Jehrico

If they really were good coaches, they'll land on their feet. There's lots of off-season instruction in the fall between Mesa, surely other teams would look at picking them up. The success rate of many of the D-Rays upper level prospects means they have to be doing something right as far as player development goes.

I wonder if they expect his offense to improve if he doesn't have to focus on everything that goes into being a catcher...

Jim, I think its time to look at door #2. Door #2, IMO, is putting Prior in that 5 slot. If our 5th pitcher pitches like an ace, all the better!

That's what I was thinking earlier today but when I checked O'Neill's statistics, I decided that was probably a bit optimistic. The guy posted some pretty nice seasons. Though if Murton attains that kind of rings, I will be thoroughly pleased. fixed...I've thought for quite a while now that the Yanks haven't won the WS since O'Neill retired because they haven't replaced him yet.

And this may be a bit biased, but I think Veal will be better then Hughes and perhaps even Bailey (let's face it, do we trust a pitching prospect in the Reds system?). Why do you think this? Anything besides the bias and the reds poor system of late? I think you answered your own question.

That's a good and fair question. But how did those veteran, big-name managers _ Don Baylor and Dusty Baker _ do with the Cubs? So yes, I think Hendry might "risk" it with Gonzalez. Will he? I don't know. Hendry's past actions makes me think he wouldn't risk going with the unproven guy. But as Bruce points out, that hasn't exactly worked for him so far. Will he treat it like the Izturis situation (defense didn't work for him before, maybe he should just get more of it), or will he treat it like Alou (big name slugger didn't pan out, let's go a different route)? I still think that if it wasn't for Baker actually wanting to leave, Hendry would be more than happy to bring him back, which would seem to indicate he's not in a try something new sort of mood. Our last two managers were also guys no longer wanted with their current clubs. I don't know if he'd go with just any new guy based on credentials, but I don't think Atlanta wants to lose Gonzalez, and Hendry has a lot of respect for Atlanta's system, from what I understand. Based on that, Gonzalez might qualify as an exception that Hendry could go for.

Fixed. Fixed again...

I don't think it's that, though. He put up pretty darn good power numbers and his LD% is fairly reasonable. What most people have been criticizing him for is his lack of patience, which tends to be something that works across aluminum and wood bats. I wonder what his coaches told him they wanted to see out of him. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they told him some crap like they wanted him swinging the bat alot, being more aggressive at the plate than normal in order to quickly adjust from aluminum to wood. Either way, I'm not impressed with his showing, but, like I said, I'm waiting until after next season to declare him a good or bad pick. I'd wait longer than next year before declaring him anything, but my early impression remains skeptical, and will until he improves significantly. Oh, and you are probably dead on as far as what he's being instructed to do by the Cubs. Maybe declaring was not a good way to put it...forming an opinion maybe?

I don't think it's that, though. He put up pretty darn good power numbers and his LD% is fairly reasonable. What most people have been criticizing him for is his lack of patience, which tends to be something that works across aluminum and wood bats. I wonder what his coaches told him they wanted to see out of him. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they told him some crap like they wanted him swinging the bat alot, being more aggressive at the plate than normal in order to quickly adjust from aluminum to wood. Either way, I'm not impressed with his showing, but, like I said, I'm waiting until after next season to declare him a good or bad pick.

Roy Williams disagrees. He guaranteed a Lions' victory. I love how he backed off soon after. Some of those quotes in that article make me think he's mentally [expletive]. “When we play the way we’re supposed to play, like our defense played the way they did Sunday … I don’t think there’s no team in this league that can beat us.” What the hell's he smoking? So he thinks that no one in the league can beat them if they play the way they did Sunday. What was the result of that game, when they played the way they're supposed to?

I was about to say that if we're going to start a thread named "Brilliant Dusty Quotes" everytime Baker lets one fly, then we should just make this a sticky. Maybe we should have done this at the beginning of the season, it's a little late now.

I chuckled a little with that one as well...

Not to be argumentative, but the possibility of one year being non-representative is the reason I gave the average PF from 2001-2006, a time period you described as subjective. A larger sample size is almost always better than a smaller sample size. park factors actually do jump around quite a bit. using anything less than three years is generally considered a bad idea. That kind of defies common sense, and undermines what the stat is supposed to do, doesn't it? It seems that way to me anyways... like most statistics, the larger the sample size the better. luck plays a very key role in baseball. anyway, beltre didn't gain any advantage moving to seattle. I don't think Soriano is moving down that path. his 3-year batting average is .280 and this year is .293 - not a huge jump that can't be sustained. his double and homerun percentages went up slightly but mostly he started taking walks. there is no particular reason he should regress from that. even if he reverts to three year numbers, he is nearly as good as carlos lee. to me this is definitely worth the risk although any analysis should consider the marginal costs. I don't think I want Soriano at 2b although that is clearly the position that absolutely must be improved. Soriano was putting up Neifiesque OPSs on the road when he was away from Arlington. I don't think his 3 year stats are in the Carlos Lee range. His home stats alone might support that, but not his combined or his road stats. This year is a definite spike. His OBP and SLG (and hence, OPS) are career highs. His OPS is 87 points over his career best, and over 130 points better than last year when he was in a better hitters park. His OPS had declined from 02 to 03 to 04 to 05 before this years spike. He's over 30 now, there's no reason to expect him to sustain these numbers when he's had a solid 4 year slide and he's at the end of his prime. His walk rates are nearly double anything he's done in his career, and that's a big part of his spike, but it's going to take more than a year to show me that this is legit and not a fluke.

