chopsx9

In case nobody else says it, thanks for the effort on this post. I'm not sure what I think of Colvin overall, but this was a very informative post and interesting to read. Yeah you lost me initially at "binary opposition of fan base" but based on the above prodding I took a second look and it was, indeed, an interesting read.

To be fair that is only one of the reasons.

Not sure why I'm posting 6 months after the last post but.... I'll side with 00's movies being weaker than the 90's ones. I think Gladiator and Beautiful Mind are woefully overrated. (Not to pick on Russell Crowe) I think The Departed is overated as well. I haven't seen Crash but the general consensus seems to be that it was a pretty weak winner. I picked ROTK narrowly over NCFOM - primarily because I think it the scope in which it (really all three) was done was astounding. It very easily could have been a complete train wreck. It certainly wasn't perfect but I think it was an astonishing achievement.

The Royals could very well covet someone like Colvin..................... I wonder if they'd be willing to give up a good A ball prospect. William Myers or John Lamb would be nice, maybe too nice. Danny Duffy. A package of Colvin and other pieces for Hosmer would fit the Cubs organizational needs nicely but the Royals have very little motivation to trade Hosmer with how well he's doing. Actually with Hosmer advancing through their system as quickly as he is, including Colvin in a package of players for Billy Butler, who is about to get more expensive, would be ideal. I think Hosmer is kinda untouchable. I want the Hawaiian 1B. I think Colvin straight-up would easily do it. I think that's overpaying. I'd be surprised if Colvin doesn't have quite a bit of value at the moment Times maybe different now I realize, but, in terms of trade value how do you think Colvin compares to Brant Brown before he was traded for Lieber? (Were there other players involved???)

One of the knocks against him was he was too passive; taking too many pitches that were strikes. Which I would assume was responsible for the high K's looking. It looks like he is being more agressive; hence the high swinging strikes. He's on track for his most hrs in awhile - granted not by a whole lot, and he's streaky enough that projections can be iffy, but his overall extra base hits are up pretty significantly.

Because it's the Yankees they don't have to give up anything in return. The privalage is its own reward.

I didn't see the big deal. People who've been following this board know that Dae-Eun Rhee's done a very good job in his past three starts, plus there has been discussion on him, but I get the feeling no one's going to jump on davell for pointing that out. That's pretty much all ScrubMD did with Vitters' numbers. I guess I'll apologize as well for all of us who aren't able to immerse our selves 24/7 on these boards. Maybe we could institute a screening process for those of us with less than 18,000 posts to make sure nothing we post is offensive or just too wacky. I'll forward mine to Truff.

Can someone reference something that I can read as to why this is. I've seen the argument made lots of times - but never read anything indepth. It comes down to outs being the most important thing, most specifically not making them. I get that, but, you can't avoide making them - it is impossible - a team is going to make an out roughly 66% of time. You are obviously going to have stretches where a team is going to do much better than that but its going to even out in the end. That's probably the one certainty in baseball - outside the home half of the 9th and beyond you are going to make 3 outs. In my head - which is why I am looking for some reading material - what you do with the "non-outs" is more important than simply making one or not making one. Well, you're wrong. Getting as many people to the plate as you can without making outs is what's most important. Thank-you for the incredibly insightful response. I hope you didn't cramp coming up with that. No where have I said I am correct. I have asked for access to information that I assume some people here are familiar with so I can better understand. I have explained my thought process so people might understand where I am coming from and be bettter able to direct me to some reading material. While looking for some knowledge, understanding and elightenment I should at least thank-you for showing me that you occupy the space farthest from.

Can someone reference something that I can read as to why this is. I've seen the argument made lots of times - but never read anything indepth. It comes down to outs being the most important thing, most specifically not making them. I get that, but, you can't avoide making them - it is impossible - a team is going to make an out roughly 66% of time. You are obviously going to have stretches where a team is going to do much better than that but its going to even out in the end. That's probably the one certainty in baseball - outside the home half of the 9th and beyond you are going to make 3 outs. In my head - which is why I am looking for some reading material - what you do with the "non-outs" is more important than simply making one or not making one.

The 8 spot does have something to do with his walk totals, but not as much as saying 17/20 in under half his PA's does. Looking at it by outs: 0 out: 79 PA's, 5 BB 1 out: 92 PA's, 4 BB 2 out: 81 PA's, 11 BB Even in the 8 spot he isn't going to see too many unintentional intentional walks with <2 outs, so you can probably conclude that 5-6 of those are directly related to his batting order spot. Of course, just removing those doesn't give an accurate picture either, because he gets a hit 3/10 times, and it's obviously very encouraging to see that he's willing to take those walks that other swingers like Castro would've turned into K's. I'm not sure I'm following. Isn't he more likely to get UIBB with 2 outs and runners on in the 8th spot? I would guess that in most other spots that's not going to happen at this stage of his career. (I'm guessing he was followed by Lee and Soto in most other PAs) 35% of his walks (7) have been IBB - don't know how many of those were in the 8th spot but it would have to be at least 4. I'm not trying take away from his season at all -but I think I would agree with the poster that said his totals may not be indicitive of his patience to this point. Which says nothing definate about how he develops from here. If there are a lot of UIBB it is certainly encouraging that he is taking them. That said if you take away the IBB Colvin has walked more often in fewer AB's.

