2009 MLB Regular Season Thread

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Live with Papi at first? Did you watch interleague this year? And the Red Sox are not going to DFA Ortiz for both financial and PR reasons. Not to mention the fact Ortiz looks like Ortiz again.

[Alan T]

Yes, because of Ortiz's contract and fielding ability, the Red Sox are stuck with him at DH. Thus they won't really be going after Dunn I don't see.

If the Red Sox makes any moves, I am guessing it would be to either address issues at Catcher or the Left Infield (Shortstop and possibly Third Base).

as a Braves fan, I wouldn't mind having Dunn at all. His defense can't cost the Braves any more games than the complete lack of offense coming from the outfield already.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Live with Papi at first? Did you watch interleague this year? And the Red Sox are not going to DFA Ortiz for both financial and PR reasons. Not to mention the fact Ortiz looks like Ortiz again.

Honestly - I haven't caught every minute of every interleague game, no. And come to think of it, the majority of times I've seen him at 1B looking at least serviceable were before the knees.

You're right they won't DFA him. No question. We'll see how well he holds up over the rest of the season though. And how well Lowell holds up.

I suppose if Bay doesn't resign (a scary possibility) you could see Dunn in LF? He's got a giant wall backing him up (not necessarily easy to play, but it might help a tiny bit by decreasing what he needs to worry about), but he'd also have Jacoby to cover a bunch of his space in left-center?

I think if you have a chance to add a bat like Dunn you have to evaluate things carefully and see if you're likely to be able to add any other bats anywhere close at positions of greater need, or how do you reshuffle things to accomadate him.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Alan T

If the Red Sox makes any moves, I am guessing it would be to either address issues at Catcher or the Left Infield (Shortstop and possibly Third Base).

No doubt they need to do something about the Catcher situation. Shortstop I'm okay with Lowrie when he returns I think. I also really like Mike Lowell, don't let my previous comments make you think I don't. The guy can still clean out an inside-FB like nobody's business. I'm just concerned given his age and the hip-injury.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

My guess, if the Sox make a move, it will be for a 1B or 3B. Someone like Aubrey Huff or Garrett Atkins. Although Lowell said that he doesn't expect to be on the DL longer than the necessary 15, so the point could be moot.

Really interesting article from Buster Olney yesterday about the significance of the Hinske to the Yankees deal. Seems that the Yankees demanded the Pirates (!) pay half of Hiske's $800k remaining. He says that this is indicative of the fact that it will be an extreme buyer's market this summer, with the few teams willing to add payroll holding all the cards. He also seems to think that if teams looking to shed payroll play hardball they could be left with an undesirable contract and no one to trade him to.

Buster Olney: The MLB trade market goes bear - ESPN

[larrymcg421]

Well, I think the value changes given the team situation. The Braves desperately need another power hitter in the middle of that lineup.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Great to see the new Kauffman Stadium getting some national attention. As the writer says, it's shocking to think that the old stadium could be improved, but they've done that in spades. Now we just have to work on the team.

Off Base: Kauffman Stadium improvements make it better than ever - ESPN

[sterlingice]

I'm going to be in KC and able to see it in August. I'm pretty excited to see the renovations

SI

[miked]

I'm really not sold on the defensive metrics as much either. Also, looking at Dunn's splits, he's clearly hurting from playing half his games in the black hole (.200 and 8 HR at home, .321 and 12 HR on the road). He's also played a couple of games and 1st and I think that's where he would play in ATL. Kotchman has been terrible, and his upside isn't even that good. Put Dunn at 1st where he can do the least damage and get a slugger who's pretty much a lock for a monster season (OPS+ of 143 this year).

While Morgan is interesting, he's never played a full season, has no power, can't steal with a high enough percentage to make it worth it (yet) and yes, plays great defense.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

Kotchman has been terrible ...

