Rob

I kept wanting to bring up Lake, but every time I do, he falls flat on his face.

Tyler Colvin - At one point or another, he's shown just about everything we could ever want from him. The ability to hit for average, hit for power, play CF, steal bases, and even the ability to take an adequate number of walks. He's still young (will be 24 until near the very end of next season) and is already on the fringe of our OF situation. I wouldn't be surprised to see him start the season at AAA and tear the cover off the ball in Iowa... especially with Von Joshua returning there. Hak-ju Lee - Honestly, just maintaining his production from this season would be enough to catapult him up some prospect lists. He's also got more room to fill out his frame and add some more power. And I've also got my eyes on Archer, McNutt, Burke, LeMahieu, Rhee, and Huseby this season.

i feel like everyone is calling him a platoon cf to say that he's not very good. Because he's not. He's a platoon player. They are 3 million dollar type players. Not 7-10 mill. Well that's just stupid.

It would appear he's just trying to elevate his fastball and blow it by the hitters in that league. To his credit, it seems to be working.

I know this isn't the point of your post, but Fernando Martinez just turned 21 a month ago and he already has a bit of major league service time. The star is still shining brightly for him.

They asked for Gallagher and Murton for him.... probably hoping to get us to settle on just Gallagher. I'd pass on him, for the record. His defensive stats are all over the map, but I'd assume he's a slightly below average CF, especially if over a full season. And he just barely manages an .800 OPS in Arlington. There are better uses of the money he'll likely command.

Oh good lord I hope that is sarcasm. Haha. Search through this guy's posts and see how many times he mentions Sam Fuld. It's hilarious. Hey now, I mention him a bunch too... but more to show other players are bad, not to say he's especially good.

Except for the fact no other team will want to give him the raise he'll be getting through arbitration while also giving up compensation. It sounds like most teams are cash strapped, and even if they aren't, they probably still plan on tightening the reigns on their payrolls. Isn't the point of arbitration hearings to find out the fair market value of a player? If no team would be willing to give Fontenot the raise you think he could get, then how can that raise be his fair market value? Because fair market value isn't defined as what they're willing to spend on him, it's defined by what teams were willing to spend last year on players similar to him.

Except he is.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out the obsession with batting guys in the 2 hole even though they aren't particularly good hitters. I'd be inclined to say that if every single team in baseball simply took their 2 hole hitter, batted them 8th, and moved everybody up to compensate that league scoring would go up by quite a bit

Be warned, the pitches there are classified according to an algorithm that just looks at the pitch fx data. It wont always match up with what the player says they are throwing.

Difference being Cameron put up those offensive numbers in CF, and he's 2 wins better defensively. 3 wins without even a positional adjustment.

Just plain old UZR, with quick looks at a few other metrics to make sure they're in relative agreement. And to answer your question, generally speaking you'll see a bit less deviation when you're looking at middle infielders. That makes sense of course, considering they are defense-first positions. But even at that, a few players were pretty bad this season. Dan Uggla and Luis Castillo were about 10 runs below average, Miguel Tejada and Orlando Cabrera around 15 and Yuniesky Betancourt just over 20 runs below average. Of course, there are other factors that enter into play. Middle infielders do get quite a few more chances... but their failures don't generally end up as disastrous as those in the outfield. But what about things like extended innings? Extra outs? Extra hits? With a small outfield like Wrigley and the nature of the position, I can't see a good defensive RF being worth more than a good defensive SS, even if he would botch a flyball or two every month. Except that the errors are the smallest part of Dye's problem. If he can get to the ball, he's not far below average at all. Likewise, his arm isn't doing an adequate job, but the arm and the extra errors only account for about 3 and a half runs below average... far from disastrous. His range is the issue. Every ball hit into the gap or up the line that good RF like Ichiro or Justin Upton catches but Dye doesn't is 2-3 bases for the batter and every runner on base. It adds up very, very quickly. Could a park adjustment make a difference? Sure. Will it make enough of one to make him a valuable player? No. Last season, Jermaine Dye's production was actually worth about $1.2 million dollars less than you could expect from a replacement level player. This is the second time in the last three seasons that he's been below replacement level. Could he bounce back to his 2008 level of offensive production and be worth a few million bucks? Sure. But at his age, it's not a terribly likely proposition.

