Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:54 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2169
Barrys Dopers wrote:
House of Poe wrote:
Not a fan of this deal in any way, shape or form. This is nothing more than a salary dump and that's what bothers me most about this trade.
Sands, Pimentel and DeJesus are all fringe players that will likely become classic AAAA players. I will admit that Melancon could be very useful. He didn't pitch well in New York and Boston, but was was impressive in Houston. This tells me that he's a better pitcher when the lights aren't that bright.
Hate giving up Hanrahan for next to nothing.


One correction to Bucfan's 1st post, I believe we get Melancon for 4 years, not 3. He has 2 years and 98 days of service time.

4 years of Melancon alone is worth 1 year of Joel. Melancon is very nearly the same caliber pitcher that Joel is. Trade some velocity for some better control.

The other issue is Sands, why is everyone ignoring his wRC+ of 108 in over 200 MLB ab's in 2011? He has already shown he can be a MLB average hitter in the bigs. We don't need to fret over translating his PCL numbers.

First, Melancon will be a nice addition. But don't be so quick to say he is the same caliber as Hammer. He had one solid year. When Hanrahan is on he is nearly unhittable. You won't find that from Melancon on his best day. Everyone is assuming Hanrahan is done for some reason. If he bounces back then Boston will have gotten the better end of the deal for sure. Saying we get Melancon for 4 years...big deal. He is a middling to above average reliever. NH finds these guys on the scrap heap on a yearly basis. So I wish everyone would stop using that as a reason to "like" this trade. I'm happy we got him, but it doesn't swing the trade pendulum our way on this one.

As for Sands, you must know something every other "expert" doesn't. I have yet to read one report from anyone who thinks Sands is going to be a decent major leaguer. NH constantly gets guys that have "good command of the strike zone". And it never translates at the major league level. It's a great quality to have if you have the hitting tools to go with it. Everything I've read on Sands is that he doesn't. Hope you're right because I can't imagine they aren't trying to move Jones. He may not hit lefties, but he carried the team for a stretch last year.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5012
Location: Washington, DC
From the other thread on this trade:

I have no problem with Melancon. I think he'll be a good addition to the bullpen. I doubt he puts up better numbers than Hanrahan in 2013, but he's cheaper and the Bucs control him for four more years. Makes sense.

My problem with this trade is the inclusion of Brock Holt. He's a lefty bat who can just plain hit. He's 24 years old. He's not very good defensively, but he can hold up at second base pretty well and he could get a spot start here and there at short. And the bat is good. Keith Law agreed with this, noting that Brock Holt is likely the best prospect included in the trade. I don't like that the Pirates dumped him and brought in a lesser and older player in De Jesus, who plays better defense but isn't as fast and doesn't hit nearly as well.

Oh, and I've seen a decent amount of Jerry Sands. He was on my fantasy baseball team and I followed him pretty closely when he played for the Dodgers. Even watched a goodly number of Dodgers games. His swing is loooooooong. When he connects, great. But he's very susceptible to off-speed stuff away and good fastballs up. I don't see him (and most scouts don't see him) as an every day position player. Also, his defense is bad.

Finally, I really hope this doesn't mean the Pirates are going to trade Garrett Jones. He's the Pirates' most consistent left-handed hitter, and the team needs him against right-handed starters. Unless people here believe that Travis Snider is going to become a consistently good hitter (which seems a long shot to me), then the Pirates need to hold on to Jones for 2013.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:46 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Springfield, IL
I apologize for the snarky comment that was in my last post...
The thing that has bothered me most about NH's deals is that he would rather have quantity over quality. Potential is a word that can get a GM fired in this game, yet it's something that NH clearly loves.
I would much rather have a proven commodity than a prospect that has potential...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
PirateParrot wrote:
Barrys Dopers wrote:
House of Poe wrote:
Not a fan of this deal in any way, shape or form. This is nothing more than a salary dump and that's what bothers me most about this trade.
Sands, Pimentel and DeJesus are all fringe players that will likely become classic AAAA players. I will admit that Melancon could be very useful. He didn't pitch well in New York and Boston, but was was impressive in Houston. This tells me that he's a better pitcher when the lights aren't that bright.
Hate giving up Hanrahan for next to nothing.


One correction to Bucfan's 1st post, I believe we get Melancon for 4 years, not 3. He has 2 years and 98 days of service time.

4 years of Melancon alone is worth 1 year of Joel. Melancon is very nearly the same caliber pitcher that Joel is. Trade some velocity for some better control.