Interesting little tidbit from his stat splits

When he hits 4th/5th = 26/70, .434/.543/.976
Elsewhere = 34/156, .321/.295/.616

[miked]

Yeah, even with those numbers he has 2 HR and I don't think he's ever hit over 15. I just don't know how much a "great" defensive 1B saves you in runs compared to what a great offensive 1B gains. But hey, it would appear that they think the 20-25 HR they will get from Chipper and/or McCann this year will be enough...don't want to pay for extra balls.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's a mystery to me why Dunn didn't get offers to be a DH in the AL. His defense is terrible, but if you could get his bat without having to put him in the field he's an incredibly valuable player. I hope the Nats will get some offers for Dunn from AL teams.

My understanding has always been that Dunn didn't want to play in the AL. I think that explains why he ended up on the Nationals.

I also haven't heard any talk of the Nationals giving Dunn up, so I'm not sure why everyone in here is getting so excited about him playing for "their" team. He is wrapped up through next year and the team seems happy with him. It could always happen, obviously, but I think he's one of the few pieces that keep butts in the seats at NationalsPark.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

My understanding has always been that Dunn didn't want to play in the AL. I think that explains why he ended up on the Nationals.

I also haven't heard any talk of the Nationals giving Dunn up, so I'm not sure why everyone in here is getting so excited about him playing for "their" team. He is wrapped up through next year and the team seems happy with him. It could always happen, obviously, but I think he's one of the few pieces that keep butts in the seats at NationalsPark.

C'mon, you should be used to this game by now. No matter how much sense it makes to keep a player, even on a bad team, all the big market teams will want to plunder your team. And, if you want to keep them, it's spending money foolishly, and if you think you'd rather have a bag of doughnuts than their package of B and C prospects- then you're crazy and should be rebuilding and can use all the "help" they want to offer. It's not really that bad on this board, but it's here from time to time and it's crazily out of control on places like mlbtraderumors.

SI

[miked]

Well, I think in this situation it would make SOME sense. I mean, the Nationals stink. They have the 3rd or 4th lowest payroll in MLB and have a fairly realistic chance at 100-110 losses. If you can get something decent (even if it's a few mid-level prospects) for a guy you have the rights to for one more (losing) season, what's the point? So you can win 65 instead of 60? I mean, he's been on base 110 times and they've knocked him in 16 times, it's not like he's going to be the difference maker.

But I'm not advocating trading him to a big market (though it would be fun to see what he could do with the HR factories in BOS/NYY). Just saying it would make sense to deal him, the Big Donkey is not what's putting butts in the seat. They were 13/16 in attendance last season and drawing worse this year.

[BishopMVP]

Yay, SI is here to say the same thing again.

Originally Posted by miked

But I hear he just clogs the bases anyway

Well, he has been on base 110 times and only scored 16 of them....

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Outside of the top tier of guys who aren't likely to be traded I'm not sure who you get to replace Lowell at 3B when the time comes for him to retire. There aren't any internal prospects. So while moving a gold glove 1B seems silly and potentially dangerous, if you have the opportunity by doing that to bring in another bat like Dunn...you have to at least consider it.

Lowrie is the other internal 3B option to moving Youk at this time (and of course Lars coming up for 1B and Youk moving over being #1). We at least have some SS prospects who could potentially be ready by 2011 (Diaz, Navarro) and are exploring some trades there - given our SP depth Buchholz to ATL for Escobar has been mentioned. As Ronnie pointed out, Garrett Atkins name has also come up the most, but the Sox/Rockies don't have a good track record.

I wouldn't mind losing Bay and replacing him with Dunn in LF given the difference in contract length, but with Ortiz is makes no sense this year. The Nats player I'd be excited about is (finally healthy for a whole season?) Nick Johnson.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Yay, SI is here to say the same thing again.Well, he has been on base 110 times and only scored 16 of them.... Lowrie is the other internal 3B option to moving Youk at this time (and of course Lars coming up for 1B and Youk moving over being #1). We at least have some SS prospects who could potentially be ready by 2011 (Diaz, Navarro) and are exploring some trades there - given our SP depth Buchholz to ATL for Escobar has been mentioned. As Ronnie pointed out, Garrett Atkins name has also come up the most, but the Sox/Rockies don't have a good track record.

