Darryl Hamilton New CF?
Kevin Slagle
It appears Darryl Hamiliton will be signing a three-year dealwith the
Giants today.
I guess this is our prized lead-off man and CF. I'm just holding my
breath to hear how much this guiy will be making.
His stats last year: .293, 6 HR, 51 RBi, 94 runs in 148 games.
Dave Dombrowski of the Marlins earned (or spent his way to) the right to
say "These are the last of our plans." I hope I don't hear that from
the Giants today.
Gregg Pearlman
Kevin Slagle wrote:
>
> It appears Darryl Hamiliton will be signing a three-year dealwith the
> Giants today.
>
> I guess this is our prized lead-off man and CF. I'm just holding my
> breath to hear how much this guiy will be making.
>
> His stats last year: .293, 6 HR, 51 RBi, 94 runs in 148 games.
OBP: .348.
(Can someone fill me in on the league average OBP? I remember that for
a long time, the major league average was around .330, but with the
offensive increase lately, it's gotta be higher.)
> Dave Dombrowski of the Marlins earned (or spent his way to) the right to
> say "These are the last of our plans." I hope I don't hear that from
> the Giants today.
Will it be okay if they say, "These are the last of our plans for
Brian Sabean"?
Gregg
Erik Simpson
: Kevin Slagle wrote:
: >
: > It appears Darryl Hamiliton will be signing a three-year dealwith the
: > Giants today.
Oh, boy. Hamilton is on the wrong side of average, signed for the long
term, declining, easily reaplaceable, and presumably vastly overpaid.
He'll fit right in.
The Giants now have a grand total of one player (Bonds, naturally) who can
reasonably be expected to have an OPS above .800, which is a pretty
mediocre plateau.
Since Sabean thinks he's building a contender, let's consider a comparison
on that ground to other NL teams: how many .800-club members can tehy
reasonably be expected to have? Remember, this doesn't include pitching,
which will hardly help!
East:
Atlanta--McGriff, C Jones, A Jones, Justice, Klesko, perhaps Lopez
Florida--Sheffield, Conine, Alou (barely), Bonilla, McMillon (a fifth OF
better than any non-Bonds Giant)
Montreal--White, V Guerrero, perhaps Floyd
New York--Gilkey, Petagine (if he plays)
Philadelphia--Rolen, Jefferies
Central:
Houston--Bagwell, Biggio
Pittsburgh--Martin, perhaps Kendall (Pirates - a future = Giants)
Chicago--Sosa, Jennings, Grace
St. Louis--Gant, Lankford, perhaps Jordan
Cincy--Larkin, Morris, perhaps Greene
West:
LA--Piazza, Mondesi, Karros (high .700's with a park-boost)
Colorado (not Coorsflated)--Burks (this might be the most similar NL team,
actually, being both bad and old, which is a terifying thought)
SD--perhaps Henderson, Caminiti, Finley, Veras, Joyner; no clear .800
guys, but a whole bunch who are real close
SF--Bonds
Offensively, then, we look (by this rough standqard, but I think it's
working pretty well here) most like the Pirates, the Rockies, and the
Phillies. That is very bad news.
And the offense is supposed to be the STRENGTH of this team.
Erik
Gregg Pearlman
Erik Simpson wrote:
>
> : Kevin Slagle wrote:
> : >
> : > It appears Darryl Hamiliton will be signing a three-year dealwith the
> : > Giants today.
> : >
>
> Oh, boy. Hamilton is on the wrong side of average, signed for the long
> term, declining, easily reaplaceable, and presumably vastly overpaid.
> He'll fit right in.
This is precisely what I feared. Wish I were surprised.
> The Giants now have a grand total of one player (Bonds, naturally) who can
> reasonably be expected to have an OPS above .800, which is a pretty
> mediocre plateau.
Amazing. We have one hitter who can be expected to perform above the
level of mediocre. Guess we shouldn't've traded Watson.
I'll leave it to somebody else to add a vomiting noise here.
