Hillenbrand for Kim?

Alan T · 05-29-2003, 01:33 PM

Supposedly only needs D-backs approval:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0529/1560537.html

ISiddiqui · 05-29-2003, 01:36 PM

Just saw it. It's an interesting deal... but Boston is in 1st right now, and should it really trade a .300 hitter? My head says no, even if Kim is that good... the bullpen is settling down.

cuervo72 · 05-29-2003, 01:40 PM



YEAR G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS 

2003 49 185 20 56 17 0 3 38 7 26 1 0 .303 .335 .443 .778 

  STAT BREAKDOWN 

LAST 7 DAYS 6 25 2 7 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 .280 .269 .480 .749 

PROJECTED 153 576 62 174 53 0 9 118 22 81 3 0 .303 .335 .443 .778 

CAREER 344 1287 166 365 80 6 33 170 45 182 8 6 .284 .317 .432 .749

I'd get rid of him in a heartbeat.

QuikSand · 05-29-2003, 01:41 PM

I like this for the Sox. Hillenbrand is an enigma.

Alan T · 05-29-2003, 01:42 PM

My wife (die hard boston fan) is really upset at this. I am trying to explain her that they are trading a .300 hitter with very little OBP contributions due to walks for a pitcher who could arguably be the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher on their staff.

They have a replacement for Hillenbrand in Mueller who is capable of putting up numbers as good as Hillenbrand (heavier on OBP, lighter on Avg and SLG) so its a win-win deal.

Maple Leafs · 05-29-2003, 01:43 PM

The Red Sox need to jump all over that deal. Given that the whole league knows (or should know) that Epstein and his kind think guys like Hillenbrand have minimal value, I'm stunned that the D-Backs would give up that much for him.

andy m · 05-29-2003, 01:45 PM

great move for the Sox. hillenbrand's .300 is as empty as it gets.

Ksyrup · 05-29-2003, 01:46 PM

Yep. This was only a matter of time given the employment of Theo Epstein and Bill James.

cuervo72 · 05-29-2003, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
The Red Sox need to jump all over that deal. Given that the whole league knows (or should know) that Epstein and his kind think guys like Hillenbrand have minimal value, I'm stunned that the D-Backs would give up that much for him.

I understand the D-Backs need for a 3B though, considering they're still playing Matt Williams and would have Craig Counsell there if he wasn't on the DL. I don't think Hillenbrand is much of a solution though (maybe a minor upgrade), but that's me.

Sox starter ERA's:
Pedro - 2.83
Wakefield - 4.57
Fossum - 4.92
Burkett - 5.28
Lowe - 5.34

Forget the pen settling down....the biggest help for the bullpen would be to improve your starters.

Ksyrup · 05-29-2003, 01:53 PM

I also think this is a bad deal for Arizona, because Kim is a good closer and Matt Mantei is apparently hurt - again. Even if it isn't serious THIS TIME, it will be in a matter of weeks and months. The guy was hurt before he was with the Marlins, when he was with the Marlins, and after he left the Marlins. He's an injury waiting to happen - or maybe it already has?

Ksyrup · 05-29-2003, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cuervo72
I understand the D-Backs need for a 3B though, considering they're still playing Matt Williams and would have Craig Counsell there if he wasn't on the DL. I don't think Hillenbrand is much of a solution though (maybe a minor upgrade), but that's me.

Sox starter ERA's:
Pedro - 2.83
Wakefield - 4.57
Fossum - 4.92
Burkett - 5.28
Lowe - 5.34

Forget the pen settling down....the biggest help for the bullpen would be to improve your starters.

BTW, the article makes it sound like he would be a starter with the Red Sox.

cthomer5000 · 05-29-2003, 02:06 PM

but bringing a guy to Boston who's already been shelled by the Yankees in big games before?

Franklinnoble · 05-29-2003, 02:08 PM

Kim is a hot-and-cold pitcher... he drives me nuts as a D-backs fan... he's either really great, or just piss-poor.

