17 Seconds

I mentioned that too, even though it has nothing to do with the original argument.

You've made the point that Granderson has been productive despite his K rate, that's true. You've also made a separate point, that being that K's are no different than other kinds of outs. To wit: "Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does," and "it doesn't really matter how you're making outs." Both of the those quotes are from you in this thread, and both are foolish, as I've (attempted to) illustrate for you. Ugh, I'm saying that when you look at the outs AFTER the fact, they aren't really that different from other outs. Are you really not getting this? I'm saying that over the course of a full season, a .900 OPS guy with 140 K's isn't going to be much different from a .900 OPS guy with 80 k's. That's now 5 times I've explained it. And I'm explaining that looking at outs AFTER the fact makes you look foolish. The reason is simple. All strikeouts are outs. Not all balls in play become outs. You can continue tabulating the number times you've made ridiculous statements if you like, although I'm at a loss for why you'd want to. You're not even making sense now. The fact that Rob backed it up despite the fact that he hates me pretty much shows you you're talking nonsense and that you just cant admit that you initially misunderstood my argument. Does it need to be explained to you a 7th time that I'm talking about how strikeouts shouldn't be counted against a player's production when he's shown what it is? Like Rob said, you're counting K's against a player twice. Strikeouts are already reflected in a players line. If a player is putting up an .850 OPS, you shouldn't be trying to discredit that because he stries out a lot, which is what the original poster did. Hopefully you'll just cut your losses at this point..

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two. You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be. If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd. Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs? If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points). When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out. Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit. Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS. Would Granderson be better if he didn't strike out so much? Yes. But when we're comparing the production of two players, you don't get to double-count their strikeouts against them. Their strikeouts are already reflected in their final line. Which is exactly what I've said over and over.

The things you talk about are only relevant if we're talking about a young player who has K concerns and you're questioning whether or not he can succeed in spite of them. We're onot talking about that. We're talking about a proven player who has shown he will succeed despite the totals. When that's the case, no they don't really matter that much. And this "it's costing you a chance to hit" argument is dumb. Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does. They're outs, period. So yeah, if a guy has proven that he's going to perform (which Granderson has), then it doesn't really matter how you're making outs. This statement is only correct if you assume a 0.000 BABIP. I'd suggest you try harder to follow what I presented. I edited my post and added to that right before you posted that. But anyways, I suggest that YOU try harder to follow what I'm saying, considering that all your arguments directed towards me on this page are about things that have nothing to do with my original statements. I never ever said Granderson wouldn't be better if he K'd less. I never said strikeouts can't hurt a player. I DID say that K's don't keep a player from being productive as long as he puts up the numbers. Hopefully I don't have to explain it a 4th time. You've made the point that Granderson has been productive despite his K rate, that's true. You've also made a separate point, that being that K's are no different than other kinds of outs. To wit: "Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does," and "it doesn't really matter how you're making outs." Both of the those quotes are from you in this thread, and both are foolish, as I've (attempted to) illustrate for you. Ugh, I'm saying that when you look at the outs AFTER the fact, they aren't really that different from other outs. Are you really not getting this? I'm saying that over the course of a full season, a .900 OPS guy with 140 K's isn't going to be much different from a .900 OPS guy with 80 k's. That's now 5 times I've explained it.

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two. You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be. If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd. Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs? If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points). When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out. Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit. Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS. The things you talk about are only relevant if we're talking about a young player who has K concerns and you're questioning whether or not he can succeed in spite of them. We're onot talking about that. We're talking about a proven player who has shown he will succeed despite the totals. When that's the case, no they don't really matter that much. And this "it's costing you a chance to hit" argument is dumb. Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does. They're outs, period. So yeah, if a guy has proven that he's going to perform (which Granderson has), then it doesn't really matter how you're making outs. This statement is only correct if you assume a 0.000 BABIP. I'd suggest you try harder to follow what I presented. I edited my post and added to that right before you posted that. But anyways, I suggest that YOU try harder to follow what I'm saying, considering that all your arguments directed towards me on this page are about things that have nothing to do with my original statements. I never ever said Granderson wouldn't be better if he K'd less. I never said strikeouts can't hurt a player. I DID say that K's don't keep a player from being productive as long as he puts up the numbers. Hopefully I don't have to explain it a 4th time.

