Around The Majors

[CWSGuy406]

Looking at the standings, there's some interesting trends -- halfway point in the season, thought I'd take a look at the divisions sans the AL Central...

 

In the AL East, Baltimore is just five games up after their hot start. I think once Boston gets Schilling back, they should take charge in that division. They're the only team who has decent starting pitching. They gotta get a lot of bullpen help, but at their staff is far better than anyone elses in that division.

 

In the AL West, Oakland is back up to .500 after an awful start. They're certainly not as good as their month of June, but I think they should win anywhere from 81-88 games -- with a little luck, maybe winning the WC. I don't know, I don't think Anahiem is as good as they're playing now. Me and witesoxfan, it seemed like we were the only ones who didn't really think that team was very great in the offseason. I think their rotation isn't as good as Boston's/White Sox'/Twins' -- sorry, I just don't think that Colon/Washburn/Lackey/Byrd will hold up throughout the playoffs. Either way, Anahiem should run away with the division, just 'cause 90 wins seems like the clinching point -- unless Oakland really, really surges.

 

In the NL West, the Dodgers have been hit with injury after injury. Izturis (sp?), Valentin, Penny, Gagne, Drew, and now Kent -- I'm sure I'm missing others, but they really haven't been with their whole team throughout the season, but they're chances seem -- eh, not good. Looks like unless Bonds really saves the Giants, that the Padres will take the NLWest.

 

In the NL Central -- well, what's to say. Cardinals are good. Their rotation is Ok -- I mean, aside from Carpenter, no one in that rotation is pitching really well -- Mulder really doesn't scare me anymore. The Cubs -- well, they get talked about enough. The Brewers are the team that excites me in that division. Weeks, Fielder, Sheets, Lee, Turnbow, Overbay -- that's a nice lookin' core.

 

Finally, in the NL East, looks like a damn good race. I don't see the Nationals playing this well throughout the rest of the year, and if Beckett isn't healthy, then the Marlins could be in some big trouble. The Braves can't really win that division again, can they?

 

What do you guys think?

[Rowand44]

I got b****ed at for thinking he was gonna hit in the .260's- 270's this season after his great start.

You make a crap load of those kind of predictions. Since he's struggling now I'd be willing to bet you that he ends up over .285. Not to mention he sacrifices himself a s***load for the team so especially with him the numbers aren't everything.

[Rowand44]

Looking at the standings, there's some interesting trends -- halfway point in the season, thought I'd take a look at the divisions sans the AL Central...

 

In the AL East, Baltimore is just five games up after their hot start.  I think once Boston gets Schilling back, they should take charge in that division.  They're the only team who has decent starting pitching.  They gotta get a lot of bullpen help, but at their staff is far better than anyone elses in that division.

 

In the AL West, Oakland is back up to .500 after an awful start.  They're certainly not as good as their month of June, but I think they should win anywhere from 81-88 games -- with a little luck, maybe winning the WC.  I don't know, I don't think Anahiem is as good as they're playing now.  Me and witesoxfan, it seemed like we were the only ones who didn't really think that team was very great in the offseason.  I think their rotation isn't as good as Boston's/White Sox'/Twins' -- sorry, I just don't think that Colon/Washburn/Lackey/Byrd will hold up throughout the playoffs.  Either way, Anahiem should run away with the division, just 'cause 90 wins seems like the clinching point -- unless Oakland really, really surges.

 

In the NL West, the Dodgers have been hit with injury after injury.  Izturis (sp?), Valentin, Penny, Gagne, Drew, and now Kent -- I'm sure I'm missing others, but they really haven't been with their whole team throughout the season, but they're chances seem -- eh, not good.  Looks like unless Bonds really saves the Giants, that the Padres will take the NLWest.

 

In the NL Central -- well, what's to say.  Cardinals are good.  Their rotation is Ok -- I mean, aside from Carpenter, no one in that rotation is pitching really well -- Mulder really doesn't scare me anymore.  The Cubs -- well, they get talked about enough.  The Brewers are the team that excites me in that division.  Weeks, Fielder, Sheets, Lee, Turnbow, Overbay -- that's a nice lookin' core.

