Players who have no business being in the majors

[Chocolate Milk]

that the equally insane inclusion of Cliff Lee gets ignored.

 

Orlly?

 

He had one good year in 2005 and you think that makes him a world beater?

 

His numbers this year so far are way past his 2004 numbers in pure ugliness. I think we should trade for him immediately. Would love to have a guy on our staff that has a 5.46 ERA, avgs. less than 6 IP start, gives up more H than IP, an oppo sluggo of 515 and has a FIP of 5.86 (although his xFip is 5.65).

 

This guy should not be in a ML starting rotation. But sure sign me up today.

 

Before this year the guy had 400+ innings of above average performance(105 ERA+).

 

You are wrong.

 

But 10 starts changes everything

[sunnydoo]

Before this year the guy had 400+ innings of above average performance(105 ERA+).

 

You are wrong.

 

ERA+

 

2004 84

2005 110

2006 102

2007 80

 

Way to let 1 good year weigh your analysis. Do you work for Jim Hendry?

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/stats/players/index.php?playerId=1636&firstName=Cliff&lastName=Lee

[Chocolate Milk]

Before this year the guy had 400+ innings of above average performance(105 ERA+).

 

You are wrong.

 

ERA+

 

2004 84

2005 110

2006 102

2007 80

 

Way to let 1 good year weigh your analysis. Do you work for Jim Hendry?

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/stats/players/index.php?playerId=1636&firstName=Cliff&lastName=Lee

 

These stats don't really support your stance that he shouldn't be in the league.

[abuck1220]

whenever sunnydoo posts, i can't help but be reminded of the newspaper article in the simpsons with the headline "old man shakes fist at cloud."

[sunnydoo]

whenever sunnydoo posts, i can't help but be reminded of the newspaper article in the simpsons with the headline "old man shakes fist at cloud."

 

why are you always trying to start trouble?

 

You say you are not a fan of CP, yet you start the Alex Sanchez thing, which i firmly stand behind.

 

so what is your deal, are you a troublemaker or what?

[wekse]

hurry, fetch a switch!

[sunnydoo]

These stats don't really support your stance that he shouldn't be in the league.

 

look above that at some of the other stats i posted about him.

 

Then consider this: 515 oppo sluggo + 349 oppo OBP= an 863 OPs Against.

 

I know i couldnt wait to have an 863 OPs against on my staff.

 

Fyi- Eyre is 970, Ohman is 768

[Chocolate Milk]

These stats don't really support your stance that he shouldn't be in the league.

 

look above that at some of the other stats i posted about him.

 

Then consider this: 515 oppo sluggo + 349 oppo OBP= an 863 OPs Against.

 

I know i couldnt wait to have an 863 OPs against on my staff.

 

Fyi- Eyre is 970, Ohman is 768

 

That's just 10 starts.

 

The guy has been almost exactly league average for his career. If you think that merits him being not worthy of playing MLB, I don't know what to tell you.

[Drew Doughty]

Before this year the guy had 400+ innings of above average performance(105 ERA+).

 

You are wrong.

 

ERA+

 

2004 84

2005 110

2006 102

2007 80

 

Way to let 1 good year weigh your analysis. Do you work for Jim Hendry?

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/stats/players/index.php?playerId=1636&firstName=Cliff&lastName=Lee

 

so what year are you basing your analysis on? he's had two above average years and 1 1/3 below average years. you're letting his most recent 1/3 of a season sway you.

[sunnydoo]

so what year are you basing your analysis on? he's had two above average years and 1 1/3 below average years. you're letting his most recent 1/3 of a season sway you.

 

Ya, b/c the ? is who shouldnt be here right now. That doesnt mean ever or never again.

 

Take a look at the oppo OPs tables for the AL along with the ERAs. With 100+ TB the names at the bottom include: Weaver and Perez (whose GM should be locked away for criminal insanity), Millwood (no idea what his problem is as i havent seen him pitch this year), a bunch of TB pitchers (which i did cover earlier), Greinke (who has been demoted out of the SP rotation), Maroth (which i can understand somewhat b/c of the Nate Robertson problem- what else are the Tigers going to do with only Miller ready to step up), then come Sowers, Tejeda, and Lee.

