Diffusion

I'm not trying to make a point. I'm trying to establish if what you're saying about $5m for a player that should be platooned is indeed good value.

If you perhaps name me a few left side of the platoon players that are earning more than $5m per in a multi-year deal, that'd be cool. Thanks in advance. Trot Nixon at $19.5/3Y. Matt Lawton at $27/4Y, though I think that one just ended. Ryan Klesko signed a $16.5/2Y extension. Obviously, I'm not saying Jones compares favorably with any of those guys, nor am I saying that those are good contracts. But these things do happen. Thanks for the names. Career splits... Jacque Jones: .294/.341/.488 vs righties (solid), .227/.277/.339 vs lefties (untellably awful, has to be platooned) Ryan Klesko: .292/.385/.548 vs righties (excellent), .228/.324/.370 vs lefties (just about unbearable, should probably be platooned) Trot Nixon: .293/.379/.524 vs righties (very, very good), .215/.304/.328 (pretty damn awful, has to be platooned) Matt Lawton: .275/.378/.436 vs righties (solid), .246/.339/.367 vs lefties (just about bearable) Keep the names coming. May I suggest the Matt Lawton deal was a spectacularly awful one. The fact is there aren't many platoons in MLB period. My point is if you can get a righty who mashs leftys but is horrible against righties for a few million a platoon is a great idea. For 7m you get a solid starter every day and good pitch hitter for late innings person off the bench. I'm not interested really in players that are platooned, more in players who have splits that mean that they should be platooned. In particular, I'm looking for left-handed hitters that should be platooned. I want to see what kind of a market there is for them. Here are a few... Eric Chavez: .289/.367/.536 vs righties (very good), .243/.309/.401 (bad, worse than Klesko, but he plays an important defensive position superbly, so is difficult to justify) Hank Blalock: .294/.363/.517 vs righties (very good), .222/.271/.353 (extremely awful, almost as bad as Jones, if in he shows no signs of improving he should be platooned, is that's possible at 3B) Corey Koskie: .288/.384/.486 vs righties (very good), .247/.331/.377 (only just about bearable) Scott Hatteberg: .276/.362/.420 vs righties (decent), .240/.332/.344 (just about unbearable, should be platooned) Chad Tracy: .315/.368/.514 vs righties (very good), .224/.282/.352 (as bad as Jacque Jones, but the sample size here is still relatively small) Jose Valentin: .251/.332/.485 vs righties (decent), .207/.283/.306 vs lefties (worst of the lot so far, has to be platooned)

The Indians get the Cubs' second round pick for Howry, the Giants' get our third round pick for Eyre and the Twins get our fourth round pick for Jones. The Cubs will not receive any compensation for any of the free agents we've lost this winter (Nomar, Burnitz etc). The Cubs will have one pick in the first four rounds, at thirteenth overall.

I'm pretty much convinced at this point that Spivey's career is finished unless he can stop striking out so often. Thanks for the info on Jamal Strong.

If you perhaps name me a few left side of the platoon players that are earning more than $5m per in a multi-year deal, that'd be cool. Thanks in advance. Trot Nixon at $19.5/3Y. Matt Lawton at $27/4Y, though I think that one just ended. Ryan Klesko signed a $16.5/2Y extension. Obviously, I'm not saying Jones compares favorably with any of those guys, nor am I saying that those are good contracts. But these things do happen. Thanks for the names. Career splits... Jacque Jones: .294/.341/.488 vs righties (solid), .227/.277/.339 vs lefties (untellably awful, has to be platooned) Ryan Klesko: .292/.385/.548 vs righties (excellent), .228/.324/.370 vs lefties (just about unbearable, should probably be platooned) Trot Nixon: .293/.379/.524 vs righties (very, very good), .215/.304/.328 (pretty damn awful, has to be platooned) Matt Lawton: .275/.378/.436 vs righties (solid), .246/.339/.367 vs lefties (just about bearable) Keep the names coming. May I suggest the Matt Lawton deal was a spectacularly awful one.

If you perhaps name me a few left side of the platoon players that are earning more than $5m per in a multi-year deal, that'd be cool. Thanks in advance.

Got his numbers for 1999-2001 by any chance? Numbers for the Twins as a team for 1999-2005? Or just anything that can provide a bigger picture.

Spectacular against lefties, awful against righties, spectacular and awful on defence. If he's available at a decent price, platoon with Jones.

