eickevinmorris

Reggie Abercrombie was in jest right? In fact, this whole thread was a joke, I'm hoping?

QUOTE (Fotop @ Dec 12, 2008 -> 08:57 AM) He's 21 years old. He certainly has time to figure it out, especially considering his stuff. Think it's pretty unfair you're writing a kid his age, with his raw ability, off as "putrid" so early. Ultimately, this discussion is likely pointless as Adenhart is most likely untouchable - as he should be. What makes him untouchable? He's sucked for two years straight now and has lost a ton of luster. He was heralded coming into this season, and 2007, and has shown nothing. He's taken three steps backward, if anything.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 12, 2008 -> 12:10 AM) Bonderman's health/return is definitely in question, as is Robertson's being a productive pitcher. Then there's D. Willis, and Verlander's pitch counts over the last 2-3 seasons. I'll take Meche, Greinke, Bannister, Hochevar/Torres right now over any team in the division but MIN (and maybe over them even) based on potential. Who is Torres? You've said this more than a few times and I've got no idea who you're talking about.

First Edwin Jackson, and now Nick Adenhart?! What is with this overvaluing of downright putrid pitchers? The guy put up a 1.71 WHIP this season. He had a 110/75 K/BB ratio. Hell, he wasn't very good in 2007 either. I'd be kinda surprised if he sniffs any top 100 lists.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 11, 2008 -> 07:26 AM) If Joyce was all it took to make that deal happen, I am sad that we didn't get in on it. I don't think we have any young outfielders on his level, and he's not even that good. Pretty great move by the Rays.

I am so happy we didn't add him. I guess I was sleeping when pitchers with 108/77 K/BB ratios that give up more than one hit per inning became good, or even adequate.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 10, 2008 -> 09:08 PM) Doesn't mean you have to settle for a likely bench player. That's what the market felt he was worth. I tend to agree -- he was brutal this year.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 08:34 AM) I would like a COGENT explanation of who could possibly be the leadoff hitter for the White Sox this season....if it's not Taveras. Figgins, Furcal, Hudson and Roberts are the obvious choices, yet none of those possibilities seem likely to happen. So what next? Getz.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 01:05 AM) Putting up a 4.42 ERA in the American League as a 24 year old is called success. It was an absolute mirage. And please, don't call it a 98 MPH fastball. That's ridiculous -- he averaged a fastball a tad lower than 94 on the season.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 12:56 AM) Gavin Floyd's peripherals prior to this year were a lot worse than Edwin Jackson. What I am saying is that you once again miss the entire f***ing point that a young kid's minor league numbers or early MLB performance is not in any way a reliable indicator of how he will perform in the future. Gavin's control improved a ton last year. You would have said he sucked based on your current "logic." Not really. I was encouraged by the fact Floyd has actually enjoyed success above the AA level.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 12:23 AM) By this exact reasoning Gavin Floyd would have been absolute garbage not worth acquiring. Your kind has been proven wrong, so don't try to take you luck bulls*** and apply it elsewhere. And no, lot's of guys do not have the type of stuff Edwin Jackson possesses. Saying that shows how little you know about baseball so just stop it already. This is from a Baseball America article 5 years ago when he was in the Dodgers system. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/featu...0s/dodgers.html Then they gave up on him and he ended up going to Tampa Bay. The only thing that has changed is that he has gotten big league experience and has improved his control. He also doesn't strike anyone out anymore. That changed. What the f*** does this have to do with Gavin? He's not garbage -- he can strike people out and his season of success was actually good peripherally.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 11:52 PM) LMAO A pitcher can control where he throws the ball and how he throws it. Some pitchers have trouble keeping their body under control, but that is not because they are unlucky. If a pitcher can control the opposition hitting home runs, why do pitchers allow that stuff? And BTW, if you've never seen a pitcher's pitch hit for a home run then you have never seen a very good hitter in action. If a pitcher has an inordinately high HR rate, or crazy low HR rate, it displays a trend. I'm sorry if I'm not slobbing Jackson's knob for his middling and unimpressive peripherals. Lots and lots of guys possess Jackson's stuff, and he's shown no reason to believe in his ability to harness it.