Still, I don't think the D-backs are getting much for him... but they ARE weak at 3rd base...

cuervo72 · 05-29-2003, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ksyrup
BTW, the article makes it sound like he would be a starter with the Red Sox.

That's what I was figuring they'd do, and why I think it would be a great move. IMO, he'd immediately be their #2 (Lowe was a fluke).

Quote:

Originally posted by cthomer5000
but bringing a guy to Boston who's already been shelled by the Yankees in big games before?

Eh, come on. That's no meaningful sample size

I'm sure the NY fans would get on him big-time though.....

Qwikshot · 05-29-2003, 02:15 PM

NOoooooooooo

This kills my NL fantasy league team...I don't get Shea back because he's on someones supplemental roster...

Nooooooooooooooooo!

cthomer5000 · 05-29-2003, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cuervo72
Eh, come on. That's no meaningful sample size

I'm sure the NY fans would get on him big-time though.....

I agree. I was speaking just from the perspective of an observer of the Boston-New York rivalry. I'm a Yankee hater, but the fans and press will have a field day if this deal happens.

primelord · 05-29-2003, 02:21 PM

cuervo,

Why do you say Lowe was a fluke? His numbers aren't stellar this year, but I don't think he has pitched all that poorly. He had two really bad games. But that happens to everyone. If you take out his two worst performances his numbers are 4-1 with a 3.86 ERA in 9 starts. Not quite that all-star numbers he put up last year, but not that bad either.

Marmel · 05-29-2003, 02:24 PM

Heck, if we take out his 9 worst starts maybe he is 3-0 with a 1.00 ERA.

primelord · 05-29-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marmel
Heck, if we take out his 9 worst starts maybe he is 3-0 with a 1.00 ERA.

Exactly!

Heh my point was just because his numbers are poor doesn't mean he has picthed all that poorly over the course of the season. He had two very poor outings that have skewed his numbers a bit. He has been more eefective than the numbers would lead you to believe.

Alan T · 05-29-2003, 02:26 PM

Its because he is not a huge Strike out pitcher. He relies on alot of his outs via fielders.

history has shown that pitchers have random success at year to year success from that. One year Pedro and Maddux are the best at balls put into play being outs. The next year both are near the worse.

Most people who follow that type of trend predicted Lowe would fall off from his numbers of last year due to that.

JPhillips · 05-29-2003, 02:27 PM

The Sox have to do whatever it takes to get a closer. I don't buy this bullpen by committee stuff. Even if they win more than the Yanks in the regular season, you need a go-to guy in the playoffs. If they can get Kim great, but they have to get a closer before the deadline.

Marmel · 05-29-2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by primelord
Exactly!

Heh my point was just because his numbers are poor doesn't mean he has picthed all that poorly over the course of the season. He had two very poor outings that have skewed his numbers a bit. He has been more eefective than the numbers would lead you to believe.

I know what what your point was, but it is not even June yet, and if he has already had 2 bad starts, he is pretty certain to have more. All those bad starts are going to be indicative of his overall season.

I just hate when people drop some part of a guys stats to make a point. You never see somebody say if you take away his 2 best starts, he is 2-6 with a 7.33 ERA.

primelord · 05-29-2003, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alan T
Its because he is not a huge Strike out pitcher. He relies on alot of his outs via fielders.

history has shown that pitchers have random success at year to year success from that. One year Pedro and Maddux are the best at balls put into play being outs. The next year both are near the worse.

Most people who follow that type of trend predicted Lowe would fall off from his numbers of last year due to that.

Well I still don't completely buy into Voros McCrackens theories. Eve if you aren't a big K guy, a groundball pitcher is going to get more outs on balls put into play than a fly ball picther. And I still think a pitcher has some influence on where a ball is put into play.

cuervo72 · 05-29-2003, 02:32 PM

Well, ok, he's not as bad as his numbers look so far. Maybe I'm being a little harsh. But he's not overpowering (6.28 K/9 lifetime, 5.20 last year), and his BAA against is .247 lifetime, .287 this year (was .211 last year). He just can't be expected to be as good as he was last year.

primelord · 05-29-2003, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marmel
I just hate when people drop some part of a guys stats to make a point. You never see somebody say if you take away his 2 best starts, he is 2-6 with a 7.33 ERA.

