The PTBNL is Liriano... ouch
simy1
anything to trade at this point that could be of interest to another
team.
Dr. Wayne Simon
"simy1" <si...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7218de3b.03111...@posting.google.com...
> Surely the Twins are happy with their haul. I wonder if we have
> anything to trade at this point that could be of interest to another
> team.
I think its a steep price, nathan was certainly a candidate for starter next
year, and he did get us out of a lot of jams even though he screwed up a
few. He is a talented guy, and this would only be his second year back
after coming off of a major surgery. He was getting up to 97 MPH last year.
For a non power hitting catcher, who may have had his career year we may
have given up too much. No one knows if Bonser is going to be a stud or not.
I think we are giving up too much, the only thing I think might help us is
that sabean probably has a plan, and will replace pitching with other decent
pitchers I hope. This trade does not make me happy. It does not give me a
warm and fuzzy feeling. Sorry. The only positive it that it assures that
benito is gone.
Michael Bakunin
and I didn't even love Mr. Bonser's prospects. my ugh is twofold:
one, I got to see our new catching hero play here in the Twinkiedome,
and he's yet another hacker. I'm tired of hackers. two, it just seems to
me Nathan, Bonser and Liriano should have fetched a little more -- but
then that's often how I feel about Sabean's trades.
well, I guess that settles one lineup spot.
woo freakin' hoo.
Wookie
becasue he couldn't throw any strikes when the going got tough. He choked
BIG time !!!! Nathan may have had a good year but he is just a big head case
with a great arm.
"Dr. Wayne Simon" <ari...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nXbtb.8529$rV....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Paul Lujan
> for the record: ugh.
>
> and I didn't even love Mr. Bonser's prospects. my ugh is twofold:
> one, I got to see our new catching hero play here in the Twinkiedome,
> and he's yet another hacker. I'm tired of hackers. two, it just seems to
> me Nathan, Bonser and Liriano should have fetched a little more -- but
> then that's often how I feel about Sabean's trades.
well, he is a catcher. as a catcher, he'll be nothing great, but he will
be solidly above average.
that said, the package is awfully big. okay, the only real major league
loss is Nathan, and as we all know relievers are supposed to be used as
chips like this, so the team will at least be better in the near future,
but i still worry.
--Paul
Josh Burnett
> for the record: ugh.
>
> and I didn't even love Mr. Bonser's prospects. my ugh is twofold:
> one, I got to see our new catching hero play here in the Twinkiedome,
> and he's yet another hacker.
On the other hand, he had a .360 OBP last year, a full 31 points
better than Santiago. And he had fewer strike outs than Santiago in
about 75 more at bats. He's a substantial upgrade to the lineup, I
think.
On the other other hand, I agree that the Giants probably gave up too
much for him, and I think Torrealba would've been a perfectly solid
starting catcher, so if the Giants were going to trade these players,
I would've rather they traded them for, say, a short stop.
Grant Brisbee
"Paul Lujan" <plu...@QQyahooQQ.com> wrote in message
news:bp3q4t$2ukf$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
I'd be surprised if Liriano was anything other than a reliever in the
majors, so I'm only really worried about Bonser making this look bad.
Sabean was a little coy on an interview about the trade. He didn't seem too
crestfallen about giving these guys up, especially Nathan. He thinks the
market will be flooded with middle relief after the non-tenders, and said
something to the effect of "we scout our own players better than anybody".
Far cry from the '97 talk of, gee willikers, we're going to miss a couple of
those guys.
Grant
http://giantsblog.blogspot.com
Michael Bakunin
> than anybody". Far cry from the '97 talk of, gee willikers, we're going
> to miss a couple of those guys.
well, Bonser in the fall league is walking a ton again, though getting Ks.
when in doubt, I trust the team's scouts, but he's pitching reasonably
well at a pretty high level for his age, so.. well, we'll see.
better an overpayment for a competent hacker than another Neifi signing.
Wayne Alan Simon
"Wookie" <TomVWo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oUctb.2876$Dw6.20054@attbi_s02...
times our new catcher did not come thru in the clutch? Our guys are only
remembered by their bad days, and our newcomers only remembered by their
good days. Come on, righties over the year hit under 200 vs nathan. Do u
remember him coming in with the bases loaded and nobody out, and getting out
the side without a run? Well, Minnesota remembers.
Greg Lentz
<bakunin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> and said something to the effect of "we scout our own players better
>> than anybody". Far cry from the '97 talk of, gee willikers, we're going
>> to miss a couple of those guys.
>
>well, Bonser in the fall league is walking a ton again
Good. I'd been a little worried about his tendency to hack.
>better an overpayment for a competent hacker than another Neifi signing.
In some ways, this is a Neifi signing. Pierzynski is a perfectly fine
starting major league catcher and an improvement over Santiago, but is
he 3 players better than Torrealba? Not so sure. Only if those
players all end up about about Nathan quality, in which case they're
all fairly disposable.
Greg Lentz
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: In some ways, this is a Neifi signing. Pierzynski is a perfectly fine
: starting major league catcher and an improvement over Santiago, but is
: he 3 players better than Torrealba? Not so sure. Only if those
: players all end up about about Nathan quality, in which case they're
: all fairly disposable.
I'll admit that I'm less optimistic about Yorvit than most, but yeah, I
think so. Clay Davenport had AJ 7th among all major league catcher in
runs over replacement at their position last year, adding 33 runs over a
replacement level catcher. IMO, replacement level is probably what Yorvit
is -- although to be fair he was +6 runs in a bit over 200 PAs. AJ was
7th also in 2002.
Granted, he's not in the class of the real stars. But after Posada,
Piazza, I Rodriguez, and maybe a couple of others, he's as good as anyone
else. The only real worry I can see on paper is that a catcher who
produces most of his value in singles and doubles might be in trouble if
he suddenly loses a lot of speed, but I do like a LH hitting catcher.
And we're talking about minor league arms that, while interesting, are
nothing more than interesting pitching prospects. *Some* of that category
will turn into star pitchers, but most of them won't, and if there's one
thing fairly certain about Sabean it's that he can refill that particular
well pretty easily.
JHB
Greg Lentz
wrote:
I don't disagree with anything that you say. The only thing I would
worry about is that even though these are not Foppert/Williams level
prospects, when you use them in a trade for a nice, but not great
piece like Pierzynski, that's chattel that they can't use for a deal
for someone that's a lot better.
My hope is that he signs one of the big-ticket RF's to use up what
budget he has available to him this year, but that will take away from
the picks that he might get if some of our free agents go elsewhere.
Picks he will need to replenish the system after getting rid of a lot
of pitchers in the past year.
I think it's nice that we will have a catcher that doesn't aggravate
me the way Santiago does and I'm glad he hits lefty, but this is just
a nice complementary piece. If they fail to do what they failed to do
last year (get someone to bat behind Bonds), it won't matter much one
way or the other.
Greg Lentz
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:14:26 +0000 (UTC), <j...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU>
: I don't disagree with anything that you say. The only thing I would
: worry about is that even though these are not Foppert/Williams level
: prospects, when you use them in a trade for a nice, but not great
: piece like Pierzynski, that's chattel that they can't use for a deal
: for someone that's a lot better.
True.
: My hope is that he signs one of the big-ticket RF's to use up what
: budget he has available to him this year, but that will take away from
: the picks that he might get if some of our free agents go elsewhere.
: Picks he will need to replenish the system after getting rid of a lot
: of pitchers in the past year.
I think there are still 3-6 arms, and Sabean has shown that he doesn't
need high first round picks to add to that. I realize it's a finite
resource, but OTOH for any particular arm there's a use it or lose it
situation (since lots of nice A ball arms will be toast a year or two
later).
: I think it's nice that we will have a catcher that doesn't aggravate
: me the way Santiago does and I'm glad he hits lefty, but this is just
: a nice complementary piece. If they fail to do what they failed to do
: last year (get someone to bat behind Bonds), it won't matter much one
: way or the other.
I don't think the playoff fiasco was about exposing a team weakness,
especially not that one. I agree that the offense was weaker this past
year than it had been the last several years, but there's a good chance
the pitching will stay fairly good this season, so the offense won't have
to be league-best.
Obviously, I want it to be. I'd absolutely love to have Sheffield at 1B
or RF. But as of now it looks like the Giants will be a bit better than
league average, with any luck, at C, 2B, and 3B; as long as Sabean avoids
deep holes elsewhere it's going to be a pretty good offense.
JHB
dave yan
that's exactly it.
>My hope is that he signs one of the big-ticket RF's to use up what
>budget he has available to him this year, but that will take away from
>the picks that he might get if some of our free agents go elsewhere.
>Picks he will need to replenish the system after getting rid of a lot
>of pitchers in the past year.
>
>I think it's nice that we will have a catcher that doesn't aggravate
>me the way Santiago does and I'm glad he hits lefty, but this is just
>a nice complementary piece. If they fail to do what they failed to do
>last year (get someone to bat behind Bonds), it won't matter much one
>way or the other.
>
again, my sentiments exactly. why use the salary space and the trade
chips now? given the number of free agents and the expected high
number of non-tenders, get the big ticket item first, then see how the
rest shakes out.
--
dy
Arvin Hsu
dave yan <jintsfanN...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>again, my sentiments exactly. why use the salary space and the trade
>chips now? given the number of free agents and the expected high
>number of non-tenders, get the big ticket item first, then see how the
>rest shakes out.
I'm not sure I agree with this.
Free Agent Catchers? I-Rod, Javy Lopez.
FA RF'ers? Vlad, Sheff, then many above avg. regulars.
FA SS's? Aurilia, Tejada, Kaz Matsui, Nomar(via trade), ...
FA 1B-men? very little...
From our four need areas, it looks like Catcher is the second hardest
to fill via FA, and hardest if you consider re-signing Snow a viable
option. Btw, there are plenty of snow-like options, too.
There aren't many Benito-like options out there... if you consider his
full-year performance.
They used their chips correctly... to grab something that was in
short supply. RF, SS they can fill via FA. Bullpen, likewise.
Catcher would have been hard to fill with anything other than Yorvit.
So ... take the opportunity, grab the 2nd best catcher in the AL who
is JUST TURNING 27, and give up a couple prospects. Who else would
you rather save these trading chits for? Nomar? salary. Sexson?
salary. Even the Brave's steal of Sheffield tw years ago cost salary.
There's no Giles out there for us, and he's already past his prime
anyways.
Look at what you're getting: A well-above average catcher
entering his prime, who is locked up at non-star salaries for 3 years.
No one is going to knowingly trade away a blue-chip stud, like Mauer,
or Texeira, so the best low-salary option is to trade for a stud still
in arbitration years. That's what Sabean picked up. And it was
a big plus. Given that the farm produces jack shit for position
players, this is exactly whom we should be trading for. It's a
helluva lot better than Ponson.
-Arvin
Greg Lentz
(Arvin Hsu) wrote:
>In article <7g8irv49i6dhtmnh1...@4ax.com>,
>dave yan <jintsfanN...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>again, my sentiments exactly. why use the salary space and the trade
>>chips now? given the number of free agents and the expected high
>>number of non-tenders, get the big ticket item first, then see how the
>>rest shakes out.
>
>I'm not sure I agree with this.
>Free Agent Catchers? I-Rod, Javy Lopez.
>FA RF'ers? Vlad, Sheff, then many above avg. regulars.
>FA SS's? Aurilia, Tejada, Kaz Matsui, Nomar(via trade), ...
>FA 1B-men? very little...
>
>From our four need areas, it looks like Catcher is the second hardest
>to fill via FA, and hardest if you consider re-signing Snow a viable
>option. Btw, there are plenty of snow-like options, too.
>There aren't many Benito-like options out there... if you consider his
>full-year performance.
>They used their chips correctly... to grab something that was in
>short supply. RF, SS they can fill via FA. Bullpen, likewise.
>Catcher would have been hard to fill with anything other than Yorvit.
>So ... take the opportunity, grab the 2nd best catcher in the AL who
>is JUST TURNING 27, and give up a couple prospects.
Pierzynski is coming off a career year, the only one where he's posted an
OPS over 800.
>Who else would you rather save these trading chits for?
Someone better than Pierzynski - maybe. I'm not saying the deal
definitely sucks, but it's close enough to be debatable. Pierzynski is a
lefty-hitting catcher with little power or plate discipline (for a
comparison, Santiago had more walks last year) coming off a career year.
Those type of guys generally don't succeed at Pac Bell.
>Look at what you're getting: A well-above average catcher
>entering his prime, who is locked up at non-star salaries for 3 years.
How so? My understanding is that he can either negotiate a contract with
the Giants or accept arbitration and take his chances there on a one-year
salary.
>No one is going to knowingly trade away a blue-chip stud, like Mauer,
>or Texeira, so the best low-salary option is to trade for a stud still
>in arbitration years. That's what Sabean picked up.
Pierzynski is not a stud and I can say that without the slightest worry
that he'll surprise us and have a year that will make me eat my words.
Greg Lentz
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: Pierzynski is coming off a career year, the only one where he's posted an
: OPS over 800.
I sure wouldn't use "career year." It was his *best* year, at age 26, but
he was all of 20 points over his lifetime OBP, and 20 points over his
lifetime SLG.
Yes, it could be that his year 26 year will turn out to be his peak, but
it wasn't out of line with his previously established level.
:>Who else would you rather save these trading chits for?
: Someone better than Pierzynski - maybe. I'm not saying the deal
: definitely sucks, but it's close enough to be debatable. Pierzynski is a
: lefty-hitting catcher with little power or plate discipline (for a
: comparison, Santiago had more walks last year) coming off a career year.
: Those type of guys generally don't succeed at Pac Bell.
Is there a comparison group? I'm trying to think of a singles & doubles
hitting LH hitter with no walks who played at Pac Bell. Is there one? I
don't think there have been three.
But I agree that it's close enough to be debatable. We're talking
arb-priced AJ vs. pre-arb Yorvit, plus the price of three arms. If Yorvit
has trade value and Sabean uses it, that'll easily, I'd guess, offset the
three arms.
If AJ has peaked, or doesn't take well to Pac Bell; if Yorvit has a bunch
of improvement left....it's a bad trade. If AJ moves up solidly in his
late 20s, while Yorvit has already peaked, it's a very nice trade. That's
room for debate, as you say.
I'm not especially optimistic about AJ (I think he'll continue at this
level, but not improve), but I'm still very much down on Yorvit, so I'm
happy with it.
JHB
Greg Lentz
wrote:
>Greg Lentz <nodam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>: Pierzynski is coming off a career year, the only one where he's posted an
>: OPS over 800.
>
>I sure wouldn't use "career year." It was his *best* year, at age 26, but
>he was all of 20 points over his lifetime OBP, and 20 points over his
>lifetime SLG.
40 points of OPS isn't gigantic, but not totally insignificant either.
>:>Who else would you rather save these trading chits for?
>
>: Someone better than Pierzynski - maybe. I'm not saying the deal
>: definitely sucks, but it's close enough to be debatable. Pierzynski is a
>: lefty-hitting catcher with little power or plate discipline (for a
>: comparison, Santiago had more walks last year) coming off a career year.
>: Those type of guys generally don't succeed at Pac Bell.
>
>Is there a comparison group? I'm trying to think of a singles & doubles
>hitting LH hitter with no walks who played at Pac Bell. Is there one? I
>don't think there have been three.
There's plenty of lefty-hitters with little power, but most of them (Snow,
Vander Wal, Mueller) have had pretty good walk rates. The closest thing
to a guy with moderate power and no discipline is Benard, but he wasn't
all that good anywhere.
>But I agree that it's close enough to be debatable. We're talking
>arb-priced AJ vs. pre-arb Yorvit, plus the price of three arms. If Yorvit
>has trade value and Sabean uses it, that'll easily, I'd guess, offset the
>three arms.
I guess it depends on how highly Yorvit is valued by other teams. My
guess is not as highly as he's valued by Sabean.
>If AJ has peaked, or doesn't take well to Pac Bell; if Yorvit has a bunch
>of improvement left....it's a bad trade. If AJ moves up solidly in his
>late 20s, while Yorvit has already peaked, it's a very nice trade. That's
>room for debate, as you say.
No doubt.
>I'm not especially optimistic about AJ (I think he'll continue at this
>level, but not improve), but I'm still very much down on Yorvit, so I'm
>happy with it.
I think he's clearly better than Yorvit. Whether he's worth the salary
he'll get this year remains to be seen, since I don't know what it will
be. I wouldn't care except that it might impair the Giants getting a real
RF.
Greg Lentz
Arvin Hsu
Santiago Pierzynski
2001 .764 .763
2002 .765 .783
2003 .753 .824
Pierzynski:
BA BB/PA HR/H
2001 .289 .040 .06
2002 .300 .028 .05
2003 .312 .046 .07
About half of Pierzynski's batters on his most similar list at b-r,
had significantly better ages 27-29 years than age 26, which in turn
was better than their age 24-25 seasons. About half had similar production
in age 27-29. One or two regressed. I think it's a very reasonable
prediction that Pierzynski will continue to improve. Even if he stays the
same that puts him at a well-above average level for 3 years.
>>Who else would you rather save these trading chits for?
>
>Someone better than Pierzynski - maybe. I'm not saying the deal
>definitely sucks, but it's close enough to be debatable. Pierzynski is a
>lefty-hitting catcher with little power or plate discipline (for a
>comparison, Santiago had more walks last year) coming off a career year.
>Those type of guys generally don't succeed at Pac Bell.
As Jonathon says, do we have a comparison? You could argue Rios, but he
didn't do well at PIT either. Arguably, he peaked as a part-timer in
1999. http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/riosar01.shtml
Lofton did better in PBP than @ Comiskey. And ~equal in PIT the next year.
Benard arguably is the only one which PBP really looks like it hurt, but
everyone knows Benard just forgot how to take a pitch steadily, gradually,
and inexorably.
>
>>Look at what you're getting: A well-above average catcher
>>entering his prime, who is locked up at non-star salaries for 3 years.
>
>How so? My understanding is that he can either negotiate a contract with
>the Giants or accept arbitration and take his chances there on a one-year
>salary.
They have him for 3 arbitration-eligible years, I believe. Knowing the
Giants' distates for arbitration, they may just sign him to a 3-4 year
contract. Or a 1 year to see how he does in PBP, and then a 2-3 year
extension.
>>No one is going to knowingly trade away a blue-chip stud, like Mauer,
>>or Texeira, so the best low-salary option is to trade for a stud still
>>in arbitration years. That's what Sabean picked up.
>
>Pierzynski is not a stud and I can say that without the slightest worry
>that he'll surprise us and have a year that will make me eat my words.
He was the 3rd best catcher in the AL last year. And very comparable with
#2, Varitek. And after I-Rod, Piazza, and 1yr fluke-JavyLopez, in the argument
for next best in the NL, #3 in 2004 (along with Lieberthal & Kendall, who are
both likely to decline due to age).
I've basically concluded that if you're going to trade for something, and
we know that the minor league pitching is for trades... this is about the
best you can _Reasonably_ expect. It's much better than 1 year rentals,
it's much better than over the hill veterans.
Sure, it'd be fantastic for Sabean to negotiate a coup and pick up a blue-chip
stud like Blalock, Nick Johnson, or something, but in this day and age,
it's unreasonable not least because none of the 29 teams which care about
salary will trade away an above-avg run producer making minimum wage.
However, Pierzynski is well above average, and he is not a FA anytime on the
horizon. He's not a rental, and he's entering his prime. And he's consistent,
not injury-prone, and projectible. (In that way, he's better than Nick Johnson,
even). What else do you trade for? Especially for a team in contention EVERY
year. We can't afford to swap a bunch of A-ball pitchers for a bunch of A-ball
sluggers, and hope one of them turns into Pujols or Blalock, b/c Bonds will be
gone by the time they arrive.
-Arvin
Arvin Hsu
Greg Lentz <nodam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:40:38 +0000 (UTC), <j...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU>
>wrote:
>
>>Greg Lentz <nodam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>: Pierzynski is coming off a career year, the only one where he's posted an
>>: OPS over 800.
>>
>>I sure wouldn't use "career year." It was his *best* year, at age 26, but
>>he was all of 20 points over his lifetime OBP, and 20 points over his
>>lifetime SLG.
>
>40 points of OPS isn't gigantic, but not totally insignificant either.
It's also part of a trend that has shown steady improvement over
ages 24-26. That's a _good_ sign, not a career year.
Stereotypical career years are a 50-100 point OPS spike
~ age 28-30 that are not part of gradual upward trends.
>>But I agree that it's close enough to be debatable. We're talking
>>arb-priced AJ vs. pre-arb Yorvit, plus the price of three arms. If Yorvit
>>has trade value and Sabean uses it, that'll easily, I'd guess, offset the
>>three arms.
>
>I guess it depends on how highly Yorvit is valued by other teams. My
>guess is not as highly as he's valued by Sabean.
I honestly don't buy that Yorvit was ready to step in and
play major-league average ball. If some other club is willing to believe
that, I'll be glad to hand him off to them. If not, then I think his
value is about what I believe it is, altho others here may disagree.
>>If AJ has peaked, or doesn't take well to Pac Bell; if Yorvit has a bunch
>>of improvement left....it's a bad trade. If AJ moves up solidly in his
>>late 20s, while Yorvit has already peaked, it's a very nice trade. That's
>>room for debate, as you say.
And if they both continue to gradually improve? I would still say it's a
nice trade, since AJ has a much higher baseline than Yorvit.
>>I'm not especially optimistic about AJ (I think he'll continue at this
>>level, but not improve), but I'm still very much down on Yorvit, so I'm
>>happy with it.
>
>I think he's clearly better than Yorvit. Whether he's worth the salary
>he'll get this year remains to be seen, since I don't know what it will
>be. I wouldn't care except that it might impair the Giants getting a real
>RF.
I expect someting in the $2.5-3mm range. And I have no doubt that it's
a cheaper improvement than we could've gotten on the FA-market, even in these
market conditions. Cruz was the same price. He was RF-avg. Need not mention
Perez/Grissom. Durham was above-avg 2B: $7mm/yr. Alfonzo? same deal.
I'm fairly confident that AJ:avg catcher will be similar to Durham:avg 2B-man,
and possibly better than Fonzie:avg. 3rd baseman.
Like Jonathon says, this makes us above avg to good at 3 positions, stellar
at 1 position, avg at 1 position(CF), leaving 3 to fill(SS,1B,RF) with the
remaining money.
-Arvin
Greg Lentz
(Arvin Hsu) wrote:
I'd be thrilled if he just managed to stay about an 800 OPS as a
lefthanded hitting catcher at Pac Bell. Doubtful though.
>>>Look at what you're getting: A well-above average catcher
>>>entering his prime, who is locked up at non-star salaries for 3 years.
>>
>>How so? My understanding is that he can either negotiate a contract with
>>the Giants or accept arbitration and take his chances there on a one-year
>>salary.
>
>They have him for 3 arbitration-eligible years, I believe. Knowing the
>Giants' distates for arbitration, they may just sign him to a 3-4 year
>contract. Or a 1 year to see how he does in PBP, and then a 2-3 year
>extension.
Those salaries are likely to be somewhere between Neifi and Snow territory
for a guy who isn't a difference maker.
>>Pierzynski is not a stud and I can say that without the slightest worry
>>that he'll surprise us and have a year that will make me eat my words.
>
>He was the 3rd best catcher in the AL last year.
That doesn't make him a stud.
>I've basically concluded that if you're going to trade for something, and
>we know that the minor league pitching is for trades... this is about the
>best you can _Reasonably_ expect. It's much better than 1 year rentals,
>it's much better than over the hill veterans.
No argument there.
>Sure, it'd be fantastic for Sabean to negotiate a coup and pick up a blue-chip
>stud like Blalock, Nick Johnson, or something
Not with the parts he traded for Pierzynski. I'm well aware that that
trade doesn't bring that kind of guy back in return.
>However, Pierzynski is well above average, and he is not a FA anytime on the
>horizon. He's not a rental, and he's entering his prime. And he's consistent,
>not injury-prone, and projectible. (In that way, he's better than Nick Johnson,
>even). What else do you trade for?
If there was a first baseman at a reasonable salary, that's what I'd be
looking to trade for because what's available in free agency sucks. But
Pierzynski may well work out to be a good trade. They still have to fill
spots in RF, 1B, and SS however and they've already indicated that they're
not gonna spend much money to do it.
Greg Lentz
Arvin Hsu
Greg Lentz <nodam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>I'd be thrilled if he just managed to stay about an 800 OPS as a
>lefthanded hitting catcher at Pac Bell. Doubtful though.
I think he has a very good chance to do so.
>>>>Look at what you're getting: A well-above average catcher
>>>>entering his prime, who is locked up at non-star salaries for 3 years.
>>>
>>>How so? My understanding is that he can either negotiate a contract with
>>>the Giants or accept arbitration and take his chances there on a one-year
>>>salary.
>>
>>They have him for 3 arbitration-eligible years, I believe. Knowing the
>>Giants' distates for arbitration, they may just sign him to a 3-4 year
>>contract. Or a 1 year to see how he does in PBP, and then a 2-3 year
>>extension.
>
>Those salaries are likely to be somewhere between Neifi and Snow territory
>for a guy who isn't a difference maker.
But cheaper than market price, for a guy who's producing a significant
number of runs above avg.
>If there was a first baseman at a reasonable salary, that's what I'd be
>looking to trade for because what's available in free agency sucks. But
>Pierzynski may well work out to be a good trade. They still have to fill
>spots in RF, 1B, and SS however and they've already indicated that they're
>not gonna spend much money to do it.
I think the value Pierzynski provides above avg. catcher is probably
similar to the value D. Lee provides above avg. firstbaseman. And I think
Lee is more expensive.
I agree that Lee would be a better acquisition than Pierzynski at the
same salary simply because we have an adequate replacement for catcher in
Yorvit who will be somewhere between replacement and avg., and we have
nothing for 1B. However, I think Snow + Cat is probably better than Yorvit,
compared positionally, and Snow + Cat + AJ is probably cheaper than
D. Lee + Yorvit, and essentially the production evens out.
-Arvin
Greg Lentz
(Arvin Hsu) wrote:
>In article <g42lrvspe0btbtvdv...@4ax.com>,
>Greg Lentz <nodam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>I'd be thrilled if he just managed to stay about an 800 OPS as a
>>lefthanded hitting catcher at Pac Bell. Doubtful though.
>
>I think he has a very good chance to do so.
I think you're going to be disappointed.
>>Those salaries are likely to be somewhere between Neifi and Snow territory
>>for a guy who isn't a difference maker.
>
>But cheaper than market price, for a guy who's producing a significant
>number of runs above avg.
You're getting too caught up in "runs above average." Runs above average
doesn't really matter if you're giving up runs somewhere else.
Outfielders and first basemen, on average, produce a lot more runs than
catchers. If upgrading at catcher (always a fine idea) precludes you from
upgrading at first base and right field because of some stupid budget you
impose on yourself, then you have cut off your nose to spite your face.
It's not clear that Pierzynski's contract will cut much into that need,
but it might somewhat.
Put more simply, where do you expect Pierzynski to bat in the lineup? I'd
say sixth. 113 of his at-bats were either sixth or seventh for the Twins
last year, with the other 25 at bats scattered everywhere except leadoff.
Whoopy. The Giants got yet another batter who's either best suited as a
#2 or #6 hitter. I'm so excited. This will go well with Alfonzo
(2nd/6th), Aurilia if he stays (2nd/6th), Snow if he stays (2nd/6th/7th),
and Grissom (6th-8th). That's five guys for four spots in the lineup.
Oh, and before anybody cites Alfonzo's postseason, he amply proved during
the rest of the year that he's not a #4 or #5 hitter, so put that notion
to rest.
Still no cleanup hitter to punish teams for walking Barry.
Still no #5 hitter to take advantage of all those men on base.
The Giants would be far better off addressing those two needs and getting
by with a cheap Yorvit batting #8 than getting Pierzynski and ending up
with some slug like Jose Cruz, Jr., Jeffrey Hammonds, or Jose Guillen in
RF.
>>If there was a first baseman at a reasonable salary, that's what I'd be
>>looking to trade for because what's available in free agency sucks. But
>>Pierzynski may well work out to be a good trade. They still have to fill
>>spots in RF, 1B, and SS however and they've already indicated that they're
>>not gonna spend much money to do it.
>
>I think the value Pierzynski provides above avg. catcher is probably
>similar to the value D. Lee provides above avg. firstbaseman. And I think
>Lee is more expensive.
Lee probably is more expensive. He also has had 3 out of his last 4
seasons above an 870 OPS. Pierzynski in that same period of time has had
an OPS over 800 exactly once. Last year. And the only other season above
800 was the year before that period.
Furthermore, say the Giants don't pursue Lee. Who will the first baseman
be then? You can talk about "above average for his position" all you
like, but the Giants don't have a lot of options for an above-average
first baseman that fits their self-proclaimed budget. If they end up
resigning Snow (and he's about the best they're likely to do in free
agency aside from Lee), his OPS is even worse than Pierzynski's. If you
think that's a net win for the Giants because Pierzynski looks good
relative to the rest of the catchers in baseball, then I think you're
gonna be disappointed.
>I agree that Lee would be a better acquisition than Pierzynski at the
>same salary simply because we have an adequate replacement for catcher in
>Yorvit who will be somewhere between replacement and avg., and we have
>nothing for 1B. However, I think Snow + Cat is probably better than Yorvit,
>compared positionally, and Snow + Cat + AJ is probably cheaper than
>D. Lee + Yorvit, and essentially the production evens out.
I think you're dead wrong. Production is more important in the #4 and #5
slots than in the #6 slot (where Pierzynski would bat) or the #8 slot
(where Yorvit would bat). I know you "batting lineups don't matter"
people don't believe that, but I do.
Greg Lentz
Greg Lentz
wrote:
>Put more simply, where do you expect Pierzynski to bat in the lineup? I'd
>say sixth. 113 of his at-bats were either sixth or seventh for the Twins
>last year, with the other 25 at bats scattered everywhere except leadoff.
Meant to say 7th or 8th here.
Greg Lentz
Arvin Hsu
My guess would be 6th, as well; depends on who else we get, of course.
Hitting 6th, he still has plenty of opportunities to drive in Bonds or
others on base. His high avg. batting style may translate better to
postseason play than a high secondary avg. batting style.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, however. Liriano, Nathan,
and Bonser were certain to contribute less to the 2003 ballclub.
-Arvin
Greg Lentz
(Arvin Hsu) wrote:
>In article <j4gnrvo84diqkssuu...@4ax.com>,
>Greg Lentz <nodam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:06:35 -0800, Greg Lentz <nodam...@speakeasy.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Put more simply, where do you expect Pierzynski to bat in the lineup? I'd
>>>say sixth. 113 of his at-bats were either sixth or seventh for the Twins
>>>last year, with the other 25 at bats scattered everywhere except leadoff.
>>
>>Meant to say 7th or 8th here.
>
>My guess would be 6th, as well; depends on who else we get, of course.
>
>Hitting 6th, he still has plenty of opportunities to drive in Bonds or
>others on base.
No doubt, but that is largely dependent on what the 4 and 5 guys do after
Bonds gets on base.
>His high avg. batting style may translate better to
>postseason play than a high secondary avg. batting style.
Well, he only batted 231 in this year's postseason with a 795 OPS. The
year before, he batted .344 with a 882 OPS. I don't think he has any
advantage one way or the other.
>I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, however. Liriano, Nathan,
>and Bonser were certain to contribute less to the 2003 ballclub.
No doubt again. But that doesn't mean they couldn't have either been used
as chattel to get something better or that they might not be better down
the road. The point is that having a good catcher is nice and I'll be
happy to not have to burst any more blood vessels watching Santiago play,
but this is only a small piece of the puzzle. As long as it doesn't
interfere with getting the #4 and #5 hitter, I'm probably fine with the
deal, though not elated. If we end up with slugs in RF and 1B like we've
had every year since 2000, I'm gonna be pissed.
Greg Lentz
a newbie
"Greg Lentz" <nodam...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>
> I know you "batting lineups don't matter"
> people don't believe that, but I do.
Especially with Bonds. A lot of the studies that have been done were
too general to apply to the Giants. If studies are done specifically
with the 2001-2003 Barry in the lineup, I think a lot of the results
would be different. Who bats behind Bonds is *very* important.
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: Especially with Bonds. A lot of the studies that have been done were
: too general to apply to the Giants. If studies are done specifically
: with the 2001-2003 Barry in the lineup, I think a lot of the results
: would be different. Who bats behind Bonds is *very* important.
Maybe. I'm not exactly an expert on lineup studies, but they seem to be
fairly consistent, always showing very little effect. That includes
studies that tried to look at Bonds-like situations.
OTOH, what I've mostly seen are studies that ask: given a certain set of
players, in which order should they bat? We're asking a different
question here: given Bonds and three other players, and assuming overall
quantity in the missing four players is a constant, does it matter how the
quality is distributed among the other four?
Using OBP + SLG, what we're really wondering is how these compare:
Durham Durham
Alfonzo Alfonzo
Bonds Bonds
1100 900
750 825
Grissom Grissom
750 825
750 800
in which we assume that in the abstract four guys with OBP + SLG that
equal 3400 (1100 + 750 + 750 + 750 on the left vs. 900 + 825 + 825 + 800
on the right) will yield the same number of theoretical runs.
(Note: as a non-expert, I'm not sure whether the above assumption is
correct; if not, adjust for whatever is the correct standard sabermetric
assumption).
The question is whether the same theoretical runs in a normal lineup will
work out the same way with a lineup including the massive Bonds
distortion.
My *guess* is that the only thing that's really going to make a difference
is getting Bonds more PAs, and especially PAs with guys on base, and that
therefore the most important thing isn't the distribution of OPS + SLG
among the four empty positions, but the distribution of OBP vs. SLG
within each of them. But that's really just a guess. Greg's position, as
I understand it, is that (given a fixed amount of offense) you want to
concentrate the offense around Bonds as much as possible -- you can't
prevent the IBBs, but you can put someone after him who will hit a whole
lot of three run HRs. I think he's guessing too, and he might well be
right.
Perhaps both of us are right -- you want to skew the distribution of
offense in order to put a major slugger after Bonds (along with two pretty
good overall hitters in front of him), and then with the bums make sure
that they're as freakishly high OBP (which means really low SLG) as
possible: if it's a 750 OPS guy, make it a .350 OBP/.300 SLG version.
I haven't seen anyone try to run simulations on this sort of thing. I
think simulations are pretty limited -- they can't really take into
account stuff like chewing up extra pitching changes, etc. -- but they're
a start, and I haven't even seen the start, AFAIK.
FWIW, if I were Sabean, I'd certainly hire someone to run the simulations.
JHB
a newbie
<j...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:bphkle$170u$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> a newbie <SF_G...@pacbellpark.ops> wrote:
>
> : Especially with Bonds. A lot of the studies that have been done
were
> : too general to apply to the Giants. If studies are done
specifically
> : with the 2001-2003 Barry in the lineup, I think a lot of the results
> : would be different. Who bats behind Bonds is *very* important.
>
> Maybe. I'm not exactly an expert on lineup studies, but they seem to
be
> fairly consistent, always showing very little effect. That includes
> studies that tried to look at Bonds-like situations.
Are we talking '01-'03 Bonds here, or career Bonds?
> OTOH, what I've mostly seen are studies that ask: given a certain set
of
> players, in which order should they bat?
That's what I was referring to also. I think those studies are too
general and don't apply to superman Bonds (the last 3 years).
> We're asking a different
> question here: given Bonds and three other players, and assuming
overall
> quantity in the missing four players is a constant, does it matter how
the
> quality is distributed among the other four?
These two cases don't seem very realistic to me, but I guess you have to
make them all add up equally in order to do the study.
> Using OBP + SLG, what we're really wondering is how these compare:
>
> Durham Durham
> Alfonzo Alfonzo
> Bonds Bonds
> 1100 900
> 750 825
> Grissom Grissom
> 750 825
> 750 800
Well, I guess the 2nd case is closer to the Piersynski case. In this
case, the 825 must be him, instead of like Greg assumed that Piersynski
will bat 6th. Did I just screw everything up? ;-)
> in which we assume that in the abstract four guys with OBP + SLG that
> equal 3400 (1100 + 750 + 750 + 750 on the left vs. 900 + 825 + 825 +
800
> on the right) will yield the same number of theoretical runs.
I guess this is the real question: do they really produce the same
amount of runs?
> (Note: as a non-expert, I'm not sure whether the above assumption is
> correct; if not, adjust for whatever is the correct standard
sabermetric
> assumption).
Wouldn't any adjustment mess up the above math?
> The question is whether the same theoretical runs in a normal lineup
will
> work out the same way with a lineup including the massive Bonds
> distortion.
I'm kinda lost here...
> My *guess* is that the only thing that's really going to make a
difference
> is getting Bonds more PAs, and especially PAs with guys on base, and
that
> therefore the most important thing isn't the distribution of OPS + SLG
> among the four empty positions, but the distribution of OBP vs. SLG
> within each of them. But that's really just a guess.
This might sound silly to you stats guys who think BA is useless, but I
think BA matters here, especially to the guy right behind Bonds.
Two-out situations. A walk won't do you whole lot of good, unless it's
bases loaded.
> Greg's position, as
> I understand it, is that (given a fixed amount of offense) you want to
> concentrate the offense around Bonds as much as possible -- you can't
> prevent the IBBs, but you can put someone after him who will hit a
whole
> lot of three run HRs. I think he's guessing too, and he might well be
> right.
I don't agree. If you put a 1100 guy behind Bonds, it *will* prevent a
lot of IBBs. Bonds *will* get a lot more ABs.
> Perhaps both of us are right -- you want to skew the distribution of
> offense in order to put a major slugger after Bonds (along with two
pretty
> good overall hitters in front of him), and then with the bums make
sure
> that they're as freakishly high OBP (which means really low SLG) as
> possible: if it's a 750 OPS guy, make it a .350 OBP/.300 SLG version.
Sounds like Cruz and Snow. ;-) Of course, Cruz costs too much, and
Snow... wonder if he'll accept a low salary.
> I haven't seen anyone try to run simulations on this sort of thing. I
> think simulations are pretty limited -- they can't really take into
> account stuff like chewing up extra pitching changes, etc. -- but
they're
> a start, and I haven't even seen the start, AFAIK.
>
> FWIW, if I were Sabean, I'd certainly hire someone to run the
simulations.
Do you think some GMs actually do this sort of thing?
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: <j...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
:> Maybe. I'm not exactly an expert on lineup studies, but they seem to
: be
:> fairly consistent, always showing very little effect. That includes
:> studies that tried to look at Bonds-like situations.
: Are we talking '01-'03 Bonds here, or career Bonds?
01-03.
[...]
:> We're asking a different
:> question here: given Bonds and three other players, and assuming
: overall
:> quantity in the missing four players is a constant, does it matter how
: the
:> quality is distributed among the other four?
: These two cases don't seem very realistic to me, but I guess you have to
: make them all add up equally in order to do the study.
:> Using OBP + SLG, what we're really wondering is how these compare:
:>
:> Durham Durham
:> Alfonzo Alfonzo
:> Bonds Bonds
:> 1100 900
:> 750 825
:> Grissom Grissom
:> 750 825
:> 750 800
: Well, I guess the 2nd case is closer to the Piersynski case. In this
: case, the 825 must be him, instead of like Greg assumed that Piersynski
: will bat 6th. Did I just screw everything up? ;-)
No. Yeah, the 2nd one is the AJ case, but it's hypothetical; the idea is
that if Sabean has $16M to spend, he can try to get four $4M guys, or a
$15M guy and three really cheap guys (and assuming that you get what you
pay for, but that's a different discussion).
:> in which we assume that in the abstract four guys with OBP + SLG that
:> equal 3400 (1100 + 750 + 750 + 750 on the left vs. 900 + 825 + 825 +
: 800
:> on the right) will yield the same number of theoretical runs.
: I guess this is the real question: do they really produce the same
: amount of runs?
:> (Note: as a non-expert, I'm not sure whether the above assumption is
:> correct; if not, adjust for whatever is the correct standard
: sabermetric
:> assumption).
: Wouldn't any adjustment mess up the above math?
Don't know.
:> The question is whether the same theoretical runs in a normal lineup
: will
:> work out the same way with a lineup including the massive Bonds
:> distortion.
: I'm kinda lost here...
I think I was unclear there.
If you add up all the outs, singles, doubles, walks, etc., you can
run the numbers and find out how many hypothetical runs you should score.
It's reasonable to wonder whether the same number of hypothetical runs
will yield different numbers of real runs depending on how the non-Bonds
performance is distributed.
:> My *guess* is that the only thing that's really going to make a
: difference
:> is getting Bonds more PAs, and especially PAs with guys on base, and
: that
:> therefore the most important thing isn't the distribution of OPS + SLG
:> among the four empty positions, but the distribution of OBP vs. SLG
:> within each of them. But that's really just a guess.
: This might sound silly to you stats guys who think BA is useless, but I
: think BA matters here, especially to the guy right behind Bonds.
: Two-out situations. A walk won't do you whole lot of good, unless it's
: bases loaded.
Well, SLG should matter, and BA is a good size chunk of SLG.
:> Greg's position, as
:> I understand it, is that (given a fixed amount of offense) you want to
:> concentrate the offense around Bonds as much as possible -- you can't
:> prevent the IBBs, but you can put someone after him who will hit a
: whole
:> lot of three run HRs. I think he's guessing too, and he might well be
:> right.
: I don't agree. If you put a 1100 guy behind Bonds, it *will* prevent a
: lot of IBBs. Bonds *will* get a lot more ABs.
I should mention here that an 1100 OBP+ SLG isn't especially a realistic
option. Probably should have made it 1000 vs. 800 rather than 1100 vs.
900.
:> Perhaps both of us are right -- you want to skew the distribution of
:> offense in order to put a major slugger after Bonds (along with two
: pretty
:> good overall hitters in front of him), and then with the bums make
: sure
:> that they're as freakishly high OBP (which means really low SLG) as
:> possible: if it's a 750 OPS guy, make it a .350 OBP/.300 SLG version.
: Sounds like Cruz and Snow. ;-) Of course, Cruz costs too much, and
: Snow... wonder if he'll accept a low salary.
:> I haven't seen anyone try to run simulations on this sort of thing. I
:> think simulations are pretty limited -- they can't really take into
:> account stuff like chewing up extra pitching changes, etc. -- but
: they're
:> a start, and I haven't even seen the start, AFAIK.
:>
:> FWIW, if I were Sabean, I'd certainly hire someone to run the
: simulations.
: Do you think some GMs actually do this sort of thing?
Yes.
JHB