he might pick up and re-coup some of the value he had previously so we can get something decent in return for him.
I'm not from round 'ere...
I agree that I would have explored dealing him … and they probably did.
That said, it was a buyer’s market for catchers in the off-season.
Reds got Hernandez for Freel.
Astros got Pudge for next to nothing.
Montero was on the market. Half of the Rangers catchers were on the market. Laird got dealt for very little.
Varitek re-signed on the cheap. Orioles got Zaun for a song.
And other teams have big-time catchers coming up .. Arencibia, Posey, Wieters. The reigning NL ROY is a catcher.
If value wasn’t there, I had no problem hanging on to Shoppach.
You probably would have sold Shoppach well below his actual value … or about equal to what you would get for him now.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 28, 2009 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions
My exact point.
I get so frustrated with the “we should have traded him, Shapiro is a ninny” argument.
A clear look around baseball saw the market flooded with catchers.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 28, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions
You probably would have sold Shoppach well below his actual value … or about equal to what you would get for him now.
And how would that have helped?
You are advocating selling low on a player because you don’t like his low batting average and don’t understand value.
NEXT.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Unless I’m mistaken, FTF is not advocating for selling low on Shoppach at all.
Or am I missing a joke?
Yeah, I read the “You” in FTF’s post as disagreeing with the Grimace’s argument. Also, neither of them mentions BA. But Jay is clearly and understandably frustrated with people referencing BA at this point, as evidenced by his post below.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 28, 2009 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Correct. I’m not advocating selling low at all.
I’m saying trading him just to trade him last season WOULD HAVE BEEN selling low.
I mean I did say this at the end.
If value wasn’t there, I had no problem hanging on to Shoppach.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 28, 2009 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Because you don’t like his low batting average and don’t understand value.
This is the only reason a person would dislike Shoppach? I don’t care for Shoppach (no surprise there), ergo I don’t understand value and am a lover of batting average and other unrefined statistics?
I think by now a reasonable person could question Shoppach’s actual (actual, not pie in the sky) value.
This is the only reason a person would dislike Shoppach?
No, one might also have an exaggerated regard for strikeouts.
I think by now a reasonable person could question Shoppach’s actual (actual, not pie in the sky) value.
I’ll let you know if and when that ever happens.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’m confused. I question Shoppach’s value, so does that mean I’m being irrational about it? I think there’s plenty of reason to question what he’s done for us at the plate.
I also think there’s plenty of reason to give Gimenez an audition for that spot. Hope he catches Huff tonight.
-Kyle
I like Gimenez and would like to give him opportunities.
The Shoppach hate is almost entirely irrational, yes. What we have is a strong defensive catcher who, in 3.5 months of part-time play, has put up a 700+ OPS. His track record suggests that this is not his real level, but of course, even his whole track record is based on spuriously small samples. On top of this, a 700 OPS is just not that bad for a good defensive catcher in an off year. It just isn’t.
What bugs some people about Shoppach is not his overall production, but rather the way that he is producing it, the super-low batting average and strikeouts. The way that Shoppach’s shortcomings this season are exaggerated, plus a fundamental failure to value the other things he contributes, plus a fundamental misunderstanding of the significance of a couple hundred PA — are all basically irrational, and they combine to one big giant irrational cluster-storm. If you know what I mean.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I don’t disagree. I don’t think it’s helped matters that Shoppach has found himself surrounded by rookies at the bottom of the order all year.
I think the Shoppach hate stems from a desire to see Martinez at first more than a love of Garko (or, perhaps, the rational questioning of Shoppach comes from that). Going by what’s been mentioned lower down, Shoppach’s VORP and OBP are just slightly higher than Gimenez.
This has led to two points of confusion for me:
1) Why is Gimenez on the roster if not to catch? We have better guys in AAA who can play first and OF.
2) Why isn’t Gimenez catching guys like Huff, Sowers, and Ohka, who he caught in AAA? If the theory of familiarity is why Shoppach always catches Lee, wouldn’t that work for Gimenez (particularly considering the numbers a guy like Sowers has put up in AAA, but never come close to in the Majors?)
I suppose I have less Shoppach hate and more Gimenez love or, at least, a desire to see a viable replacement for Victor behind the dish until Santana is ready.
-Kyle
I think Gimenez is on the roster to see how he handles a part-time utility role.
Huff and Sowers need to get used to pitching to guys who are viewed as everyday players, unless Gimenez emerges as a personal catcher or even any kind of catcher. It may be that they don’t think much of his game-calling, I don’t know.
My own belief is that Shoppach will thrive again given an everyday role — not that he would duplicate his 2008 performance, but that he’d be closer to those numbers than to his current numbers. I can’t prove that, but I think its consistent with his track record. The bottom line for me is that I think it makes a lot more sense to bet on someone’s limited stats in a full-time role than his limited stats in a part-time role. The part-time numbers just don’t mean much to me.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yeah, I had the strange thought today that maybe it would be better for them to start playing Victor at first full time and get Shoppach and Gimenez behind the plate on a regular basis and see how that plays out. The fact that they’re not doing anything like that would seem to suggest they’re not really interested in dealing Victor. I worry that if they do, we have no viable bridge to Santana.
Given our log jam at first, I doubt Shoppach or Gimenez (or anyone else) will see much time behind the plate.
-Kyle
I can’t prove that, but I think its consistent with his track record.
i’m not trying to be critical, but you were ragging on someone today for stating their gut feeling. is stating a gut feeling okay or not?
by clusterchuck on Jul 28, 2009 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I really don’t dislike Shoppach. I could care less that his is hovering around the Mendoza line.The strike outs bother me because he isn’t putting good at bats with them. A lot of his K’s look like he is clueless up there. Last night he looked better for the first two AB’s but that one where he just watched a weak pitch go by for strike three was pretty bad.
I too get frustrated by some of his at-bats where he gets fooled; I liked his approach better last night where it looked like he cut down on his swing and was utilizing the whole field, which would help his BA be higher (probably much higher) than .200, cut down on his strikeouts, and cut down on his long slumps.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Again into the lion’s den. Shoppach has been hailed on this site as one of the unheralded power hitters in the AL, and a catcher who could start for two-thirds of the teams in the majors. This is fanboy hyperbole based on his 2008 performance. Maybe 2008 was aberrational. Look at Shoppach’s career stats and you have a pretty good, perfectly serviceable backup catcher. Nothing great, but you needn’t be embarrassed to have him on your team.
Shoppach’s VORP this season is 1.9, right next to Josh Bard. He ranks 38th out of 88 catchers in terms of VORP. Again, not bad, but you wouldn’t have a parade over it. His MLV is -5.6, again good for 38th out of 88 eligible catchers. We could mention the weak total base numbers, or lack of doubles, but that would be beside the point.
There is the matter of defense. Shoppach has thrown out only 9 of 50 runners (I know, I can hear a legion of defenders assigning blame to Indians’ pitchers). In terms of passed balls and wild pitches, Shoppach has not looked good (I realize also he has only two passed balls, but he’s benefited from a couple of dubious calls). His range factor is middling, his mobility behind the plate is restricted. He’s not having a stellar year on defense.
And then there is the matter of personal observation. I think pitchers adjusted to Shoppach’s exceptional 2008, and Shoppach hasn’t been able to compensate. Jay believes if he gets his reps, gets the motor running again, he can replicate his 2008 performance. It would be great if he’s right.
Is it possible that Shoppach’s career performance is simply Garko’s 2008 writ large? Extended periods of mediocrity marked by an amazing but abbreviated burst of offense? I can understand apologists for Shoppach. People who want to select good stats and minimize poor ones. That’s one way of looking at the world.
Note bene: There is no mention here of Shoppach’s BA or Ks.
Why use VORP when they’re all catchers, and the number will be as much about playing time as anything else?