Fair enough.

Alan T · 05-29-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by primelord
Well I still don't completely buy into Voros McCrackens theories. Eve if you aren't a big K guy, a groundball pitcher is going to get more outs on balls put into play than a fly ball picther. And I still think a pitcher has some influence on where a ball is put into play.

I do believe that an excellent fielding team can influence those numbers, yet it still has been shown that defense is not enough to prevent balls being put into play to out percentage from changing rapidly year to year. Boston is not necessarily one of those teams with great fielding anyhows. History shows many examples of pitchers who rely on ground ball outs having great seasons (such as Lowe last year.) History also shows up many of those pitchers having big come back to earth seasons the following year. Many of those pitchers will continue on and have other great years, they just never will be as consistant as high strike out pitchers.

primelord · 05-29-2003, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alan T
I do believe that an excellent fielding team can influence those numbers, yet it still has been shown that defense is not enough to prevent balls being put into play to out percentage from changing rapidly year to year. Boston is not necessarily one of those teams with great fielding anyhows. History shows many examples of pitchers who rely on ground ball outs having great seasons (such as Lowe last year.) History also shows up many of those pitchers having big come back to earth seasons the following year. Many of those pitchers will continue on and have other great years, they just never will be as consistant as high strike out pitchers.

Well if your thinking of McCracken's theories then there is more of it tied to the defense than you think. Your example that Maddux has had years where he went from getting the most outs on balls put into play and then the following year being nowhere near the top is a common one used in these discussions. However the point of the argument is usually that the defense was responsible for that and the pitcher was not responsible for any of it other than HR balls. The years that Maddux was low in outs on balls put in play the Braves staff across the board was lower and the years he was near the top the Braves staff across the board was much higher etc.

I don;t know if I agree with that completely, but there is some obvious logic to those thoughts. A better defense is going to make your overall staff better.

Alan T · 05-29-2003, 02:50 PM

Yeah, I am not sure that I buy anyone's theory on anything completely. I think a simplified version of his theory is what I usually hold on to:

You win if: You can outscore your opponent.

So you want to score as much as possible and prevent the other team from scoring as much as possible.

To score as much as possible, you need to minimize outs and maximize run effeciency. Thats where high OBP guys come in to play.

To minimize the other team from scoring as much as possible, if you buy his theorys even a little bit the arguement would be you need to keep the other team off of base. Ie: keeping them from putting the ball into play as much as possible.

So some version of his theory is sound in my mind. To what extent I am not sure.

QuikSand · 05-29-2003, 02:53 PM

The strong positive correlation between pitcher dominance (K rate) and overall success has been around and understood for a long time before Voros McCracken came along with DIPS.

Of course there are guys who are exceptions to the rule.

Of course overall defense can improve a pitcher's statistical performance.

Are we really debating these things?

Incidentally, the McCracken theory on % of balls in play that go for hits is not all about defense. Any reasonable analysis suggests that this ratio, while somewhat affected by the team's defensive capabilities, is also heavily influenced by flat out dumb luck.

primelord · 05-29-2003, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
The strong positive correlation between pitcher dominance (K rate) and overall success has been around and understood for a long time before Voros McCracken came along with DIPS.

Of course there are guys who are exceptions to the rule.

Of course overall defense can improve a pitcher's statistical performance.

Are we really debating these things?

Incidentally, the McCracken theory on % of balls in play that go for hits is not all about defense. Any reasonable analysis suggests that this ratio, while somewhat affected by the team's defensive capabilities, is also heavily influenced by flat out dumb luck.