You must not have read all my posts, considerin g you're making a completely different argument (and I've already said this). was never saying that strikeouts don't affect how good a player is. I'm not debating whether or not granderson would be better if he K'd less. I'm saying that he's still a good player with them. Hopefully I don't have to say it a 3rd time.

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two. You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be. If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd. Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs? If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points). When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out. Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit. Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS. The things you talk about are only relevant if we're talking about a young player who has K concerns and you're questioning whether or not he can succeed in spite of them. We're onot talking about that. We're talking about a proven player who has shown he will succeed despite the totals. When that's the case, no they don't really matter that much. And this "it's costing you a chance to hit" argument is dumb. Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does. They're outs, period. You could just as easily make the argument that shortening your swing with 2 outs to avoid a K is what costs you a chance to hit and instead increase your chances of making weak contact. This has nothing to do with any argument I was making though, so I don't see the point. So yeah, if a guy has proven that he's going to perform (which Granderson has), then it doesn't really matter how you're making outs. Would he be better if he K'd less? Maybe, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about whether or not he's good as he is.

I agree with you on the Bradley thing, but that's simply not going to happen. I think when talking about this winter we need to just assume he's gone. Whether or not that's the right move is a completely different debate. As far as Byrd goes, I have to disagree with you wholeheartedly. Defensively, he has a good reputation, and according to UZR he's almost exactly average, with a -6 last year, +5.9 in 08, and a +.3 in 2007At worst he's probably a little above average, which considering he would allow us to move Fukudome to RF he would still give us a pretty good net gain in the outfield defensively. And he's a type B FA, so there is no cost in players for him. As for Home/Road splits, I think those might be a minor issue, but nothing huge. First off, there's generally a gap in guys with regards to home/road splits. For instance, in 2009 the average MLB player hit .267/.340/.429 at home and .258/.326/.406 away. Also, Wrigley Field is a pretty damn good hitters park too, so there shouldn't be much of a dropoff going from Texas to Wrigley. I mean he's not a guy to go "Oh my God it's Marlon Byrd!" But he's a pretty good player that can probably be gotten relatively inexpensively. When a guy plays in Texas and has huge splits, it's an issue. If we got Byrd I think we could expect like a .750 OPS. Arlington kind of has Coors syndrome, where home/road splits are more pronounced because the other parks in the division heavily favor pitchers. that's a good point. ok .780

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two. You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be. If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd. The point is that he producsed in spite of them. Like I said before, a .950 OPS with 140 K's isn't much different than a .950 OPS with 90 k's. I'll say it again- the K totals don't really matter when you've proven that you're going to produce. If Granderson was putting up identical numbers but was just striking out less, he wouldn't really be much better. He'd just be making outs in different ways. Do I really need to show you even more awesome players who strike out more than Granderson? Aren't those guys just "wasting chances" to drive in runners when they K? But again, what does this have to do with Soriano?

Obviously you aren't understanding anything right, considering nothing I said was even remotely close to that. We're not talking about whether or not he'd be better if he K'd less anyways. I don't see what that has to do with anything. Especially considering that the K rate of Mark Reynolds isn't at all similar to Granderson. The point is that he doesn't K "all the time" like you said he did. He strikes out a good amount, but not at an alarming rate. Don't forget that his K totals also are higher due to the amount of ABs he gets. Yeah he had 140 K's last year, but he also had over 700 at-bats. Anyways, once you've established that you can succeed in spite of your K's, they don't really matter that much. A .950 OPS with 150 K's isn't much different than a .950 OPS with 80 k's. They're really only a concern when you question whether or not a young player can succeed in spite of them. I also get the impression that people see high K totals and for some reason associate that with the way Soriano K's a lot (horrible discipline, chasing pitches constantly). Just because a guy strikes out a lot doesn't mean he's that kind of hitter (as you can see from the list I provided). Guys who walk a lot are usually going to strike out a lot too. That's just how it is. I just don't understand the comparison to Soriano. The reasons you gave aren't true at all. Granderson is a good defender, has above average patience, and doesn't K nearly as much as Alfonso.

