Dusty Basically just said Pagan is on the team.

[ManCrushOnNomar]

What spot would Pagan be taking? If it's him over Grissom, I'm totally in favor of it.

[goonys evil twin]

Minor league experience doesn't translate to major league success much better than ST.

 

What? That's not even close to true.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Nomar is a beast and hit a slump to start the season after a monster Spring. I wouldn't read anything into it beyond that.

 

Nomar is a beast? Nomar is a shell of his former self with no chance of being a solid full-time shortstop. His spring training hot streak fooled a lot of people into thinking he was back to his original self.

Who's to say he wouldn't have been over the full season had the Groin Rip not occurred? After all, he started raking when he came back in a much larger sample size of AB's than his pre-injury season.

 

Who's to say Patterson wouldn't have become a hall of famer if he came up with some other organization? Nomar is done as a star SS. His spring was not indicative of what his regular season could be. The point is spring numbers are meaningless.

 

How is the point you are making from the evidence you cite logical?

 

Nomar had a great ST, slumped to start the season, and then was injured. He's done as a starting SS.

 

Somehow all that = ST performances in general don't matter. :?

 

I seriously don't get it.

[badger1679666666]

What spot would Pagan be taking? If it's him over Grissom, I'm totally in favor of it.

 

grissom retired.

[Jehrico]

ST stats are good measures of who can handle competing against major leaguers.

 

No, they don't. Just because you say it enough doesn't make it true. Spring training stats are not close to a good measure of how a guy can handle competing against major leaguers. Much of the time you aren't even facing major leaguers. Another good chunk of the time your facing guys who aren't in game shape. And further more, hits in Arizona are not the same as hits in most major league parks. The numbers are meaningless. Good spring training numbers do not tell you if a guy can do anything good for your major league team. It's a bad way to make personel decisions.

 

So what make you so right and me so wrong? I can use the same argument to say your full of it. If you're going to post a statement like that, you'd better follow it up with some hard facts to back your statement up. You don't have any more credibility than anyone else on the board, so don't think because you say it's so means it is.

 

Do you even understand what I'm saying at all? Your whole post above is dedicated to why ST numbers do not correlate to regular season major league numbers. I already agreed that ST numbers don't translate to Major League performance. What I'm saying is that ST numbers can serve to tell who is more ready to make the jump to the majors between two or more young guys who have never tasted the bigs before. You said that ST numbers don't matter because most of the competition isn't in game shape. So what. The guy he's outperforming that he's trying to beat out for a roster spot is facing the same competition that isn't in game shape. Should attitude and preparedness be considered when choosing the roster? If a young guy who never has played in the show before shows up to camp unprepared, out of shape, then that says something to me. That guy should be showing up in the best shape of his life, and should have been playing in any off season league he could get into to keep himself in game shape going into ST. If someone isn't doing that who hasn't made the team yet, I'd be concerned about putting someone like that on the team. But I'm not arguing that there's no room for concern if someone like TWalk has a bad spring, because we know what he's going to do during the regular season. ST stats are absolutely relevant when choosing between two comparable rookies for one roster spot.

[ManCrushOnNomar]

What spot would Pagan be taking? If it's him over Grissom, I'm totally in favor of it.

 

grissom retired.

I should've checked the transaction forum first.

 

Wow.

[goonys evil twin]

So what make you so right and me so wrong? I can use the same argument to say your full of it. If you're going to post a statement like that, you'd better follow it up with some hard facts to back your statement up. You don't have any more credibility than anyone else on the board, so don't think because you say it's so means it is.

 

Do you really need the list of fringe players who ripped up spring training, made their team and sucked?

 

Do you even understand what I'm saying at all? Your whole post above is dedicated to why ST numbers do not correlate to regular season major league numbers. I already agreed that ST numbers don't translate to Major League performance. What I'm saying is that ST numbers can serve to tell who is more ready to make the jump to the majors between two or more young guys who have never tasted the bigs before.