I was disappointed they traded down and didn't take a tight end with their original pick. Hester did alot to make me forget about that yesterday :D

He's still in my Top 10. Part of that is due to the quality of prospects already in the system and part of that is due to Colvin's performance. The power definitely came as a surprise to many, imo. I was never impressed with him as a first round signing, but, I'm not going to jump to too many conclusions. These were his first two rounds with wooden bats, afterall. Next year there won't be any adjustment factor, so we'll see how he does.

Not to be argumentative, but the possibility of one year being non-representative is the reason I gave the average PF from 2001-2006, a time period you described as subjective. A larger sample size is almost always better than a smaller sample size. park factors actually do jump around quite a bit. using anything less than three years is generally considered a bad idea. That kind of defies common sense, and undermines what the stat is supposed to do, doesn't it? It seems that way to me anyways...

Not to be argumentative, but the possibility of one year being non-representative is the reason I gave the average PF from 2001-2006, a time period you described as subjective. A larger sample size is almost always better than a smaller sample size. I didn't use 6 years because all I knew was the last three, which favored LA :oops:

I swear, some of you are awfully quick to jump on Dusty and pick apart every little thing he says. We all know what he really meant. He really meant "I just wish I had more players like him and Neifi." :roll:

LA's average park factor for 2001-2006 is .900 and Seattle's is .883. Safeco has been (marginally) a harder place to hit for the last six years. Six years is a little subjective. LA was tougher last year (which is where I got my info), Safeco was tougher in '04, LA in 03, etc. Some date ranges favor them, and others LA. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor Any time frame is subjective, but going with six years is better than going with one year. Why did you pick last year instead of this year, when LA is actually the 5th best hitter's park in the league? I ignored this year for two reasons...one, I hadn't seen running park factors for '06 until I looked it up just now, and two, even if I had, this year is obviously a fluke. Park Factors shouldn't vary much from year to year, and Dodger Stadium jumped from normally being around 25 or so to 5, so something's not right there. I usually put a good amount of weight into OPS+ and ERA+, but seeing such a large variation in park factor this year, which is weighed into OPS+ and ERA+, has me doubting their validity as stats now. Nothing has changed with Dodger Stadium in the last year to justify that kind of jump that I know of, unless they moved the fences in or something of that nature that I'm not aware of.

LA's average park factor for 2001-2006 is .900 and Seattle's is .883. Safeco has been (marginally) a harder place to hit for the last six years. Six years is a little subjective. LA was tougher last year (which is where I got my info), Safeco was tougher in '04, LA in 03, etc. Some date ranges favor them, and others LA. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

Roy Williams disagrees. He guaranteed a Lions' victory. http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060911/NEWS99/60911018 Was just running on here to post that Someone tell Roy to tell Mrs Warrick I said "Hi."

I don't think that's true jehrico. Seattle is a terrible park for hitters. The real question is whether Soriano can maintain his .084 ISOD. That has driven his obp into acceptable territory. I think he will maintain his power for a couple years. Can he play CF? Maybe I exaggerated the difference, but LA is possibly the worst hitters park in the league. I didn't mean to imply Seattle is hitter friendly. You shouldn't expect a drop going from LA to Seattle. Seattle is the worst in the league. 921 to LA's 951. Washington is a horrible place for hitters for the sake of this argument. I don't see Soriano mimicking Beltre. What stat is that? That's not last years park factor, is it?

Bold prediction: Bears win a low scoring game thanks to special teams or turnovers. Our offense leaves something to be desired, and their defense looked pretty good against Seattle. Seattle's strong point is their offense, their defense is not as good. Detroit only managed 2 field goals against them. I'm not going to predict another shutout, but we'll keep them out of the endzone. Our D will be too much for them.

He hit 2 more HRs in August than July in fewer atbats. I think the brass must have been pleased with his "progress." :roll:

I don't think that's true jehrico. Seattle is a terrible park for hitters. The real question is whether Soriano can maintain his .084 ISOD. That has driven his obp into acceptable territory. I think he will maintain his power for a couple years. Can he play CF? Maybe I exaggerated the difference, but LA is possibly the worst hitters park in the league. I didn't mean to imply Seattle is hitter friendly. You shouldn't expect a drop going from LA to Seattle.