Just to let you know, Dillon is going to play for the Yomiuri Giants in Japan. I see little reason to be interested in Spivey. We have Walker, Hairston and Neifi on the roster that can play 2B, and the most worrying statistic when it comes to Spivey's 2005 is that he managed to hit .232 despite a .312 average on balls in play. That's how ridiculously often he struck out (83 times in 293 plate appearances)! I'd much rather try to Dempster-ize Wade Miller and Grant Balfour (ie. sign them to a small contract with an option for 2007, then put them in the bullpen) than go after Dan Kolb and his titchy strikeout rate. Brynes would make a nice platoon partner for Jacque Jones. He really really mashes left-handed pitching. It's just a shame about right-handers, and his defence. Could you tell me more about Jamal Strong and Jose Diaz?

like i said, if his IsoD stays the same and his average returns to the .300 neighborhood, he could be a pretty good addition. For the record, for Jones' IsoD to stay the same with an increase in his average, his plate discipline would actually need to slightly improve. It's a statistical quirk best explained by an example. Two players that draw walks exactly as often are given 600 plate appearances to play with. Player A (a .250 hitter) draws 40 walks. He isn't hit by a pitch and doesn't lay down a sac bunt (for the sake of keeping things simple). That leaves 560 at-bats, in which he gets 140 hits (because he's a .250 hitter). Player A's on-base percentage is .300 (180 divided by 600), 50 points higher than his average. Player B (a .300 hitter) also draws 40 walks. He also isn't hit by a pitch and doesn't lay down a sac bunt. That again leaves 560 at-bats, in which he gets 168 hits (because he's a .300 hitter). Player B's on base percentage is .34666.. (208 divided by 600), just 46.666... points higher than his average, not 50 as is the case for Player A. It's only a small change, but it's one reason that using the difference between a player's AVG and OBP as a measure of his plate discipline is flawed.

For the record... Jacque Jones Age 24 season, 1999, 16 non-intentional walks, 1 intentional walk in 347 PA Age 25 season, 2000, 22 non-intentional walks, 4 intentional walks in 550 PA Age 26 season, 2001, 37 non-intentional walks, 2 intentional walks in 519 PA Age 27 season, 2002, 35 non-intentional walks, 2 intentional walks in 626 PA Age 28 season, 2003, 19 non-intentional walks, 2 intentional walks in 548 PA Age 29 season, 2004, 38 non-intentional walks, 2 intentional walks in 608 PA Age 30 season, 2005, 39 non-intentional walks, 12 intentional walks in 585 PA Not really seeing enormous strides forward here. Technically he did indeed set a career high even in non-intentional walks, but he did so by 1 non-intentional walk (albeit in 23 fewer PAs). He also put up just 2 fewer non-intentional walks in 2001 (in 66 fewer PAs).

Absolutely incorrect. The number of strikeouts you have has absolutely no direct bearing on whether, if you put a ball in play, that ball goes for a hit. How could it? Strikeouts and balls in play are mutually exclusive. I can see the fuzzy math that is leading you to make the above incorrect statement. You're thinking of a hypothetical Player A, that in 5X at-bats (X being a very large number, such that sample size isn't an issue) doesn't hit a home run or a sacrifice fly (for the sake of keeping things simple, including them would make no difference), strikes out 2X times, makes 2X ball in play outs and amasses X hits. A .333 BABIP. Now you're thinking of a hypothetical Player B, that in 5X at-bats doesn't hit a home run or a sac fly, strikes out X times, makes 3X ball in play outs and amasses X hits. A .250 BABIP. Therefore, you're arguing, strikeouts lead to higher BABIP. Rubbish. The entire difference in BABIP is based on the completely unfounded assumption that every single extra ball in play that Player B manages instead of a Player A strikeout results in that ball in play being converted into an out. The reason that the BABIP changes is because you're changing it, you're simply making it the case that Player B hits .000 on the X extra balls in play! Obviously that's going to supress a guy's BABIP, if on X balls in play you just automatically award him with a 6-3 groundout! The drop in BABIP is entirely caused by that, and has nothing to do with the strikeouts. Player B only exists as a hypothetical, because no player is ever going to go X balls in play (where X is a very large number) and not get a single hit. What happens if you don't accidentally fiddle the numbers in your head is you end up with a player C, that in 5X at-bats doesn't hit a home run or a sac fly, strikes out X times, makes 8X/3 ball in play outs and amasses 4X/3 hits. A .333 BABIP still, only a higher average (.267 as opposed to Player A's .200). That's why it's fair to say that strikeouts suppress batting average. But they have absolutely nothing to do directly with BABIP. That said, as I mentioned before, on the whole strikeouts do have a slight indirect effect upon BABIP, in that players that strike out more, on the whole, have slightly higher BABIPs. That's simply because major league players that strike out tend to have power (because players that strike out a lot and don't have any power, unless they walk a ridiculous amount, aren't major leaguers), and power hitters tend to swing harder and thus hit the ball harder and further, meaning it is generally fielded less successfully. But striking out more isn't leading to a higher BABIP, just as striking out more isn't leading to power. It's just that they're all affected by the same thing: players "swinging for the fences" (sadly that phrase comes with a lot of negative connotations, but none are here intended).

