Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:35 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:53 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Jaybee presents my argument much better then I do. He is paid too much money for what he does for our Pirates. Now, in a big market, they can afford those mistakes, we can't. Jack needs to find another team and the off season is the last hope of that.

Argentum makes a very good point about the value of OBP compared to average when considering the number of runs scored. Hard to dismiss those numbers.

Look, I like to see Jack play too. It is majic to see him make some of the plays he makes, and he hussles all over the place. If he could only hit.

TRADE HIM

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5816
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
I guess I was surprised that, with Beane's alleged focus on getting high OBP players that although the A's have ranked in the top 50% of the AL in OBP in 5 of the 7 years beginning in 2002, they have been in the top 50% of runs scored in the AL only once during that same time period.
My recollection of Moneyball was that Lewis wrote about Beane's shift in focus on the 2002 draft after being upset about the selection of Bonderman in the 2001 draft. What I found interesting is that, since 2002, the A's have ranked 9th ('03), 9th ('04), 6th ('05), 9th ('06), 11th ('07) and 14th ('08) in runs scored in the AL. If Beane is responsible for the product on the field, I'd call that "decidedly mediocre" at best. If Beane is to be hailed as a genius for focusing on OBP and how that truly measures run production and the A's minor league system should be looked upon as the prototype for all other programs because it instills that mentality into its players (players don't advance unless they average 1 BB per 10 plate appearances or something like that), then I have to ask why haven't the A's been more prolific in scoring runs?

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:49 pm
Posts: 68
Location: State College, PA
No. 9 wrote:
I guess I was surprised that, with Beane's alleged focus on getting high OBP players ... then I have to ask why haven't the A's been more prolific in scoring runs?
(Sorry for cutting words, but I didn't want to take up too much space letting everyone know which post I was responding to.)

I've just started reading Moneyball myself, so I have a pretty limited opinion of the book so far. But I'll be happy to relay my friend's opinion of it:
Tim wrote:
The premise of the book is accurate. Michael Lewis' interpretation of said premise -- that Scott Hatteberg and Chad Bradford meant more to the A's success than Mulder, Zito, and Hudson, who are basically not mentioned -- is too f**ktarded for words.
I'm assuming the "accurate premise" he mentions is the benefit of empirical statistics guiding decisions regarding baseball transactions.

But here's an interesting note: in every single season since 2002 - the year of the change in draft strategy (which wouldn't make an impact for at least a year or two anyway, I'd guess) - the team's rank in AL OBP has been higher than their rank in batting average. This reflects a greater ability of their hitters to control the strike zone, which is one of the key strategies in picking offensive players that I've read in the first few chapters. It might also help explain why their rank in runs was so low, as hits tend to drive in runs far more effectively than walks or HBPs, wherein you have to have the bases loaded.

(This is why I like the stat of OPS so much - it cites both the player's ability to control the strike zone (OBP) and combines it with a measure of their hitting power (SLG).)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
Willton wrote:
I gotta agree with jay, ZM. You kinda torpedoed your credibility when you claimed to have read Moneyball yet implied that Billy Beane wrote it.


Oh, for chissakes! Ok, what Billy Beane TOLD HIS GHOST WRITER.. ok... happy now.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:52 pm 
I don't have a problem trading Jack Wilson but I would only feel OK doing so if there was a Major League caliber everyday SS somewhere behind him in the system. I don't see that.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:49 pm
Posts: 68
Location: State College, PA
Elmer wrote:
I don't have a problem trading Jack Wilson but I would only feel OK doing so if there was a Major League caliber everyday SS somewhere behind him in the system. I don't see that.
That's pretty telling, because the bar for a Major League caliber SS is set pretty low nowadays.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
Willton wrote:
I gotta agree with jay, ZM. You kinda torpedoed your credibility when you claimed to have read Moneyball yet implied that Billy Beane wrote it.


Oh, for chissakes! Ok, what Billy Beane TOLD HIS GHOST WRITER.. ok... happy now.