> Since Sabean thinks he's building a contender, let's consider a comparison
> on that ground to other NL teams: how many .800-club members can tehy
> reasonably be expected to have? Remember, this doesn't include pitching,
> which will hardly help!
I'm snipping this, just 'cause it's too depressing to read again. Your
most telling line: Pirates - a future = Giants. Siiiigh. Not to
mention "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
Gregg
Kevin Slagle
> Will it be okay if they say, "These are the last of our plans for
> Brian Sabean"?
>
> Gregg
You know, the more I read the more I'm finding out this deal might not
happen. Which is probably too bad, because depending on the $$$, he is
definitely an improvement on waht the Giantshad out there last year
However, if this deal doesn't get done your suggested statement might
end up being correct.
Mail-Order Snide
Erik Simpson wrote:
>
> : Kevin Slagle wrote:
> : >
> : > It appears Darryl Hamiliton will be signing a three-year dealwith the
> : > Giants today.
> : >
>
> Oh, boy. Hamilton is on the wrong side of average, signed for the long
> term, declining, easily reaplaceable, and presumably vastly overpaid.
> He'll fit right in.
Concer. Slightly worse than Stan Javier pre-injury. Hamiliton will be
_32_.
This move is kinda unfathomable... although I guess he did hit .298
(in Texas, in a high offense year, with few BB and little power).
Better than Bernard. I guess.
I think this move is one of those 'look we're trying' attempts.
Useless,
but for this off-season, hardly a crippling move.
> The Giants now have a grand total of one player (Bonds, naturally) who can
> reasonably be expected to have an OPS above .800, which is a pretty
> mediocre plateau.
Disagree, sorta. Hill and Wilkins should be around .750, which is well
within
std. devation of .800. I think that's 'Reasonably expected' -- maybe
one
of them. On the other hand, their topside, is what, .810? Bill Mueller
should
be right around low .800s -- entering his prime.
> Atlanta--McGriff, C Jones, A Jones, Justice, Klesko, perhaps Lopez
> Florida--Sheffield, Conine, Alou (barely), Bonilla, McMillon (a fifth OF
> better than any non-Bonds Giant)
> Montreal--White, V Guerrero, perhaps Floyd
50% chance of Segui or Rodriguiz carrying 'age 27-itis' to age 28.
> New York--Gilkey, Petagine (if he plays)
Hundley? .800 would be a 100 point drop off.
> Philadelphia--Rolen, Jefferies
Hudler, probably.
> Central:
> LA--Piazza, Mondesi, Karros (high .700's with a park-boost)
> Colorado (not Coorsflated)--Burks (this might be the most similar NL team,
> actually, being both bad and old, which is a terifying thought)
Their pitching is alot better than ours.
> SD--perhaps Henderson, Caminiti, Finley, Veras, Joyner; no clear .800
> guys, but a whole bunch who are real close
> SF--Bonds
--
Void Where Prohibited * Laden With Cosmic Significance
Ayatollah of the Three True Outcomes, etc.
Rob Deer Fan Club (RDFCect, find out what it means to me)
+==============================================================
Ben Hitz* hi...@cumbnd.bioc.columbia.edu *Dept. of Biochemistry
*** http://tincan.bioc.columbia.edu/Home/ben.home/ ***
Gregg Pearlman
Tjames Madison wrote:
>
> : SD--perhaps Henderson, Caminiti, Finley, Veras, Joyner; no clear .800
> : guys, but a whole bunch who are real close
>
>
> : SF--Bonds
>
> Not a scary lineup.
Depends on what you mean by "scary" -- and who's scared.
Gregg
Tjames Madison
In article <58s9am$v...@netnews.upenn.edu>, esim...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Erik Simpson) wrote:
: LA--Piazza, Mondesi, Karros (high .700's with a park-boost)
Actually (though you might have just meant Karros), Mondesi makes it to
800 without the park boost, as he's done each of his years in the
majors. Karros was .799 last year and will probably do about the same.
Add Hollandsworth, who has a shot if he can get his OBP up a shade. And
Zeile was .780ish in Philadelphia.