 

I understand what you are saying, and I think it's completely wrong. Spring training stats don't tell you a thing. They don't tell you who your starter should be, they don't tell you who your backup should be, they don't tell you who is poised for a breakout season, they don't tell you who is the best 25th man. They don't tell you which player is more ready to make the jump. Spring training numbers are accumulated over widely scattered level of competition, over an extremely small period of time in non-competitive game situations and far from normal conditions. They don't tell you anything.

 

ST stats are absolutely relevant when choosing between two comparable rookies for one roster spot.

 

No they don't. And who are the rookies you speak of? Pagan is a career minor leaguer who has always been mediocre. Restovich is a guy with varied major league success who actually had a pretty solid minor league career. Grissom was an aging vet with nothing left in the tank. There is no rookie vs rookie competition. And even if there were, you are much better off basing your decision off of their career production than meaningless games in Arizona in March against a collection of B squads, non-roster invitees, uninspired veterans, rehabbers and the like.

[goonys evil twin]

You said that ST numbers don't matter because most of the competition isn't in game shape. So what. The guy he's outperforming that he's trying to beat out for a roster spot is facing the same competition that isn't in game shape.

 

Non game shape competition is only one part of the problem. The other is guys don't face the same competition. They don't face the same guys, they don't face the same type of guys. It's a widely varied hodge podge of matchups in spring training. It's a bogus collection of stats in the end.

 

Should attitude and preparedness be considered when choosing the roster? If a young guy who never has played in the show before shows up to camp unprepared, out of shape, then that says something to me. That guy should be showing up in the best shape of his life, and should have been playing in any off season league he could get into to keep himself in game shape going into ST. If someone isn't doing that who hasn't made the team yet, I'd be concerned about putting someone like that on the team.

 

What does the question of attitude have to do with the relevence of spring training stats? Nothing. Attitude doesn't make a guy have a 1500 OPS in the spring. A bad attitude doesn't give a pitcher a 9.50 ERA. If you want to allow your perception of a player's attitude to influence your personel decisions, go right ahead. But that doesn't have anything to do with spring training numbers.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Sing has had a great Spring. Nobody cares :cry:

 

Did he get sent to AA or AAA? He's going to rake this year.

 

I think it's sad he won't get a shot.

 

A shot at what? Rotting on the bench? It's a blessing in disguise, career-wise.

 

I know. I don't argue it. I just like him. I hope he does well in the future on a team we never play 8)

 

Yeah, I don't see him in Wrigley. :(

 

But hey, we have Jock Jones! Cheer up. :D

[goonys evil twin]

Sing has had a great Spring. Nobody cares :cry:

 

Did he get sent to AA or AAA? He's going to rake this year.

 

I think it's sad he won't get a shot.

 

A shot at what? Rotting on the bench? It's a blessing in disguise, career-wise.

 

I know. I don't argue it. I just like him. I hope he does well in the future on a team we never play 8)

 

Yeah, I don't see him in Wrigley. :(

 

But hey, we have Jock Jones! Cheer up. :D

 

I think rotting on the bench is a bit of hyperbole. But no matter how you phrase it, I think bench time would have been perfectly fine for Sing. His future is as a role player. He's not an everyday guy. He's got plenty of pro experience, more time starting in the minors is not going to change his situation. You might as well get him used to major league pitching, and being a backup sooner rather than later. If he was a 21 year old with tremendous upside, the minors would be a blessing over the major league bench. He's not though. And we've seen how favorable baseball people look upon players who already have major league experience. Most always get more chances. It's hard to get that first one though.

[Jehrico]

Do you really need the list of fringe players who ripped up spring training, made their team and sucked?

If you're comparing two rookies, the same applies to both guys.

I understand what you are saying, and I think it's completely wrong. Spring training stats don't tell you a thing. They don't tell you who your starter should be, they don't tell you who your backup should be, they don't tell you who is poised for a breakout season, they don't tell you who is the best 25th man. They don't tell you which player is more ready to make the jump. Spring training numbers are accumulated over widely scattered level of competition, over an extremely small period of time in non-competitive game situations and far from normal conditions. They don't tell you anything.