We got 25 catchers with 200+ PA so far. Kelly ranks 20 out of 25 in VORP-rate — like I said, it’s an off-year — and 14 out of 25 in OBP. The question is, how significant are the off-year numbers?
I’m not that attached to his 2008 numbers. I see them as part of the picture but certainly not the whole picture. His career numbers are consistent with his 2007 season, around a 775 OPS, which also is almost exactly the average of 2008 and 2009. Why is that not the Real Kelly?
It is a fact that Kelly’s best production correlates with his concentration playing time. To me, that tilts the argument heavily in favor of his being a good full-time catcher.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I just chose VORP as a comparison with other catchers. His career stats are pretty good, just not top-starter quality.
Kelly ranks 23rd out of 93 catchers in the bigs this year in terms of innings caught (449.2). Incidentally, he has caught more innings than Victor. So he’s already getting a lot of playing time.
This could just be a quasi-sophmore slump.
by The Grimace on Jul 28, 2009 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions
And if the Indians feel that Matt LaPorta will be best at first base, Garko needed to go anyway.
I don’t know why people keep trying to pigeon hole LaPorta as a first baseman when almost everyone who’s seen him play LF says he’s good enough to play out there. I’d say Wegz is our future 1B.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
I’m with you on this one. There is nothing that dictates he can’t be a serviceable if not good LF. Look at Braun, man couldn’t hit one of the largest 1B in the league with his throws from 3B and now he is a solid LF. The only reason I can see LaPorta being shuffled off to 1B is because of Brantley. I also think that one of Wegz, Mills, or Hodges will be dealt if and when the time comes to add pieces to a contender (more likely one of the later two).
I’ve actually been thinking about this for awhile. Let’s assume LaPorta is ready in 2010 to play LF. That leaves Benny as the 4th OF. And my guess is Brantley will be ready no later than 2011. If Wegs is also ready in 2011, someone has to go between Wegs, LaPorta, Brantley, and Choo. [This assumes Hafner is still a legit DH]
If this is the case, my bet is they deal Choo or Brantley. And if Choo keeps hitting the way he is, I could seee us receivng a good #2 SP for him.
2011: C-Santana, 1B-Wegs, 2B-Valbuena, 3B-Peralta/Marte/Hodges, SS-Cabrera, LF-LaPorta, CF-Sizemore, RF-Brantley (am assuming his arm is better than LaPorta), DH-Vic/Pronk.
That means we could deal Choo, Vic/Hafner, and Peralta to get some legit SP help.
1. Victor will not be a DH, his value elsewhere is worth way more to us in prospects than here as a DH. And assuming Hafner is still around here then is wishful thinking.
2. Even rationalizing a scenario where all 4 prospects (Santana, LaPorta, Brantley, Wegz) mature to a point in 1.5 years where trading Choo is a viable option is ludicrous. I think at best you’re looking at LaPorta DH/1B part time with Wegz and Brantley in LF, with Choo planted firmly in RF.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
I’ve read that LaPorta’s OF defense (especially LF) is better than his 1B defense right now – in fact, LaPorta has even played some RF, and I don’t think most would have thought he would have been good enough to even consider using him in RF when we acquired him.
I too think that LaPorta will play more OF up in Cleveland than 1B – you have Martinez (for now), Brown, Mills, Weglarz (I think he could move back to 1B long term as well, since most say that Weglarz, at best, is average in LF, and has not played RF, and I don’t think we can expect Weglarz to ever play RF, unlike LaPorta – Weglarz’s defense, at best, will be no more than average in LF).
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Having watched Wegz in LF quite a few times … I would say he’s probably equal to LaPorta out there … he didn’t seem lost at all.
That said, you’re correct in saying someone will have to move.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 28, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions
I would like to take a moment to say something, to no one person in particular.
If you are really, really interested in batting average — either upset over someone’s low batting average, or excited over someone’s high batting average — then you should leave. Some goes for RBI.
I’m serious. We used to do a good job of educating people here and making it clear that we won’t repeat arguments over statistics that were well settled 10 and even 20 years ago. Maybe I’ve gotten a little lazy about this, but enough is enough.
This is not a site for people who are obsessed with what we call Idiot Stats. Batting average is an Idiot Stat. It is a piss-poor measure of all-around hitting performance. It is dramatically influenced by luck, so much so that you probably need to give it a 40-point margin of error just to get to 90% confidence. For that reason and others, past batting average is not even a reasonably good predictor of future batting average.
Yes, batting average matters, or rather, the ability to put the ball in play and reach base safely is one component of baseball performance. But other things matter more, starting with OBP and positional value.
I will not explain one more time to one more person why Shoppach would be a better player batting .220 than Garko would be batting .280. If you don’t understand this already, go and do some reading at Baseball Prospectus, or practically any book by Bill James. These matters are not up for debate — just like the gravity, they get tweaked from time to time just a little bit, but the basic law doesn’t change.
It isn’t a matter of accepting them, it’s a matter of understanding them. And if you refuse to understand them, then you aren’t going to like it here. I promise.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Or:
Some goes for RBI.
We goes for VORP.
Physically and mentally bearded
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s pretty solid right there Jay.
Some goes for RBI. We goes for VORP.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on Jul 28, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Gravity is a harsh mistress.
The Tick
"Actual versatility is a good thing. Imagined versatility is a bad thing."
Jay Levin
by woodsmeister on Jul 28, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
In 2005, on July 28, the AL central looked like this:
White Sox……..65-35
Twins………….54-47
Indians………..53-50
Tigers…………50-51
Royals………..38-64
We were 13.5 games back and we wound up 6 games back at the end of the season.
-Erik
BA has the records for teams on each day of each season, so I just looked at the individuals teams, compiled it really quick and then did the games back calculation.
-Erik
This is a pretty fun one to play with as well.
by The DiaTriber on Jul 28, 2009 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Oooh, I like that site Paul.
See everyone, data, data, everywhere, all you have to do is look!
-Erik
I will never forget the guy in my office who was so upset that all we could get for Broussard “a .300 hitter” was some AAA guy named Choo… I made a mental check note to avoid working with him on any future deals…
Stuart Dean
Without even knowing LGT existed at that time, I liked that trade.
Which reminds me… when we got him I was under the assumption that he was this huge stolen base guy… Crawfordesque. Which I only mention because of this.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
That’s priceless.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 28, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
maybe an alias for “IDIOT STATS” can be “PHILLIPS STATS”?
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 28, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Brings to mind one of my most favoritest FJM posts:
Batting average has never ever ever ever been Juan Pierre’s problem. That’s one of the like two and a half baseball things he’s good at. The issues are twofold here, though: 1. Batting average is stupid and 2. Batting average is really, really stupid.Also my one and only attempt to convince the commenters at the Ryan Garko Fan Club that he was mostly good at posting good Idiot Stats.
I couldn’t find it.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 28, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
In all seriousness, I’d like to point out that this sort of policy — Agree With Our Orthodoxy Or GTFO — is the sort of thing we’ve been accusing Wedge and Shapiro of in building their monoculture.
Something about this post really rubs me the wrong way, as there are certainly still people out there discovering this site and, let’s say, more rigorous analytical approaches to baseball, and calling them idiots for not having figured it out by now just makes you look like a bully.
by mrich on Jul 28, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I appreciate the perspective and even the sentiment.
However.
Not everything is up for debate. It is a fallacy (and a plague on modern discourse) that every viewpoint is equally valid.
Some things are a matter of fact, not opinion. It is a matter of fact that batting average is a poor measure of offensive contributions, that it is heavily influenced by luck, that it does not reliably predict future performance.
These facts — like the gravity — are settled. We should not spend time debating them, and any time that is spent debating them detracts from other discussion which may be had here, i.e., intelligent discussions regarding actual matters of opinion.