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 11:41 PM) I'll say this one time, but I know you won't get it because you can't get the idea that luck is not a factor in anything. Edwin Jackson has command problems. These control problems are the result of Edwin Jackson having trouble getting in a groove and consistently repeating his delivery. The chances are his command will improve deeper into innings and deeper into games. Had you bothered to look at the actual numbers instead of reading an article written by a soothsayer with a passing interest in team sports, you'd see him for what he is and you would not suggest luck. Luck is not a factor. When you throw in the high-90's and have a devastating slider, you are not lucky to retire Major League hitters. http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/pspli...1&year=2008 These are his splits. See how opponents hit .341/.412/.538 against him during the first 25 pitches? See how that, as the game goes on, the opposition actually hits worse against him the second and third times through the lineup when they've actually seen more of him? Or how when you look at walks with a certain number of outs, that he actually walks 1/3 less players with 2 out than 0 or 1 out? Even better, just look at his gamelog. The guy has had 6 very bad starts which have hurt his overall numbers. Otherwise he is very, very good. The improvements in his peripherals strongly suggest that he is repeating his delivery more. In short, there are probably a thousand things you can talk about. Luck is not one of them and it never will be one of them. Wrong. So, so, so wrong. Luck is very important in evaluating a pitcher. A pitcher can control walks, strikeouts, and HR. Other than that, it is up to his defense. Lucky for Edwin, he was on a fantastic defensive team this season. With a bad defense, he's in trouble, considering how many guys he puts on base and his complete and utter inability to strike guys out. His peripherals are not impressive, and it's pretty clear he has a future in the bullpen.

So did KHP get banned? Really man, make a cogent argument against luck and variations in BABIP. Please.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 10:35 PM) Yeah, a 19-year-old when he debuted and who used to be one of the best pitching prospects in baseball, and he spent his second full season as a starter in the Major Leagues on a team that went to the WS... and he was 24. The hate is ridiculous and the luck "argument" isn't even an argument, it's a cop-out. Bringing luck into a discussion is basically saying "I have nothing intelligent to say, but I'm going to post anyway." It seems like most of the guys who go from the pedigree of Edwin Jackson to guys that "suck" in the minds of fans, it is because of some major surgery that causes the pitcher to lose the stuff that made him so highly regarded. In Jackson's case, the stuff is still there. The problem has been control, and he has done nothing at all but improve in that area. Jackson had a horrible September last year, as a 24-year-old once again. Prior to that, Jackson's numbers were: 26 GS, 156 IP, 3.81 ERA, 1.41 WHIP He finished with... 32 GS, 183.3 IP, 4.42 ERA (above the league average of 4.44), 1.51 WHIP And his peripherals have all improved. Anyone who thinks Jackson sucks is just plain ignorant of his age, his pedigree, his stuff, his improvement, and most importantly, the TB Rays organization as a whole. Why in the f*** would an organization with McGee, Davis, Price, Niemann, Hellickson, etc. have them all in the minor leagues if Edwin Jackson sucked? Use your head. The guy has serious talent and has shown nothing but growth in the Major Leagues. Please, explain to me how luck doesn't exist in evaluating a pitcher. How can he be so fantastic with guys on base, but so awful with the bases empty? It's not a matter of clutchness, or holding something back until it matters most (in which case, please do me a favor and find some evidence of this), it's a matters of his peripherals showing his extreme luck. He may have stuff, but his command is terrible, as evidenced by his Jon Garland-esque strikeout rates.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 10:00 PM) Yes, hate. Seems like whenever his name is mentioned somebody goes off about how awful he is or how he sucks or whatever. The dude is like 25. Damn. Yes, people flip out because there's no reason to believe he's a special pitcher. He's been bad to mediocre (at best!) in his two years with Tampa. If we target him in a deal, we are making a mistake.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 09:44 PM) Please justify how he sucks. He put up stats good enough for a no. 4 or 5 guy, has the potential to be even better then that, has great stuff, is cheap, and the Rays want to move to make room for Price. What's not to like? He was lucky as hell this season. He had a WHIP over 1.5 and was erratic and hittable. This "potential" you speak of hasn't shown up in his two years with the Rays. It takes more to pitch than good stuff, which is why Sonnanstine is the guy we should be targeting.