If you can't tell that one rookie is more prepared for the season than another with a comparable skill set from spring training, then you're not trying. You're just plain wrong. You don't understand my point at all. I'm not saying that ST stats are that valuable as far as judging prospects, but you're saying that they have absolutely zero value to any manager or GM whatsoever, and that's just ludicrous. I bet if you asked ANY GM or manager in baseball if they thought there was absolutely NO VALUE in ST Stats as far as comparing to see which prospects are more ready for the show, that every single one of them would not agree with that statement.

 

No they don't. And who are the rookies you speak of? Pagan is a career minor leaguer who has always been mediocre. Restovich is a guy with varied major league success who actually had a pretty solid minor league career. Grissom was an aging vet with nothing left in the tank. There is no rookie vs rookie competition. And even if there were, you are much better off basing your decision off of their career production than meaningless games in Arizona in March against a collection of B squads, non-roster invitees, uninspired veterans, rehabbers and the like.

Pagan isn't a career minor leaguer. The guy is 24. The average ball player breaks into the bigs at about 24-25. If they're in the minors when they're 27 or so, that's when the career minor leaguer label comes in. How do you know Grissom doesn't have anything left in the tank? He was hurt last year, hard to judge by that. Are you making that assumption off of ST? I thought you said ST doesn't matter. Bonds was hurt last year too, I guess that means he has nothing left in the tank. As for Restovich, he's 27, and hasn't been able to stick in the majors yet. He's a failed prospect. He's a 27 year old with a total of 220 some at bats over 4 years in the majors. He deserves the career minor leaguer tag more than Pagan, who has only been in one organization that has already proven to be one of the worst run in baseball. Restovich had a chance to get his break with both the Pirates and Rockies last year after failing to stick with Minnesota, and failed to do so again.

[goonys evil twin]

If you can't tell that one rookie is more prepared for the season than another with a comparable skill set from spring training, then you're not trying. You're just plain wrong.

 

You keep throwing in vague terms like prepared and attitude into this discussion. Spring training numbers don't tell you who is more prepared or has a better attitude.

 

Pagan isn't a career minor leaguer. The guy is 24. The average ball player breaks into the bigs at about 24-25. If they're in the minors when they're 27 or so, that's when the career minor leaguer label comes in. How do you know Grissom doesn't have anything left in the tank? He was hurt last year, hard to judge by that. Are you making that assumption off of ST? I thought you said ST doesn't matter. Bonds was hurt last year too, I guess that means he has nothing left in the tank. As for Restovich, he's 27, and hasn't been able to stick in the majors yet. He's a failed prospect. He's a 27 year old with a total of 220 some at bats over 4 years in the majors. He deserves the career minor leaguer tag more than Pagan, who has only been in one organization that has already proven to be one of the worst run in baseball. Restovich had a chance to get his break with both the Pirates and Rockies last year after failing to stick with Minnesota, and failed to do so again.

 

Again, what does any of this have to do with judging guys on spring training stats. Your pointless Grissom/Bonds analogy just serves to further belittle your own argument. Grissom's numbers didn't prove he had nothing left. He could have hit 2 homeruns and completely changed his spring training numbers and still be done. I'm not basing my opinion on his career on his spring numbers, and I bet the Cubs aren't either. They looked at him move and realized he doesn't have it. I looked at his previous season, career and age and predicted he had nothing left. Thankfully he made the decision easy by admitting his weaknesses and retiring.

 

If you go into spring training with two rookies competing for the same job, and you base your decision off of spring training numbers, you are not doing a good job of evaluating players.

[srbin84]

If you go into spring training with two rookies competing for the same job, and you base your decision off of spring training numbers, you are not doing a good job of evaluating players.

 

Then why do they even have competitions for roster spots and starting jobs?