 

Sowers and Tejeda are kids. Tejeda is not the worst starter on his team. Sowers and Lee are both on the Tribe. One of them should go. My choice is Lee, b/c besides the one good year he had, he looks to have returned to old form this year. Maybe a trip to the minors would do him some good.

 

Edit: Nm, sowers was sent down too.

[Amazing_Grace]

It would be. I guess what I'm really saying about Soto is that many people felt that trading Barrett for beans was worth it as long as they upgraded the position by bringing in Soto. I don't see Soto being an upgrade over Barrett. With luck, he may be able to be an average to above average catcher for a while, but he is, as you already said, not going to be a really long term solution at the catcher's position. It isn't so much that he doesn't belong in the majors as much as that he isn't a savior.

 

We don't need him to be a savior. We need him to play good defense and provide average-above average offense for his position.

 

As far as upgrade, he obviously isn't offensively. But as far as a use of the team's resources he may be. We would be upgrading by a decent amount defensively, paying less than $1M to fill both catcher spots and getting much younger.

 

He won't have a 3-year stretch offensively like Barrett has had, but I think he's capable of putting up an .800 OPS in his best year(s) which combined with his defense and price tag, could make him a great value.

 

It could, if that were realistic, but besides this season, in which he has under 200 ABs, he has never put up an OPS of .800 in the minors. In fact, before this year, his highest OPS was .756 in AA last year. I just hope he can put up a decent .700 OPS, which is more than any of our other catchers are likely to do.

 

Now wait. He's been at Iowa since 2005. Did you not realize that or did you just forget to type the third A. On another note, his IsoD has been good to very good all three seasons that he has been at Iowa. He's had over a .350 OBP each year at Iowa, even the first when he hit just .253. Also, he had close to 300 ABs each season at Iowa, so it's safe to say he knows how to draw walks.

 

Sorry, I meant to say two years ago. He had a somewhat lower OPS in the low .700's last year in AAA. And I don't care what his IsoD is if his overall numbers are still mediocre. He hasn't shown much power or ability to hit for average until this season (under 200 ABs). Walks are not the end all and be all of offensive production. If his IsoD was so good it made up for the rest of his offensive numbers great, but it hasn't been.

 

Well, no one's saying the guy is the second coming of Johnny Bench. He is young and has the potential to get better, while with retreads like Blanco, there is no upside at all. He might turn out to be a cheap hitter with an OPS around .750 who plays good defense. That's good enough for an 8 hitting catcher if it allows the Cubs to address other areas of weakness like SS, RF.

 

Last time I checked, OBP is one of the most important offensive stats. Now, it's not the only stat that is important, but you can't just ignore it either. A player with a high IsoD is a more patient hitter, and his OBP is likely to be less dependent upon his BA. He's also likely to be more patient and take more pitches, making the pitcher work harder. In short, he'd be a difficult out. Now, if he can duplicate his minor league numbers from any of his 3 seasons (05-07) in Iowa, he certainly won't be an automatic out or a black hole in the lineup as some Cub hitters recently have been.

[abuck1220]

whenever sunnydoo posts, i can't help but be reminded of the newspaper article in the simpsons with the headline "old man shakes fist at cloud."

 

why are you always trying to start trouble?

 

You say you are not a fan of CP, yet you start the Alex Sanchez thing, which i firmly stand behind.

 

so what is your deal, are you a troublemaker or what?

 

so you get to mock posters about the players they like, but you don't like it when they do it to you?

[Keener98]

whenever sunnydoo posts, i can't help but be reminded of the newspaper article in the simpsons with the headline "old man shakes fist at cloud."

 

why are you always trying to start trouble?

 

You say you are not a fan of CP, yet you start the Alex Sanchez thing, which i firmly stand behind.

 

so what is your deal, are you a troublemaker or what?

 

so you get to mock posters about the players they like, but you don't like it when they do it to you?

 

so whats wrong with that?

[sunnydoo]

so you get to mock posters about the players they like, but you don't like it when they do it to you?

 

i dont believe i mock anyone.

 

i try to engage in rational point by point discussions and keep it clean.

 

there are a couple posters (like an IMB) that i have locked horns with in the past over a few issues where it got kind of personal, but i doubt very much you would ever find one of my posts where i called someone else on this board an idiot, clown, or rtard. Everyone is entitled to their opinion despite how popular or unpopular it may be.

