fromthestretch

Best first overall pick ever. Brien Taylor says :hello: . Taylor at least had some minor league success for a couple years before screwing up his career. Bush completely failed as a hitter and looked good for a whopping 7.2 innings as a pitcher.

According to mlbtraderumors, the Blue Jays have released Matt Bush.

this is a case where using conventional methods (i.e. actually watching) rather than stats probably wins. that or just using simple logic, of course. What about infield singles? He's obviously not getting enough of those, considering his OBP has been in the .330s or lower the past three years. Also, extra-base hits are more valuable than infield singles. Even a single to the outfield is more valuable, as it could give a runner from second a better chance to score. I hear what you are saying. There is plenty not to like about Pierres game, but when he's on base, albeit at a .330 clip, the defense has to take notice. IMHO, speed is a valuable tool to have. I agree that speed can be a valuable tool to have. However, when you're not on-base enough to use it, it's not nearly as valuable. I don't necessarily agree that the defense always has to take notice when he's on base. Greg Maddux essentially ignored baserunners for his entire career. At the Major League level, I don't think a fast baserunner rattles the defense and pitchers as much as people want to believe it does. At the lower levels, it can certainly play a bigger role. For every Greg Maddux, there are 10 "lesser" pitchers. The point is that you can have a successful (and in Maddux's case, dominant) career without worrying about how fast the guy on base is. These are Major League players. They play at the highest level of competition the sport has to offer. They don't suddenly panic because Joey Gathright is on first base or because Juan Pierre hit a ground ball at them. You can be aware of the runner's or hitter's speed without it taking away from your focus.

this is a case where using conventional methods (i.e. actually watching) rather than stats probably wins. that or just using simple logic, of course. I'll just repeat some of that simple logic then: but you don't know why those errors occurred. you cant just look at raw data like that and make that conclusion. other than going back and looking at every error, it's impossible to tell why the error was committed. and thus impossible to say that pierre's speed doesn't have an effect on the defender. which is why i just suggested that fundamental logic (crazy, i know) might be a better way of coming to a conclusion here. that fundamental logic of course being, when a defender knows he has 4 seconds until the batter reaches first base versus three seconds, he'll react accordingly. You're missing the point. Regardless of why or how the error took place, he's not causing a higher rate of errors than a hitter with less speed. you don't know that. for all you know, all 56 of the times that pierre reached on an error could've been caused by his speed. obviously at the same time, none of the 56 could have been caused by his speed. point is, we just don't know. so when you look at stats to determine if his speed has an effect, and the stats don't give you a clear answer... and i know this board is absurdly stat-heavy (vs. scouting)... but don't you think it's time to just stop and think for a moment about the logical answer? Take a look at the numbers posted earlier: Juan Pierre ground balls: Reached on error 56 times out of 2503 possibilites. Aramis Ramirez ground balls: Reached on error 49 times out of 1548 chances. Juan Pierre reached on an error in 2.2% of the chances he could have reached on an error. Ramirez reached on an error 3.2% of the time he could have reached on an error. In other words, a much slower runner reached on an error more frequently than Pierre. Whether all 56 times were caused by Pierre's speed, questionable scoring by the official scorer, night blindness by the fielder, or simply God's will, he's still not reaching on an error as often as a slower runner. Therefore, what good is it that his speed is causing throws to be rushed when it's not causing him to reach base more often than a slower runner?

this is a case where using conventional methods (i.e. actually watching) rather than stats probably wins. that or just using simple logic, of course. What about infield singles? Infield singles count as hits. Thanks. I'm just saying Juan has legged out slap hits, that Aram would be thrown out on. But Ramirez hits for much more power and - at least in the past four seasons - gets on base at a higher rate. Those qualities are much better than a handful of infield singles.

this is a case where using conventional methods (i.e. actually watching) rather than stats probably wins. that or just using simple logic, of course. I'll just repeat some of that simple logic then: but you don't know why those errors occurred. you cant just look at raw data like that and make that conclusion. other than going back and looking at every error, it's impossible to tell why the error was committed. and thus impossible to say that pierre's speed doesn't have an effect on the defender. which is why i just suggested that fundamental logic (crazy, i know) might be a better way of coming to a conclusion here. that fundamental logic of course being, when a defender knows he has 4 seconds until the batter reaches first base versus three seconds, he'll react accordingly. You're missing the point. Regardless of why or how the error took place, he's not causing a higher rate of errors than a hitter with less speed.

this is a case where using conventional methods (i.e. actually watching) rather than stats probably wins. that or just using simple logic, of course. What about infield singles? He's obviously not getting enough of those, considering his OBP has been in the .330s or lower the past three years. Also, extra-base hits are more valuable than infield singles. Even a single to the outfield is more valuable, as it could give a runner from second a better chance to score. I hear what you are saying. There is plenty not to like about Pierres game, but when he's on base, albeit at a .330 clip, the defense has to take notice. IMHO, speed is a valuable tool to have. I agree that speed can be a valuable tool to have. However, when you're not on-base enough to use it, it's not nearly as valuable. I don't necessarily agree that the defense always has to take notice when he's on base. Greg Maddux essentially ignored baserunners for his entire career. At the Major League level, I don't think a fast baserunner rattles the defense and pitchers as much as people want to believe it does. At the lower levels, it can certainly play a bigger role.

this is a case where using conventional methods (i.e. actually watching) rather than stats probably wins. that or just using simple logic, of course. What about infield singles? He's obviously not getting enough of those, considering his OBP has been in the .330s or lower the past three years. Also, extra-base hits are more valuable than infield singles. Even a single to the outfield is more valuable, as it could give a runner from second a better chance to score.

this is a case where using conventional methods (i.e. actually watching) rather than stats probably wins. that or just using simple logic, of course. No, it doesn't. What does it matter if a fielder has to rush his throw when the rate at which an error is made doesn't really go up in that situation? If Pierre reaches base two more times via error than another player over the same number of plate appearances, does that really make a difference over the course of a season? Do those two times outweigh his low OPS?

well, the bolded part is certainly true, but creating an errors created category is silly. Juan Pierre reached on an error a grand total of six times in 162 games in 2007 (the last time he was a starter). Chase Utley, who I think we can all agree isn't as fast as Pierre, reached on an error five times in 159 games in 2008.