The other issue is Sands, why is everyone ignoring his wRC+ of 108 in over 200 MLB ab's in 2011? He has already shown he can be a MLB average hitter in the bigs. We don't need to fret over translating his PCL numbers.

First, Melancon will be a nice addition. But don't be so quick to say he is the same caliber as Hammer. He had one solid year. When Hanrahan is on he is nearly unhittable. You won't find that from Melancon on his best day. Everyone is assuming Hanrahan is done for some reason. If he bounces back then Boston will have gotten the better end of the deal for sure. Saying we get Melancon for 4 years...big deal. He is a middling to above average reliever. NH finds these guys on the scrap heap on a yearly basis. So I wish everyone would stop using that as a reason to "like" this trade. I'm happy we got him, but it doesn't swing the trade pendulum our way on this one.

As for Sands, you must know something every other "expert" doesn't. I have yet to read one report from anyone who thinks Sands is going to be a decent major leaguer. NH constantly gets guys that have "good command of the strike zone". And it never translates at the major league level. It's a great quality to have if you have the hitting tools to go with it. Everything I've read on Sands is that he doesn't. Hope you're right because I can't imagine they aren't trying to move Jones. He may not hit lefties, but he carried the team for a stretch last year.


Hammer has only been the dominant Hammer that you speak of for one season in his MLB career. Every other year he walks too many to dominate.

Sands potential - BA review in August 2012

"For what he lacks in pure bat speed, Sands compensates for with brute strength. He slugged 35 homers in 2010 to burst on the prospect scene (and tie for third in the minors), then followed that up with seasons of 29 and 24 homers for Triple-A Albuquerque the past two years. The righty-hitting Sands has provided serious pop versus lefthanders (.532 slugging) during a pair of trials with Los Angeles, but big league righties have completely neutralized him at .204/.301/.289 over 165 plate appearances. That split doesn't persist in Triple-A—where Sands has fairly even contact rates, walk rates and isolated slugging averages versus lefties and righties alike—but that could just be the difference in quality between pitchers Triple-A and the big leagues. (The split to monitor for all Albuquerque players is home/road, and on that front Sands batted .248/.319/.473 with 23 homers in 455 PAs away from Isotopes Park during 2011-12.) All of his value must come with the bat because he doesn't shine defensively or on the bases. Fenway Park could be the right venue to maximize Sands' pull-oriented hitting approach because even if he guesses wrong, pop flies to left field often crash off the Green Monster."

His ceiling is certainly at least average regular. Like any prospect his floor is 4A, but he is big league ready right now, so they will need to find ab's to find out what they got. Sands is a decent gamble that is essentially gravy on top of Melancon replacing Hammer for 4 years.

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:11 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Springfield, IL
Batting average is irrelevant...oh you new age baseball fans with your copy of the Bible err I mean Moneyball and your 18x24" poster of Brian Kenney.. thanks for the chuckle...[/quote]
If you can't handle advanced baseball metrics, just say so.[/quote]

I would if it truly existed, but it doesn't...
Hate to be the guy who breaks up the myth of Moneyball, but that story and movie was a giant scam...u wanna know how the A's won the AL West...three reasons...Hudson, Mulder and Zito...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
J_C_Steel wrote:
From the other thread on this trade:

I have no problem with Melancon. I think he'll be a good addition to the bullpen. I doubt he puts up better numbers than Hanrahan in 2013, but he's cheaper and the Bucs control him for four more years. Makes sense.

My problem with this trade is the inclusion of Brock Holt. He's a lefty bat who can just plain hit. He's 24 years old. He's not very good defensively, but he can hold up at second base pretty well and he could get a spot start here and there at short. And the bat is good. Keith Law agreed with this, noting that Brock Holt is likely the best prospect included in the trade. I don't like that the Pirates dumped him and brought in a lesser and older player in De Jesus, who plays better defense but isn't as fast and doesn't hit nearly as well.

Oh, and I've seen a decent amount of Jerry Sands. He was on my fantasy baseball team and I followed him pretty closely when he played for the Dodgers. Even watched a goodly number of Dodgers games. His swing is loooooooong. When he connects, great. But he's very susceptible to off-speed stuff away and good fastballs up. I don't see him (and most scouts don't see him) as an every day position player. Also, his defense is bad.