I guess I don't buy that it is heavily influenced by dumb luck. A good control pitcher can influence where on the field a ball put in play is goign to be hit. The majority of inside picthes are going to be pulled, and the majority of outside pitches will be taken the other. So it seems very likely a team with a good control ground ball pitcher on the mound and a stud defensive player at short stop is going to get more outs on balls put in play than the average guy. I guess I should probably look up numbers to support that though.

Alan T · 05-29-2003, 03:04 PM

I would argue that the Shortstop with excellent range has more of an impact on that type of play than the pitcher itself. A pitcher can try to get someone to pull the ball or not, but a rocket in between 1st and 2nd basemen is likely to be a hit just like a rocket up the middle.

You see alot where hitters tatoo the ball .. just right at someone and go 0-4 for the day. That is dumb luck.

Ksyrup · 05-29-2003, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JPhillips
The Sox have to do whatever it takes to get a closer. I don't buy this bullpen by committee stuff. Even if they win more than the Yanks in the regular season, you need a go-to guy in the playoffs. If they can get Kim great, but they have to get a closer before the deadline.

"Bullpen by committee" is a misnomer. Well, at least the theory that is espoused by Bill James is not a true "bullpen by committee." He advocates a "relief ace," essentially one "closer" who doesn't necessarily close. The relief ace pitches when the game is on the line, be it the 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th innings. And he pitches between 1-3 innings. Basically, James suggests getting back to the way the Goose Gossages and Bruce Sutters used to be used in the 70's.

So, there is a "closer" in the sense of having one dominant, go-to reliever, but you might bring him in with a guy on 2nd and 1 out in the 7th inning of a 1 run game and let him pitch through the 8th. If your team happens to increase the lead to 3 runs by the 9th, you take him out after 1 2/3, and let someone else "close" the game. That guy would get the save, but really, the game was saved by the relief ace who came in and preserved the 1 run lead. The theory is, use the relief ace when the game is really on the line. And according to the theory, a 1 run lead in the 7th is more precarious than a 3 run lead in the 9th, so the relief ace is needed more in the 7th than the 9th.

What the Red Sox have is a bullpen by committee, in that there is no dominant closer or relief ace. They have a bunch of marginal arms that won't work under pretty much any scenario.

QuikSand · 05-29-2003, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by primelord
I guess I don't buy that it is heavily influenced by dumb luck.

Well, that's the thing about baseball. There are so many goddamned numbers generated by the game, that you can actually say something when you analyze them.

You can write all the paragraphs you want about how you think things work... but the people that advance the thinking about baseball are those who have the empirical evidence to support what they assert. McCracken didn't make waves because he thought of an intersting idea, a theory about how baseball might work. He made waves because he analyzed a huge mass of actuall baseball data, and showed with a pretty high degree of reliability that once the ball leaves the bat and goes into play, the pitcher has precious little to do with what happens after that.

Say what you want about spotting the ball here or there, or wily veterans doing this or that... the simple fact of the matter is that there is a mountain of data to support this general conclusion. Do we have all the answers? No. Is there something to this? Damn straight there is.

John Galt · 05-29-2003, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
Well, that's the thing about baseball. There are so many goddamned numbers generated by the game, that you can actually say something when you analyze them.

You can write all the paragraphs you want about how you think things work... but the people that advance the thinking about baseball are those who have the empirical evidence to support what they assert. McCracken didn't make waves because he thought of an intersting idea, a theory about how baseball might work. He made waves because he analyzed a huge mass of actuall baseball data, and showed with a pretty high degree of reliability that once the ball leaves the bat and goes into play, the pitcher has precious little to do with what happens after that.

Say what you want about spotting the ball here or there, or wily veterans doing this or that... the simple fact of the matter is that there is a mountain of data to support this general conclusion. Do we have all the answers? No. Is there something to this? Damn straight there is.

One minor point to quibble with QS. According to McCracken the pitcher DOES have control over HR's.