It will impact his potential earnings through is arbitration years. However, when he hits free agency, it's certainly possible that a team could pay him closer money to actually be its closer. If a team feels he can be a top-tier closer, they very well could pay him as such. I think this is all moot anyway. There's a good chance that Marmol (if he stays healthy) will have a year or two of closing under his belt when he hits free agency.

replace the word "bako" with "nearly every single backup catcher in the history of baseball" and that sentence is more accurate. Not really. There have been some solid performances by a catcher in a backup (did not catch the most innings on his team) role in the past few seasons (numbers in parenthesis represent OPS+): mike redmond (96 in 2005, 103 in 2006, 89 in 2007) greg zaun (87 in 2008, 112 in 2006) jared saltalamacchia (91 in 2008) gerald laird (105 in 2006) chris coste (119 in 2006, 93 in 2008) mike napoli (147 in 2008) ramon castro (98 in 2005, 127 in 2007, 96 in 2008) kelly shopach (101 in 2007) matt treanor (97 in 2007) dave ross (88 in 2008) miguel montero (94 in 2008) steve holm (99 in 2008) That's just a partial list. I'm not claiming any of these guys are great offensive players, but you can plug them into your lineup every now and then without basically having a second pitcher in the lineup. Even Henry Blanco wasn't "bad" in a back-up role. With many back-up catchers, you're talking about maybe 200 plate appearances. In that case, it's not a huge deal. However, unless there is a significant difference in the defensive abilities, why not go with the guy that can provide more offense in the limited time he gets to play?

Hell, I remember a 2nd baseman we used to have that didn't completely shake of the "rust" until about half past May. :wink: Wow. Didn't know that Johnny Evers was a slow starter. Learn something new everyday. :-))

The only way that #1 happens is if Lee suffers a season-ending injury, and the Cubs can't work out a trade with another team for a first baseman for the rest of the season. Item #2 is possible, but not probable. I guess that makes it a "bold" prediction.

Not sure why you'd include Koskie in there. His is a minor league deal. It's a low risk move that could pan out.

I would call hitting around .290, never striking out, committing 2 or 3 errors a year, and getting a lot of SB's at the top of the order right about average. There's no doubt he's overpaid but he's not one of the top 45 overpaid. He's well below average offensively, has a very poor arm, and while he steals a lot of bases, he doesn't get on base at anywhere near an acceptable rate for someone with his lack of power. And while he may not strikeout a lot, those constant weak grounders to second aren't any more fun to watch. ETA: I will add that while his OPS has been right around average for centerfielders throughout his career, a lot of that has to do with his production from 2000-2004. Since then, his OBP has tailed off quite a bit.

He's been hurt and had to have shoulder surgery. But I guess it's impossible for a 28 year old to come back from injury, so he should just turn down hundreds of thousands of dollars, pack up his gear and go home.

well there has to come a point for everyone when they continue to fail, time after time after time, where eventually they just call it quits. Failed time after time after time? If anyone failed, it was the doctors that misdiagnosed his shoulder issues. The guy is coming off shoulder surgery, and as mentioned a few times in this thread, he's only 28. Even if he doesn't get back to the level he was at, he could always come back as a reliever. I still don't see why he has to call it quits at this age. If some team is willing to give him money, they have to think he has a chance to bounce back. It would make sense to call it quits if no one was willing to pay for his services as a pitcher.

Considering the success he's had in the past, the fact that his injury was initially misdiagnosed (and remained so for a few years), and the fact that he's only 28, he's probably not close to that point yet. Nor should he be, in my opinion. It would be one thing if doctors told him he was at risk of doing permanent damage to his arm or something, but that's not the case here. Seriously, if you really love playing baseball and people are willing to pay you handsomely to do, why would you give it up...especially at that age?

A friend of mine plays in a wood bat league every summer in Rhode Island. He got to play against Oil Can one game last summer and basically said you wouldn't believe he's as old as he is. Not that that means he's capable of playing at the major league level again, but apparently he's kept himself in very good condition over the years.

Based on what? It's what sportswriters and broadcasters want you to believe.

This isn't the first time you've brought up the magical 50-homer mark. Do you really think steroids are the sole reason there have been more 50-homer seasons since Aaron's playing days? You don't think that smaller parks, better off-season and in-season training, use of video, better bats, etc. play a very big role in this? I asked this in a similar thread and never got a response. Furthermore, why all the emphasis on homers? Where is the outrage over pitchers that used?

By the way, I'm always a fan of the Spring Training Picture thread every year. I went to Spring Training for the first time last year, and it was a blast. Keep the pictures coming.

Check out his eyes. Why is he watching the ball leave his hand, when he should be focused on his target? It reminds me of when Knoblauch was having issues throwing to first. They showed footage of him watching the ball come out of his hand rather than focusing on his target.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that third year is guaranteed for Bradley at this point.