 

As for how this all came up, if you had been involved in the original discussion about CP and Alex Sanchez, like a few others, then by all means have your say. Trying to interject yourself in now, years past the discussion, makes you appear in a negative light as a bandwagoner. Anyone could have 20 20 vision over past decisions.

Edited June 21, 2007 by sunnydoo

[anabiono]

i remember that simpsons...clouds...screw em

[abuck1220]

so you get to mock posters about the players they like, but you don't like it when they do it to you?

 

i dont believe i mock anyone.

 

 

 

Have you checked up on your boy Corey abuck? .210/.261/.288.

 

you've acted like that with patterson for years, and you've acted the same way in recent weeks with regard to barrett.

[sunnydoo]

you've acted like that with patterson for years, and you've acted the same way in recent weeks with regard to barrett.

 

Well, i seriously thought you were one of the ones around during the CP discussion and if you were, you would know why it comes up from time to time. Everytime someone mentions Alex Sanchez, then the CP line will always be listed next. Its like a game of you messed up and so did i, where both groups were cosmically wrong in their opinions about the players. No one knew for sure that Sanchez was on steroids at the time, nor that CP wouldnt ever listen to coaching- its just being a bit of a pundit/critic. Sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong, but most times you are just meh.

 

And i dont know why you would want to involve yourself in that discussion unless you just wanted to start trouble.

 

And i am sorry that me not liking Barrett upset you. I dont think Barrett will ever put up the numbers he has put up in the past again, he still is a terrible defensive catcher, and he was hurting this team in my opinion. I dont delight in him playing badly b/c he played with the Cubs, but his presence was being an albatross to this team. (required definition for Raisin- http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=albatross). We also couldnt bring him back next year.

 

So that is my opinion and if you feel otherwise then great. Argue it, accept it, or just move on.

 

 

Edit: and just so its not misconstrued, the link for Raisin was the word he accused me of misusing the other day in describing Barrett, which he stated that i used the word incorrectly and didnt know the meaning of it.

[abuck1220]

so you get to mock posters about the players they like, but you don't like it when they do it to you?

 

i dont believe i mock anyone.

 

 

 

I dont delight in him playing badly b/c he played with the Cubs, but his presence was being an albatross to this team.(required definition for Raisin- http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=albatross).

[sunnydoo]

I dont delight in him playing badly b/c he played with the Cubs, but his presence was being an albatross to this team.(required definition for Raisin- http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=albatross).

 

Edit: and just so its not misconstrued, the link for Raisin was the word he accused me of misusing the other day in describing Barrett, which he stated that i used the word incorrectly and didnt know the meaning of it.

 

i highlighted it so you wouldnt miss it this time. but thanks for getting involved in another scrum that you werent involved in the first time around.

 

Edit: viewtopic.php?t=41556&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60 for the Raisin link and

Do you know what albatross means? I don't see how Barrett is any type of an albatross and for a team with a $100 M+ salary, Jones isn't an albatross

 

Besides the words "exist" (as in "LOOGYs don't exist") and "albatross," it appears sunny also doesn't understand

 

That is the link and quote.

Edited June 21, 2007 by sunnydoo

[Coach C]

Scott Elarton

[SaorsaDaonnan]

I dont delight in him playing badly b/c he played with the Cubs, but his presence was being an albatross to this team. (required definition for Raisin- http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=albatross).

 

 

Sunny, I'm pretty sure that use of the term "albatross" is usually restricted to situations where a player is a problem for a team because:

 

1) the team gets almost no production out of the player (sometimes this is evaluated against salary rather than absolute production vs. league average)

2) the player is highly paid

3) the player's contract is long-term

4) the player is essentially untradable

 

Normal usage of the term, at least in the analytical baseball community, seems to require all four of those conditions, so that an albatross player is one who sucks, will suck for a long time, and must be expected to continue dragging the team down for several seasons to come. Obviously, the term is not precisely defined. Reasonable people might disagree about what constitutes "almost no production" or "highly paid," although it's clear that "highly paid" must mean "highly paid relative to other major league baseball players of comparable skill" or "highly paid relative to the baseball talent market" or even "highly paid relative to an idealized model of the baseball talent market," and emphatically not "highly paid relative to your average blue collar worker." A standard exception to these requirements is somebody who has met the criteria for several consecutive years immediately prior to this one, but is now in the last year of his contract.