I wouldn't mind losing Bay and replacing him with Dunn in LF given the difference in contract length, but with Ortiz is makes no sense this year. The Nats player I'd be excited about is (finally healthy for a whole season?) Nick Johnson.

That's right - I'd forgotten the whole Lars coming up thing. Silly me. I wonder if Youk would be okay with moving back to third though? I mean he's shown he'll do it on occasion, but as a full-time thing? At some point you have to think that the moving-around might damage his offense.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

C'mon, you should be used to this game by now. No matter how much sense it makes to keep a player, even on a bad team, all the big market teams will want to plunder your team. And, if you want to keep them, it's spending money foolishly, and if you think you'd rather have a bag of doughnuts than their package of B and C prospects- then you're crazy and should be rebuilding and can use all the "help" they want to offer. It's not really that bad on this board, but it's here from time to time and it's crazily out of control on places like mlbtraderumors.

SI

Okay, I usually agree with just about everything you say, but this post is really random and annoying.

I simply wondered about Dunn because a) the BRaves are within striking distance in the division, b) they have a glaring need that Dunn provides, c) it seems that a very bad team would be willing to trade a guy like Dunn to get better for the future. I never said the Nationals should trade Dunn, much less claim they should do it because they are small market.

I'm a fan of big market (if the Braves can be called that) and BCS teams, but I always root for small market/mid-majors to do well, and fully welcome all efforts to level the playing field, but I swear the attitude of small market fans on this board sometimes makes me want to buy an A-Rod jersey and root for the Yankees.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

buy an A-Rod jersey and root for the Yankees.

i can't even figure out how to take this line and make a sarcastic comment about them, there are just too many...i can't decide!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

The real question for SI is how does keeping Adam Dunn make sense for the Natinals?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The real question for SI is how does keeping Adam Dunn make sense for the Natinals?

I think the point SI is making is that let's say the Nat's average 8,000 fans. Well maybe if they trade Dunn they will lose 500. Not much but tickets + concessions + merchandise might be better than some scrub from AAA who is never going to amount more than .275/ 10 HR.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Well the hope would be that the players they receive for Dunn would lead to larger future gains the the marginal gains Dunn currently gives them.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That's right - I'd forgotten the whole Lars coming up thing. Silly me. I wonder if Youk would be okay with moving back to third though? I mean he's shown he'll do it on occasion, but as a full-time thing? At some point you have to think that the moving-around might damage his offense.

I'd be less worried about it hurting his offense and more worried about his body breaking down - he has the body type that doesn't do well after 30/31, as his 1st half/2nd half splits indicate.

Seriously, is Atlanta even a bigger market than Washington?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'd be less worried about it hurting his offense and more worried about his body breaking down - he has the body type that doesn't do well after 30/31, as his 1st half/2nd half splits indicate.

Seriously, is Atlanta even a bigger market than Washington?

That's very true.

[miked]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'd be less worried about it hurting his offense and more worried about his body breaking down - he has the body type that doesn't do well after 30/31, as his 1st half/2nd half splits indicate.

Seriously, is Atlanta even a bigger market than Washington?

By payrolls you'd think so...

[Logan]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I also haven't heard any talk of the Nationals giving Dunn up, so I'm not sure why everyone in here is getting so excited about him playing for "their" team. He is wrapped up through next year and the team seems happy with him. It could always happen, obviously, but I think he's one of the few pieces that keep butts in the seats at NationalsPark.

I remember a report earlier in the year that said the Nats asked the Red Sox for Delcarmen in exchange for Dunn, so I'd say they have made him available.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think that was Johnson. Dunn would cost far more (and Delcarmen wasn't enough for Johnson... yet).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Yay, SI is here to say the same thing again.

It doesn't stop you guys so turnabout is fair play

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Seriously, is Atlanta even a bigger market than Washington?

Yes, but only by the slimmest of margins since September 2007, when the gap between the two markets was only 2,000 residents out of more than 2.3 million. The latest DMA (tv rankings) of markets has Atlanta #8 at 2,369,780 and Washington at #9 with 2,321,610.

Last projections I saw had Atlanta likely to move up to #7 next year passing Boston.