People who cannot accept this are in fact unwelcome here, any more than Flat Earthers would be welcome at a quality science forum.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 28, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks for the thoughtful response, and the unintentionally hilarious irony your .sig provides.
by mrich on Jul 28, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Batting Average = Intelligent Design
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
[deleted, politics]
Physically and mentally bearded
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I mean, I guess you could say that, but the point is precisely that it’s not “politics”, it’s a matter of “not every viewpoint is equally valid just because some people happen to adhere to it”.
More accurately, I should have said, Batting Average = Evolution Denial
But anyway, I’ll stop.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
But anyway, I’ll stop.
This. I’m not disagreeing, but, uh, just not the place for this.
Physically and mentally bearded
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
It could also fall under religion. Anything remotely close probably shouldn’t be mentioned though. It’s just too dangerous.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
Okay, I retract the “intelligent design” bit, in favor of the “evolution denial” version.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Your perception is way off. There’s a massive difference between casually referring to batting average and basing an opinion from it, to arguing that batting average is the best possible measure to support a viewpoint. In coming days, there will be many visitors who use batting average as a basis for a view. How difficult is it to counter that with another stat thats better and fails to support their view? Then, if the visitor insists that batting average is superior, you can point him to other materials. And that visitor may learn something and become a more educated fan. Lord knows we need a lot more of those. You see, I am not advocating that we debate the relative value of batting averages, only that we exercise patience with those not yet informed.
~ It's no fun throwing fastballs to guys who can't hit them. The real challenge is getting them out on stuff they can hit ~ Sam McDowell
I think there are plenty of people trolling forums who have been exposed plenty to advanced metrics — at least OBP and OPS — but don’t have the least bit of interest in exploring them. They like their batting average, damn it, and they like their players who have higher batting averages (mostly the white ones), and that’s how they’re going to evaluate all players, one way or another.
I won’t argue this. It’s settled already. They can argue it somewhere else.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I agree we have no use for those people. But if we get people who are open to new ideas, why not give them a chance.
Hell, I didn’t know anything about OPS or any “advanced” stats when I came here. It was trial by fire, but I stuck it out and learned as I went and am glad I had the opportunity to do so.
Physically and mentally bearded
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Right. You stuck it out under the same mean-bastard regime that I am continuing now. You are an LGT success story.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Ooh, I think I found a new sig
Physically and mentally bearded
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Wear it with a badge of honor!
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 28, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
From one Phil who likes to consider himself an LGT success story to another I salute you sir
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Whoa, another Phil?! The world has gone mad.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I WAS HERE FIRST!
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Not according to your profile
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Uh, Phil, you’re way wrong here.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 28, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I see what you did there. Or do I…
OK, not counting the switchover, when did you join, WD?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Stupid question but how do I check?
And to be fair I did try looking this up this morning
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Ha. If I knew how to check I would have… I forgot, too. I think I came on board in the offseason before the 2007 season.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Call me crazy but I swear I was here when the Indians acquired Coco. I’m not sure though.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
according to your profile, you joined on January 24th, 2006.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
and Turk in April of that year. Which means he underestimated his time here by almost a whole season…..
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Nice. Where did you find that?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
If you look on the blogroll down below your activity, it lists the join date for each blog.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Ah, yes. Thx.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks.
This makes sense because it says I joined John Sickles site in 2005. I remember following him over from his Down on the Farm reports from ESPN.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I remember you arriving shortly after me and Turk sometime after that. This sounds about right.
-Erik
I lay claim to being the oldest of the young dudes. Well, with the exception of maybe jhon. Yeah, I think he was here before me. Scratch that.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
yep
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Unfortunately, yes
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I lay claim to being the oldest of the young dudes. Well, with the exception of maybe jhon. Yeah, I think he was here before me. Scratch that.
Meaning you’re the young dude who’s been here longest or oldest meaning you’re the oldest age wise amongst the young people ?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Young dude who’s been here the longest
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Wasn’t he here the other day?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
ah
Hey speaking disappearing acts where’s Nick today?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, yeah
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Nope, I’m 23.
Sorry beat you again
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
GOD
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
PHIL FAIL!
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re just not who I thought you were
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
How old is Rontherim? He’s been here longer than Jay, according to the profile….
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Let me retract any statements that I have made about age. I was clearly way wrong. Perhaps what I should have said is that I was part of the “old guard” of young folks, as opposed to the “young turks” (no pun intended) like GFP and supermario.
Really, it was just an unnecessary e-peen measuring contest. Carry on.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I am definitely a much, much smarter baseball and Indians fan than I was before I arrived on LGT.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 28, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I am definitelya much, muchsmarterbaseball and Indians fanthan I was before I arrived on LGT..
This, in my case.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
This is probably also true.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 28, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I am currently learning a lot from LGT. It’s fun.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
I’ve learned a lot about The Office. Thanks for your contribution.
…i kid i kid. I haven’t learned anything about The Office
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
But it is so fun disagree with you. All stats are of value: OBP, batting average, RBI. The one that I have the most problem with is Positional value way to much is placed on offensive stats and not enough on defence, Jhonny is a good example, his range at 3rd is average at SS it was always below average, he does have the value but it he is not hitting he does little to help the team.
Fan in Texas
All stats are of value: OBP, batting average, RBI
Do you literally believe this to be true? What about Rolaids Relief Points? Just because somebody decided to start counting these events 100 years ago doesn’t necessarily make them worthwhile.
There is something to be said for reducing the amount of data you need to keep track of. Striking a balance between explanatory power and conciseness is a good goal. Most of us would argue that batting average doesn’t add enough to explanatory power to justify tracking an extra number.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Some stats have so little value that they serve no purpose in rational discourse. What does batting average tell us that other, actually useful stats do not? Nothing, other than that baseball, like all else in life, is subject to the vagaries of physics and luck.
Rational discourse is the key phrase here: If it includes these stats, it’s not rational discourse, because I say so. That limits it pretty clearly. But there’s a fallacy in such a solipsistic definition.
If for some reason all we had in the way of stats were BA and RBI, we (as archeologists) could still make certain judgments about hitters. Valid judgments, it turns out. Jimmie Foxx, for example, or Home Run Baker were good hitters. There would be others we would be misled about. Maybe Zack Wheat was a better hitter than his BA suggests. Idiot stats are not good stats, or quality stats, or even necessarily useful stats, but they are not worthless. If nothing else, these are primary components of more valuable statistical benchmarks. To insist they are absolutely worthless is kind of ridiculous.
RBI may be an Iguanadon’s thumb spike, but the point is we have the entire skeleton readily available to analyze. Hell, we have the La Brea tar pits at our disposal.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m aware of that. You’re missing my point:
If for some reason all we had in the way of stats were BA and RBI…
That’s the supposition. To say, “Your supposition is invalid” kind of misses the point. Which is: despite all the limitations—and inefficiencies—such stats are not totally worthless.
But why bother theorizing about a reality that doesn’t exist. We do have better stats readily available.
This is like saying if the only American movie anyone has ever seen is “Legally Blonde,” we could say American cinema sucks and there would be a basis for that opinion. But that’s simply not the case, and the supposition is silly.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
You could also say that “Legally Blonde” was the best movie you’d ever seen and be right…
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Right, that fits the analogy better.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
anyone who’s anyone knows that “legally blonde 2: red, white and blonde” was the far superior film.
/dummies…
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 28, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
This is just a pointless argument he likes to get in every few weeks.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Also, did you know that good pitchers don’t get hurt?
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 28, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
DTF, this is really over the top. What I said was: Plenty of good pitchers get hurt, and then they’re no longer good pitchers. That’s a pretty basic, simple, irrefutable statement that seems to go over the heads of some of the peanut gallery here. If you feel this is a good time to revisit this subject for any reason other than to trash me, I’ll continue.
Actually, you said exactly that, only you prefaced it with the phrase “ipso facto.”
My response, and others’, was about the illogic of the way you phrased it, not your argument that a pitcher who is hurt can’t pitch and therefore can’t be good, but you kept arguing about it anyway.