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 09:27 PM) Now we're saying that Taveras is being overvalued by the Rockies, even though he ended up as a bench player. Many here would rather have Brian Anderson starting than Taveras...maybe KW will trade them straight up for each other. Or maybe Owens for Taveras, as some believe Owens will have a better career from here on out. In the end, if you don't appreciate Taveras' skill set and what he brings to the table, then the only thing that will convince you is watching Getz fail before we come back to this thread in the future and everyone is complaining about why KW didn't get a "legit" leadoff hitter in the offseason, instead of being hung out to dry mid-year by another GM (due to desperation)! People will still make that argument about Taveras. He's not a "legit" anything.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 09:11 PM) Actually watching the guy play would be one...instead of arguing completely based on 2008 and BABIP or whatever. Obama is more likely to name Osama bin Laden Director of the Department of Homeland Security than KW is to go into Opening Day with Getz/Anderson/Ramirez leading off. I can see the arguments for Owens, let's say they are "roughly equivalent," just for argument's sake. But why wouldn't you want to have additional insurance...seeing how costly it is to go out and get a top leadoff hitter/CFer? How would/could it hurt? Wouldn't it be better to have Taveras as the 4th/5th outfielder than to have Broadway, McCulloch or Russell wasting away in AAA? What's the next argument, that would mean DeWayne Wise wouldn't be on the team? That Wise is better than Taveras? Well, let's make DeWayne Wise the starting CFer and bat him leadoff. Problem solved...it's as logical as anything in this thread. If all it took to get Taveras was two pieces of s*** like Broadway or McCulloch, he'd already be gone. Chances are, the Rockies are trying to bend KW over a barrel and make him give up something actually valuable. Please, argue against luck, random variations in BABIP, etc.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 08:44 PM) Stand down, Taveras detractors! Wave the White Flag and we will cease and desist our efforts. I'm still waiting for a compelling argument against luck.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 08:24 AM) This is kinda my thinking. I'm far from crazy about Taveras, but what are the other options? He's better than anything we have right now. He's provides what Ozzie has wanted for years (Key words being what Ozzie wants. Not what a Soxtalker wants or feels is an acceptable leadoff man), and won't cost a s***load. All I would want for Willy to do is get on base at a .360 or better clip (his 2007 season would be more than acceptable to me). Everything else would take care of itself. I'd like it to rain pop tarts, but it's not happening. Taveras is not going to replicate his extremely lucky 2007 numbers when moving to a more difficult league. In fact, he won't replicate them in the NL. He's not very good. Also, I couldn't possibly care less what/who Ozzie wants. He's not the GM. If he wants speed, it better come in the form of a good hitter.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 07:47 AM) This article is a great example of why the pure statistical approach misses on a great game. There is a reason Edwin Jackson is clutch, and that is because of his stuff. Put fairly simply, it is hard to center up and hit his pitches. Its not like he has anything that is straight which he is throwing up to home plate. It would be different if he has a mediocre fastball, or ordinary slider, but he doesn't. Looking at those numbers doesn't tell that story. I know you can't just look at this stuff either, and proclaim him one of the best starters in the game, but you can't completely ignore it either. If that's the case, he should have posted similar numbers in 2007. He didn't. Most likely, this is not a repeatable skill and his affinity for allowing base runners will prevent him from being a special pitcher.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 30, 2008 -> 11:36 PM) This is the dumbest thing I've read in this thread, sorry, but it is. BABIP? The guy gets bunt hits and bats over .500 on his career in them, so obviously he is going to do well in that department when he's putting his bunts down at a higher that normal rate. It is not luck. Luck does not exist in baseball or anywhere in life; odds play themselves out and the recipients of long odds act like mystics as a result. Luck is a retarded concept that should have been out of baseball decades ago, but it is making a return thanks to the statheads who use it as a security blanket and count on it to explain all the s*** they can't explain with their stats like BABIP and whatnot. This is a rant, but one of the worst things Bill James has done to baseball is force people to look at s*** like OPS, BABIP, win shares, all that garbage INSTEAD of looking at the actual situations themselves and getting clear, accurate information about what the player does right and wrong. BABIP is a retarded thing to look at anyway when you are talking about a slap hitter/bunt hitter who uses his speed to get on base much of the time. How hard the ball is hit and where it is hit does not always determine whether or not the player ends up at first base when you're talking about someone like Taveras. He makes his living off of