Lowe is a classic example, though, of McCracken's theory. Maddux's downfall so far this year is also nice anecdotal evidence. I avoided both players in my fantasy drafts because they didn't have HR/K/BB ratios strong enough to justify their ERA's. Both of them suffered from serious K/9 declines last year and I think that has been the source of their continued troubles. Lowe stands a chance to recover because he can limit HR's with his sinker and he did have a high K rate as a reliever. Maddux, however, I think is done as a dominant pitcher. He will be average to good, but no longer great.

Ksyrup · 05-29-2003, 03:54 PM

I think you alluded to it in your comment about taking note of BB/K ratios, but I also think McCracken suggests that pitchers have control over walks, as well.

Maple Leafs · 05-29-2003, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Galt
One minor point to quibble with QS. According to McCracken the pitcher DOES have control over HR's.

I think QS's comment about the ball being "in play" implied that he wasn't considering HRs.

The McCracken theory is the sort of thing that inevitably gets the sort of responses Primelord offered: "that just can't be right. It's obvious from watching the game that it can't be right." But it is right... at least, it seems to be, according to the numbers and with very few exceptions (knuckleballers being one).

One thing that I think people sometimes miss about the Beane/James/Ricciardi/Epstein school of thought: it's not just about stats and runs, but also heavily tied to value. Much of what Beane and Ricciardi are doing is influenced by dollars. It's not that OBP is the ultimate stat, it's that it's undervalued to a degree that if you have limited money to spend then OBP is a good place to look for bargains. Similarly, it's not that SB guys are bad (although they can be if their CS numbers are high) or that guys with lots of saves hurt a team, but that they're so over-valued that it doesn't make sense to invest in them.

It will be interested to see what Epstein does with some cash at his disposal. It will also be interesting to see what would happen if all 30 teams started playing the OBP/SLG/OPS game. Beane would need to find another undervalued indicator to exploit. And he probably would.

TroyF · 05-29-2003, 05:07 PM

I think everyone is right here. Lowe is better than his numbers indicate. He's also a danger when he happens to be "off" his game. Maddux the same thing.

Maddux has given up 39 earned runs this year in 12 starts. 21 of those earned runs were given up in 3 horrific starts. That leaves 18 earned runs for the other 9. Clearly, this doesn't work from a fantasy perspective. The question is how well does it work in real life?

The Braves are 6-6 when Maddux starts, the Red Sox are 5-6 in Lowe's outings. Not what you want out of your #2 or #3 starters, but not exactly destroying your team either. I think both are probably will finish with ERA's in the low 4's rather than the 5+ they are currently at myself. That'll turn the winning% up a bit and make them solid #2's.

We'll see if I'm right.

TroyF

John Galt · 05-29-2003, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I think you alluded to it in your comment about taking note of BB/K ratios, but I also think McCracken suggests that pitchers have control over walks, as well.

I was just replying to QS's statement about control once the "ball leaves the bat and goes into play." I'm actually a big believer in McCracken's theory and I think the idea that there are exceptions is really not the case over time (unlike BB being necessary for AVG other time - see Soriano and Nomar). As far as I've seen, a pitcher even as seemingly dominant as Randy Johnson can't control any events other than HR, BB, and K over a large enough sample size. If someone has some good exceptions to the McCracken rules, I'd love to see them.

vtbub · 05-29-2003, 07:14 PM

Done deal, and a good one for Boston.

oykib · 05-29-2003, 08:24 PM

McCracken says that his theory doesn't hold for knuckleballers or, at least not as well, for relievers.

The part about HR being able to be controlled makes sense. HR are hit on bad pitches and/or on bad counts. Pitchers can influence the count. Relatively few homers are hit on pitcher's counts: 0-1, 1-2, 0-2. Conversely, a great many homers are hit during 2-0 and 3-1 counts. Pitchers counts make hitters swing defensively.

Also, pitchers with good control ( as exhibited by good k/BB rates ) tend not to make bad pitches. The pitchers with good stuff ( high K/9 rates ) also tend to get away with bad pitches more than pitchers with weaker 'stuff'.

oykib · 05-29-2003, 08:28 PM

BTW, it's closer-by-committtee-- not bullpen-by-committee. All bullpen's are more or less committees. They are groups working together toward a goal. A closer is one guy. So we're replacing a single person with a group.