Sorry if I offended you, and no, I have absolutely no interest in revisiting this.
.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 28, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Lots of things that other people talk about are smart. It’s just that right now, you’re not one of those other people.
As Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter: “There you go again.” You could be right, and I could be wrong about the innate value of primitive statistics. You could say I’m wrong. But instead you make an unfounded assertion about my intelligence. Last time it was a comment about my sanity, or lack thereof. I don’t get the need for that.
I respect your intelligence. I disagree with you more than most, but I like to think I do so respectfully.
He didn’t call you not-smart, just your topic of discussion.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
As Logo said, I don’t question your intelligence. But smart people get caught up in dumb things all the time — specifically, in things that I think are dumb, no doubt you have your own standards (and can start your own blog/forum where your standard is the standard). I myself am not above this by any stretch of the imagination.
I believe we agreed before in a friendly way that neither of us is entirely sane. Hope I didn’t misunderstand.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’d never have guessed this ahead of time, but Tyler may actually be having more fun, today, than the rest of us.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 28, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
No problem. I say dumb things all the time. And I’m not entirely sane. I don’t want to belabor further these same stupid points (injured pitchers, idiot stats), but I was just trying to make semantic distinctions that were being ignored. I wasn’t arguing in favor of BA, just saying it has fundamental (if limited) value.
You’re the bartender in this tavern, and it’s your job to tell loud mouths to put a sock in it. And I respect that.
The purpose of this little game is to demonstrate we can infer something of value from idiot stats. If you compare wOBA with BA there would be a significant correlation.
Yeah, and I’m saying that game is stupid. It serves no purpose except to rationalize stupid talk. This site is not for stupid talk.
In case I haven’t made it clear, this discussion literally is unwelcome here. You can go have it elsewhere, we have better things to discuss.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
This site is not for stupid talk.
Is The Office smart? What you’re really saying is self-defining: If you’re talking about it, it’s smart. If somebody else is talking about it, it’s not smart.
I think the Office is smart. For a comedy to have as much widespread success as it has had there has to be some kind of intelligence involved to create the perfect balance of humor that appeals to the average viewer and people who are much more critical.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
Arrested Development. Ahem.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
Right, but AD didn’t last 6+ seasons. It’s my favorite show of all time but, for one reason or another, it did not achieve teh same widespread success that The Office has.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I honestly don’t like Arrested Development.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 28, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Wow, really? I’m surprised.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I also despise Home Movies.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 28, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know what that is. I mean I;ve heard of it, but never watched it.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I think I’m too old to properly appreciate anything on Adult Swim. And I mean real age, not “give CG a hard time because I wish I was 19” age.
I don’t like AD either.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Who are you people?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
our numbers grow by the day
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
There are dozens of us! DOZENS!
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Tried very briefly to get into it and failed. Plan on taking another swing sometime soon, starting from the first episode this time.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
i found i enjoyed it best watching it very large lumps starting from the beginning. the long-running gags got much funnier to me that way.
Agreed
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I highly recommend. It’s one of two shows I’ve ever been obsessed with to the point where I could watch any episode, any time and still laugh. The other, of course, is The Office.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I think The Office is pretty smart.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
It is true that we set the standard as moderators based on our own judgments. It is also true that we are not always perfect models of our own standards, even if we would like to be.
Finally, it is absolutely not true that if someone else is talking about it, it’s not smart. Lots of things that other people talk about are smart. It’s just that right now, you’re not one of those other people.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
That is not at all what is being said here. The main idea is that we are no longer discussing things that have been proven to be inherently flawed (like BA or RBI). Discussion on The Office has not been proven to be mostly useless.
No, its mostly useless a priori. But that’s okay.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions
This isn’t directed towards anyone but here’s my .02 cents
This entire argument about the theoretical justifications for using batting average is stupid. (No offense to anyone). Anyone who’s smart enough to justify using batting average in the .000001% of the time its useful is smart enough to know that they need to explain why it’s being used.
Here’s my rule of thumb:
If you use an idiot stat in argument I’m going to laugh at you and consider your point, and you, to be stupid until proven otherwise.
I’ll listen to a specific argument why BA should be looked at in the context of a specific situation, but damn you better be prepared to prove that gravity doesn’t exist because that’s what you’re trying to do
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
.02 cents
that’s not very much at all….you are offering 1% of the insight indiansfan offers (which is still way more than my insight I guess…)
Cents are an idiot stat anyway.
by cleveland teamer on Jul 28, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
especially measured in terms of verbage.
(not criticizing your quality, indiansfan)
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
This whole conversation is kind of pointless. No, BA and RBI aren’t useless. In context, there may even be a situation where they become marginally useful in combination with other things. But in the vast majority of cases, people bringing up Idiot Stats do so either in isolation or in combination with other Idiot Stats.
I have to say I’m a little upset Adam didn’t comment on this.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Not a paleontologist. PaleoANTHROpologist. If it is on four legs my interest is only really raised if it ate, or was eaten by humans and human-like things.
I know, I just thought you’d get a kick out of it.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
But, I mean, a geocentric theory of the solar system has some use if that’s all you have, but there’s no point in hanging onto it after Copernicus….
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we may have gone a little overboard on the batting average bashing.
A lot of stats are better than avg., especially for determining the overall quality of an offensive player. OPS and OPS+ are my personal favorites. But, if the argument is that AVG can’t be part of a good conversation about baseball, well, I disagree.
OPS or wOBA might be better for determining the best all around hitter. OBP might be better for determining the guy most skilled to get on base. But AVG can be useful. For example,
In general, I like a AVG/OBP/SLG line of:
Season A: .320/.390/.490 more than
Season B: .280/.390/.490.
I think the first season was better- it was more productive. The walks and HBP that the second player achieved were not as valuable as the singles the first player achieved. However, because I do know the limitations of AVG and its susceptibility to variation and the value of being able to draw the walk, I would be more excited about season #2 if it came from, say, a prospect’s AAA season. And unless there was a certain consistency to the player, like, say, I would take the .320 average with a huge grain of salt and high expectation of regression.
But a stat’s predictive value is only a small portion of why people love the numbers of baseball. Season A was a better season. If you want to talk about who should be an All Star, who should be in the HoF, who was the best CF in Indians history, etc. The arguments that get us through the dog days of a lost season, or the long wait between October and when pitchers and catchers report, then batting average remains a part of the conversation. And as long as its not being touted as something that its not (highly predictive, more valuable an offensive indicator than “better” stats, the only thing someone can cite), then I don’t see anything wrong with that.
It’s possible that season A was a better season, purely in terms of productivity, but the guy who had season B is a better bet to do better going forward…. A lot of the difference is presumably BABIP.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Who’s to say that Guy B doesn’t have a terrible BABIP? I think you can use this argument as a retroactive analysis of who had a better season, but it has little to no predictive value as to which of the two will have a better season.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m saying that guy B probably does have a terrible BABIP, and is slugging .490 despite that. Guy A has his OBP and SLG both propped up by a lot of lucky balls that fall in.
Now maybe guy A hits more line drives and should have a higher BABIP, but if he’s only getting on base and slugging at the same rate as guy B, do we care?
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions
But what if Guy A has a terrible BABIP and still has the higher BA? Eh? EH?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s very hard to imagine, but I suppose it’s conceivable if guy A never strikes out and guy B strikes out a lot. Whatever you think of that scenario, it’s far more likely that the BABIP discrepancy goes the other way, and so if all you see are these triple slash numbers, you’ll do better to bet on player B.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, there is even more discussion to be had when you throw in K rates and BABIP. Average is part of that discussion (but maybe only to rationalize its usefulness or uselessness).
Still, “you’ll do better to bet on player B” is true only if you are trying to see who will do better in season two. What if you are trying to vote or debate about a 2B Silver Slugger Award for the given season? Potential or prediction of next year doesn’t matter. Yet we have those discussions all the time. In this context AVG becomes useful, in my opinion, without a doubt.