ZM

Now you're really deluded. Michael Lewis is not some anonymous ghost writer; he is a Pulitzer Prize winning author who wrote Liar's Poker, among others. Beane did not come to Lewis with the book idea; Lewis came up with it on his own. The reason Beane is featured in the book is because the A's were the only organization willing to divulge information on how they do business.

Stop lying, ZM; you never read Moneyball. If you had, you would not have made such egregious errors about the book.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
Willton wrote:

Stop lying, ZM; you never read Moneyball. If you had, you would not have made such egregious errors about the book.


Your playing gotcha games on a throwaway line rather than stick to the points being made. Not that I'm surprised. Its your perogitive, I suppose, and I have no way showing you otherwise, being that you cannot see the book on the shelf. If you consider Beane wrote vs Beane said to a writer while typing between phone calls, drilling rig problems, and client calls, egrarioius errors, you can have at it.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:42 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
ZelieMike wrote:
Willton wrote:

Stop lying, ZM; you never read Moneyball. If you had, you would not have made such egregious errors about the book.


Your playing gotcha games on a throwaway line rather than stick to the points being made. Not that I'm surprised. Its your perogitive, I suppose, and I have no way showing you otherwise, being that you cannot see the book on the shelf. If you consider Beane wrote vs Beane said to a writer while typing between phone calls, drilling rig problems, and client calls, egrarioius errors, you can have at it.

ZM


Then let's direct it back to the points being made. I believe we were waiting for you to show us that:

1. Jack Wilson is not a weak hitting shortstop.

2. The Pirates have been statistically a better defensive team with Jack than without him.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5816
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Willton wrote:
The reason Beane is featured in the book is because the A's were the only organization willing to divulge information on how they do business.


Huh?
Although it has been some time since I read the book, I seem to recall that the very premise of the book was Lewis' curiousity as to why the A's were winning with a low payroll versus higher payroll teams. It was not as if Lewis was looking to do a 30 team overview of the front offices across the country.

I also find it somewhat humorous that some people are saying that Beane is no longer able to "fleece" other GMs because the inefficiencies that he claims to have exploited are no longer in the marketplace. If this is indeed the case (and I'm not willing to concede one way or the other), then it really wasn't a smart move on his part to open his "playbook" to an author and belittle the other GMs with whom he would be dealing.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
BBF wrote:
2. The Pirates have been statistically a better defensive team with Jack than without him.


Lets start here, with the most easily found record. From MLB.com

http://pittsburgh.pirates.mlb.com/news/ ... p&c_id=pit

From the article...

Quote:
All that shuffling changed when the former All-Star came back on May 27. Prior to Wednesday night, the Pirates were the best defensive team in the NL with a .992 fielding percentage. They remained one of the top teams, despite Wilson's uncharacteristic two errors on Wednesday. The last time Wilson made two errors in one game was on Sept. 13, 2004.



ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
BBF wrote:

1. Jack Wilson is not a weak hitting shortstop.


For this one, I looked around for something that you might find acceptable. Here is what I found.

http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.asp ... &type=full

You'll note that in all the major catagories posted, that only walks falls into the poor catagory on any kind of regular basis. Avg is average to good. K% is good, ratio of walks to K, good, heck even slugging and OBP are at the league/positional average for extended periods.

So, I'm finding it hard, outside of using the very limited notions of walks, and power, to classify a hitter as good to classify Wilson as "anemic" or "poor" or "weak" hitting. Especially when one considers what his manager have asked him to do (rightly or wrongly within stategery of the game) ie, sacrifice a lot from the 2-hole. Make contact to RF from the 8 hole or 2 hole. In short, handle the bat well to play small ball action.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:49 pm
Posts: 68
Location: State College, PA
BBF wrote:
Then let's direct it back to the points being made. I believe we were waiting for you to show us that:
1. Jack Wilson is not a weak hitting shortstop.
2. The Pirates have been statistically a better defensive team with Jack than without him.

