First, I think this is a hole that looks a lot deeper because of the unusual strength in every other part of our system.

Second, said “allowing” is (therefore) a function of our having focused on high-minors hitters, high-minors pitchers, and low-minors/high-ceiling pitchers in trading Sabathia, Blake, DeRosa, Betancourt, Garko, Lee, and Martinez. We could have picked up some low-minors hitters in those deals, and I think it was a deliberate decision not to. If you want some more of those players, who are you willing to give up from those deals? (Maybe the low-minors pitchers? The attrition rates turn me off.)

This is why he hired Wedge. If all 9 “starters” got 80 RBI, then the bench players that got 90% as many PA appearances as the starters would get at least 70 RBIs. Even if only three do, BAM, there’s your 900+ runs.

And two-out ROEs.

i love how we’ve gotten to the point where a poster can’t bring up the traditional "triple slash" stats without being mocked and having the actual content of his post ignored.

Me too!

Actually, I didn’t comment on the idea of equivalent 1-9 hitters for a number of reasons – namely that it makes no sense and I don’t believe Shapiro ever subscribed to the theory. So, I offered a flippant dismissal. Since these are clearly unacceptable in your view, here are a few reasons why that strategy (and therefor the whole of the content) is stupid:

1. It’s been shown that different spots in the lineup are more valuable than others (from a run production standpoint). Having the same hitter across every spot is no where near the optimal lineup structure. Shapiro is well aware of this.
2. It suggests that the goal would be to avoid players that would be likely to surpass the .280/20/80 line, so as to avoid paying them large sums of money. At no point has Shapiro, now would he ever, avoid a player because he was too productive.
3. It suggests that the best way to control salary costs is to avoid immensely talented players, which is patently absurd. No small market team does so, they simply opt for young, pre-arb players (some of whom they will pay in advance for controlled arb costs)
4. Hitters that hit for equivalent production across different positions have different value, and will be paid accordingly by the market. This strategy, as stated, ignores service time and suggests that any player regardless of service time or position is affordable so long as he’s near that triple slash level. From 1998 through 2007 Jorge Posada averaged .278/21/84. He gets paid $13M this year.

So, is that better?

i love how we’ve gotten to the point where a poster can’t bring up the traditional "triple slash" stats without being mocked and having the actual content of his post ignored.

I know, isn’t it great? I can’t think of a better way to stigmatize idiot stats, and clearly some stigma is still needed.

“Triple slash” actually refers to Avg/Obp/Slg. Avg/HR/RBI is a duo of idiot stats attacking one of the three true outcomes.

I like stolen bases?

Ouch.

Clearly not.

stfu n00b

no recs?