Well, I don’t know…. wouldn’t you rather give the award to the more talented, rather than the more lucky, player?
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Personally, not at all. Awards are for what actually happened, not what could have happened or what should have happened or what has the potential of happening.
Slippery slope. What you find, the more you think about this, is that there is no clear line between “what happened” and “what the player did.” What is the difference between giving a player an MVP for the most RBI and giving a pitcher the Cy Young for the most wins? Very little. But are RBI any more situational (non-skill-based) than yielding hits on balls in play? That’s not entirely clear.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I don’t kno, I think its clear that RBI has an extra level of situational-ist quality than AVG. Not only do you have all the problems with AVG factored in, but you have the problems of it being a counting stat when the chances vary drastically from player to player.
Anyway, I’m not rejecting that luck has a lot to do with it. I accept that you have to be pretty lucky to have an incredible award-winning season. Here’s one for ya… how situational (luck based) are TEAM wins in comparison to RBI or AVG.
I don’t think that’s the purpose of the award. Awards recognize who had better seasons. Do you really think Cliff Lee is more talented than Roy Halladay?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
No, but I also don’t think he was more lucky last year, either.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 28, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you really think that using wins is a legitimate argument for who should get the Cy Young?
I’m not saying we should look beyond the present season for a season award, but I do think we should try to weed out luck within that season the best we can.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
No, I obviously don’t think wins is a legitimate argument. Even the dullest sportwriters are capable of looking past that for the most part. I guess my point is that awards are meant to recognize accomplishmens, not potential. We can split hairs about how to measure those accomplishments, but that is the intention.
To link to another current thread, no one gave the ’95 Indians the tile just because there had more talent than the Braves.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, I’m suggesting that not taking BABIP luck into account is kind of like relying on wins. I’m not disagreeing that we should look at accomplishments rather than potential (otherwise we’d be giving these awards to minor leaguers a lot of the time), but I’m saying we should look at things that are demonstrably accomplishments and not largely luck.
Of course everything has some luck, but some stats more heavily so than others.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not disagreeing that we should look at accomplishments rather than potential
OK, then we’re not at odds at all here, because I’m with you everywhere else.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey, that’s twice that we’ve come to an agreement today. It’s a good day.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, I don’t think we’ve ever really been at odds. It’s a good day, but I don’t think it’s any better than many other days. Could be luck. We may have just run into one.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but we figured out that we weren’t at odds. That’s valuable.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Indeed
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you can definitely feel that a certain pitcher performed better in a given season while not being the more talented pitcher over the long haul, even after you filter out all the luck variables that you can.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
So, in other words
I’m not saying we should look beyond the present season for a season award, but I do think we should try to weed out luck within that season the best we can.
?
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Bingo – suatainability. It reminds me of the time that Jim Ingraham wrote in ST that the FO should be happy that Coco’s OBP was .390. I was down there at the time and wanted to hit hiim with a bat. “Hey Jim, Coco is hitting .373! How freaking long do you thank that can continue?!”
Stuart Dean
This sub-discussion here I think is the most important, as far as batting average goes…. Okay, it may be useful, but it’s actually bad, once you control for OBP and SLG.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
This argument gets made in the abstract sometimes, but one problem is that in actual use, batting average is never used that way, and to the extent that it is, it’s usually resting on a fallacy. The whole thing becomes an elaborate rationalization where the conclusion — inevitably — is that the batting average apologist just likes players with higher batting averages. Likes them too much!
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Here are three AL players:
BA OBA SLG
.223 .326 .393
.225 .319 .400
.275 .326 .400
Some people still believe that if you have two players with equal OPS, but one has a higher BA, that the one with the higher BA is more valuable. They believe this despite the fact that more sophisticated run estimators show them to be of nearly identical value, with an edge for the lower BA if anything (with the caveat that we are considering a normal environment in the modern major leagues). This is illustrated by these player’s RGs, which are 4.45, 4.51, and 4.43 respectively. Not that I intend this to prove anything, but the players’ (R + RBI)/Out are .32, .33, and .31 respectively. (R + RBI – HR)/Out are .29, .28, .27.
You should always remember that if you have identical OPS but varying BA, the player with the lower BA has a better combination of secondary skills. Incidentally, the players are Brandon Boggs, Gary Sheffield, and Billy Butler.
from here
I’m not familiar with RGs, but I don’t think this does much to my point.
First, the lower AVG guy may have better “secondary skills” in that he has a better eye, or at least walks more. But, as considered above, it could also have to do with the higher AVG guy’s superior k-rate or LD%.
But mainly, this is still trying to value the player in ability or predictive nature. And while often stats are used for this way, they aren’t always. My large point here is that sometimes you just want to know what happened. And in that limited sense, AVG can be used. Although it should only be used when also considering OBP, BB%, K%, LD%, wOBP, OPS and all the other metrics we love to use.
One of these things is not like the others….
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 28, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
way to much is placed on offensive stats and not enough on defence, Jhonny is a good example, his range at 3rd is average at SS it was always below average, he does have the value but it he is not hitting he does little to help the team.
This is certainly open for debate. My own understanding of Jhonny’s relative value at SS and 3B has evolved this season.
If you read my big front office critique a few weeks ago, I questioned the same orthodoxy you’re questioning. It’s one thing to keep Victor at catcher, where his bat’s positional value may be worth two extra wins. It’s another thing to keep Jhonny at shortstop, where his ability relative to what he can do at third base may essentially be a wash.
In any event, this is a lot more of an intelligent discussion than complaining about batting average.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I am NOT going to disagree that RBI is a stupid stat. Like every other orthodoxy, however, there may be exception(s). If you take someone like Eddie Murray coming up with less than two outs and a man on third, I just knew that Eddie was going to get the guy home. Was that thought completely invalid +/- derived of some planted impression? Did he have a value above and beyond any other player in that situation?
Stuart Dean
Or the talent of guys getting on base ahead of him? Really, this is your intuition based on seeing him knock in runs in clutch situations, but it isn’t an exception to the idiot stat phenomenon.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 28, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Eddie Murray had a career OPS with a runner on third and less than 2 outs of .999, 160 points higher than his overall average. Not to mention 127 SF. There are lots of ways to address whether he produced and in what situations. RBI is not the way to do it, however.
And what is the average hitter’s OPS differential in that situation?
And forget average hitters, among those whom we would consider great hitters, was Murray’s differential in that situation really higher than is typical?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
But you could at least — at least — use a rate stat (like RBIs per PA/RISP?)…. Using a counting stat that fails to take into account the number of RBI opportunities is completely silly.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Right.
Even if you’re deeply concerned with “run production” as a situational matter, nothing can salvage the banality of RBI as a metric.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I forget where I read this, but I someone said the only potentially use for RBI is to see who “did the damage” in a given game. That makes sense to me.
Physically and mentally bearded
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
But it’s still wrong. Someone still has to provide the opportunity for the damage. Those guys who are getting on base, it’s not like they’re just holding the football for a kicker. They had to get on base!
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yeah, I get that. I’m not arguing for RBI’s worth. I bring this up as the only possible way one could find any value in the RBI stat. Even then, it’s totally visceral at best. Like when you see a guy who had 7 RBI in a game, you say “whoa, he had a hell of a game,” but that doesn’t have any sort of predictive value (nor does it tell the story of the game in anything resembling an accurate manner).
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, one virtue of RBI that it (lamentably) is readily available.
The larger point is that it’s not productive for us to work on ways to rationalize RBI as a useful stat. The goal is to quantify as a means to evaluate effectively. If we work on that goal, we won’t catch so much as a sniff of RBI.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Sounds right to me
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s available-ness is exactly why it’s deemed important.
Look, way back, someone decided a box score would tell you 4 basic items, at-bats, runs scored, hits, and rbi.