 

Obviously, to use the term albatross correctly, it is neccessary to show that the player's low production resulted from conditions that can be expected to persist into the future; one-time injuries, bad luck, and other external factors need to be removed from the equation. Often it is neccesary to look at available levels of replacement talent as well.

 

I didn't begin this post to take issue with your classification of Barrett as an albatross, but it is interesting to compare the Barrett situation with the definition of albatross that I have proposed. It would be possible to argue against your assessment of Barrett on the basis that Barrett has been unlucky or, alternately, on the basis that two months of poor production, even if genuinely bad, are not enough to make it reasonable to expect him to suck for the indefinite future. More obviously, and more relevantly for the definition of the term albatross, Barrett has not sucked in the past, and as an upcoming free agent would never have been in a position to become a long-term problem for the team.

 

I'll leave it to others to draw the conclusions.

[Amazing_Grace]

I dont delight in him playing badly b/c he played with the Cubs, but his presence was being an albatross to this team. (required definition for Raisin- http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=albatross).

 

 

Sunny, I'm pretty sure that use of the term "albatross" is usually restricted to situations where a player is a problem for a team because:

 

1) the team gets almost no production out of the player (sometimes this is evaluated against salary rather than absolute production vs. league average)

2) the player is highly paid

3) the player's contract is long-term

4) the player is essentially untradable

 

Normal usage of the term, at least in the analytical baseball community, seems to require all four of those conditions, so that an albatross player is one who sucks, will suck for a long time, and must be expected to continue dragging the team down for several seasons to come. Obviously, the term is not precisely defined. Reasonable people might disagree about what constitutes "almost no production" or "highly paid," although it's clear that "highly paid" must mean "highly paid relative to other major league baseball players of comparable skill" or "highly paid relative to the baseball talent market" or even "highly paid relative to an idealized model of the baseball talent market," and emphatically not "highly paid relative to your average blue collar worker." A standard exception to these requirements is somebody who has met the criteria for several consecutive years immediately prior to this one, but is now in the last year of his contract.

 

Obviously, to use the term albatross correctly, it is neccessary to show that the player's low production resulted from conditions that can be expected to persist into the future; one-time injuries, bad luck, and other external factors need to be removed from the equation. Often it is neccesary to look at available levels of replacement talent as well.

 

I didn't begin this post to take issue with your classification of Barrett as an albatross, but it is interesting to compare the Barrett situation with the definition of albatross that I have proposed. It would be possible to argue against your assessment of Barrett on the basis that Barrett has been unlucky or, alternately, on the basis that two months of poor production, even if genuinely bad, are not enough to make it reasonable to expect him to suck for the indefinite future. More obviously, and more relevantly for the definition of the term albatross, Barrett has not sucked in the past, and as an upcoming free agent would never have been in a position to become a long-term problem for the team.

 

I'll leave it to others to draw the conclusions.

 

=D>

I love reading your posts. Please post more.

[Productive Outs]

I dont delight in him playing badly b/c he played with the Cubs, but his presence was being an albatross to this team. (required definition for Raisin- http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=albatross).

 

 

Sunny, I'm pretty sure that use of the term "albatross" is usually restricted to situations where a player is a problem for a team because:

 

1) the team gets almost no production out of the player (sometimes this is evaluated against salary rather than absolute production vs. league average)

2) the player is highly paid

3) the player's contract is long-term

4) the player is essentially untradable

 

Normal usage of the term, at least in the analytical baseball community, seems to require all four of those conditions, so that an albatross player is one who sucks, will suck for a long time, and must be expected to continue dragging the team down for several seasons to come. Obviously, the term is not precisely defined. Reasonable people might disagree about what constitutes "almost no production" or "highly paid," although it's clear that "highly paid" must mean "highly paid relative to other major league baseball players of comparable skill" or "highly paid relative to the baseball talent market" or even "highly paid relative to an idealized model of the baseball talent market," and emphatically not "highly paid relative to your average blue collar worker." A standard exception to these requirements is somebody who has met the criteria for several consecutive years immediately prior to this one, but is now in the last year of his contract.