I don't know why this gets to me so much. But it's right up there with 'ATM Machine': Automatic Teller Machine Machine. Ugghhh... it makes me want to see a new grammar and English thread by Kickstand.

QuikSand · 05-29-2003, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Galt
I was just replying to QS's statement about control once the "ball leaves the bat and goes into play."

Yes, you're probably right to crrect my uasge... I believe the relevant work seeks to exclude both walks and home runs allowed, both of which are clearly within the pitcher's direct control. Didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

cuervo72 · 05-29-2003, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oykib
BTW, it's closer-by-committtee-- not bullpen-by-committee. All bullpen's are more or less committees. They are groups working together toward a goal. A closer is one guy. So we're replacing a single person with a group.

I don't know why this gets to me so much. But it's right up there with 'ATM Machine': Automatic Teller Machine Machine. Ugghhh... it makes me want to see a new grammar and English thread by Kickstand.

I still fondly remember the days when it was referred to as a MAC (money access card) machine. "Gotta go hit the MAC".

I still say Lowe will even out a little from where he has been, but he won't be nearly as effective as he was last year. Now about John Burkett....

CamEdwards · 05-29-2003, 10:33 PM

My wife STILL says MAC instead of ATM.

As far as the trade goes, I liked Shea Hillendbrand, but I would have liked him more had he learned to not swing at every freakin' pitch.

Ksyrup · 05-30-2003, 10:22 AM

Neyer's article on the trade:

Neyer

I liked this, in reference to the Bagwell/Anderson comparisons:

Bagwell was young and had a pretty good chance of becoming a star, while Hillenbrand is 27 and has a great chance of becoming 28. Andersen was old and pretty obviously near the end of the line, while Kim is young and pretty obviously could be a star well into the next decade.

cuervo72 · 05-30-2003, 10:26 AM

I just finished reading Neyer's article as well, and that line did stand out. I thing Neyer's trying to get a QOTM

dawgfan · 05-30-2003, 03:11 PM

I'll have to go through my sports quote book when I get home, but Neyer's line is a famous one that was originally spoken by a MLB manager (Casey Stengel maybe?) about some marginal prospect or player.

05-29-2003, 01:42 PM	#5
Alan T Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mass.	My wife (die hard boston fan) is really upset at this. I am trying to explain her that they are trading a .300 hitter with very little OBP contributions due to walks for a pitcher who could arguably be the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher on their staff. They have a replacement for Hillenbrand in Mueller who is capable of putting up numbers as good as Hillenbrand (heavier on OBP, lighter on Avg and SLG) so its a win-win deal. __________________ Couch to ??k - From the couch to a Marathon in roughly 18 months.

05-29-2003, 01:45 PM	#7
andy m High School Varsity Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: norwich, UK	great move for the Sox. hillenbrand's .300 is as empty as it gets. __________________ mostly harmless FOFL 2009 champs - Norwich Quagmire

05-29-2003, 01:46 PM	#8
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	Yep. This was only a matter of time given the employment of Theo Epstein and Bill James. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

05-29-2003, 01:53 PM	#10
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	I also think this is a bad deal for Arizona, because Kim is a good closer and Matt Mantei is apparently hurt - again. Even if it isn't serious THIS TIME, it will be in a matter of weeks and months. The guy was hurt before he was with the Marlins, when he was with the Marlins, and after he left the Marlins. He's an injury waiting to happen - or maybe it already has? __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

05-29-2003, 02:15 PM	#15
Qwikshot Pro Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: ...down the gravity well	NOoooooooooo This kills my NL fantasy league team...I don't get Shea back because he's on someones supplemental roster... Nooooooooooooooooo! __________________ "General Woundwort's body was never found. It could be that he still lives his fierce life somewhere else, but from that day on, mother rabbits would tell their kittens that if they did not do as they were told, the General would get them. Such was Woundwort's monument, and perhaps it would not have displeased him." Watership Down, Richard Adams

05-29-2003, 01:36 PM	#2
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Just saw it. It's an interesting deal... but Boston is in 1st right now, and should it really trade a .300 hitter? My head says no, even if Kim is that good... the bullpen is settling down. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

05-29-2003, 01:41 PM	#4
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	I like this for the Sox. Hillenbrand is an enigma.

05-29-2003, 01:43 PM	#6
Maple Leafs Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2002	The Red Sox need to jump all over that deal. Given that the whole league knows (or should know) that Epstein and his kind think guys like Hillenbrand have minimal value, I'm stunned that the D-Backs would give up that much for him.

05-29-2003, 02:08 PM	#13
Franklinnoble Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Placerville, CA	Kim is a hot-and-cold pitcher... he drives me nuts as a D-backs fan... he's either really great, or just piss-poor. Still, I don't think the D-backs are getting much for him... but they ARE weak at 3rd base...

05-29-2003, 02:21 PM	#17
primelord Pro Rookie Join Date: Oct 2000	cuervo, Why do you say Lowe was a fluke? His numbers aren't stellar this year, but I don't think he has pitched all that poorly. He had two really bad games. But that happens to everyone. If you take out his two worst performances his numbers are 4-1 with a 3.86 ERA in 9 starts. Not quite that all-star numbers he put up last year, but not that bad either. __________________ .

05-29-2003, 02:24 PM	#18
Marmel Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Manchester, CT	Heck, if we take out his 9 worst starts maybe he is 3-0 with a 1.00 ERA. __________________ 81-78 Cincinnati basketball writer P. Daugherty, "Connor Barwin playing several minutes against Syracuse is like kids with slingshots taking down Caesar's legions." Last edited by Marmel : 05-29-2003 at 02:24 PM.

05-29-2003, 02:26 PM	#20
Alan T Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mass.	Its because he is not a huge Strike out pitcher. He relies on alot of his outs via fielders. history has shown that pitchers have random success at year to year success from that. One year Pedro and Maddux are the best at balls put into play being outs. The next year both are near the worse. Most people who follow that type of trend predicted Lowe would fall off from his numbers of last year due to that. __________________ Couch to ??k - From the couch to a Marathon in roughly 18 months.

05-29-2003, 02:27 PM	#21
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	The Sox have to do whatever it takes to get a closer. I don't buy this bullpen by committee stuff. Even if they win more than the Yanks in the regular season, you need a go-to guy in the playoffs. If they can get Kim great, but they have to get a closer before the deadline. __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

05-29-2003, 02:32 PM	#24
cuervo72 Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Maryland	Well, ok, he's not as bad as his numbers look so far. Maybe I'm being a little harsh. But he's not overpowering (6.28 K/9 lifetime, 5.20 last year), and his BAA against is .247 lifetime, .287 this year (was .211 last year). He just can't be expected to be as good as he was last year. __________________ null

05-29-2003, 02:50 PM	#28
Alan T Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mass.	Yeah, I am not sure that I buy anyone's theory on anything completely. I think a simplified version of his theory is what I usually hold on to: You win if: You can outscore your opponent. So you want to score as much as possible and prevent the other team from scoring as much as possible. To score as much as possible, you need to minimize outs and maximize run effeciency. Thats where high OBP guys come in to play. To minimize the other team from scoring as much as possible, if you buy his theorys even a little bit the arguement would be you need to keep the other team off of base. Ie: keeping them from putting the ball into play as much as possible. So some version of his theory is sound in my mind. To what extent I am not sure. __________________ Couch to ??k - From the couch to a Marathon in roughly 18 months.

05-29-2003, 02:53 PM	#29
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	The strong positive correlation between pitcher dominance (K rate) and overall success has been around and understood for a long time before Voros McCracken came along with DIPS. Of course there are guys who are exceptions to the rule. Of course overall defense can improve a pitcher's statistical performance. Are we really debating these things? Incidentally, the McCracken theory on % of balls in play that go for hits is not all about defense. Any reasonable analysis suggests that this ratio, while somewhat affected by the team's defensive capabilities, is also heavily influenced by flat out dumb luck.

05-29-2003, 03:04 PM	#31
Alan T Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mass.	I would argue that the Shortstop with excellent range has more of an impact on that type of play than the pitcher itself. A pitcher can try to get someone to pull the ball or not, but a rocket in between 1st and 2nd basemen is likely to be a hit just like a rocket up the middle. You see alot where hitters tatoo the ball .. just right at someone and go 0-4 for the day. That is dumb luck. __________________ Couch to ??k - From the couch to a Marathon in roughly 18 months.

05-29-2003, 03:54 PM	#35
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	I think you alluded to it in your comment about taking note of BB/K ratios, but I also think McCracken suggests that pitchers have control over walks, as well. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

05-29-2003, 05:07 PM	#37
TroyF Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	I think everyone is right here. Lowe is better than his numbers indicate. He's also a danger when he happens to be "off" his game. Maddux the same thing. Maddux has given up 39 earned runs this year in 12 starts. 21 of those earned runs were given up in 3 horrific starts. That leaves 18 earned runs for the other 9. Clearly, this doesn't work from a fantasy perspective. The question is how well does it work in real life? The Braves are 6-6 when Maddux starts, the Red Sox are 5-6 in Lowe's outings. Not what you want out of your #2 or #3 starters, but not exactly destroying your team either. I think both are probably will finish with ERA's in the low 4's rather than the 5+ they are currently at myself. That'll turn the winning% up a bit and make them solid #2's. We'll see if I'm right. TroyF

05-29-2003, 07:14 PM	#39
vtbub College Starter Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Burlington, VT USA	Done deal, and a good one for Boston. __________________

05-29-2003, 08:24 PM	#40
oykib College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	McCracken says that his theory doesn't hold for knuckleballers or, at least not as well, for relievers. The part about HR being able to be controlled makes sense. HR are hit on bad pitches and/or on bad counts. Pitchers can influence the count. Relatively few homers are hit on pitcher's counts: 0-1, 1-2, 0-2. Conversely, a great many homers are hit during 2-0 and 3-1 counts. Pitchers counts make hitters swing defensively. Also, pitchers with good control ( as exhibited by good k/BB rates ) tend not to make bad pitches. The pitchers with good stuff ( high K/9 rates ) also tend to get away with bad pitches more than pitchers with weaker 'stuff'.

05-29-2003, 08:28 PM	#41
oykib College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	BTW, it's closer-by-committtee-- not bullpen-by-committee. All bullpen's are more or less committees. They are groups working together toward a goal. A closer is one guy. So we're replacing a single person with a group. I don't know why this gets to me so much. But it's right up there with 'ATM Machine': Automatic Teller Machine Machine. Ugghhh... it makes me want to see a new grammar and English thread by Kickstand.

05-29-2003, 10:33 PM	#44
CamEdwards Stadium Announcer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Burke, VA	My wife STILL says MAC instead of ATM. As far as the trade goes, I liked Shea Hillendbrand, but I would have liked him more had he learned to not swing at every freakin' pitch. __________________ I don't want the world. I just want your half.

05-30-2003, 10:22 AM	#45
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	Neyer's article on the trade: Neyer I liked this, in reference to the Bagwell/Anderson comparisons: Bagwell was young and had a pretty good chance of becoming a star, while Hillenbrand is 27 and has a great chance of becoming 28. Andersen was old and pretty obviously near the end of the line, while Kim is young and pretty obviously could be a star well into the next decade. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

05-30-2003, 10:26 AM	#46
cuervo72 Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Maryland	I just finished reading Neyer's article as well, and that line did stand out. I thing Neyer's trying to get a QOTM __________________ null

05-30-2003, 03:11 PM	#47
dawgfan Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Seattle	I'll have to go through my sports quote book when I get home, but Neyer's line is a famous one that was originally spoken by a MLB manager (Casey Stengel maybe?) about some marginal prospect or player.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)