Just for the heck of it,
Major League Cities by TV Market Size (with rounded TV homes)
1. New York 7.433 million
2. Los Angeles 5.654m
3. Chicago 3.492m
4. Philadelphia 2.950m
5. Dallas-Ft Worth 2.489m (passed SF/Oak in Sept 07)
6. San Fran-Oakland-San Jose 2.476m
7. Boston(Manchester) 2.409m
8. Atlanta 2.369m (passed Wash in Sept 07)
9. Washington (Hagrstwn) 2.321m
10. Houston 2.106m
11. Detroit 1.926m
12. Phoenix (Prescott) 1.855m
13. Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota) 1.822m
14. Seattle-Tacoma 1.819m
15. Minneapolis-St. Paul 1.730m
16. Miami-Ft. Lauderdale 1.546m
17. Cleveland-Akron (Canton) 1.5249m
18. Denver 1.5242m
21. St. Louis 1.249m
23. Pittsburgh 1.156m
26. Baltimore 1.102m
28. San Diego 1.066m
31. Kansas City 938k
34. Cincinnati 916k
35. Milwaukee 905k
--------
19. Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne 1.466m
20. Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto 1.399m
22. Portland 1.175m
24. Charlotte 1.122m
25. Indianapolis 1.114m
27. Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville) 1.080m
29. Nashville 1.106m
30. Hartford & New Haven 1.014m
32. Columbus, OH 926k
33. Salt Lake City 919k

In case you're wondering, Toronto fits in between Dallas & San Fran with 2.7m TV households.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It doesn't stop you guys so turnabout is fair play

SI

Stop us from what? Talking about trades that might make our team better?

[lungs]

For as much as it looks like Milwaukee doesn't deserve a major league team, this recent article shows that the ratings are doing pretty well and they rank 8th in the league for average attendance.

Shows what putting a decent team on the field can do.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

For as much as it looks like Milwaukee doesn't deserve a major league team, this recent article shows that the ratings are doing pretty well and they rank 8th in the league for average attendance.

Just to be clear though, those ratings mentioned in the article are local market only. In other words, that 7.89 rating in Milwaukee is the same number of eyeballs as a (hypothetical) 3.9 rating in Phoenix.

edit to add: Nothing wrong with that, a 7+ rating is fine, I just didn't want anyone to confuse that with a national rating.

[Ksyrup]

Aroldis Chapman, a 21-year old (presumably) LH pitcher, has defected from Cuba. Interestingly, the ESPN article about it talks about his 100+ MPH fastball, but mediocre other pitches and maturity issues, while Buster Olney shoots off a quickl blog to say he's the LH Strasburg. Regardless, I assume there will be an intense bidding war for him this year.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Okay, I usually agree with just about everything you say, but this post is really random and annoying.

I simply wondered about Dunn because a) the BRaves are within striking distance in the division, b) they have a glaring need that Dunn provides, c) it seems that a very bad team would be willing to trade a guy like Dunn to get better for the future. I never said the Nationals should trade Dunn, much less claim they should do it because they are small market.

I'm a fan of big market (if the Braves can be called that) and BCS teams, but I always root for small market/mid-majors to do well, and fully welcome all efforts to level the playing field, but I swear the attitude of small market fans on this board sometimes makes me want to buy an A-Rod jersey and root for the Yankees.

I know JIMGA was mostly joking about the offer and you and JPhillips were basically just kicking the tires on the Braves and Tigers chances if they were to get someone like that. Hell, we've spent all offseason in KC going "damn, if only Dayton would have spent the money there instead of X, Y, and Z" (which usually amounts to we wouldn't have traded Nunez for Jacobs and $3.5M and that would have spared us signing Farnsworth to stupid money)- then where might our lineup be, since he'd basically be DH'ing. This wasn't about you or the Atlanta fans.

But I swear, any time any name comes up as a possible trade, I get tired of hearing how the rich (New York, Boston, Cubs fans are getting that way now, etc) have decided they're going to get richer as if no one else should deign to field a team or they might luck into actually being good eventually. It's always the teams that have 4 and 5 of those players that good talking about adding more when a bunch of us would be happy to have 1 or 2 on our teams.