Finally, I really hope this doesn't mean the Pirates are going to trade Garrett Jones. He's the Pirates' most consistent left-handed hitter, and the team needs him against right-handed starters. Unless people here believe that Travis Snider is going to become a consistently good hitter (which seems a long shot to me), then the Pirates need to hold on to Jones for 2013.


Sorry JC, I don't see Holt as a MLB prospect at all. He has no power, no speed, and fields poorly. His hit tool certainly doesn't rate anywhere near the short 10 day hot streak he had in Sept (he finished the year going 3/21). Dejesus has just as good of a minor league record at just one year older.

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5012
Location: Washington, DC
For those who care (and judging by the amount of people who discuss his work on here, that's a lot of you), here's DK's take on the Hanrahan trade:

So there's no ambiguity or distortion, my initial impression of Joel Hanrahan trade. It's clearly a salary dump and, in that context, the GM did OK. Melancon has pitched better in recent past than in 2012. Could be setup guy. Rest look like spare parts, but time will tell on Sands. Bottom line: This was case of prioritizing cash elsewhere, notably $17M for coming year on .211/.311/.403 Martin, on 5-plus ERA Liriano, on REHABBING Morton. Smarter decisions there, and Hanrahan could stay. Yes, $7M a lot for closer, but back-end bullpen a known strength. Now uncertain. Trades, signings don't happen in vacuums.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5012
Location: Washington, DC
Barrys Dopers wrote:
Sorry JC, I don't see Holt as a MLB prospect at all. He has no power, no speed, and fields poorly. His hit tool certainly doesn't rate anywhere near the short 10 day hot streak he had in Sept (he finished the year going 3/21). Dejesus has just as good of a minor league record at just one year older.


De Jesus ain't fast, either. He also doesn't have power. Basically, De Jesus is a better fielder and Holt is a better hitter. I'd rather keep Holt, who is left-handed and more likely to get some cheap HRs at PNC as a utility infielder.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
House of Poe wrote:
Barrys Dopers wrote:
House of Poe wrote:
With all due respect, it takes more than 221 AB's (198 in 2011 and 23 in 2012) to be a "proven big leaguer"...
For the record, I wouldn't be thrilled with a .244 average, which is where Sands currently sits...


Batting average is irrelevant. 200 ab's isn't exactly a ton, but its a lot more than just a prospect that we have to guess about.


Batting average is irrelevant...oh you new age baseball fans with your copy of the Bible err I mean Moneyball and your 18x24" poster of Brian Kenney.. thanks for the chuckle...


Poe, it has little to do with Moneyball.

Baseball offense comes down to two things, run creation and out prevention. Please explain to me how batting average is even a good measure of either. Why would you use outdated data when better data is available? Why do you liek batting average just because some newspaper guy in 1900 decided to divide hits by at bats? I'll take real stats developed by people with advanced degrees in statistics that measure what matters.

Spare me the made-up numbers crap. The new stats are no more made up than the old ones. We can calculate OBA very easily and even adjust it based on how a hitters park/league favor or hurt his prodcution. Its not rocket science, it just requires more than x divided by y.

We use to think the Flu was caused by bacteria, but then we discovered viruses. Should we have clung to century old information just because it was traditionally accepted?

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
J_C_Steel wrote:
Barrys Dopers wrote:
Sorry JC, I don't see Holt as a MLB prospect at all. He has no power, no speed, and fields poorly. His hit tool certainly doesn't rate anywhere near the short 10 day hot streak he had in Sept (he finished the year going 3/21). Dejesus has just as good of a minor league record at just one year older.


De Jesus ain't fast, either. He also doesn't have power. Basically, De Jesus is a better fielder and Holt is a better hitter. I'd rather keep Holt, who is left-handed and more likely to get some cheap HRs at PNC as a utility infielder.


I know, my 1st post on the trade said Holt is essentially DeJesus. Why be upset about that swap?

To clarify, neither guy is a MLB regular and each is at best a utility IF.

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Last edited by Barrys Dopers on Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5012
Location: Washington, DC
Barrys Dopers wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
Barrys Dopers wrote:
Sorry JC, I don't see Holt as a MLB prospect at all. He has no power, no speed, and fields poorly. His hit tool certainly doesn't rate anywhere near the short 10 day hot streak he had in Sept (he finished the year going 3/21). Dejesus has just as good of a minor league record at just one year older.


De Jesus ain't fast, either. He also doesn't have power. Basically, De Jesus is a better fielder and Holt is a better hitter. I'd rather keep Holt, who is left-handed and more likely to get some cheap HRs at PNC as a utility infielder.


