Maddux and $$$ to the Dodgers for Cesar Izturis

[A New Era]

I think Izturis is better than Neifi in that

 

1) he is younger - if he is not as good as neifi now, he could be

2) he has the potential to improve his offense. Beacause he has yet to hit his prime and has shown he could supply decent offense at SS. And that alone means you are getting a better neifi. Potentially much better neifi, and an everyday player because of that.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~hobd8260/BeatDeadHorse.gif

[dew1679666265]

Are you saying that all of them are wrong?

 

Absolutely. Neifi is a better defender than Izturis.

 

Cesar's 2005 fielding rate: 108

His career fielding rate: 101

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/izturce01.shtml

 

Neifi's 2005 fielding rate: 115

His career fielding rate: 111

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/perezne01.shtml

 

By PMR, Neifi is shown to have been much better in 2005:

 

http://anaheimangelsblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/pmr-redux-shortstops-update-david.html

 

Just because some Dodgers fans (who probably watch as many Cubs games as I watch Dodgers games) think he's the best fielder in baseball doesn't mean it's true.

 

And Dewan's method of rating middle infielders is pretty flawless, by the way.

 

Well, there's an example of it. Cesar was hurt half of 2005, and both his offense and defense suffered from it. There have been multiple places that said his defense suffered from it, and I think Izturis himself might have said that his defense was worse than usual because of the injuries. The defensive metrics have him as better than his career average though! Also, doesn't the numbers for Neifi concern you just a bit? Why would a player who is getting older and was always known for his defense suddenly have a better than average year? That's what I don't understand-his speed has certainly gone down since he was a younger player-so what has dramatically improved? As I mentioned in another thread, BP had Sosa as a 7 in 2004, while Ichiro had a 1 that year. I simply cannot look at those numbers and say that they are right, that Sosa was a much better right fielder than Ichiro that year defensively. It just doesn't add up for me right now-I think they are getting closer with defensive metrics, but there are still many numbers like that one right there that just make you wonder about how reliable it actually is.

 

just give it up, we are living in a new baseball age, an age where all but a few GM's base their philosophy on more than just anecdotal evidence.

 

i'm not sure why it's so hard to see. there's no use in hiding from it, the truth will set you free.

 

So are we just supposed to accept the metrics blindly without question then? Them saying that Sammy was a better defender than Ichiro in 2004 strikes me as more than a bit odd and I have a difficult time accepting a formula that would produce that type of result. Maybe this is a one time mistake but who knows if it's not the system that's flawed? I like the idea of defensive metrics to quantify what I feel is an important part of the game, but I can't just blindly accept such a glaring mistake, especially when more may be made later on.

[dew1679666265]

I think Izturis is better than Neifi in that

 

1) he is younger - if he is not as good as neifi now, he could be

2) he has the potential to improve his offense. Beacause he has yet to hit his prime and has shown he could supply decent offense at SS. And that alone means you are getting a better neifi. Potentially much better neifi, and an everyday player because of that.

 

Exactly. I'm not yet sold on Izturis enough to say that he's the next coming of Omar Vizquel, though it's possible, I also believe it's offbase to call him the next Neifi. He's 26, most players are just getting to the majors around this age, he's been around for 4 years. There is some talent there, I just hope he stays healthy long enough for that talent to rise up.

[Laura]

Who cares if he's better than Neifi? We're stuck with them both, and neither seems to be very good at hitting.

[dew1679666265]

Who cares if he's better than Neifi? We're stuck with them both, and neither seems to be very good at hitting.

 

While I won't argue the point about Neifi, I still think Izturis can improve at least some. He's shown signs the past few seasons, while healthy, of getting progressively better. Now I don't know if he'll ever become great as a hitter but I think the evidence is enough to take a chance on him for next season. The biggest key for Izturis will be staying healthy, something he hasn't done the last couple of seasons.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Who cares if he's better than Neifi? We're stuck with them both, and neither seems to be very good at hitting.