[moorecg]

I just want to know why Pagan is a career minor leaguer at age 24.

 

Especially since he just tied the game with another HR!!

 

(I know...it doesn't matter...these #s don't matter...although I'm beginning to think that maybe, at age 24, he's shown he deserves a little time in the bigs to see if he can produce)

[goonys evil twin]

If you go into spring training with two rookies competing for the same job, and you base your decision off of spring training numbers, you are not doing a good job of evaluating players.

 

Then why do they even have competitions for roster spots and starting jobs?

 

You can have competition for spots. But you shouldn't determine the winner of those competitions based on spring training numbers.

[UK1679666180]

Neither one of Pagan or Restovich would or will have a major impact. There's nothing to suggest from Pagan that he can hit better than a 5th OF'er.

 

With as poor as the bench is, they need more than a 5th OF'er or hoping someone like Restovich turns it on and learns how to hit a curve and shorten his swing.

 

I thought they should gone for Marrero and platooned him Jones, the Cubs likely don't want to platoon Jones and didn't show interest in Marrero who signed on as a non-roster invitee with the Rockies.

 

FWIW, Marrero has had a strong Spring and earned a roster spot.

 

Someone like Marrero is a nice upgrade over someone like Pagan and a higher possibility to produce over someone like Restovich.

 

Also, I'd rather see Greenberg make it as the 5th OF'er over Pagan.

[Jehrico]

If you go into spring training with two rookies competing for the same job, and you base your decision off of spring training numbers, you are not doing a good job of evaluating players.

You're making statements like "if you say it enough, it's still wrong," but you still haven't presented one valid reason why ST stats have no value when evaluating if one rookie is more prepared to make a jump than another. In the quote above, you're spinning my statements before to make it sound like I'm advocating making a decision SOLELY on ST stats and performance. I wish you'd stop spinning the debate to your advantage, because I've never implied such a thing. If you have two guys who have the potential to be successful major leaguers and one roster spot, ST stats can help determine who to give it to (hence, see Marshall in consideration for a roster spot over Koronka). Most here thought Marshall has the talent to someday be a major leaguer. At the end of last season, no one was advocating he get a spot in the roster in '06 based on his performance. He was good, but not lights out enough to justify such a jump. His success here in ST is making people think he might be ready now though. According to your logic, there is no justification for him to be considered for the spot.

 

Lets see if you'll put your money where your mouth is. I bet a years premium on this site that the next guy Tim can get on here for a Q and A associated with any professional baseball organization would take my side that ST stats have some value and should have at least some degree of weight in the process.

[goonys evil twin]

You're making statements like "if you say it enough, it's still wrong," but you still haven't presented one valid reason why ST stats have no value when evaluating if one rookie is more prepared to make a jump than another.

 

I haven't? Maybe you missed it.

 

Spring training numbers don't tell you anything because:

 

A) Small sample size

B) Varied competition (NRI, rehabbers, other minor leaguers, washed up vets going for one last try, B squads)

C) The games aren't for real, and players have different levels of intensity (you can face a guy trying to crack a rotation who is throwing his hardest, or a vet who doesn't carry and is just loosening up)

D) The game conditions themselves are completely different. High skies affects outfielders, lesser quality infields affect ground balls, atmosphere affects long outs/homeruns, breaking balls don't break.

E) Preparation does not equal better numbers. One guy can work his butt off all winter, play in the caribbean and do well against quality pitching, then suck in spring training (Ronny Cedeno), and another guy can just prepare like an average guy and just run across one week of hot streak which would completely skew his spring stats.

 

 

I don't care what some MLB execs say about what they think of spring stats. Baseball people do a lot of irrational stuff. One of them is putting unwarrented emphasis on spring stats.

 

If you want me to admit they have some small meaning fine. If you have a mediocre prospect who is 0 for the spring, then it's pretty safe to say he shouldn't get a major league job. But then again, you can have a mediocre prospect who has an ungodly spring, and it doesn't mean he's ready for anything. You never can tell. Spring stats do not correlate to readiness for the major league baseball season.