I know, my 1st post on the trade said Holt is essentially DeJesus. Why be upset about that swap?


For the reasons I just noted. I'd rather have a lefty-hitting utility infielder with a better hit tool. Barmes and Walker are strong defensively already, so you don't really need a glove guy to steal a bunch of starts.

It's not a big deal, but it's my opinion that keeping Holt would have been better. Keith Law thinks he's the best prospect involved in the deal.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
House of Poe wrote:
I apologize for the snarky comment that was in my last post...
The thing that has bothered me most about NH's deals is that he would rather have quantity over quality. Potential is a word that can get a GM fired in this game, yet it's something that NH clearly loves.
I would much rather have a proven commodity than a prospect that has potential...

So would everyone else. But the former costs much more than the latter, and the Pirates are trying to create a winner on a $70M budget. Plus, the "proven commodity" that was traded here has proven that he's much like other relievers in this game: unpredictable.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
House of Poe wrote:
Hate to be the guy who breaks up the myth of Moneyball, but that story and movie was a giant scam...u wanna know how the A's won the AL West...three reasons...Hudson, Mulder and Zito...

And how did the Red Sox win in 2004?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Barrys Dopers wrote:
House of Poe wrote:
Batting average is irrelevant...oh you new age baseball fans with your copy of the Bible err I mean Moneyball and your 18x24" poster of Brian Kenney.. thanks for the chuckle...


Poe, it has little to do with Moneyball.

Baseball offense comes down to two things, run creation and out prevention. Please explain to me how batting average is even a good measure of either. Why would you use outdated data when better data is available? Why do you liek batting average just because some newspaper guy in 1900 decided to divide hits by at bats? I'll take real stats developed by people with advanced degrees in statistics that measure what matters.

Spare me the made-up numbers crap. The new stats are no more made up than the old ones. We can calculate OBA very easily and even adjust it based on how a hitters park/league favor or hurt his prodcution. Its not rocket science, it just requires more than x divided by y.

We use to think the Flu was caused by bacteria, but then we discovered viruses. Should we have clung to century old information just because it was traditionally accepted?

I, for one, prefer the method of drilling a hole in one's head in order to let the bad spirits out.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
Barrys Dopers wrote:
I know, my 1st post on the trade said Holt is essentially DeJesus. Why be upset about that swap?


For the reasons I just noted. I'd rather have a lefty-hitting utility infielder with a better hit tool. Barmes and Walker are strong defensively already, so you don't really need a glove guy to steal a bunch of starts.

It's not a big deal, but it's my opinion that keeping Holt would have been better.

Perhaps, but don't assume that the deal would have been executed without the inclusion of Holt.

J_C_Steel wrote:
Keith Law thinks he's the best prospect involved in the deal.

Keith Law might be the only one who thinks that.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5335
Location: Pittsburgh
J_C_Steel wrote:
For those who care (and judging by the amount of people who discuss his work on here, that's a lot of you), here's DK's take on the Hanrahan trade:

So there's no ambiguity or distortion, my initial impression of Joel Hanrahan trade. It's clearly a salary dump and, in that context, the GM did OK. Melancon has pitched better in recent past than in 2012. Could be setup guy. Rest look like spare parts, but time will tell on Sands. Bottom line: This was case of prioritizing cash elsewhere, notably $17M for coming year on .211/.311/.403 Martin, on 5-plus ERA Liriano, on REHABBING Morton. Smarter decisions there, and Hanrahan could stay. Yes, $7M a lot for closer, but back-end bullpen a known strength. Now uncertain. Trades, signings don't happen in vacuums.

I disagree that Hanrahan is a known strength. Given his performance last year, he's a wild card. If he keeps giving up walks and long balls the way he did last year and he'll be lucky to post an ERA under 4.00.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:36 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5610
House of Poe wrote:
The thing that has bothered me most about NH's deals is that he would rather have quantity over quality... I would much rather have a proven commodity than a prospect that has potential...


Pretty much this.

It's not so much that anyone knows this trade is/will be bad, but more that it follows a trend of trades which didn't turn out too well (the Bay package, the par for the course Marte/Nady deal, etc.).

The Pirates need one of the four players acquired to turn into an injury-free Karstens/pre-injury Tabata or pre-frefall J-Mac for this trade to be a 'win'.