Just throwing stats at people:

1. Career OPS+ of 78. Current season OPS+ of 75. Freddy Sanchez is the only Pirate starter with a worse OPS+ this year.

2. - Leads the Pirates in fielding percentage at the SS position with .984. (FP is higher at 2nd and 1st, worse at 3rd.) To note: Rivas has a higher FP at second (.989) than at SS (.943).

- Turns 0.0735 double plays per inning. Freddy Sanchez at 2nd turns 0.0887.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:38 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:41 pm
Posts: 843
ZelieMike wrote:
BBF wrote:

1. Jack Wilson is not a weak hitting shortstop.


For this one, I looked around for something that you might find acceptable. Here is what I found.

http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.asp ... &type=full

You'll note that in all the major catagories posted, that only walks falls into the poor catagory on any kind of regular basis. Avg is average to good. K% is good, ratio of walks to K, good, heck even slugging and OBP are at the league/positional average for extended periods.

So, I'm finding it hard, outside of using the very limited notions of walks, and power, to classify a hitter as good to classify Wilson as "anemic" or "poor" or "weak" hitting. Especially when one considers what his manager have asked him to do (rightly or wrongly within stategery of the game) ie, sacrifice a lot from the 2-hole. Make contact to RF from the 8 hole or 2 hole. In short, handle the bat well to play small ball action.

ZM


Ok...compared to other SS, he's not as bad as I've been saying. But looking at that data, in most categories what I see is a guy who has had two above average years for his position and is below average or far below average for the other years. That kind of production is available for much cheaper at SS. The fact that Jack Wilson and Michael Young are paid the same is a bit ridiculous if you look at their offensive numbers (I use Young as an example since he plays the same position and has similar MLB experience).

But what about defense...ok, fair question. Jack had elite years defensively in '04 and '05, he was among the top fielding SS in the NL as measured by zone rating. But in '06 and '07, his defense was about middle of the pack in the NL. This year his zone rating is back up there with the top guys, but he's only played 65 games. So now we have to worry about declining defensive performance (he turns 31 in December) and injuries. (Sortable defensive data is here: http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/m ... mit=Submit)

If the Pirates can find someone to take his salary, I think they'd be dumb not to jump at that opportunity. With the $6 million plus they'd be saving, they can more than make up for a defensive downgrade with even slightly better offense.

But let's say that Jack's defense is just too valuable to replace, and the Pirates would collapse without him next year. I say it wouldn't matter at all. The Pirates are an 85 to 90 loss team next year with Jack. Even if they're a 100 loss team without him (and I don't think he's worth 10-15 wins), this makes no difference. They're not in contention either way, and in the meantime, they're keeping Jack with money that could be spent on draft picks that will make a bigger impact in three years.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
That's the best arguement you've made yet. Though, to keep saying he's had below average years is not really true. Excepting his growth curve (he jumped from AA remember), he's been average or above and within the average to good range for most everthing, excepting... walks. Which I've given a valid reason for.

That said, I can agree with much of what you say. Jack probably should be moved now, given the makeup of the team now and in the future. IF, you can find.. .as you point out... a better offensive SS to make up for the huge defensive deficiency created by his leaving.

Even then, you'll end up missing a lot of the 'small' things he does to help you win.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:19 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:41 pm
Posts: 843
ZelieMike wrote:
That's the best arguement you've made yet. And, I can agree with most of it.

Jack probably should be moved now, given the makeup of the team now and in the future. IF, you can find.. .as you point out... a better offensive SS to make up for the huge defensive deficiency created by his leaving.

Even then, you'll end up missing a lot of the 'small' things he does to help you win.