 

I don't see the point in discussing this further. Spring training stats don't tell you anything. They don't tell you who prepared better or who is more ready for the major league season. They can't tell you who deserves a job. If you believe they do, go ahead, put your faith in those stats. Give Fox the backup catcher job, give Moore a spot on the bench. Give Aardsma and Koronka bullpen jobs, and send down Ohman, Williams and Wuertz. Because you can't pick and choose and say spring stats are meaningful in certain spots and meaningless in others.

[Jehrico]

You're making statements like "if you say it enough, it's still wrong," but you still haven't presented one valid reason why ST stats have no value when evaluating if one rookie is more prepared to make a jump than another.

 

I haven't? Maybe you missed it.

 

Spring training numbers don't tell you anything because:

 

A) Small sample size

B) Varied competition (NRI, rehabbers, other minor leaguers, washed up vets going for one last try, B squads)

C) The games aren't for real, and players have different levels of intensity (you can face a guy trying to crack a rotation who is throwing his hardest, or a vet who doesn't carry and is just loosening up)

D) The game conditions themselves are completely different. High skies affects outfielders, lesser quality infields affect ground balls, atmosphere affects long outs/homeruns, breaking balls don't break.

E) Preparation does not equal better numbers. One guy can work his butt off all winter, play in the caribbean and do well against quality pitching, then suck in spring training (Ronny Cedeno), and another guy can just prepare like an average guy and just run across one week of hot streak which would completely skew his spring stats.

 

 

I don't care what some MLB execs say about what they think of spring stats. Baseball people do a lot of irrational stuff. One of them is putting unwarrented emphasis on spring stats.

 

If you want me to admit they have some small meaning fine. If you have a mediocre prospect who is 0 for the spring, then it's pretty safe to say he shouldn't get a major league job. But then again, you can have a mediocre prospect who has an ungodly spring, and it doesn't mean he's ready for anything. You never can tell. Spring stats do not correlate to readiness for the major league baseball season.

 

I don't see the point in discussing this further. Spring training stats don't tell you anything. They don't tell you who prepared better or who is more ready for the major league season. They can't tell you who deserves a job. If you believe they do, go ahead, put your faith in those stats. Give Fox the backup catcher job, give Moore a spot on the bench. Give Aardsma and Koronka bullpen jobs, and send down Ohman, Williams and Wuertz. Because you can't pick and choose and say spring stats are meaningful in certain spots and meaningless in others.

 

Your reasons above aren't reasons for NOT using ST stats to make decisions. They are reasons why you shouldn't use ONLY ST numbers.

 

Are you suggesting that whether a rookie is ready or not for his first crack at the majors should be made based on where he was at the end of the previous year in the minors? Do you agree with Marshall being considered for a spot in the rotation? Do you also think a rookie could hit .050 with an OBP of .060 in spring training, but if he was a leading prospect to make the team at the beginning of ST, he should still have the role handed to him?

[CuseCubFan69]

I would like to see a guy with some pop in his bat on the bench and I think that guy should be Sing. Hairston and Perez are pretty versatile so that ought to cover the middle infield. Can Sing play left or right?

[CubinNY]

I would like to see a guy with some pop in his bat on the bench and I think that guy should be Sing. Hairston and Perez are pretty versatile so that ought to cover the middle infield. Can Sing play left or right?

 

I agree with you and UK, Cuse. Given that he is not an option, I'd rather go with Restovich.

[Jon]

I would like to see a guy with some pop in his bat on the bench and I think that guy should be Sing. Hairston and Perez are pretty versatile so that ought to cover the middle infield. Can Sing play left or right?

I know he played right field some last year. I asked Ron that, so we'll see what he says about his defense out there.

 

And I think I'm with you. I'd love to have that bat off the bench. He may strikeout, but he also walks a ton and hits for good power.