But there's more to it...

Originally Posted by panerd

I think the point SI is making is that let's say the Nat's average 8,000 fans. Well maybe if they trade Dunn they will lose 500. Not much but tickets + concessions + merchandise might be better than some scrub from AAA who is never going to amount more than .275/ 10 HR.

There's basically a threefold answer

1) Dunn has a fairly cheap contract by baseball standards, considering his production.

2) As a bad team, you're going to have to overpay for players. If you can't even get to mediocre, much less good, many players won't even check out your team and those that might will want you to grossly overpay, even more than if you want to go to a middling team.

If this doesn't keep you from developing younger guys- i.e. is Dunn blocking someone for the Nats- then there's not much harm so long as they keep spending at other levels. I know they had issues with Aaron Crow last year, but it sounds like that was the former GM mangling the negotiations, not so much the money. Strasburg's going to get gobs of cash from them and paying Dunn wasn't going to affect that one way or another.

3) One of the guys on KC sports talk (Soren Petro), makes a great argument at why you can't just keep flushing the team and starting over every 2, 3, or 5 years at rebuilding. I can't articulate it as well as he has but I'll try to give the Cliff's Notes version with some of my own thoughts thrown in (and then running off on a tangent)

Yes, you can be the Rays and basically overwhelm with talent where you have enough stored up that you just have 95-100 win talent on the team. But that's not going to be the case in most scenarios. Teams and franchises in baseball can't turn around like in football or basketball, the structure isn't there. It takes a little bit of time to build from a perrenial loser to winner, in most cases. Typically, this cycle runs from bad years to surprise year, fallback year, contention year, and then good years window. The baseball annals are littered with rebuilds that failed and you're asking for 5-7+ years of futility.

There is developmental value to your young players if your team goes from 59 wins last year to 70 this year to .500 the next year. Winning can help them develop and, in a sport where normalcy is conducive to the best results and getting too high or low in a 162 game season causes worse play, having a steadying veteran presence helps.

You can't just turn around a losing culture overnight. And you do need some steady players just to get you up to medicore so that you can afford good players. They got lucky because of the horrible market and they got a good player on the cheap. Does Washington have designs of doing anything more than losing 100 next year? If so, then you can't possibly look at him unless you're bowled over by an offer. Next year at the trade deadline is a different beast, or even during the offseason, but he hasn't even played half of his contract. Who wants to sign with Washington if they're just going to trade players away?

SI

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Aroldis Chapman, a 21-year old (presumably) LH pitcher, has defected from Cuba. Interestingly, the ESPN article about it talks about his 100+ MPH fastball, but mediocre other pitches and maturity issues, while Buster Olney shoots off a quickl blog to say he's the LH Strasburg. Regardless, I assume there will be an intense bidding war for him this year.

So what you're saying is that either the Yankees or the Red Sox will probably sign him.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

1) Dunn has a fairly cheap contract by baseball standards, considering his production.

I don't see how this is the case. He was on the market for 3 months before anyone signed him (just 5 months ago). I think he is being paid market rate for his production, sort of by definition.

As to the larger point, if Dunn can be a piece of the puzzle for winning next year, or is important in getting people to the ballpark (which, with the Natinals attendance, is a difficult proposition to support), then there is no reason not to trade him for pieces that could help long term. I see no reason to keep him OTHER than the ability to say "Those big market teams won't push us around!" but that seems to me to be a failing business model.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Aroldis Chapman, a 21-year old (presumably) LH pitcher, has defected from Cuba. Interestingly, the ESPN article about it talks about his 100+ MPH fastball, but mediocre other pitches and maturity issues, while Buster Olney shoots off a quickl blog to say he's the LH Strasburg. Regardless, I assume there will be an intense bidding war for him this year.

Aroldis Chapman, top Cuban pitcher, defects - ESPN

This story has him for a $30-60M deal. I understood the Dice-K money as he was a polished professional pitcher. But this guy is supposed to basically be raw talent, 100mph but scouts clashing on whether he has plus or just mediocre secondary pitches.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I don't see how this is the case. He was on the market for 3 months before anyone signed him (just 5 months ago). I think he is being paid market rate for his production, sort of by definition.