First of all, K's are way down the list on why Jones is terrible. K's are not evil. Most times they are no different than any other out, and they chiefly harm you on the whole by hampering your BABIP(a stat I did not make up). No, you didn't make up BABIP, but you did make up the bit about K's harming BABIP. They don't. There is no direct relationship between K's and BABIP, by BABIP's very definition (the formula specifically throws out all ABs in which the player K's). There is an indirect relationship, in that strikeouts correlate with power and power correlates with a slightly higher BABIP. But that assists BABIP, it doesn't hamper it. K's are bad, but it's not that simple. If the search button was working I'd repost the few paragraphs that I've honed to explain everything. As it is, right now, I don't have the time to rewrite it.

Indians get Cubs' 2nd round pick for Howry Giants get Cubs' 3rd round pick for Eyre Twins get Cubs' 4th round pick for Jones Well caught. My mistake, you're in the right.

Actually they just lost their 4th round pick. The 2nd round pick was lost long ago when the Cubs sign Scott Eyre. Technically you're both right. Twins get Cubs' 2nd round pick for Jones Indians get Cubs' 3rd round pick for Howry Giants get Cubs' 4th round pick for Eyre The Cubs' 1st round pick was protected so they've still got that. The Cubs haven't received and won't receive any compensation picks themselves, because they didn't offer arbitration to any of their departing free agents. So we'll pick in the 1st round and next in the 5th. Great.

Moving "replacement" level around changes things though. If you can readily find a pitcher with a 4.725 ERA or lower, then Lidge saves you more runs than him over 80 innings than Williams saves over 200 innings. Yeah, I know: Fair enough. I missed that. All the same, I think that a 4.95 ERA pitcher is readily enough available that Lidge saves more runs over the course of a season than Williams purely from an entirely quantitative point of view. That is, of course, assuming that the readily available pitcher would put up a 4.95 ERA in the rotation and bullpen alike, which I don't think is particularly likely. That adjustment shifts things in Williams' favour, but taking into account the sustainability of Williams' performance over the last few years given his pretty poor peripherals would shift it right back. That's not to say I don't like Williams. I really believe that if he can refine his slider into a legitimate out pitch, he's going to be a really effective major league starter, because his sinker fastball/changeup combination right now is well above average. The slider though is just too fringy at the moment. There's good late movement on it, but it's just not what it could be or what it needs to be for him to really succeed as a starter at this level. His curveball really isn't a good pitch. Williams is young though still in spite of the fact he's proven he can handle the majors, he's only just turned 24, and he's four years away from free agency. He's got time on his side and the odds in his favour. I like him. And I absolutely love the way we got him, buying low. Of course, we were selling low on Hawkins too, but that seemingly didn't stop Hendry ripping off the Giants. But I'd still trade Williams for Brad Lidge so fast it's stupid, regardless of our needs.

I think the Rotoworld blurb specifically says that he was designated for assignment, not non-tendered. There's a difference. Borowski will come off their 40-man roster immediately, and the Devil Rays will have ten days to trade him or try and pass him through irrevocable waivers with either the purpose of giving him his unconditional release or of assigning him to the minor leagues. Borowski has the option to refuse the assignment and elect to become a free agent.