 

While I won't argue the point about Neifi, I still think Izturis can improve at least some. He's shown signs the past few seasons, while healthy, of getting progressively better. Now I don't know if he'll ever become great as a hitter but I think the evidence is enough to take a chance on him for next season. The biggest key for Izturis will be staying healthy, something he hasn't done the last couple of seasons.

 

I don't like taking a chance on him; when you have two similar players who aren't that great offensively, it's a waste of roster spots, money and a tradeable asset (Maddux). The Cubs have major holes, especially on offense, and their budget isn't infinite.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

So are we just supposed to accept the metrics blindly without question then? Them saying that Sammy was a better defender than Ichiro in 2004 strikes me as more than a bit odd and I have a difficult time accepting a formula that would produce that type of result. Maybe this is a one time mistake but who knows if it's not the system that's flawed? I like the idea of defensive metrics to quantify what I feel is an important part of the game, but I can't just blindly accept such a glaring mistake, especially when more may be made later on.

 

i think it's even more blind to trust your eyes in a sport that has a 162 game regular season.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

So are we just supposed to accept the metrics blindly without question then? Them saying that Sammy was a better defender than Ichiro in 2004 strikes me as more than a bit odd and I have a difficult time accepting a formula that would produce that type of result. Maybe this is a one time mistake but who knows if it's not the system that's flawed? I like the idea of defensive metrics to quantify what I feel is an important part of the game, but I can't just blindly accept such a glaring mistake, especially when more may be made later on.

 

Defensive metrics are very young and not necessarily reliable. However, ratings for infielders are typically much more accurate because we're dealing with ground balls and line drives that are mostly within a few steps of the defender and pop flies. Outfielder ratings should be taken with a grain of salt because there is no way to measure the line they take to the ball amongst other things. Sammy may have had a better rating than Ichiro because A) he didn't play every day, limiting his chances and B) he could not make plays on the same types of plays that Ichiro could.

[dew1679666265]

Who cares if he's better than Neifi? We're stuck with them both, and neither seems to be very good at hitting.

 

While I won't argue the point about Neifi, I still think Izturis can improve at least some. He's shown signs the past few seasons, while healthy, of getting progressively better. Now I don't know if he'll ever become great as a hitter but I think the evidence is enough to take a chance on him for next season. The biggest key for Izturis will be staying healthy, something he hasn't done the last couple of seasons.

 

I don't like taking a chance on him; when you have two similar players who aren't that great offensively, it's a waste of roster spots, money and a tradeable asset (Maddux). The Cubs have major holes, especially on offense, and their budget isn't infinite.

 

I can see your point and at the time of the trade I agreed with you completely. Since then though I've looked closer at his numbers when healthy the last couple of years and he's shown that he might just be figuring out how to hit. I wouldn't shed a tear if we DFA'd Neifi today and there might be an outside possibility that whatever new manager we have next season might have no need for him and thus DFA him. Whether or not that happens though, Izturis is a better player now and has a solid chance to get better (he's only 26 don't forget). That's why I'm willing to give the kid a chance.

[cheapseats]

Outfielder ratings should be taken with a grain of salt because there is no way to measure the line they take to the ball amongst other things. Sammy may have had a better rating than Ichiro because A) he didn't play every day, limiting his chances and B) he could not make plays on the same types of plays that Ichiro could.

 

Plus, I'm not sure what he's talking about as far as Sammy being rated ahead of Ichiro.

 

Davenport's fielding stats have Ichiro as the better RF in 2004. According to Davenport's metric, Sammy only had two seasons after 1998 in which he wasn't below average in RF, and 2004 was one of those seasons, but he didn't rate as high as Ichiro.

 

As for the human element, the stats in Dewan's Fielding Bible involve watching every batted ball from 2003-2005. The stats derived from that observation rank Neifi slightly higher than Izturis. Those who don't want to believe can come up with every reason they want to about how Neifi can't be as good as Izturis, but someone who watched every play each guy made disagrees.

 

Really, I don't care if Neifi is better than Izturis or not. The fact that we can even have a conversation about Neifi vs. Izturis means Hendry made a very bad trade.