: Colorado (not Coorsflated)--Burks (this might be the most similar NL team,
: actually, being both bad and old, which is a terifying thought)
You probably should include Galarraga as a legitimate .800 guy,
unfortunately.
: SD--perhaps Henderson, Caminiti, Finley, Veras, Joyner; no clear .800
: guys, but a whole bunch who are real close
Scary lineup.
: SF--Bonds
Not a scary lineup.
: Offensively, then, we look (by this rough standqard, but I think it's
: working pretty well here) most like the Pirates, the Rockies, and the
: Phillies. That is very bad news.
:
: And the offense is supposed to be the STRENGTH of this team.
I don't know how strictly useful defining a team's offense is by the
number of .800 OPS hitters, though. A team full of .700 hitters
straight through is probably better than a team full of .600 hitters and
one guy at 1.000. Although, with the Giants, that could be what you're
looking at.
I would suggest doing this with starting pitchers and 4.00 ERAs, but I
don't think you want to go there.
--
R | o | R
"like a rolling steel keg rolling on concrete"
A | L | U | C | A | R | D
Barry Ramey
Kevin Slagle wrote:
>
> It appears Darryl Hamiliton will be signing a three-year dealwith the
> Giants today.
>
> breath to hear how much this guiy will be making.
>
> His stats last year: .293, 6 HR, 51 RBi, 94 runs in 148 games.
>
> say "These are the last of our plans." I hope I don't hear that from
> the Giants today.
Hamilton isn't a great player, but he would be the best leadoff hitter
thay've had in years. Darren Lewis' OBP was horrible, he last year as a
Giant, it was like .311 and Benard's was any much better if at all.
Jonathan Bernstein
Kevin Slagle (ksl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: You know, the more I read the more I'm finding out this deal might not
: happen. Which is probably too bad, because depending on the $$$, he is
: definitely an improvement on waht the Giantshad out there last year
Yes, but last year we were sending out a Grade C prospect while last
years' stopgap was hurt.
*This* year we could send out a Grade B+ prospect, who almost certainly is
within inches of being better than Hamilton already.
Over the next three years, it's not even close; Powell should be a far
better player than Hamilton over that period.
A 3-year deal for Hamilton would be stunningly stupid. He's not the worst
player in the world, but CF isn't the Giants problem, and Hamilton is
nobody's long-term solution. A very good team with no CF at all might
want to take a look at Hamilton for a year; the Giants don't come close to
that description.
JHB
Erik Simpson
Mail-Order Snide (hi...@cumbnd.bioc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: Erik Simpson wrote:
: Disagree, sorta. Hill and Wilkins should be around .750, which is well
: within
: std. devation of .800.
Let me clarify: I'm looking for players whose expected value is .800 or
better (so SD doesn't help), and I'm using the STATS projections as an
arbiter in many cases.
: I think that's 'Reasonably expected' -- maybe
: one of them. On the other hand, their topside, is what, .810?
Exactly. If you want to count them, then lots and lots of guys will start
qualifying; believe me, loosening the standard won't make the Giants look
better. Not that you said it would.
: Bill
: Mueller should
: be right around low .800s -- entering his prime.
I doubt that. STATS projection: .288/.358/.366. Not even close.
[snipping throughout]
: > Montreal--White, V Guerrero, perhaps Floyd
: 50% chance of Segui or Rodriguiz carrying 'age 27-itis' to age 28.
STATS Rodriguez (at age 29): .258/.306/.456
STATS Segui (age 30): .270/.345/.392
Again, I know I wasn't clear on my standards earlier, but neither of these
guys qualify.
: > New York--Gilkey, Petagine (if he plays)
: Hundley? .800 would be a 100 point drop off.
I did forget about Hundley, but STATS sees his 1996 as a HUGE outlier; the
projection is .236/.326/.427. In this case, I would have overruled and
counted him anyway, at least in my "perhaps" category.
: > Philadelphia--Rolen, Jefferies
: Hudler, probably.
Though he did it last year, it was bizarre. The 97 projection:
.257/.280/.398 for the Angels. I cannot in good conscience count Hudler.
: > Colorado (not Coorsflated)--Burks (this might be the most similar NL team,
: > actually, being both bad and old, which is a terifying thought)
: Their pitching is alot better than ours.
Certainly true in 1995, probably in 1996. I think it might be kinda
similar now, though, especially after the silly Reynoso trade. I can't
particularly back up that opinion, though.
Erik
Erik Simpson
Tjames Madison (tja...@ccnet.com) wrote:
: : LA--Piazza, Mondesi, Karros (high .700's with a park-boost)
: Actually (though you might have just meant Karros), Mondesi makes it to
: 800 without the park boost, as he's done each of his years in the
: majors.
I didn't mean the parenthetical to apply to Mondesi.
: Karros was .799 last year and will probably do about the same.
STATS has him lower, but not much. Sure.
: Add Hollandsworth, who has a shot if he can get his OBP up a shade.
I share the STATS skepticism here; they project him at .258/.314/.403.
Last year doesn't quite make sense for him, though I could see bumping him
up to "perhaps."
: And
: Zeile was .780ish in Philadelphia.
In a good year for him, at age 30. STATS doesn't project him all that
close to .800, even in a very good hitter's park in the AL. I don't think
he has much of a shot.
: : Colorado (not Coorsflated)--Burks (this might be the most similar NL team,
: : actually, being both bad and old, which is a terifying thought)
: You probably should include Galarraga as a legitimate .800 guy,
: unfortunately.
For last year, yes. For next year, no way. (STATS agrees with me
here--they have him at .829 in Coors, which is not even in the remote
ballpark of a neutral-park .800.)
: : Offensively, then, we look (by this rough standqard, but I think it's
: : working pretty well here) most like the Pirates, the Rockies, and the
: : Phillies. That is very bad news.
: :
: : And the offense is supposed to be the STRENGTH of this team.
: I don't know how strictly useful defining a team's offense is by the
: number of .800 OPS hitters, though.
Of course. It's a silly way to do anything but a blunt guess. However,
the crazy thing is just how blunt an instrument can be used to separate
the Giants from all the other teams that think they are contenders.
: A team full of .700 hitters
: straight through is probably better than a team full of .600 hitters and
: one guy at 1.000. Although, with the Giants, that could be what you're
: looking at.
: I would suggest doing this with starting pitchers and 4.00 ERAs, but I
: don't think you want to go there.
You are so right.
Erik
Andre Bolen
Kevin Slagle (ksl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > Will it be okay if they say, "These are the last of our plans for
: > Brian Sabean"?
: >
: > Gregg
:
: happen. Which is probably too bad, because depending on the $$$, he is
: definitely an improvement on waht the Giantshad out there last year
: However, if this deal doesn't get done your suggested statement might
: end up being correct.
I was expecting something more along the lines of Sabean leaning back in
his chair, exclaiming "My work here is done...!" punctuated with an
evil laugh (Muhahahaha...!) and disappearing in a huge cloud of white
smoke.
Tjames Madison
In article <58ujb4$c...@netnews.upenn.edu>, esim...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Erik Simpson) wrote:
: Tjames Madison (tja...@ccnet.com) wrote:
: : Add Hollandsworth, who has a shot if he can get his OBP up a shade.
:
: I share the STATS skepticism here; they project him at .258/.314/.403.
: Last year doesn't quite make sense for him, though I could see bumping him
: up to "perhaps."
I'm not so sure. I think STATS has a hitch in its swing between where
they downgrade for Albuquerque and upgrade for Dodger Stadium. I could
see him dropping some, but not .40-odd points of OBP at age 24.
: : And
: : Zeile was .780ish in Philadelphia.
:
: In a good year for him, at age 30. STATS doesn't project him all that
: close to .800, even in a very good hitter's park in the AL. I don't think
: he has much of a shot.
Okay, that was wishful thinking. Remember that even while *your* GM has
been doing things like signing JT Snow, *my* GM has been doing things
like *giving Todd Zeile a three-year contract*.
Erik Simpson
Tjames Madison (tja...@ccnet.com) wrote:
: : In a good year for him, at age 30. STATS doesn't project him all that
: : close to .800, even in a very good hitter's park in the AL. I don't think
: : he has much of a shot.
: Okay, that was wishful thinking. Remember that even while *your* GM has
: been doing things like signing JT Snow, *my* GM has been doing things
: like *giving Todd Zeile a three-year contract*.
:
Bah! What I wouldn't give for Todd Zeile at this point. This is not the
place to find sympathy, my friend. :)
Erik
: --
Albert Yang
Gregg Pearlman (gre...@leland.stanford.edu) wrote:
: Kevin Slagle wrote:
: >
: > It appears Darryl Hamiliton will be signing a three-year dealwith the
: > Giants today.
: >
: > I guess this is our prized lead-off man and CF. I'm just holding my
: > breath to hear how much this guiy will be making.
: >
: > His stats last year: .293, 6 HR, 51 RBi, 94 runs in 148 games.
: OBP: .348.
:
: (Can someone fill me in on the league average OBP? I remember that for
: a long time, the major league average was around .330, but with the
: offensive increase lately, it's gotta be higher.)
More importantly, what's the league average OBP for leadoff men (or
is this .330 figure it?)
The scary thing is that .348 is (probably) better than anything the
Giants have had in a while.
--
Albert Yang |"Reports of my assimilation have
Internet: apy...@ucdavis.edu | been greatly exaggerated."
http://dcn.davis.ca.us/~albert/ | - Jean-Luc Picard, ST:FC
Gregg Pearlman
Andre Bolen wrote:
>
> I was expecting something more along the lines of Sabean leaning back in
> his chair, exclaiming "My work here is done...!" punctuated with an
> evil laugh (Muhahahaha...!) and disappearing in a huge cloud of white
> smoke.
Not to mention leaving behind a pungent barnyard fragrance. Hence the
nickname, The Smelly Stranger with the Red Eyes.
Gregg
Gregg Pearlman
Jonathan Bernstein wrote:
>
> Kevin Slagle (ksl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : You know, the more I read the more I'm finding out this deal might not
> : happen. Which is probably too bad, because depending on the $$$, he is
> : definitely an improvement on waht the Giantshad out there last year
>
> years' stopgap was hurt.
>
> *This* year we could send out a Grade B+ prospect, who almost certainly is
> within inches of being better than Hamilton already.
The good news is that the Hamilton talk has died down since last week,
as far as I know. The bad news is that we'll leave Powell at Phoenix
for another year, shatter his confidence, and eventually lose him to
the Dodgers in the Rule 5 draft.
Gregg
Mail-Order Snide
Erik Simpson wrote:
> : Bill
> : Mueller should
> : be right around low .800s -- entering his prime.
>
> I doubt that. STATS projection: .288/.358/.366. Not even close.
I just looked him up. I agree with this projection; I thought he
had a higher OBP in 1994.
> STATS Rodriguez (at age 29): .258/.306/.456
> STATS Segui (age 30): .270/.345/.392
>
> Again, I know I wasn't clear on my standards earlier, but neither of these
> guys qualify.
OK - I guess I thought they were 27 last year. In general, I didn't
look
these guys up beyond age and 1996 unadjusted stats.
Doug Riblet
Mail-Order Snide <hi...@cumbnd.bioc.columbia.edu> wrote:
>This move is kinda unfathomable... although I guess he did hit .298
>(in Texas, in a high offense year, with few BB and little power).
>
>Better than Bernard. I guess.
Not necessarily. Using linear weights, adjusted for parks and
the AL vs. NL difference, Benard had -14 BR/A last season, to
-21 BR/A for Hamilton. Considering Hamilton's age and recent
career trend, I'd expect Benard to be a lot better than Hamilton
over the next three years. (Man, that's scary.)
------ Doug Riblet ------ dbri...@students.wisc.edu ------
MP: "One of the reasons that I read this Newsgroup is to get
interesting baseball discussion without having to wade through
the misplaced, arrogant bullshit that stains so many sports pages."
GH: "I'm assuming then, that you're in your own KILL file."