So, those 4 became the Holy Grail of stats … unfortunately, they remain so to this day to many.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 28, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Seriously. The bunts discussion is infinitely more substantive than batting average and RBI — and that’s not saying much.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Boy it was easy in my day, you just went to the game and watched the player and if you knew anything about the game you could tell who was helping the team win and who was not. well I’m just going to take a nap and dream of the old days.
Fan in Texas
In my day we had nothing BUT Ryan Garkos! And we liked it!
by Chemo on Jul 28, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This very idea has made this season tough for me. Last year I watched almost every game live but new little about advanced statistics. This year I have learned about them, but have drastically been reduced in live game watching because of my second shift job. If it weren’t for this place, I’d have little to no clue what was really happening.
Shin-Soo Choo, future U.S. Citizen.
Instead of shutting down and leaving, though, you should take this as an opportunity to learn more about modern metrics. In turn, you’ll probably learn to watch players a little differently, too, and then you can still tell who’s helping the team win.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I have read a few of the books on baseball modern metrics and agree on alot of the info, but not all, there is still alot to be said about the old scouting ways, For a team to be successful you need a combo of both. I have no idea what that % should be. But right now I think the Indians have moved to much to the stat side or maybe they have some bad scouts.
Fan in Texas
Yeah, a combo, definitely. But scouting is closer to modern stats than it is to batting average. It’s trying to look at a player’s underlying ability, rather than their chance results.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I have never considered batting average as a major aspect when looking at player that I would like to see playing with the Indians, but I do think it is an eye catcher, that lets you dig deeper into the player true value.
Fan in Texas
You think that, but it’s been disproven. You can also think that objects of different weight or density fall at different rates, but that too has been disproven.
Not only does batting average not let you dig deeper into a player’s true value, it often means exactly the opposite of what its fans think it means.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
you don’t think there have been some GMs over the years who got to wanting a guy because of BA?
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
Well, technically objects of different weight do fall faster (because of fluid flow). In a vacuum, they all fall the same.
It isn’t really all that different as it may seem.
I got into a certain habit about ten years ago, while I was watching games. Every time the ball was put in play, I would categorize it as a “drive” or an “out.” I made a conscious effort to celebrate/protest the outcome of the play as far as rooting for the team, but as for the player at the plate (or on the mound), I rated him as having either created a drive or an out. Thus, seeing-eye grounders were “outs,” but smash line-outs were “drives.” I still do this to this day.
Never once did I calculate OPS while watching the games, but after ten years of doing this, I find that my gut instincts about any player I watch are a lot better than they used to be — they correlate not to what happened today or this week, but to how good the player really is or will be over the long haul. As you can imagine, this was a big help as Valbuena struggled to reach .200. I never stopped thinking of him as a really good prospect who might already be a good major league hitter — because he kept hitting “drives” right in front of my eyes.
This is extremely primitive, but it’s the bare beginnings of scouting — observing what the player is actually doing rather than what the result of the play is in the scorebook. And it fundamentally isn’t much different than taking his batting line and performing a BIP normalization.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 28, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
How comprehensive are your records? Could be fun to see those.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I have no records. It’s just making a mental note of how the player really did.
I don’t think this is particularly remarkable, except perhaps for someone coming from a particularly statistical bent. Serious baseball guys, former players and coaches do this all the time, but then they get tripped up on batting average. If they understood the math better, they’d find that advanced metrics conform quite well to their visual observations.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yeah, pretty cool though
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Try it, it’s not hard. You’ll be amazed how much more often you start predicting when a pitcher’s about to get hammered (or removed by a savvy manager), or when a certain hitter is about to go on a tear. Don’t watch the hits, watch the drives.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yeah, it’s one of those things that I always kind of “feel” but have never attempted to quantify. Mostly because the years that I am most “into” baseball unfortunately often coincide with the years I watch the least baseball.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
take it one step more and watch which player make the correct defensive plays. Garko was a good example no matter how much he tried his feet were in wrong position, he was leaning in the wrong direction he just did not have the skill need to be a good 1st baseman.
Fan in Texas
if you knew anything about the game you could tell who was helping the team win and who was not
Except you probably actually couldn’t. That isn’t intended to be a personal insult, but you can watch 162 games and, at the end of the season, not know who was a good player without some way of statistically quantifying that. You could watch a game and actually get the impression that David Eckstein is helping the team. And he’s not.
But how many people are actually doing this? I do, you do, my dad does, but the list gets very short after that.
I honestly don’t know. I got my friend Jason hooked on it. Once it’s in your head, it’s hard not to start doing it.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I am pretty sure I take this into account when I watch games. Unfortunately, I watch fewer than a quarter of our games.
This is the problem with not being willing to shell out the $$ for cable tv.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
MLB tv is cheaper than cable. I don’t have cable either.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, no, I’m not. Forgot about regional blackouts.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah come to think of it, my dad’s been doing this since I was in little league. I had forgotten about that until I just talked to him about the Garko trade.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Even if you use a rate stat, it’s validity is largely determined by sample size. That’s why clutch hitting is not a provable phenomenon. Better than RBI, but still not that valuable.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 28, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I like counting RBIs in fantasy baseball. Real baseball, not so much.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
does this effect my contention that RBI Baseball is one of the greatest video games of all time?
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 28, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
JHONNY: “He is preparing to run into one. The man that is always shouting wants us to do that.”
-Erik
by drerikbrady on Jul 28, 2009 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, Marte is selfish that way. Insists on hitting the baseball instead of letting the baseball hit him.
Maybe marte needs me to be by his side
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Are you gonna loan him your physical beard or your mental beard?
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the latter would look better on him, but the logistics of doing the former make me laugh more.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Just don’t use ClemsonGirl’s hairdresser, or it will run you at least $150.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
So she’d turn away Katie Holmes then, I take it?
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
i see a nicholas cage movie in there somewhere…
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 28, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I think he looks just like Fred Flintstone in that one.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 28, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
You have to be relieved that this particular problem is gone, and off our list, for so many reasons. Now if Shapiro could only figure out how to both trade Phifer for max value and magically defer much of Pronk’s next three years salaries into future years I’d really be happy.
I know I for one would be happy to see this happen…but, it has to be absolute max value for Cliff.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 28, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
it can’t be anything else. He’s been absolutely awesome these last 2 years and he has a very reasonable option for next season, so whoever trades for him gets 1.5 years of Cliff.
Tampa Bay, get it done!
If we win our next 5 and the leaders continue to scuttle… it could get interesting.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on Jul 28, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Doesn’t matter what our record is. What matters is how many games back we are and how many teams are in front of us
Well that’s true, I just wanted to point out how absolutely buried in the standings the Indians are. A 5 game hot streak doesn’t put them anywhere near back in the running. If they win the next 10 straight I’ll start paying attention. But even then, if they reel off some epic win streak like that, they’ll still be well under .500 (which, a .500 record is a decent barometer for being in contention in August I think; if you’re under .500 on August 15th it’s safe to say your’e out of it, no matter how bad your division is) and probably something like 6 games back with 2 or 3 teams ahead of them.
/debbie downer
I think it’s interesting now but I may have a different definition of interesting. For example, they’re playing.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 28, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh come on. We won 5 in a row. That’s slightly interesting. If we win 10 in a row in a season like this, we have to say that’s interesting.
-Erik
While still being 11 games under .500, and likely still 5 or 6 games out of third place?
It’s going to take more than 10.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we should stop thinking this way and then if it does “get interesting” it’s a bonus. Right now we should just enjoy watching baseball in a no-pressure season.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
I’ve sort of been going through this stages-of-grief thing with this Indians season and I guess I’m now, ever so slowly, finally coming to Acceptance. I actually watched a few innings of last night’s game; the first I’d watched on TV/internet since late May (I went to a couple games here in Chicago, but that was more to hang with friends and family and, yes, the Indians lost both games in brutal fashion). Anyway, the bittersweet excitement of another trading deadline spent auctioning off our spare parts has pulled me back in and I’m interested in this team again.