[dew1679666265]

 

So are we just supposed to accept the metrics blindly without question then? Them saying that Sammy was a better defender than Ichiro in 2004 strikes me as more than a bit odd and I have a difficult time accepting a formula that would produce that type of result. Maybe this is a one time mistake but who knows if it's not the system that's flawed? I like the idea of defensive metrics to quantify what I feel is an important part of the game, but I can't just blindly accept such a glaring mistake, especially when more may be made later on.

 

i think it's even more blind to trust your eyes in a sport that has a 162 game regular season.

 

So you should blindly trust only on a system that has proven unreliable? I'm all for using metrics to judge a player's defense but I feel that it's necessary to use your eyes along with the metrics so that when such a silly mistake comes out from the metric, you can analyze it critically. Also if a reliable metric contradicts what your eyes see, you can do the same.

[dew1679666265]

So are we just supposed to accept the metrics blindly without question then? Them saying that Sammy was a better defender than Ichiro in 2004 strikes me as more than a bit odd and I have a difficult time accepting a formula that would produce that type of result. Maybe this is a one time mistake but who knows if it's not the system that's flawed? I like the idea of defensive metrics to quantify what I feel is an important part of the game, but I can't just blindly accept such a glaring mistake, especially when more may be made later on.

 

Defensive metrics are very young and not necessarily reliable. However, ratings for infielders are typically much more accurate because we're dealing with ground balls and line drives that are mostly within a few steps of the defender and pop flies. Outfielder ratings should be taken with a grain of salt because there is no way to measure the line they take to the ball amongst other things. Sammy may have had a better rating than Ichiro because A) he didn't play every day, limiting his chances and B) he could not make plays on the same types of plays that Ichiro could.

 

This makes a lot more sense to me, you analyze the metrics and any weaknesses the metrics have should be complemented by using your eyes and judging.

[cheapseats]

Since then though I've looked closer at his numbers when healthy the last couple of years and he's shown that he might just be figuring out how to hit. I wouldn't shed a tear if we DFA'd Neifi today and there might be an outside possibility that whatever new manager we have next season might have no need for him and thus DFA him. Whether or not that happens though, Izturis is a better player now and has a solid chance to get better (he's only 26 don't forget). That's why I'm willing to give the kid a chance.

 

Not to be argumentative, but 26 is no spring chicken. You expect a little improvement from 26 to 30, but by the time a player is 26, you usually know what you have.

 

PECOTA projects Izturis will have his best year in 2009, when he is 29 years old: .272/.318/.356.

 

And we can't just ignore his injury history. He had several setbacks before rejoining the Dodgers this year (he was expected back in May), and many baseball people thought the Dodgers should be playing him at 2nd to protect his arm. There's no guarantee that he'll be what he was before the injury, which wasn't worth trading for in the first place.

 

There's just not a whole lot to like about this deal.

[CubColtPacer]

Since then though I've looked closer at his numbers when healthy the last couple of years and he's shown that he might just be figuring out how to hit. I wouldn't shed a tear if we DFA'd Neifi today and there might be an outside possibility that whatever new manager we have next season might have no need for him and thus DFA him. Whether or not that happens though, Izturis is a better player now and has a solid chance to get better (he's only 26 don't forget). That's why I'm willing to give the kid a chance.

 

Not to be argumentative, but 26 is no spring chicken. You expect a little improvement from 26 to 30, but by the time a player is 26, you usually know what you have.

 

PECOTA projects Izturis will have his best year in 2009, when he is 29 years old: .272/.318/.356.

 

And we can't just ignore his injury history. He had several setbacks before rejoining the Dodgers this year (he was expected back in May), and many baseball people thought the Dodgers should be playing him at 2nd to protect his arm. There's no guarantee that he'll be what he was before the injury, which wasn't worth trading for in the first place.

 

There's just not a whole lot to like about this deal.

 

It's much harder to tell what a player will be like when they have been inujured for half the time they were 25 and 26. His numbers at age 24 were better than his best year at age 29, as you say, and his numbers at age 25 were doing even better until all the injuries which he kept trying to play through. As you say though, we can't ignore his injury history-hence the risk. If he can't come back healthy, then it's a pretty big problem. We don't know if he can though yet, and the last time he was terrible when healthy was at age 23-which is too early to evaluate a ballplayer conclusively.