Based on....

You're the second person who has compared Soriano to Granderson, and it's been equally ridiculous both times. Granderson has above average patience, and if not for his ridiculous BABIP last year, he'd have 3 straight years with a high OBP. So yeah, he does get on base well. Oh, and Granderson doesn't K "all the time" (and it wouldn't even matter if he did). Some players with a higher K rate than Granderson last year Longoria Youkilis Votto Kemp Fielder DeRosa Ibanez Drew Upton Choo Wright Werth Bay So to summarize, he's nothing like Soriano.

That is why I am glad you are not the GM, no offense. I don't mind trading prospects, but I want a player who can hit both lefties and righties, and Granderson fits in only with half that scenerio. If Granderson was remotely solid against lefties, that's fine, but he's not as he Aaron Miles against lefties and that to me isn't worth Castro/Vitters or Cashner. I wouldn't be opposed to Vitters and a couple of B prospects for Granderson, but Cashner and Castro imo are off limits unless Verlander or Miguel Cabrera are coming back in the deal. I also believe in 2008 he hit 270 against lefties. Nope. How is it a BS argument? The BS argument is saying that it doesn't matter because there aren't a lot of lefties in NL Central rotations. It doesn't matter. He's going to see a significant chunk of PAs against lefties no matter what..... especially considering how bad he is against them. And hell yeah it's significant when you're THAT bad against lefties. He shouldn't be playing against lefties, period. Every time there's a lefty pithcing, Granderson becomes a terrible player. His defense is good, but it doesn't come close to making up for the .600 OPS he'll be putting up against them. That said, I'd trade Vitters for him.... but not with Castro or Jackson. Hell no. If we're giving up Vitters for Granderson, the rest of the package better be pretty much just filler.

I wouldn't have traded him for Doumit either.

I agree with you on the Bradley thing, but that's simply not going to happen. I think when talking about this winter we need to just assume he's gone. Whether or not that's the right move is a completely different debate. As far as Byrd goes, I have to disagree with you wholeheartedly. Defensively, he has a good reputation, and according to UZR he's almost exactly average, with a -6 last year, +5.9 in 08, and a +.3 in 2007At worst he's probably a little above average, which considering he would allow us to move Fukudome to RF he would still give us a pretty good net gain in the outfield defensively. And he's a type B FA, so there is no cost in players for him. As for Home/Road splits, I think those might be a minor issue, but nothing huge. First off, there's generally a gap in guys with regards to home/road splits. For instance, in 2009 the average MLB player hit .267/.340/.429 at home and .258/.326/.406 away. Also, Wrigley Field is a pretty damn good hitters park too, so there shouldn't be much of a dropoff going from Texas to Wrigley. I mean he's not a guy to go "Oh my God it's Marlon Byrd!" But he's a pretty good player that can probably be gotten relatively inexpensively. When a guy plays in Texas and has huge splits, it's an issue. If we got Byrd I think we could expect like a .750 OPS.

i wouldnt empty the farm for johan. i don't think i'd want him with that contract. he's been on a steady decline since 2006 and is on the wrong side of 30.

awful awful awful

A Granderson platoon with Johnson would produce badass results, but I don't know if Hendry would have enough payroll room to pay both of them.

That might be enough for one of them Might? Really? A closer, a starting SS/2B, a guy who has excelled as a loogy(and can spot start) and a guy who has potential as a DH. Not to mention they're all very cheap and most under team control for a bit. They would instantly have 3 or 4 guys they would put on the field right now. You're missing the point of the post. agree they all suck. freakin hendry. yeah because that's exactly what i said

best kill i've seen this season

bad penalty or bs call?

That might be enough for one of them Might? Really? A closer, a starting SS/2B, a guy who has excelled as a loogy(and can spot start) and a guy who has potential as a DH. Not to mention they're all very cheap and most under team control for a bit. They would instantly have 3 or 4 guys they would put on the field right now. You're missing the point of the post.

I'm trying to figure out if this is a joke. It's best to just assume that all of his posts are.

That might be enough for one of them

how is byrd anything like derosa?