I think that's purely due to market conditions last year, tho, and him overguessing the market. There was talk of him at 6/$100M when the winter started. Everyone got caught unaware and were cutting back because of previous constraints.

SI

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

And I would argue those market conditions still exist. I see no reason to think otherwise.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

dola,

SI, I do understand your larger point. There is certainly an air of entitlement among many fans of larger market teams. I think that those are simply fans that aren't particularly sophisticated. They probably also tend to be the loudest, and are best ignored. MLBtraderumors comments section is a great example of the types that should be ignored.

[JPhillips]

SI: I'd turn some of that on it's head. I think one of the problems for the Nats is that they haven't committed to rebuilding, and I lay most of that blame on Bowden. Now that he's out of the picture they need to figure out how to win three to five years from now. It's hard for me to believe that Dunn will be a part of a playoff team in Washington, so how can you best make use of him to help build a winner? I wouldn't trade him for anything, but I'd certainly field offers and see if there's a top prospect to be had.

Washington has potential with their pitchers, but the lineup is a disaster and doesn't look to have enough in the minors to make it better over the next two or three years.

As for whether free agents will sign with them, that will change once they look to be headed in the right direction. If the starting pitching develops as hoped and they get another couple of masher to go with Zimmerman, free agents will have no problem going to D.C. This isn't some backwater market, when they have a winning team they'll make plenty of money.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just to be clear though, those ratings mentioned in the article are local market only. In other words, that 7.89 rating in Milwaukee is the same number of eyeballs as a (hypothetical) 3.9 rating in Phoenix.

edit to add: Nothing wrong with that, a 7+ rating is fine, I just didn't want anyone to confuse that with a national rating.

Yeah, I was hoping you could explain the rating thing. The ratings must've been good enough as FSWI recently signed an extension that both sides are pretty happy with after Mark Attanasio complained very vocally about the horrible TV deal he inherited from Bud Selig's daughter after buying the team. Too bad that original deal runs until 2012. Mark A's lawyers must not have been able to find an out in the contract.

[JPhillips]

Let's get back to something we can all agree on, Dusty Baker doesn't know what he's doing. When last we left him he was putting his two lowest OBPs in the top two spots of the order. When Gonzo got hurt the hope was that Dusty would have to adjust the order so that the two lowest OBPs wouldn't be the 1 and 2 hitters. Dusty, though, has elevated Jerry Hairston Jr. into the 2 spot so once again the two lowest OBPs in the lineup bat 1 and 2 for your Cincinnati Reds.

Why was I born in southern Ohio?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

You just had a walkoff win, quit yer bitchin.

[JPhillips]

With the top two in the lineup reaching base twice in ten plate appearances.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Rob Neyer blogged yesterday about a Dave Cameron blog that argues that Adam Dunn is worth only a few runs more than Nyjer Morgan, when you factor in hitting, defense, and base running. Basically, Dunn is worth +45 runs hitting, but Morgan is worth +39 runs for defense and base running (comparatively speaking). And then when you figure in cost ($10M vs. $400K), Morgan is probably a better investment for what you are getting out of him relative to Dunn.

Morgan = Dunn | FanGraphs Baseball

The problem here is defensive metrics need at least year to get a proper sample size and some argue that you need closer to 3. Morgan's numbers also bring up a significant red flag when you see that his numbers in center over 54 games are grading out better than his numbers in left over 85 games. That just doesn't match up.

He does seem to be a good defensive outfielder, but his numbers in center seem to off at this point and if you normalized them to what you'd expect based on his play in left he loses a whole hell of a lot of his value.

EDIT: I should clarify that some advanced metrics have his defense in center ahead of his defense in left. They use UZR for this article and although his numbers in center lag behind his numbers in left, its not to the extent you would expect.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Aroldis Chapman, a 21-year old (presumably) LH pitcher, has defected from Cuba. Interestingly, the ESPN article about it talks about his 100+ MPH fastball, but mediocre other pitches and maturity issues, while Buster Olney shoots off a quickl blog to say he's the LH Strasburg. Regardless, I assume there will be an intense bidding war for him this year.

so presumably 21=24?