fielders rushing plays and making bad throws, beating the defensive set-ups in the infield, testing the arm and accuracy of pitchers and catchers, etc. BABIP tells you nothing about him. His other totals do if you want to look at them though. Back on topic, how is a guy who gets on base 15 more times per season and hits 15 more doubles, triples, or home runs per season but cannot steal more valuable than someone else who, as soon as he gets on, can take a base, force the defense to make a throw, get inside the pitcher's head, help out his #2 hitter with fastballs, etc.? How is the guy who has a much greater chance of scoring when he does get on end up being less valuable than the guy who can get on at a better rate and get a few more XBH's but can't do jack s*** on the bases to help his team except maybe go first to third on a single? Unless he gets an XBH, it takes at base hit or several walks and probably a sacrifice to bring home the guy who cannot steal even if he reaches first with no outs. The guy who can steal, when he gets on with no one out you only need a SB, maybe two if the situation allows for it (weak catcher's arm/slow delivery from pitcher combo) and then either 1 or two groundouts/flyballs. A guy who can steal allows you to put runs on the board while only making outs, at that makes him far more valuable when you are facing a pitcher that does nothing except get you out. AND, walking is as much a skill as it is an effect of hitter intimidation. Why does Jim Thome walk as much as he does? He does have a good eye, but mostly it is because pitchers do not want to go right after him. Stats do NOT tell you batting eye, they only tell aggressiveness and contact rate, so if you think high walk totals mean a guy has a better eye than someone with lower walk totals, get that idea out of your head because it doesn't work like that. Pitchers react completely different to Thome than they ever will to Taveras - one, because he has little power, and two - most importantly - YOU DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELF TO WALK 30-60 SB HITTERS. Taveras by his contact rate appears to have a pretty good eye, the problem is he could have the best eye in baseball and he's still not going to walk as much as a slugger. Figgins gets on at a better clip than Taveras does, but in both cases batting average is the main thing weighting their OBP. Both guys generally get on at a rate about .050 points higher than their batting averages. Figgins had one great year where he got on at a .393 clip, but he hit .330 then, and the reason the difference in AVG and OBP was .063 is because he make better contact that year. Taveras makes better contact than Figgins does, but it appears Figgins walks a little bit more because Taveras is a more aggressive hitter. Both Taveras and Figgins are more than capable lead-off man. It's just that some fans have these stupidly unrealistic expectations for their lead-off hitter and feel the need to bash good players who don't fit their mold. The problem is that their mold doesn't fit Ozzie's mold, so whether you like it or not, I'm sure we're seriously looking at Taveras. I'm done with the Willy Taveras issue. I'll just copy and paste this response from now on because I keep having to state the same things, yet people still don't understand the potential value of a Taveras type even though they claim to have watched us win the World Series one particular season. f***ing awesome man. I needed a laugh. People pitch to Taveras because he's terrible. End of story. Edit: Also, if luck doesn't exist, how do you explain variation in statistics from year to year, or the correlation between abnormal rises in BABIP coupled with fluky career seasons?

This is just some dude's random blog musing. It's nothing close to a rumor.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 30, 2008 -> 12:03 AM) "Perhaps it’s possible that Jackson simply focuses better in important situations, allowing him to pitch better with runners on base. I am skeptical of this proposition in general, but I allow that it’s possible.. " Well, I don't think this guy has ever seen Javier Vazquez or Mark Buerhle pitch, because there's a difference between pitchers who can get out of jams, pitch around errors and leave the bases loaded and those who can't. I'm sure there is absolutely nothing in Gavin Floyd's or Danks' stats that would have predicted their success this year in leaving runners stranded. Simply, the author doesn't really allow for the proposition that a pitcher might gain more confidence and "bear down" in situation where a mistake means multiple runs for the opposition. Success builds upon success. Confidence changes the arsenal of a pitcher, look no farther than Cliff Lee or Jon Danks for confirmation. From watching Mark Buehrle throughout his entire career, I don't buy this argument. And it would be VERY VERY difficult to prove statistically. It's just a supposition or theory. I prefer to trust me "eyes" from watching the games, rather than what the stats will say the next day. He's never shown this ability before, ever. It's more than likely a statistical anomaly rather than a repeatable skill.