 

Obviously, to use the term albatross correctly, it is neccessary to show that the player's low production resulted from conditions that can be expected to persist into the future; one-time injuries, bad luck, and other external factors need to be removed from the equation. Often it is neccesary to look at available levels of replacement talent as well.

 

I didn't begin this post to take issue with your classification of Barrett as an albatross, but it is interesting to compare the Barrett situation with the definition of albatross that I have proposed. It would be possible to argue against your assessment of Barrett on the basis that Barrett has been unlucky or, alternately, on the basis that two months of poor production, even if genuinely bad, are not enough to make it reasonable to expect him to suck for the indefinite future. More obviously, and more relevantly for the definition of the term albatross, Barrett has not sucked in the past, and as an upcoming free agent would never have been in a position to become a long-term problem for the team.

 

I'll leave it to others to draw the conclusions.

 

=D>

I love reading your posts. Please post more.

 

i think he would have won the tournament had he signed up.

[SaorsaDaonnan]

I dont delight in him playing badly b/c he played with the Cubs, but his presence was being an albatross to this team. (required definition for Raisin- http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=albatross).

 

 

Sunny, I'm pretty sure that use of the term "albatross" is usually restricted to situations where a player is a problem for a team because:

 

1) the team gets almost no production out of the player (sometimes this is evaluated against salary rather than absolute production vs. league average)

2) the player is highly paid

3) the player's contract is long-term

4) the player is essentially untradable

 

Normal usage of the term, at least in the analytical baseball community, seems to require all four of those conditions, so that an albatross player is one who sucks, will suck for a long time, and must be expected to continue dragging the team down for several seasons to come. Obviously, the term is not precisely defined. Reasonable people might disagree about what constitutes "almost no production" or "highly paid," although it's clear that "highly paid" must mean "highly paid relative to other major league baseball players of comparable skill" or "highly paid relative to the baseball talent market" or even "highly paid relative to an idealized model of the baseball talent market," and emphatically not "highly paid relative to your average blue collar worker." A standard exception to these requirements is somebody who has met the criteria for several consecutive years immediately prior to this one, but is now in the last year of his contract.

 

Obviously, to use the term albatross correctly, it is neccessary to show that the player's low production resulted from conditions that can be expected to persist into the future; one-time injuries, bad luck, and other external factors need to be removed from the equation. Often it is neccesary to look at available levels of replacement talent as well.

 

I didn't begin this post to take issue with your classification of Barrett as an albatross, but it is interesting to compare the Barrett situation with the definition of albatross that I have proposed. It would be possible to argue against your assessment of Barrett on the basis that Barrett has been unlucky or, alternately, on the basis that two months of poor production, even if genuinely bad, are not enough to make it reasonable to expect him to suck for the indefinite future. More obviously, and more relevantly for the definition of the term albatross, Barrett has not sucked in the past, and as an upcoming free agent would never have been in a position to become a long-term problem for the team.

 

I'll leave it to others to draw the conclusions.

 

=D>

I love reading your posts. Please post more.

 

i think he would have won the tournament had he signed up.

 

 

Thanks, but there are several superior posters on this board-- Pinghitter foremost among them, if you want my opinion, and Mephistopheles when he feels like it. Several of the guys who manage the minor league forum are consistently excellent, Rob and Vance are always fun (Tree too, when he's around), and of course we can't forget Tim and the other mods. Bruce Miles deserves mention as well. Several posters whose names elude me at this early hour have shared interesting sabre work beyond the LD% level that more ordinary posters such as myself have a working familiarity with. I'd like to include them in this list as well.

[Rob]

Thanks, but there are several superior posters on this board-- Pinghitter foremost among them, if you want my opinion, and Mephistopheles when he feels like it. Several of the guys who manage the minor league forum are consistently excellent, Rob and Vance are always fun (Tree too, when he's around), and of course we can't forget Tim and the other mods. Bruce Miles deserves mention as well. Several posters whose names elude me at this early hour have shared interesting sabre work beyond the LD% level that more ordinary posters such as myself have a working familiarity with. I'd like to include them in this list as well.

 

Puhleaze. I'm moderately entertaining occassionally to people with no sense of propriety, but the second I see your avatar, I know I'm gonna see one hell of a post.

 

Still, it does feel good to be noticed.

 

*swoons*