Will I ever escape for good?
No, we weren’t. At least not necessarily. We were in third place, two games out of 2nd. All that we needed to do was get a little hot and have one team struggle for a while and the other keep pace.
Now, we’re in 4th, 8 games out of third. We need three teams to struggle (albeit to a lesser extent than the leader in 2005) while we get hot. It’s less likely to occur.
And also, the wild card situation is much different.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I think I get what the good Dr. is saying though, that a terrible team like this one winning 10 straight would be an interesting and worthwhile event. It would not mean that they were anywhere close to contention though.
Okay, yes. I can get behind saying it’s “interesting”. By that standard it’s already “interesting”, in that I have a sense of excitement about Indians games that I didn’t have a week and a half ago.
So long as we’re not talking about contention.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I should note that I first started coming to LGT after the 10 game winning streak last year, because it was really exciting, and because I wanted to spend more time reading and talking about the Indians. So yes, it was interesting in that sense.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m assuming “this problem” refers to Garko. Forgive me for saying so, but he deserves a little more respect than what some on this site have offered. Obviously Garko has limitations and he’s due to get more expensive, but he’s carved out a decent ML career and hit better than the average ML hitter (position aside). Trading him now is prudent. I just wouldn’t be so dismissive.
you want to celebrate his relentless mediocrity?
ryan, you may have been the suck, but here’s a nice parting gift…
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 28, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
It wasn’t my intention to be dismissive. Garko definitely has his virtues (he hits lefties better than many if not most Indians), but his price is about to go up in a year where we need payroll room. That’s a problem. He occupies a spot, first base, we need for other experiments. That’s a problem. His value as a player is a function of his bat, since as Ryan noted he’s a liability in the field and on the bases, and his hitting effectiveness comes and goes in spurts. Problems.
That’s all I meant to say, and I wasn’t trying to be critical of Garko. If our team had performed better on the field all season long we wouldn’t be in this fix, and Garko might well still be here.
Does anyone have a valium? because Dennis Nosco is getting under my skin.
Man, do I loathe that guy.
forums on indians prospect insider. The fans say Garko sucks and Barnes is great to justify the trade, but he thinks we got too little for Garko and Barnes has the upside of Jeremy Sowers. We should’ve traded Garko last year after his “great RBI run”.
I don’t know why I keep responding to him.
I know, I just have to respond to nonsense.
btw, here’s what BA has to say about the trade:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/majors/trade-central/2009/268613.html
You know as much as I like this trade. It’s still kind of sad that he’s gone.
Plus he looks like he’s aboutt o cry in his picture which makes me sad.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
I shed a tear for Gark. I always kinda liked him, though I never thought he was a very useful piece. Still, I have some good memories of him.
Physically and mentally bearded
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I will always remember Garko like this:
by jayme on Jul 28, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I haven’t had any luck searching the internets for the famous 2-beers Garko celebratory photo. Anyone?
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
I can’t bring myself to delete my saved Tweetie search for “Garko”:
robbreck:
Good news: the Giants just picked up a guy who immediately is their 2nd best hitter. Bad news: the Giants second best hitter is Ryan Garko.MooheadRadio:
Watch: Ryan Garko will blossom into a consistent .280 hitter. We got a low level minor league pitcher for him. He will never see the majors.Moohead(again):
How do you trade a proven 90 RBI major leaguer for a low level minor leaguer?You can listen to Mr. Moohead’s show at 5 pm M-F.
I think I listened to this once a long time ago.
I felt like I got dumber by the second.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 28, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I love the fact that the guy with a career .283 average is going to “blossom” into a consistent .280 hitter.
- -
I wish Twitter was around during 2002.
Montreal Sports Guys:
We got Bartolo Colon for Lee Stevens and some low level minor leaguers! How do you trade an 18 game winner for 3 guys may never see the big leagues?!?
I heard baboo was kicked out of the buffet line this morning, suggesting that he is about to be traded.
He’s being traded to a Sweet Tomatoes for two lifetime all-you-can-eat passes.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s not the way you should treat a Ninja Assassin.
"Gravity is a harsh mistress." - The Tick
by woodsmeister on Jul 28, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Guys…Andy Marte is probably playing tonight. I can’t believe it’s happening. Although he’s 0 fer 5 career against Weaver so we’ll see. And Weaver has been playing righties tough this year. But Andy’s OPSing 1016 against righties this year!
Man I’m pumped for tonight.
Easily. I’m not even sure how it happened either.
by supermarioelia on Jul 28, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Stockholm Syndrome?
Physically and mentally bearded
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Here’s some rain on your parade (ducks). I think being called up now is a negative. Shapiro is using the days leading up to the deadline to showcase players who are available to other teams. This promotion is to entice other clubs to consider trading for Marte while his stock is high. LaPorta will get the promotion after the deadline because we don’t want him taking up room on the club for players who are being showcased.
~ It's no fun throwing fastballs to guys who can't hit them. The real challenge is getting them out on stuff they can hit ~ Sam McDowell
I disagree for the following reasons
1. Wouldn’t most teams want more than a couple of days to scout Marte? (Assuming they haven’t been scouting him in the minors)
2. What new information could a team draw from Marte in three days?
3. Would any team consider a washed up prospect an upgrade during a playoff run? You’d have to think there would be better options
4. If Shapiro really wanted to maximize Marte’s value he would trade him during the offseason, after Marte had a more significant sample size to prove himself in the majors
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Congratulations, papa.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 28, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
can we have a separate Andy Marte thread tonight, in addition to the game thread, to discuss all things Agent M?
this is like your parents giving you a Christmas present in May that they had forgotten about, but you already knew what it was because you had peeked in their closets in November.
You are reading my signature.
I love these things. Mine: Agent Lipsmaker. Seems appropriate with my reputation here.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
hahaha…oh boy
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I fail to see how “Lipsmacker” is appropriate for a 57-year-old man.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Mine was Agent Holefiller… seriously
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I find it… unnerving
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Cliff is Agent Slick. Thus exposing the weakness of these toys, inasmuch as they are only as good as the data with which they are seeded. Eric Wedge is also Agent Slick, and Jay is also Agent Sneeky.
Looks like the Rays are pretty desperate to get their grubby little hands on Lee and Martinez. Gunna have to open up the piggy bank (farm system) to make it happen. Along with shedding some payroll for them.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 28, 2009 2:14 PM EDT reply actions
http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/st/archives/2009/07/midday_trade_co.html
sorry…forgot to paste my link in here….this is from the nypost…so who knows how accurate.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 28, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
on one side or the other. Not sure the Rays have enough time to make this happen at this point.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 28, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
rays might be awful disappointed…but there’s probably not too many of us that will be disappointed if we keep Cliff.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 28, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
This thread reminds me of the stat I thought up a couple months ago that I am right now not ready to divulge. I think it’s pretty good, which probably means it already exists.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
If it’s a stat that is a measure of an individuals batting performance derived by dividing their total of base hits by the number of at bats (not including walks) then it’s a pretty good one (arguably?) … and already exists.
Cliff Lee to Ken “At Least I Got A Quote This Time” Rosenthal:
“I love Cleveland and I love being an Indian,” Lee told FOXSports.com. "I’ve always said I would prefer to play my entire career here. But I do understand the business and realize that it’s extremely unlikely that will happen.
“Like any player, I want the opportunity to play in the postseason, something that I didn’t get to do in 2007. If the Indians feel they can improve the club by trading me and it gives me the opportunity to hopefully pitch in the postseason, I’m fine with that.
“But as of now, I’m an Indian and will continue to do my job for Cleveland until I’m told otherwise.”
And for some reason … The quote didn’t take.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 28, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Like any player, I want the opportunity to play in the postseason, something that I didn’t get to do in 2007.
Ouch, burn
Physically and mentally bearded
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
This will probably make Jay’s head explode … but I’ll say it anyways.