Moving "replacement" level around changes things though. If you can readily find a pitcher with a 4.725 ERA or lower, then Lidge saves you more runs than him over 80 innings than Williams saves over 200 innings. And personally, I believe that there are plenty of pitchers around that an NL team could employ to throw 200 innings of 4.725 ERA (the reason that few do actually "achieve" 200+ IP, 4.75+ ERA is obviously that teams generally try to avoid having pretty rubbish pitchers getting so many innings). As such, I don't think even an entirely quantitative argument that Williams' performance is better than Lidge's holds much water. Oh, and I should add that that's running with Lidge as a 2.70 ERA pitcher. Over the last two years though, since he essentially broke out, even if you include his postseason performance for the sake of trying to increase the sample size (and hold his "meltdown" against him), he's put up a 2.13 ERA (in 190.1 IP) with a 2.07 FIPS ERA. All in a hitter's park. So, if you call Lidge a 2.10 ERA pitcher rather than a 2.70 ERA pitcher, the point at which he's preventing more runs over 80 innings than a 3.90 ERA Jerome Williams is over 200 innings moves to a readily available 4.95 ERA pitcher. And that's running with the fact that Williams is a 3.90 ERA pitcher, which potentially really flatters him at this stage given that his career FIPS ERA is 4.36 and his FIPS in his time with the Cubs last year was 4.83. And on top of that San Francisco is nice and pitcher friendly. Hmm.

Moving "replacement" level around changes things though. If you can readily find a pitcher with a 4.725 ERA or lower, then Lidge saves you more runs than him over 80 innings than Williams saves over 200 innings. And personally, I believe that there are plenty of pitchers around that an NL team could employ to throw 200 innings of 4.725 ERA (the reason that few do actually "achieve" 200+ IP, 4.75+ ERA is obviously that teams generally try to avoid having pretty rubbish pitchers getting so many innings). As such, I don't think even an entirely quantitative argument that Williams' performance is better than Lidge's holds much water.

Was that an intentional double entendre? ????Range factor or Radio frequency???? "Don't think we need a RF that badLY" and "Don't need a RF who IS that bad" is what he was referring to. Nice work UMFan83.

Chris Young is an extreme flyball pitcher. I think he's the perfect acquisition for the Padres, what with their massive ballpark plus Cameron and Roberts out there defensively. If the balls stop flying out, and the flyballs don't drop, Young's strong strikeout and walk ratios are going to make him a very effective pitcher. Extremely tall, good stuff, decent control, I like his chances in San Diego quite a bit.

Dempster-ize Miller!

That's great, but what matters is not past performance, but future performance. Aramis has established himself as something like a .310/.360/.570 hitter over the last two years, and he won't turn 28 until June. Manny Ramirez is something like a .300/.400/.600 hitter now, less away from Fenway and the ridiculously hitter friendly AL East, and his numbers have been slightly slipping for a while. At 34 in May, that trend is likely to continue, quite probably picking up pace. He stills play it better, and, being further to the right of the defensive spectrum (DH-1B-LF-RF-3B-CF-2B-SS-C), that means he's a lot more valuable than Manny defensively, and his bat is a lot less easily replaced. Yeh right $57m/3yrs is "just about right". Why do you think the Red Sox are trying to move him? It's because he's hugely expensive: he's never been worth nearly $20m a year, isn't worth nearly $20m a year now and stands even less chance of being worth nearly $20m a year in three years' time. Aramis Ramirez, for the record, has $33m/3yrs left on his deal. That's a difference of $24m/3yrs compared to Manny. That's an enormous amount of money, and you can do truly remarkable things with that amount, regardless of the state of the free agent market right now. $6m/3yrs more out of your own pocket and you could, theoretically, have had Brian Giles for that. I'm not a big believer in team chemistry, but my real point is that if Manny Ramirez exercises his right to demand a trade, officially or otherwise, which he's much more likely to do than Aramis, he's going to cost you a lot more than just a few runs. Nobody wanted Manny when he was put on waivers about two years ago, nobody besides the Mets, maybe the Angels and dreamy fans want him now. Not much of a market, which is why Manny's still in Boston right now.

His offensive production isn't quite as prodigious, but Aramis is by far the more valuable trade-wise of the two Ramirez's. He's a lot younger, his contract isn't an onerous one, he plays a more important defensive position where offence is harder to come by, he's debatably the better teammate in terms of not always kicking up a fuss and demanding trades, and so on. The Red Sox would be making an absolute killing in a straight-up Manny for Aramis swap. Let's just establish that first.

They probably wouldn't have needed to. Nomar was pretty eager to re-sign with the Cubs, and probably would have been open to a hometown discount. PS. Get Choi!