[CubColtPacer]

Outfielder ratings should be taken with a grain of salt because there is no way to measure the line they take to the ball amongst other things. Sammy may have had a better rating than Ichiro because A) he didn't play every day, limiting his chances and B) he could not make plays on the same types of plays that Ichiro could.

 

Plus, I'm not sure what he's talking about as far as Sammy being rated ahead of Ichiro.

 

 

Sorry about that-those were thier FRAA numbers that season for Ichiro and Sammy. I used that one because FRAA has been used several times to analyze defense here in the past few weeks, and I was trying to be consistent-I should have mentioned what it was though.

[dew1679666265]

Since then though I've looked closer at his numbers when healthy the last couple of years and he's shown that he might just be figuring out how to hit. I wouldn't shed a tear if we DFA'd Neifi today and there might be an outside possibility that whatever new manager we have next season might have no need for him and thus DFA him. Whether or not that happens though, Izturis is a better player now and has a solid chance to get better (he's only 26 don't forget). That's why I'm willing to give the kid a chance.

 

Not to be argumentative, but 26 is no spring chicken. You expect a little improvement from 26 to 30, but by the time a player is 26, you usually know what you have.

 

PECOTA projects Izturis will have his best year in 2009, when he is 29 years old: .272/.318/.356.

 

And we can't just ignore his injury history. He had several setbacks before rejoining the Dodgers this year (he was expected back in May), and many baseball people thought the Dodgers should be playing him at 2nd to protect his arm. There's no guarantee that he'll be what he was before the injury, which wasn't worth trading for in the first place.

 

There's just not a whole lot to like about this deal.

 

You're not being argumentative at all, I understand the questions about him. Izturis isn't a little kid anymore, true, but he is young enough that he can improve to the point that he's not a hopeless black hole at the bottom of your lineup, and maybe, just maybe, he'll make a large jump like a guy such as Vizquel and become somewhat of an asset. I'm not arguing to ignore the injury history, so far every comment I've made is qualified with "if he stays healthy". I'm more concerned with his health than anything else. Last season when he was healthy early he was hitting great then he got hurt and his season fell apart. Not that I think he'll hit as well all the time as he did early last season but the key is he was showing improvement for about the third season in a row. I'm willing to give him next year and see if he can stay healthy and then if he improves, if not he goes and find someone else.

[abuck1220]

phil rogers was just on xm w/ steiner praising hendry for the trade, mostly talking about his defense. steiner then notes that he can't hit and that he puts up a bad OBP, but that if you can surround him with a good offense you can make him the centerpiece of your defense. rogers then agrees. how can you agree that he's a bad offensive player that needs to be hidden in a lineup of good hitters, look at the cubs' lineup of not good hitters, and then praise the trade?

 

rogers also mentioned the 'he lead the league in hits for two months' stat. talk about working some mileage out of something completely random and meaningless. wow, he was quite effective at slapping singles around the field for two months...whoop de doo.

[C.C.]

This has got to be the longest thread for a trade...Ever!

[fiver]

how can you agree that he's a bad offensive player that needs to be hidden in a lineup of good hitters, look at the cubs' lineup of not good hitters, and then praise the trade?

 

that's the 5 million dollar question.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

This has got to be the longest thread for a trade...Ever!

 

Nope. The Maddux signing was longer.

[goonys evil twin]

This has got to be the longest thread for a trade...Ever!

 

Nope. The Maddux signing was longer.

[E.J.]

This has got to be the longest thread for a trade...Ever!

 

Nope. The Maddux signing was longer.

 

Isn't the Nomar trade the longest thread?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

This has got to be the longest thread for a trade...Ever!

 

Nope. The Maddux signing was longer.

 

Whatever, Mets fan.

 

Yeah, the Nomar trade is probably longer.

[Andy]

I thought the Pierre trade was longer but I couldn't even find the thread for it.