I think he's the next Contreras (which is to say WAYYYYYY overhyped). But I fully expect the Yankees to overpay for him, and am thankful that the Red Sox are too smart for that.

There's also not a lot of teams looking to add payroll - particularly for a kid who'll have to start in the minors and spend what sounds like a couple years there.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But I swear, any time any name comes up as a possible trade, I get tired of hearing how the rich (New York, Boston, Cubs fans are getting that way now, etc) have decided they're going to get richer as if no one else should deign to field a team or they might luck into actually being good eventually. It's always the teams that have 4 and 5 of those players that good talking about adding more when a bunch of us would be happy to have 1 or 2 on our teams.
SI

I think you're overreacting. Nobody's saying "nobody else should deign to field a team or they might luck into actually being good eventually."

It just so happens that the fans of the major market teams tend to be more numerous/vocal, and we're all just salivating over the possibility of it. Doesn't mean we don't think the Nationals don't deserve him, or should give him up for nothing. Shit, wasn't like I said "How about Washington trades him to Boston for a bag of baseballs AND eats his salary." We hadn't even gotten to the "what would Washington want back" part of the discussion, we were just discussing the impact of a strong baseball player on our teams. Frankly I think they could get a great package for him though, and they'd be foolish to at least not consider it. Couple of young cost-controlled players, a AAAA and a couple AAA guys? How could you not at least kick the tires on that deal if you're Washington. It'd be irresponsible not to.

Feel free to do the same for any other team. What if he ended up on the Royals - do you want to talk about that? It'd make them a hell of a lot better too. So start talking about that, contribute to that side of the discussion instead of going off on one of your rants about how the big-market teams are evil and their fans are entitled and what-not.

Honestly, I've never found your MLB-related comments to be as irritating as some other people have, but this time it seems like you're coming from wayyyyyyyyyyyy out of left-field with baseless accusations and frustration that doesn't even relate to what was being discussed.

[sterlingice]

Ok, well, time for me to back off of the other stuff for today as I probably was going too far, compounding what I heard and read elsewhere and taking it out here. Got tired of hearing gloating from the damn Yankees fans at my work and then reading some of the filth at MLBTradeRumors. It's enough to make you go nuts, particularly when your team starts out a season well and then goes straight into the crapper... again.

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Rob Neyer blogged yesterday about a Dave Cameron blog that argues that Adam Dunn is worth only a few runs more than Nyjer Morgan, when you factor in hitting, defense, and base running. Basically, Dunn is worth +45 runs hitting, but Morgan is worth +39 runs for defense and base running (comparatively speaking). And then when you figure in cost ($10M vs. $400K), Morgan is probably a better investment for what you are getting out of him relative to Dunn.

Morgan = Dunn | FanGraphs Baseball

So, to expand on defensive metrics from before. The distance between Nyjer Morgan playing CF for the Nats and enjoying a seat in Syracuse isn't all that far apart. He hit for a good average in the minors and his walk rate was decent but nothing to write home about. He has no pop at all- not even doubles power. He's fast, but gets caught way too often- you have to get 75% just to break even so his base stealing actually loses you games because of his 18:10 SB:CS ratio.

We all know Dunn sucks in the field. And it's not going to get any better but he's not going to go from "bad" to "bad enough we need to bench him despite his bat" overnight. However, if Morgan's average, which is pretty much completely BABIP dependent takes a dive, he's pretty much useless as a player because you can't have that gaping of a black hole in your lineup (well, you can, but it's not conducive to winning ball games). That's why we have a bunch of teams wanting Dunn and all it took to get Morgan was a prospect who will be in his third baseball franchise at 24 because of a 10 cent head.

So, why does this matter?

One commenter on Fangraphs summed up my feeling on defensive statistics in a nutshell:

It’s also time fangraphs stops using UZR as gospel. Everyone knows fielding run metrics are in their infancy, and there is usually large variation between metrics.