In that respect it's better to have four 'lotto tickets' than just one, but... it's kind of getting old playing the lotto.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10692
J_C:

I agree that Holt is a better prospect than Dejesus. Holt is younger, bats left-handed, and has a better record of minor league hitting.

However, as Barrys pointed out, I don't think the Red Sox make the deal without the Holt-for-Dejesus portion since the remainder of the deal favors the Pirates pretty clearly.

Melancon has very similar value to Hanrahan for the following reasons:

  • He is younger.
  • He is cheaper. (This matters to every team, not just the Pirates.)
  • His control is better.
  • He is under the team's control for 4 more season (thx, Barrys - I thought it was 3).
  • He performed well as a closer in 2011.
  • He was dealing at 97 mph last September.

If the trade were Melancon-for-Hanrahan, advantage Red Sox - but not by as much as one would think. The peripherals matter, boys - check out Hanrahan's xFIP the past 4 years. It noted that the inflated 2009 ERA of 4.78 was not going to remain that high, and should have been in the upper 3's or low 4's. It also warned that and outlier ERA like 1.72 in 2011 was going to come back down to earth, and wind up in the upper 2's or low 3's.

So guess what happened? Exactly that.

Hanrahan's increasing walk rate and HR rate are troubling, people. I still think he has the stuff to do the job, but "counting" on him to avoid problems is really ignoring the data.

So then ... Melancon for Hanrahan favors the Sox, but not by that much. Then, the Pirates get a right-handed power prospect with a plus walk rate.

And a young right-hander who deals at 97 mph and has a plus change.

Pretty clear advantage, Pirates - based on data, not "feelings." So the Sox are not willing to do that deal and demand something on the other end.

Hence, Holt-for-Dejesus.

But calling Holt the best prospect in the deal is interesting if only because Holt does not have a position. He cannot play SS. His defense is not even decent enough for 2nd base. He is a utility IF'er.

I like his bat, but that bat is not NEARLY good enough to overcome his defensive weakness at MI. If Sands hits, he plays since corner OF and 1B are positions where defense can be hidden.

MI and C are not.

If you cannot field at MI or C, you better hit like Jeter or Piazza. Holt is not going to hit enough to force playing time. He has a decent eye, but his ISO is going to be around 100. A guy with a 100 ISO needs to log a .350 OBP+ to merit playing time.

I don't think Holt can do that.

He is therefore a guy who can produce something in the area of .700 OPS, with significant defensive limitations. That is not a starter, unless he suddenly develops power in the major leagues at age 26. I submit that the litany of MI'ers who developed power in the major leagues at age 26, in contravention to minor league performance, is pretty darn low.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:14 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Springfield, IL
Willton wrote:
House of Poe wrote:
Hate to be the guy who breaks up the myth of Moneyball, but that story and movie was a giant scam...u wanna know how the A's won the AL West...three reasons...Hudson, Mulder and Zito...

And how did the Red Sox win in 2004?


Pedro, Schilling, a killer bullpen and some clutch hitting by Papi and Manny...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:35 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
House of Poe wrote:
Willton wrote:
House of Poe wrote:
Hate to be the guy who breaks up the myth of Moneyball, but that story and movie was a giant scam...u wanna know how the A's won the AL West...three reasons...Hudson, Mulder and Zito...

And how did the Red Sox win in 2004?


Pedro, Schilling, a killer bullpen and some clutch hitting by Papi and Manny...

Talk about glossing over the details. The Red Sox succeeded with Pedro on the mound because they kept him healthy by adhering to a strict pitch count, a concept abhorred by traditionalists. The Red Sox succeeded by acquiring David Ortiz for a song because nobody else could see past his bad defense and low batting average. The Red Sox succeeded by inserting Mark Bellhorn at 2B because, despite his prolific strikeout rate, he was very good at getting on base. The Red Sox succeeded by having the best offense in the league, which featured a league-high OBP and slugging percentage while executing only 12 sacrifice bunts the entire season, easily the lowest of any team in the AL. The Red Sox succeeded by entrusting the general manager position to a 28-year-old stat-friendly baseball mind in Theo Epstein, not an older, bird-dog traditionalist.

You can poo-poo Moneyball and advanced metrics all you want, but the principles of Moneyball and advanced metrics are being used by the best organizations in MLB to win baseball games today. In the end, folks like you who refuse to learn anything new and adhere to old, outdated knowledge and traditions will be left behind.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Corsair, Google [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits