well, clines doesn't get it

[sonofsamiam]

 

Seriously, there's no way anyone can objectively argue that Aramis was better offensively last year.

 

Well, I guess I wasn't being objective. :D

 

Seriously, though, good research. You corrected my dodgy memory on their numbers from last season. Well done. We'll see how this season plays out.

 

That's cool.

 

Lee was totally insane last year; it's easy to forget how long he was flirting with the Triple Crown.

 

My guess is this year he and A-Ram will have very comparable numbers, to be quite honest. And my guess is those numbers will be very good.

[CubinNY]

And my guess is those numbers will be very good.

 

As long as one or both of them can stay off the DL.

 

I'm glad Aramis came to camp in better shape. He could have a monster year if he can stay healthy.

 

I worry about Lee's shoulder. Glove arm or not it can affect his swing.

 

I tore some of the muscles in my rotator cuff lifting weights in the summer of my Junior year and didn't get surgery. My senior year, I didn't hit for much power at all. I don't know if it was the injury or something else though.

[CuseCubFan69]

If only ARam had Lee's speed. I wonder who would win a race between Blanco and Aramis.

[USSoccer]

If only ARam had Lee's speed. I wonder who would win a race between Blanco and Aramis.

 

Aramis would win, but he'd fall over in the process. He runs like a runaway truck.

[dalgreen]

Are some of you giving Hendry props for valuing OBP only a "little bit"? To me, there's a very fine line between valuing OBP a little and not at all. I would love to have a GM and manager who value OBP a lot. And help me understand how acquiring all-stars , or ,in some instances, potential all-stars is evidence that he values OBP? I'll believe that he really values OBP when I quit hearing him use the term "toolsy."

[brinoch]

Are some of you giving Hendry props for valuing OBP only a "little bit"? To me, there's a very fine line between valuing OBP a little and not at all. I would love to have a GM and manager who value OBP a lot. And help me understand how acquiring all-stars , or ,in some instances, potential all-stars is evidence that he values OBP? I'll believe that he really values OBP when I quit hearing him use the term "toolsy."

 

I'm with you. Toolsy means crappy. It's like those scouting reports you read -- "Good baseball body" what the hell does that mean? I care about guys who get on base, score runs, hit the ball with authority. Actually, I don't care if he calls them toolsy, so long as he shows that the ability to get on base -- ie, not make outs -- is a valued skill for the players he acquires, promotes, etc. I've yet to consistently see that.

[dalgreen]

Are some of you giving Hendry props for valuing OBP only a "little bit"? To me, there's a very fine line between valuing OBP a little and not at all. I would love to have a GM and manager who value OBP a lot. And help me understand how acquiring all-stars , or ,in some instances, potential all-stars is evidence that he values OBP? I'll believe that he really values OBP when I quit hearing him use the term "toolsy."

 

I'm with you. Toolsy means crappy. It's like those scouting reports you read -- "Good baseball body" what the hell does that mean? I care about guys who get on base, score runs, hit the ball with authority. Actually, I don't care if he calls them toolsy, so long as he shows that the ability to get on base -- ie, not make outs -- is a valued skill for the players he acquires, promotes, etc. I've yet to consistently see that.

 

You're right. I'll be glad when he follows "toolsy" with "and gets on base."

[rawaction]

Are some of you giving Hendry props for valuing OBP only a "little bit"? To me, there's a very fine line between valuing OBP a little and not at all. I would love to have a GM and manager who value OBP a lot. And help me understand how acquiring all-stars , or ,in some instances, potential all-stars is evidence that he values OBP? I'll believe that he really values OBP when I quit hearing him use the term "toolsy."

 

I wouldn't say I'm giving Hendry props, but I'm not gonna say he has no clue and doesn't value it. The guys Hendry has acquired for this team (outside of Lee) are all pretty similar. Nomar, ARam, Walker, Murton, Alou, Barrett, even Jones to some extent. None of those guys are .100 BB/PA guys. All are/were respectable at around .060-.080. All have shown the ability to hit for a high average (over .300), meaning if/when they do so they will have OBPs in the .350 range. I do think he values tools first and foremost, but he doesn't go after guys who can't hit (again Jones could at one time). I'd say he doesn't value guys that don't walk at all (Neifi not a starter) or walk and don't hit at all (Bellhorn).

[sonofsamiam]

Are some of you giving Hendry props for valuing OBP only a "little bit"? To me, there's a very fine line between valuing OBP a little and not at all. I would love to have a GM and manager who value OBP a lot. And help me understand how acquiring all-stars , or ,in some instances, potential all-stars is evidence that he values OBP? I'll believe that he really values OBP when I quit hearing him use the term "toolsy."

 

I'm with you. Toolsy means crappy. It's like those scouting reports you read -- "Good baseball body" what the hell does that mean? I care about guys who get on base, score runs, hit the ball with authority. Actually, I don't care if he calls them toolsy, so long as he shows that the ability to get on base -- ie, not make outs -- is a valued skill for the players he acquires, promotes, etc. I've yet to consistently see that.

 

You're right. I'll be glad when he follows "toolsy" with "and gets on base."

 

Even better will be the day (and maybe it will come) when having a good batting eye/patience will be considered a "tool".

[CubsWin]

Are some of you giving Hendry props for valuing OBP only a "little bit"? To me, there's a very fine line between valuing OBP a little and not at all. I would love to have a GM and manager who value OBP a lot. And help me understand how acquiring all-stars , or ,in some instances, potential all-stars is evidence that he values OBP? I'll believe that he really values OBP when I quit hearing him use the term "toolsy."

 

I'm with you. Toolsy means crappy. It's like those scouting reports you read -- "Good baseball body" what the hell does that mean? I care about guys who get on base, score runs, hit the ball with authority. Actually, I don't care if he calls them toolsy, so long as he shows that the ability to get on base -- ie, not make outs -- is a valued skill for the players he acquires, promotes, etc. I've yet to consistently see that.

 

You're right. I'll be glad when he follows "toolsy" with "and gets on base."

 

Even better will be the day (and maybe it will come) when having a good batting eye/patience will be considered a "tool".

I agree, to an extent.

 

I think Hendry uses the term "toolsy" most often when talking about a prospect, not a major leaguer. When he does it with a major leaguer, I just shake my head. But usually he is referring to someone in the minors, and there, I think it is fine to scout both performance players and toolsy athletes that can become superstars.

 

I don't think Hendry values OBP as much as some on this board would like. But I think the fact that almost every acquisition he has made has brought in someone with a better OBP than the guy he was replacing is a evidence that he does seek to improve the team's OBP. The fact that he hasn't gone out and gotten several guys with over .400 OBPs doesn't mean that he wouldn't if given the opportunity. Those guys are fairly rare and the teams that currently have them don't want to give them up.

 

It is far more difficult to put together an argument that Hendry isn't trying to improve the team's OBP than it would to argue that he is. That is if you are using evidence and logic and stuff. :wink:

[CubsWin]

Are some of you giving Hendry props for valuing OBP only a "little bit"?

I don't think so. I know I'm not.

 

What I did say was that Hendry may value OBP less than some posters on this board would like him to.

 

And then I presented evidence showing that Hendry has improved the OBP at every position except RF over the last three years. (Its kinda hard to find someone with a better OBP than Sosa had in '01 and '02.) I think that evidence shows that he clearly recognizes the need to improve the team's overall OBP, and that he is and has been taking steps to better it.

 

How far he is willing to go to do so, however, is certainly debatable.

[Outshined_One]

I enjoy the arguments involving targeting OBP players over "toolsy" guys, but I have to wonder the following after watching the A's (namely Jeremy Brown) today...

 

How many guys who are strong high OBP candidates tend to do better than the "toolsy" guys when it comes to the draft and major league success? I understand that one category does not necessarily preclude the other, but at the same time, most guys fall into one camp or another. Murton is not toolsy, but he is likely to get on base at a very good rate. Pie is toolsy, but his projected OBP is questionable given his current makeup (see: K/BB).

 

Do draftees whose only significant natural tool is OBP tend to have as much success, if not moreso, than guys who are athletic and projectable? Is there really any reason to favor one over the other, or have people gone overboard with focusing solely on this stuff.

 

Don't get me wrong, when it comes to proven major leaguers, I think there is something to be said for guys who can get on base at excellent clips. Yet, at the same time, it just feels like a stat that is...incomplete. It seems like it is measuring a meaningful tool, but that it's not something that is be-all, end-all.

[UK1679666180]

How many guys who are strong high OBP candidates tend to do better than the "toolsy" guys when it comes to the draft and major league success? I understand that one category does not necessarily preclude the other, but at the same time, most guys fall into one camp or another. Murton is not toolsy, but he is likely to get on base at a very good rate. Pie is toolsy, but his projected OBP is questionable given his current makeup

 

That's hard to say at this stage, Delmon Young is as toolsy as they come but as yet to show patience at higher levels in the minors. Then you have hitters like Barton and Fielder, who have very good to great hitting tools but not as strong as Young. Another toolsy one to look at is Lastings Milledge.