Can someone reference something that I can read as to why this is. I've seen the argument made lots of times - but never read anything indepth.

I don't know...if he were any sort of player to begin with he would have fallen on the bag ...oh wait!

The only ones I have any hope of getting a date with.

Buzz Aldrin exactly. Third guy on the moon is the much better question. Ooh Ooh what about who was the LAST guy to walk on the moon.

If his fly balls were going out as often as they have throughout his career, he'd have 10 home runs right now (roughly) and would be on pace for around 20 homers. As long as he continues to improve, I could see 25-30 homers a year. If you are getting Markakis now its not because you think his production is going to remain where it is - it would be a buy low - change of scenery type scenario - and really it's only his power that has to bounce back and it's not like he was hitting 45 hrs. If you are comfortable with Fukudome at 14M you should be extatic with Markakis at 10M.

why because they play the same position? he's way faster than theriot, has good range and a good arm. he might flop but it won't be because of the same reasons that theriot is mediocre. I assume he is focusing on the 4 singles as an indication of a complete lack of power. I don't think there is anyone doubting HJL's defense will be far superior. ...and maybe I'm in the minority but this the first year in a few that I would call Theriot mediocre...well I'd say less than mediocre this year.

You're thinking of Dr. Tom House who coached and developed him mechanically while Prior attended USC. I don't remember the article but if the point is that after a certain point it makes it less efecttie then it's wrong assuming the pitcher keeps the same arm action/speed as his FB. The greater the variation, the greater it will disrupt his timimg at the plate. I've heard the same thing as well that if variance is too great it can give a hitter (not named Soriano) time to readjust.

i'm glad only because he's likely to exercise his player option after this season, and i don't want the cubs paying 14.6M next year to a guy who doesn't have it any more. we already have enough bad contracts. That's hardly a bad contract. it is if he can't hit any more. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that won't be the case.

It's largely redundant. If a hitter is a good hitter in general then it's likely they're a good, or at least serviceable, hitter with RISP. It's highly unusual when you have players who are consistently good or useful hitters who are basically randomly not also good or useful with RISP. Those "unclutch good hitters" are essentially myths created by hack sports journalists, radio shows and the meathead fans that eat up their every word (aka A-Rod Syndrome). I am not sure at what point it becomes significant but there are some long tenured players that have pretty big differentials in their runners on/ risp and bases empty stats. Kevin Youklis is over 70 points worse with nobody on in his career. Ortiz, Maglio Ordonez, Bobby Abreu also have pretty big differntials over their careers. Others are pretty much spot on - Jeter I think was almost dead on. Arod is pretty consistent although there is a bit of a drop with RISP and 2 outs - although his seems to be slightly more most players seem to have a bit of a drop. (...well I certainly didn't look at most players) Soriano is better with nobody on by a pretty big margin but that probably has something to do with him batting leadoff so much.

4 hits and a grand slam in the 9th to tie the game. ( and a BB) Jake Fox HR in extras to win it. Pie and Moore also played in the game. http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=300709113 A little surreal, but good for them

With how he's performing in Ten. is it outside the relm of possability that he fights for a big league spot in March?

Few players are good at everything. I'd say it's pretty mediocre - I don't know if I would say it's pretty bad - but maybe that's just sematics. He'd be around 51 or 52 out of 90 qualified batters. I assume if you compared him against just RF's he would probably fare worse. Regardless if that was the price of 40 hrs a year I could live with it - and I'm not suggesting he's a lock for that kind of power but i'd say this is a good year to find out.

If he wore out and got worse as the year progressed, wouldn't his numbers get steadily worse as well? Instead, June is his worst month, but then he rebounds to a pretty respectable .808 OPS in July and then regresses some again, but not as much as June. Then his September numbers plummet again. Looks more streaky than wearing down. Except that his "wearing down" months - to this point - have always come in the last 2/3 of the season. Nobody - or very very few anyway - are going to perform following a straight line of progression or regression.

It is not arbitrary. The statement made was the he starts fast and his numbers fade over the last four months of the season. That has been the pattern - I know you favour comparing apples to oranges but doesn't make any sense. That's why you compare the same period in each year. I am picking the same months from each year to compare - you are picking different months from each year - you are being far more arbitraty than I. LOL Why are you only looking at May. What happened to April??? April is part of April and May. Because that weakens the argument you just leave it out?? That assertation was those months the last two years have been better than the last four. Sure there have been periods during those months where has hit well but if you but they are different each year. Where to this point April and May, through 3 years, have been similar. The suggestion that splitting the season in two at the same point every year is too arbitrary but then supporting your arguments by pulling different smaller periods each year is laughable.

Indeed. Absolutely. How is that different than saying his April/May numbers are better than his June to Oct numbers??