Example:
Jason Bay’s UZR in 2009: -7.0
Jason Bay’s FRAA in 2009: +8


Now I know baseballprospectus loves to keep FRAA shrouded in mystery which makes it kind of meh, but a FIFTEEN DAMN RUN difference in two metrics supposedly measuring the same player ability, not to mention an ability that has very little variance compared to hitting (biggest difference between full time players last year at the same position was Carl Crawford vs. Brad Hawpe at 56 runs, I believe, and that took near historical levels of badness from Hawpe to happen).


So when my two favorite baseball websites are saying two entirely different things about a baseball player in terms of their defense, how am I supposed to view defensive run metrics as anything more than what I do now, food for thought? And while I 100% agree Dunn is a miserable defender, saying Nyier Morgan is the equivalent to ANY guy who routinely posts 40 HR and .390 OBP seasons and could very well end his career in the top 15 of all time in Home Runs (at the very least top 20), outside of being a Kingman-esque hacker, by using a metric w/ so much variance, is a statistical cherry pick to the max, and horrifically irresponsible.

Well, the author at Fangraphs made an entire piece about how two players are similar and then condemning the sabermetric community all while using a stat that's horribly flawed and, even worse, easy to see how it's so badly flawed. I just can't get how there's such a blind spot for how bad these metrics are among stat people who should know better.

SI

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, the author at Fangraphs made an entire piece about how two players are similar and then condemning the sabermetric community all while using a stat that's horribly flawed and, even worse, easy to see how it's so badly flawed. I just can't get how there's such a blind spot for how bad these metrics are among stat people who should know better.

I don't think UZR is a bad stat, but one that needs a very large sample size. Litchman himself had stated on BTF that it needs roughly 3 years to really be accurate and if you go back the previous 3 seasons using FRAA and UZR they're fairly close. Both have seen Bay as a OFer who's defense has declined from his first few years in the league.

You also have to keep in mind its just as bad to bring up one player to poke holes in any stat, especially when that player plays a position in a ballpark with unique conditions.

Defensive metrics are in their infancy and need to taken with a grain of salt, but in this case no (not the writer or the person trying to question the validity of the stat) is keeping with the guidelines set by the inventor of the stat.

The issue I have with Dave Cameron's article is it seems like he had a conclusion drawn up in his head before he wrote the article and when his first glance at stats backed up the point he wanted to make he decided it would probably be best not to dig deeper. In doing so he ignored the two most important words in the statistical community. Sample Size.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I know JIMGA was mostly joking about the offer

Umm, that wasn't just "mostly", that was "completely".

I actually had to go back & figure out how I even got into this discussion because I didn't even remember the comment at first. My suggestion of "Jordan Schaefer, Brandon Jones and Garrett Anderson? And we'll throw in Reid Gorecki as a fourth outfielder" was in response to a comment about how it might take a couple of AAAA outfielders to get him (something I took as mostly joking) and was meant to poke fun at the sorry state of affairs with the Braves outfield options.

I even felt bad including Jones because I actually think the Braves haven't given him a fair chance to earn a job (all he's done is hit .308 with a .478 OBP in 5 games this year, and his .709 OPS in 41 games last year is comparable to Anderson even with his recent surge & 50 points or more ahead of Francouer, Schaefer, and Blanco). But for whatever reason the nose picker on the bench running things doesn't seem to like him.

The other names I threw in -- Gorecki & three former major league pitchers -- were there just as a "they still make that" reference, since I bet there aren't a handful of people who knew any of them were still actively playing anywhere higher than beer league softball.


Now on other businesss

But I swear, any time any name comes up as a possible trade, I get tired of hearing how the rich (New York, Boston, Cubs fans are getting that way now, etc) have decided they're going to get richer as if no one else should deign to field a team or they might luck into actually being good eventually. It's always the teams that have 4 and 5 of those players that good talking about adding more when a bunch of us would be happy to have 1 or 2 on our teams.

Sorry, but that seems like a nearly nonsensical thing to get upset about. Those teams are usually the ones with parts to trade to make a deal. Of course they're going to be mentioned in those discussions. What the hell do you want, a ban on teams trading players too?