 

But, you can be the rare exception and have the combo of both ala Chipper Jones and more recently Stephen Drew and Alex Gordon.

[KaiserCesar]

I think the toolsy guys flop more partially because they are hyped up before reaching the majors and also they don't necessarily need the things that aid in progression through the minor leauges, BB and K numbers. So a lot of them get a rude awakening when someone can actually throw a good curveball for strikes or something they didn't have to deal with at lower levels. I think the more disciplined at the plate guys that lack in some of the 'tools' won't get noticed in their minor league career as much, but probably have a better shot at "making it" while having a lower ceiling. If a player can put his 'tools' together with a good approach you'll probably get a real special player.

[Outshined_One]

I think the toolsy guys flop more partially because they are hyped up before reaching the majors and also they don't necessarily need the things that aid in progression through the minor leauges, BB and K numbers. So a lot of them get a rude awakening when someone can actually throw a good curveball for strikes or something they didn't have to deal with at lower levels. I think the more disciplined at the plate guys that lack in some of the 'tools' won't get noticed in their minor league career as much, but probably have a better shot at "making it" while having a lower ceiling. If a player can put his 'tools' together with a good approach you'll probably get a real special player.

 

I think that's a fair assessment in a number of ways. Naturally, a five tool guy has a higher ceiling than an OBP kind of guy, but because the OBP guy has a refined and advanced approach at the plate, he has a better chance of reaching the majors. As UK mentioned, it's rare for a player to display a strong combination of both.

 

A particular point of interest in this debate is indeed how athleticism dictates a player's potential to stick at certain positions. Unathletic guys tend to be stuck at positions like LF and 1B, where there's a glut of guys with great bats. However, it's something of a rarity to have guys who are both athletically talented & sound AND who can practice excellent patience at a position like SS or CF.

 

However, OBP is not something that we in the mainstream have been paying attention to for a long period of time. It's a statistic that we could easily compile looking back at past drafts and minor league success and whatnot, but I'm unsure as to how long scouts have been seeking it out with players.

 

I'm curious to see what the landscape of this particular line of thinking will look like in ten years.

[CubsWin]

I enjoy the arguments involving targeting OBP players over "toolsy" guys, but I have to wonder the following after watching the A's (namely Jeremy Brown) today...

 

How many guys who are strong high OBP candidates tend to do better than the "toolsy" guys when it comes to the draft and major league success? I understand that one category does not necessarily preclude the other, but at the same time, most guys fall into one camp or another. Murton is not toolsy, but he is likely to get on base at a very good rate. Pie is toolsy, but his projected OBP is questionable given his current makeup (see: K/BB).

 

Do draftees whose only significant natural tool is OBP tend to have as much success, if not moreso, than guys who are athletic and projectable? Is there really any reason to favor one over the other, or have people gone overboard with focusing solely on this stuff.

 

Don't get me wrong, when it comes to proven major leaguers, I think there is something to be said for guys who can get on base at excellent clips. Yet, at the same time, it just feels like a stat that is...incomplete. It seems like it is measuring a meaningful tool, but that it's not something that is be-all, end-all.

I couldn't agree more, O_O.

 

OBP is important but certainly not the be-all, end-all.

 

My feeling on toolsy vs. performance is that toolsy often has the higher ceiling. Not always, but more often than the other way around. For instance, Vlad Guerrero was probably not scouted because he performed well. His first season's OBP was pretty good (.366 in rookie ball in '94) but after that it got better and better. He is an exceptional example of how toolsy can become performance and explode. Vlads are few and far between. How often does toolsy pay off like that? And what are the percentages of toolsy guys who even become decent contributors?

 

Tampa Bay seems to be crawling with these types of guys. Crawford, Gathright, Young, Upton. Great tools, but can they put it all together at the big league level and if they do, will their production surpass a guy who might not have all the athleticism and tools, but has performed on a consistent basis and likely played college ball? I believe the stats and history shows that when they successfully put it all together that they are far superior to the performance guy.

 

So the question remains, what are the percentages of toolsy guys who make it big vs. the performance guys who solidly, if unspectacularly, contribute? I think any GM will scout for both types, but should one be weighted over the other? Anyone?

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Who said OBP was the be all end all? Strawman alert.