I still think the demotion burns Cliff to this day. It might have been what caused him to turn into this Cy Young Award-type pitcher.
Somewhere, deep down, I think there’s still a bit of a grudge in there somewhere.
I’m not saying he’s not a team player, or a good teammate, but it’s just a hunch.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 28, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions
If it is true that Cliff’s grudge was what gave him the inspiration to become Cy-worthy, then it is all the more reason to think that the Indians made the right decision in going with Laffey in 2007 for the post-season.
by Deep South Ken on Jul 28, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know that we can infer that from his public comments, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 28, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
No .. not one bit .. and I’m not implying that.
It’s more of a gut feeling I have … although I would say that Cliff’s comments are very much in the same vein most of the time.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 28, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Well obviously you enjoy thinking that.
Your gut feeling is noted. We can move on to some substance now. Or at least rumors.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
All right.
Uncle.
I get it now Jay, opinion is out.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 28, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
What you feel in your gut is not really an opinion, i.e., you didn’t evaluate a lot of information and consider the context of your experiences and come up with an opinion of the situation.
I respect that you correctly identified it as a gut feeling. I’ve got gut feelings, too. We all do. I think it’s annoying to bring up the same gut feeling — with nothing really supporting it — over and over again. And believe me, FTF, you don’t want me to do a poll as to whether it’s annoying.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I think it’s annoying to bring up the same gut feeling — with nothing really supporting it — over and over again.
Since I’ve never mentioned this before to my knowledge … I have no idea where that statement just came from.
Look, it’s apparent to me that for some strange reason most of this vitriol of the last day or so seems to be coming my way … and I truly have no idea why.
I joined up in May on a friend’s recommendation, and have really enjoyed the experience, and tried to fit in as much as possible, except for this sudden turn.
Look, you want stats, I can talk WAR, FIP, RAR and anything else as much as the next guy … and I can still learn quite a bit as well.
But some opinion, whether its based on hard stats or not (and not meant to be random whining or trolling), I think is fun as well.
I would argue, Jay, that if this is your tact on this site (to make it much more “new-age” stats driven), it would be best to upgrade the “Ground Rules” Section … especially this phrase that your yourself wrote.
I believe that any user who is making even a slight effort not to be an antagonizing jackass — beating on the same inflammatory point over and over again, getting facts wrong repeatedly and deliberately — is going to be treated civilly here. Ideally, even treated with kindness and respect.
So, since, our goals of what’s entertaining to discuss are obviously different, I’ll take the warnings to heed and just return to lurker mode.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 28, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah really, everyone else should stop complaining. At least people aren’t questioning your identity. Maybe I’ll head on over to DRays Bay. I’ve got a boyfriend over there and they believe I am indeed a Clemson Girl.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
Yeah, I think they may have initially been directed at you, FTF, but if so only because of a misreading of your comment, which Jay acknowledged.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
As someone who mostly lurks himself, I like you, FTF. I’ve seen some of the strange animosity, but I hope you don’t leave.
I’m going to start saying, “go lurk yourself” when family-friendly language is required.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I honestly meant what I said, I’m not targeting anyone in particular, and certainly that includes you.
However, given that this sub-thread starts off with you posting this …
This will probably make Jay’s head explode … but I’ll say it anyways.
… your protest rings a little hollow now.
Have you not posted in the past about your “gut feeling” about Cliff’s resentment? Is that not why you predicted it would make my head explode? Or were you talking about someone else?
I’m not that interested in the answers, as this topic already smells dead to me. I do hope you stick around, though.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Since you’re not interested in my answers, I guess there’s no need to provide them, but I will anyways.
I will say this, as someone who espouses an analytical approach to the game, did you bother to even see if I’ve ever made that statement before? (Because I haven’t.)
As for referencing you in the post … well, everything you’ve thrown at me for two days has been deeply negative, such as when I posted something that I thought to be fairly innocent in regards to reports of “lesser packages” for Lee:
I say ask for the moon … and don’t give the impression you’ll settle for less.
Get teams nervous, keep them bidding.
And I get this as a response:
You really think Shapiro needs tips from you or anyone on trading stars?
I honestly haven’t meant to start any kind of a newbie pissing match with you over the last couple days … and I won’t tell you how to run your fiefdom.
I will say, however, that as the site grows in popularity, you may want to re-write the welcome to say “Indians blog for the statistically inclined” or “newbies beware” … because this thread and a couple others don’t come off as welcoming as your visitor’s guide.
Honestly, I’m not the type to pull the internet version of “take my ball and go home” … I was a journalist for 15 years for God’s sake. I have a thick skin.
And I’m all for hammering trolls, and all the other whiners out there.
But, if your intent is to drive the “uninformed” and “unwise” newbies away, rather than nursing them to your ways of thinking, you’re definitely succeeding.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 28, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I posted that response after your third or fourth borderline-apoplectic comment within the space of an hour on the same subject, i.e., that you were afraid Shapiro wouldn’t get a good deal because of poor negotiating technique. It was meant as a “virtual tongue depressor” as much as anything else.
You haven’t meant to start a pissing match, and I haven’t meant to give you one, either. You’ll pardon the expression, I hope, but it seems you just keep running into one. In that respect, I really do apologize, because certainly no vendetta is intended.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Apology accepted.
I apologize too, for whatever I keep running into.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 28, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I still think the demotion burns Cliff to this day. It might have been what caused him to turn into this Cy Young Award-type pitcher
You know, well then Cliff shouldn’t have sucked. End of story
P.S. Mark Shapiro says you’re welcome for the Cy Young award
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 28, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
and a world-class burn,b/c it operates on so many levels…even down to the unorthodox self-burn.
he effectively takes out wedge, shap, cc, and fausto (and himself a bit). very strong burn work.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 28, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ys-tradebuzz072809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Red Sox reportedly offered Buchholz, Bowden and Westmoreland for Halladay. Not sure if the Jays turned that down, if it’s still on the table or if it’s true at all. However, if it’s turned down, I wonder if the Red Sox would make a similar for Lee or and Victor.
Good return?
never heard of Westmoreland, but I think I’d take Buchholz, Morrow and him.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
Presumably this scenario sends Bowden to SEA?
by Logodaedalus on Jul 28, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
ehh, I’m not so high on Morrow. I love his arm and his stuff, but his command issues have become really troublesome and I wonder if he can handle starting rotation duties. Not sure about his arbitration situation and when that kicks in, but he’s been around for a few seasons now and he’s 25-years old. I think I’d rather go with a younger, equal upside, albeit less experienced guy … but that’s just me.
Twitter tells me that the Soxes made a trade. Crimson-colored hosiery get Brian Anderson. Pale hosiery get Mark Kotsay and cash.
A team better than the White Sox wanted Anderson? I figured he’d end up with like San Diego or Oakland.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
yeah surprising move, but the Red Sox were supposedly looking for a righthanded 4th outfielder and Anderson fits that bill. I saw names like Bloomquist fly around, which really would’ve been mindblowing.
True that. Francisco can actually hit.
"Gravity is a harsh mistress." - The Tick
by woodsmeister on Jul 28, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Looking through past Red Sox transactions, I didn’t realize they DFA’d Van Every. Kind of surprising considering how weak their backup OF’ers are.
http://twitter.com/WEEI850AM/status/2898048417
Red Sox reportedly close to a deal for Lee for Bowden, Reddick and another prospect.
Unless that other prospect is Casey Kelly, it seems underwhelming.
Definitely underwhelming
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 28, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
The report from Boston that the Red Sox are closing in on a deal for Cliff Lee appears to be bogus. If I hear otherwise, I’ll let you know.
This is for mario:
Andy Marte has arrived in the clubhouse. Great kid, it’s good to see him back. Lineup soon.
Tribeinsider
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
Batting 9th for toniiiiight’s Cleeeeeveland Indiannnnnns……
by supermarioelia on Jul 28, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions
