Valdez
Amish
Sam Monk
> Why is he not playing third? Ave too high I guess!
>
oh, stop it. lifetime, the guy is .233/.272/.316
he's just off to a torrid start. I would run betemit out there every
night, too.
--
________________________________________
Dodgers fan stuck in sevarB country®
Amish
"Sam Monk" <samue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:J8adnVz6MI5ZCrjb...@comcast.com...
Sam Monk
>
> "Sam Monk" <samue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:J8adnVz6MI5ZCrjb...@comcast.com...
> > "Amish" <am...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:SrmdneMjCIrwCbjb...@dejazzd.com...
> >> Why is he not playing third? Ave too high I guess!
> >>
> >
> >
> > oh, stop it. lifetime, the guy is .233/.272/.316
> >
> > he's just off to a torrid start. I would run betemit out there every
> > night, too.
> >
>
no, but I don't expect mediocrity to suddenly turn into a decent
hitter, either. you can't polish a turd.
Amish
Ima Pseudonym
<samue...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Amish" <am...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:YoSdnfaOxJG1Bbjb...@dejazzd.com...
>>
>> "Sam Monk" <samue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:J8adnVz6MI5ZCrjb...@comcast.com...
>> > "Amish" <am...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:SrmdneMjCIrwCbjb...@dejazzd.com...
>> >> Why is he not playing third? Ave too high I guess!
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > oh, stop it. lifetime, the guy is .233/.272/.316
>> >
>> > he's just off to a torrid start. I would run betemit out there every
>> > night, too.
>> >
>> >You have been in J Pierre's locker eh?
>>
>
>no, but I don't expect mediocrity to suddenly turn into a decent
>hitter, either. you can't polish a turd.
He very well may have turned into a better hitter than .233/.272/.316.
Of course, that says exceedingly little.
Sam Monk
the danger, it seems to me, is the sleigh ride to the cellar as he crashes
back to .230 by going 0-for-may, but ned keeps him on the roster, and
little keeps running him out there, all because he had a few hot weeks in
april.
Ima Pseudonym
<samue...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Ima Pseudonym" <akra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gg6b23p0anm1lo8d6...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:03:32 -0400, "Sam Monk"
>> <samue...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Amish" <am...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:YoSdnfaOxJG1Bbjb...@dejazzd.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Sam Monk" <samue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:J8adnVz6MI5ZCrjb...@comcast.com...
>> >> > "Amish" <am...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:SrmdneMjCIrwCbjb...@dejazzd.com...
>> >> >> Why is he not playing third? Ave too high I guess!
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > oh, stop it. lifetime, the guy is .233/.272/.316
>> >> >
>> >> > he's just off to a torrid start. I would run betemit out there every
>> >> > night, too.
>> >> >
>> >> >You have been in J Pierre's locker eh?
>> >>
>> >
>> >no, but I don't expect mediocrity to suddenly turn into a decent
>> >hitter, either. you can't polish a turd.
>>
>> He very well may have turned into a better hitter than .233/.272/.316.
>>
>> Of course, that says exceedingly little.
>
>the danger, it seems to me, is the sleigh ride to the cellar as he crashes
>back to .230 by going 0-for-may, but ned keeps him on the roster, and
>little keeps running him out there, all because he had a few hot weeks in
>april.
Well, "fortunately", Ned and Little are committed to Martinez, so that
should short circuit Valdez if he returns to his normal production
level, or even a bit above it. Add in that Betemit is highly likely
to start hitting soon enough - he's pressing now, but at some point
he'll get a lucky hit or two and relax - and that should make things
better.
And if Betemit doesn't hit, then LaRoche can be called up.
Sam Monk
betemit was quite a prospect in the sevarB organization that perhaps
got stuck behind chipper jones at third . . . the vinny castilla experiment
notwithstanding. (I know you know that . . . ;) )
I was glad that LA traded for him.
David Fishman
"Ima Pseudonym" <akra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
LaRouche's sporting a friendly .195 for Vegas.
Mike De Leon
> "Ima Pseudonym" <akras...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e57b231s1ehtjjbtf...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:15:59 -0400, "Sam Monk"
>
> > >"Ima Pseudonym" <akras...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:gg6b23p0anm1lo8d6...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:03:32 -0400, "Sam Monk"
>
> > >> >"Amish" <a...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:YoSdnfaOxJG1Bbjb...@dejazzd.com...
>
> > >> >> "Sam Monk" <samuelm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >> >>news:J8adnVz6MI5ZCrjb...@comcast.com...
> > >> >> > "Amish" <a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Why? Aybar is/was the same kind of player and at the time of the trade
was doing well.
gnork
"Sam Monk" <samue...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:J8adnVz6MI5ZCrjb...@comcast.com...
> "Amish" <am...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SrmdneMjCIrwCbjb...@dejazzd.com...
> > Why is he not playing third? Ave too high I guess!
> >
>
>
> oh, stop it. lifetime, the guy is .233/.272/.316
>
> he's just off to a torrid start. I would run betemit out there every
> night, too.
YOU MAKE FUN OF THE SMALL SAMPLE SIZE OF Valdez' 2007 stats. Meanwhile you
ignore and fail to mention that his career numbers before 2007 are based on
a mere 182 at bats over parts of 3 seasons. Ignorant or hipocrit?
Brad Machado
LaRoche fields like Dave Kingman.
AguaGirl
"gnork" <gno...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3GDWh.3946$j63....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I'm curious. How much time should someone be given...how many at
bats...before we toss out the small sample size and realize he is
inconsistent or worse yet, just not good. More importantly, how long before
the managers make that decision? 182 ML at bats seems like enough to
determine if someone can hit ML pitching. That's a lot of outs and missed
opportunities for a team and it's not like you get any do-overs. "Wait, we
were just testing that player, here is the real batter"
AG
Ima Pseudonym
wrote:
Well, it's not like he ever did much in the minors - his career OPS in
the minors was a less than compelling .685 in over 3500 at bats -
despite a third of those at bats coming either when he played in
Albuquerque or in Vegas.
>
Mike De Leon
> "gnork" <gnor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3GDWh.3946$j63....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Sam Monk" <samuelm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:J8adnVz6MI5ZCrjb...@comcast.com...
> >> "Amish" <a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:SrmdneMjCIrwCbjb...@dejazzd.com...
> >> > Why is he not playing third? Ave too high I guess!
>
> >> oh, stop it. lifetime, the guy is .233/.272/.316
>
> >> he's just off to a torrid start. I would run betemit out there every
> >> night, too.
>
> > YOU MAKE FUN OF THE SMALL SAMPLE SIZE OF Valdez' 2007 stats. Meanwhile you
> > ignore and fail to mention that his career numbers before 2007 are based
> > on
> > a mere 182 at bats over parts of 3 seasons. Ignorant or hipocrit?
>
> I'm curious. How much time should someone be given...how many at
> bats...before we toss out the small sample size and realize he is
> inconsistent or worse yet, just not good. More importantly, how long before
> the managers make that decision? 182 ML at bats seems like enough to
> determine if someone can hit ML pitching. That's a lot of outs and missed
> opportunities for a team and it's not like you get any do-overs. "Wait, we
> were just testing that player, here is the real batter"
>
> AG
IIRC Sparky Anderson said that it took at least 500 AB's to really
evaluate a hitter.
gnork
"AguaGirl" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:we6dnUGnSf46FLbb...@adelphia.com...
You are very wrong. We can't pin down an exact number, but it is a helluva
lot more trhan 182 especially when spread out over 3 years which means the
player never got any consistent playing time. Here are just a few (A-D)
players who greatly improved after their first 182+ at bats:
Rich Aurilla
Emil Brown
Vinny Castilla
Brady Clark
Carlos Delgado*
* He hit .194 over 222 at bats in parts of the 1st there seasons in the
majors. You would have cut him loose I guess.
Then as a blast from the past there is this bum. In his first taste of the
majors he had 34 at bats and hit .206 .325 .294. The next seaon he got
more than an extended chance. He had 367 at bats and turned in pathetic .196
.321 .373 numbers. Guess who.
>
> AG
>
>
gnork
I don't expect him to be a great major league player. That is not the point.
The point is you can't dismiss him based on the evidence presented. Your
evidence is more compelling, but still some players catch on to hitting way
late. I suspect he could be a good utility infielder in the majors. I am
also saying in fairness one should mention that those lifetime numbers in
the majors are based on a small sample size.
Ima Pseudonym
wrote:
Actually, I don't doubt that he could be a useful backup. I even
suspect that some of his improvement this year is real, and not just
sample size. I wouldn't get worked up over him or Martinez as the
utility guy, for instance, although I understand why the Dodgers would
rather go with Martinez. However, I find it silly to think that he
should be playing in front of Furcal, as some would have it. In a
very large sample Furcal has shown that he's a quality major league
hitter and plus fielding shortstop. Except for a handful of at bats
this year Alvarez has shown nothing to make people expect him to be
more than a guy who might be able to contribute as a backup in his
best seasons.
>
AguaGirl
Would depend on the quality of outs. I was serious when I asked "how
many"...and thanks to Mike for answering with the quote from Sparky
Anderson. I do think the it has to be in perspective of what the player had
done so far. Did he burn up the minor leagues? Does he make weak ground
outs or look lost at the plate. I don't have a problem with all the chances
they gave Beltre because he always looked like he could be a good hitter.
No so much with Valdez. He may surprise but I don't think he is going to be
in the same league as Carlos Delgado no matter how many AB he has.
AG
gnork
Ah, but that isn't the point. You said 182 at bats "seems like enough to
determine if someone can hit major league pitching." Now you are
backtracking. Carlos Delgado is someone. How about taking a guess as to my
"mystery player". Or any other reader can say who it is if they know.
Ima Pseudonym
wrote:
Talk about posting in bad faith. Those at bats of Delgado came in his
21-23 yo seasons - and anybody knowledgeable about sample sizes in
baseball knows that players tend to improve from there. More
importantly - the season that Delgado put up most of his at bats in
that stretch he had an ops of .790 and an OPS+ of 103, AND he hit 12
hrs in those three seasons. You'd have to be brain dead to seriously
believe that a guy who hit 12 hrs in 222 at bats years before his
normal peak should be cut, or to compare such a player to a marginal
utility infielder who had bounced around multiple organizations.
You owe Sam an apology - you attacked him for posting using a small
sample size, but your Delgado sample is very intentionally deceiving,
and you know it. It's VASTLY worse than Sam pointing out that
Valdez's performance this season was vastly outweighed by his
crappitude prior to this season.
>
AguaGirl
Did I need to preface that with "seems to me"? It does seem like a lot but
I wasn't sure so I asked. K? I know your just trying to pick a fight..it
"seems" to be in your blood...but chill out already. I just don't think we
need to keep looking at what he can do in the line-up on a regular basis.
As for your mystery player, don't know, don't really care enough to try and
look it up. You know I am not a stat head.
Gnork
> "gnork" <gnor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
The mystery player is none other than Mike Schmidt.
Gnork
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:43:27 GMT, "gnork" <gnor...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"AguaGirl" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> >news:t6adneS8To0oTLbb...@adelphia.com...
>
> >> "gnork" <gnor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
I was simply scanning for players who did poorly at first. I didn't
even glance at their ages. Of course anybody would know that Carlos
Delgado was a better prospect than Valdez. I don't think that needs to
be pointed out so I just pointed out the BA's which was the one stat
that AG referred to earlier.
Ima Pseudonym
Yeah, but every regular poster here knows more about Wilson Valdez
than his batting average too. For instance, we all know that he's in
his late 20s and has bounced around from organization to organization,
which generally indicates a fringy prospect. Yes, we could preface
every comment on him with that information, but why bother? Those who
don't know that, AND are impressed with his tiny sample this season,
are also likely to feel themselves refuted by the much larger (but
still small) sample that Sam and others have cited.