Just plain old UZR, with quick looks at a few other metrics to make sure they're in relative agreement. And to answer your question, generally speaking you'll see a bit less deviation when you're looking at middle infielders. That makes sense of course, considering they are defense-first positions. But even at that, a few players were pretty bad this season. Dan Uggla and Luis Castillo were about 10 runs below average, Miguel Tejada and Orlando Cabrera around 15 and Yuniesky Betancourt just over 20 runs below average. Of course, there are other factors that enter into play. Middle infielders do get quite a few more chances... but their failures don't generally end up as disastrous as those in the outfield.

jermaine dye is like the opposite of consistent He consistently hits for 60+ XBH hits a year (his second half of last year notwithstanding). The OBP may be low, but he'll also be hitting in the lower part of the lineup. He's not the greatest option, but if you can have him for one year at a small price, he's better than throwing some light hitting CF out there. Dye is consistently 20 runs below average in RF. Just for the sake of argument, let's say Fuld is a league average CF. That would be a difference of 25-30 runs between them on defense. Jermaine Dye hit .250/.340/.453 this year in 574 PA, contributing approximately 66 EqR. So Sam Fuld needs to contribute 36-41 runs over 574 PA to equal his production... Do you realize how little it takes to manage that? You're looking at some sort of crazy .220/.260/.320 line. Defense and baserunning matter.

If I hadn't looked up Castillo's fielding stats last season, I might have been all over this. Now I dont know what to think...

Well, he's better than Brad Hawpe at least.

It's a pet peeve of mine that people assume "looks awkward" means bad defender. Matt Murton always looked awkward, and he's easily above average in LF. Soriano looks terribly awkward out there, but he wasn't below average with the Cubs until just last season.

Actually what Cameron is a good litmus test for is, how much you believe in sabermetrics. I don't want to get into a big long stats vs. scouts debate, but suffice it to say that those dollar figures are not the be-all, end-all to determine who knows what the hell they're talking about when evaluating players. (30 HRs and 100 RBIs etc clearly aren't either, obviously.) I didn't mean to imply those dollar figures were exact. Based on methodology, there's surely some wiggle to them. But there is no debating that Mike Cameron is a very productive baseball player.

Dear god... between this and the Hawpe stuff, you're having a really bad couple of days.

For a long time, Mike Cameron has functioned as the litmus test to determine whether somebody knows what the hell they're talking about when evaluating players. He doesn't do the flashy stuff. He takes a bunch of walks. His power production comes from moderate amounts of doubles and home runs. He steals a decent number of bases at a pretty good rate. He plays exceptional defense. But he doesn't bat .300. He doesn't hit 30 bombs, or drive in 100 rbi, or score 100 runs, or steal 30 bases. He's actually good enough on defense that he doesn't have to make the flashy, diving plays that get him noticed on sportscenter. And that's why he's undervalued. Look at how much value he's provided his teams over the years. 2002 - $12.6 million 2003 - $13.0 million 2004 - $10.0 million 2005 - $7.0 million 2006 - $16.2 million 2007 - $8.9 million 2008 - $18.1 million 2009 - $19.4 million Yes, he's entered the age range where it'd be a mistake to commit to him long term. But I'd be shocked if he gets a better deal than Bobby Abreu just got (2 years, $19 million). At that pricetag, it's absolutely foolish of the people in this thread to dismiss him.

For reasons that I don't quite understand, some people still don't get this. Brad Hawpe is so god awful in the field that, if we assume Sam Fuld can play a league average CF on defense, he would only have to hit approximately .260/.320/.350 in the same number of plate appearances to have the same amount of value Hawpe had this season. He would also cost seven million dollars less, plus the cost of prospects in the trade. I'm not saying we need to make Sam Fuld our CF. I am saying that Brad Hawpe is an abysmal option for filling the hole in our OF. If I see another idiot suggest trading for him after how many times I've explained how terrible he is, my head may pop.

Fair enough. Just because I like to talk about myself in a positive light, I will say this. I have done a lot of volunteer work at food banks in some very poor and predominately african american communities. That's actually why I think I used the term aid... we handed out "aid boxes." Maybe some cranky old republican labeled them those being a bit racist himself. Maybe I used the term because I was being racist. Maybe it's not racist at all. All I know is that you get a lot further judging a person by their actions than simply by their choice of words.

You know damn well what I mean. Social and economic programs designed to primarily benefit african americans. Affirmative action, educational grants, etc... the system as it's set up now does not give everybody equal opportunities. But feeling guilty about slavery shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not you feel they deserve the assistance provided by those programs. There are much better reasons to help. I don't know what your problem is with me using the word "aid", as most of those programs absolutely fit the definition. But you feel free to go on LULZing. It's exactly the sort of arrogant, dismissive, and ignorant behavior we've all come to expect from you when anything remotely political comes up. Only when something ridiculous that's remotely political comes up. Nobody brought up "feeling guilty over slavery" or "white guilt." Yeah, white guilt was brought up. I sure hope you aren't trying to imply I'm subconsciously being a racist because you don't agree with the terminology I used...

You know damn well what I mean. Social and economic programs designed to primarily benefit african americans. Affirmative action, educational grants, etc... the system as it's set up now does not give everybody equal opportunities. But feeling guilty about slavery shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not you feel they deserve the assistance provided by those programs. There are much better reasons to help. I don't know what your problem is with me using the word "aid", as most of those programs absolutely fit the definition. But you feel free to go on LULZing. It's exactly the sort of arrogant, dismissive, and ignorant behavior we've all come to expect from you when anything remotely political comes up.