ZM


That's probably about as close as we're going to get to agreeing on the subject. I think I have to be done with this thread now, since I've put in about as much time researching Jack Wilson in the past two days as I have into my job. Good thing my boss is out of town.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:03 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 631
As the guy who started this thread I would like to declare this thread dead!
Move along, folks nothin' here to see.












he is overpaid though :lol:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:58 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5419
Location: Pittsburgh
Jeremy wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
Wilton, you hit this one on the head. Wilson makes some great plays on defense but he kills the team at the plate. Considering all the other things like his salary, age, and the fact that we are clearly rebuilding and you need to think about going in a different direction. I'd be stunned if he is our shortstop at the start of next season. I'm not as down on him as I used to be, but I still think for the future you go in a different direction there. And I think, considering Huntington seemed insistent on getting back Bignac from Tampa in a deal, that the Pirates are thinking that same way.

And Jeremy, I don't think everyone should be traded just to trade them. But when you rebuild there is no reason to keep around an overpaid, no-hit SS because he is a good defender. Yes, he saves runs but you are severely over valuing him with your comment. Plus, much to my surprise, he apparently may bring back a decent return. I still, and always will, cringe every time I think of Jarrs Jurgens in our rotation right now. That's what he would have brought straight up last year if we didn't have a clueless idiot for a GM.


You might not....but Jimy does and that's who I'm arguing with. Go back and look at what he's said. He wants Wilson gone in a straight salary dump.

I don't think he's talking about a straight salary dump. I could be wrong, but I think he means that the money would be more useful if used for someone else.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:00 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5419
Location: Pittsburgh
Jeremy wrote:
jaybee24 wrote:
Jeremy wrote:

Of course we need to find a new SS, but we go from a so so team with Wilson to a 110 loss team without him.

But we still have morons on this board who think that everyone should be traded regardless of what we get back for them.


So seeing as the Pirates are on pace for 88 losses, you're saying Jack's worth 22 wins. He'd be making a lot more than $7 million a year if that were the case. I'd say there's a pretty select list of players who are worth 20+ wins to their team in a season, and Jack isn't on it.

If the Pirates can get really good value for Jack, they should trade him. Yeah, maybe we'll be screwed next season with Bixler there, but the Pirates aren't going to be competitive next year anyway. And I'm reasonably confident that by the time they are competitive, say in three years, they'll have been able to add a decent SS by the draft or free agency.

I keep going back and forth on this myself, but I'm finding myself more in the "trade Jack" camp as I look at more numbers. He's 24th in the majors in OPS for SS with 250+ PA. Even if he were playing Ozzie Smith type defense, it wouldn't be enough to overcome his horrendous bat. If he were making $500k a year, I'd say keep him, but the Pirates can find a good SS for cheaper.


Go back and look at their record with Wilson and without Wilson.

There seems to be a group of people out there who have something personal against Wilson and I just think that's kind of sad.

So you're saying that Wilson's injury was the reason that Gorzo and Snell couldn't throw strikes and LaRoche and Sanchez forgot how to hit?

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Trade Jack Wilson!!!!
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:13 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5419
Location: Pittsburgh
ZelieMike wrote:
errrrrrrrrrrgh... how long does Jack have to hit for you, to show he is not a "weak hitting" shortstop, eh?... errrrrrrrrgggggghhhh..

He goes for a year, with an average approaching .400, and as soon as he has a two week slump, its back to "weak hitting" shortstop.

What most mean by that statement is "he doesn't walk like I want him to". He's not Arod. He's not built to the stereotypical steroid shortstop.

That's ok. His bat handling skills on this team are unmatched. He can do things, old school things, that most on the team have never learned.

And, he's one of the top defensive SS in the game.

People. Realize what you have here.

ZM

What we have here is a good defensive shortstop who is about 78% of an average major league hitter.

What we have here is a guy who excels at making outs on both offense and defense.

What we have here is a guy whose bat handling skills do not extend to reaching base safely.

I like Jack Wilson. He's a total baseball rat. He treats the game with respect. He hustles. He's the best defensive shortstop I've seen in Pittsburgh in my 42 years as a fan. But I don't have any illusions about him. He's been playing for eight years now, and he's only hit for two half seasons. Old school baseball folks had a saying that if you shook a tree a dozen gloves would fall out of it. Good field/no hit ballplayers aren't worth $7M.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 3 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