 

Finally, in the NL East, looks like a damn good race.  I don't see the Nationals playing this well throughout the rest of the year, and if Beckett isn't healthy, then the Marlins could be in some big trouble.  The Braves can't really win that division again, can they?

 

What do you guys think?

 

Good stuff Keith. To answer your last question about the Braves, I learned to stop counting them out after last year, I thought they had absolutely no chance to win that division and of course they run away with it. By the way I agree with everything you said about the Angels, every word of it. They'll win that division without a true race but their rotation isn't very scary at all in my mind.

[YASNY]

I don't see the Nationals playing this well throughout the rest of the year

 

If you think the Sox are for real, you have to the Nats the same credit. They are doing things exactly the same way the Sox are.

[Spiff]

Looking at the standings, there's some interesting trends -- halfway point in the season, thought I'd take a look at the divisions sans the AL Central...

 

In the AL East, Baltimore is just five games up after their hot start.  I think once Boston gets Schilling back, they should take charge in that division.  They're the only team who has decent starting pitching.  They gotta get a lot of bullpen help, but at their staff is far better than anyone elses in that division.

 

Boston is 3.5 up on Baltimore.

[Kyyle23]

LOL, I have been checking out the Coob board on chicagosports.com to see how they are taking things, and the fans have decided that they need Adam Dunn.

 

I was just told that Adam Dunn is a younger version of Jim Thome. I didnt see it, I only see a younger version of Rob Deer. Anyone who feels like chiming in, feel free..

[ZoomSlowik]

LOL, I have been checking out the Coob board on chicagosports.com to see how they are taking things, and the fans have decided that they need Adam Dunn.

 

I was just told that Adam Dunn is a younger version of Jim Thome. I didnt see it, I only see a younger version of Rob Deer. Anyone who feels like chiming in, feel free..

 

There isn't a whole lot of difference between Dunn's number's last year and some of Thome's years. However, he really needs to get his average up. I'd say he's somewhere between the two players. He's nowhere near as bad as Deer.

[Gene Honda Civic]

If you think the Sox are for real, you have to the Nats the same credit.  They are doing things exactly the same way the Sox are.

Here's a big difference:

 

          Run Scored      Runs Allowed

White Sox        395               314

Nationals        340               340

 

The Nats have the stink of a .500 team on them. They're a .500 team with a good BP though, so they should win a lot of the close ones. I'd put money on the Braves to catch them.

Edited July 6, 2005 by Gene Honda Civic

[Kyyle23]

Could someone with a little time on their hands do me a favor?

 

http://forums.prospero.com/n/mb/message.as...bs7&msg=8.40774

 

Follow this thread, and my attempt at rational conversation with Cubs fans. RuinsoftheIE has told me that I use opinion wrongly, and I am curious as to whether anyone else feels this way.

 

If this is the way I am percieved, things are gonna change. I dont like being told my opinion is wrong, and that i dont even know what an opinion is.

[ZoomSlowik]

Could someone with a little time on their hands do me a favor?  

 

http://forums.prospero.com/n/mb/message.as...bs7&msg=8.40774

 

Follow this thread, and my attempt at rational conversation with Cubs fans.   RuinsoftheIE has told me that I use opinion wrongly, and I am curious as to whether anyone else feels this way. 

 

If this is the way I am percieved, things are gonna change.   I dont like being told my opinion is wrong, and that i dont even know what an opinion is.

 

You definitely went too far with the Rob Deer comparison. Deer was a career .220 hitter who only hit 30 homers twice, never drove in 90 runs, and didn't walk as much as Dunn. However, they're definitely overestimating Dunn. Thome played 100 games for the first time when he was 24 (turned 25 in August), and he hit .314 that year. I'd mention that. You should probably tell them to wait until Dunn hits .270 to make the Thome comparisons.

 

I didn't see you do anything seriously wrong in the opinion/fact department in what I read. An opinion is simply the expression of your belief on a certain topic. This isn't a problem unless you start using opinions more like facts. Look at some of Anthrax's posts for an example of this.

Edited July 6, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[CWSGuy406]

Boston is 3.5 up on Baltimore.

 

Should have made it clearer -- by five games up, I meant five games over .500.

[CWSGuy406]

You definitely went too far with the Rob Deer comparison. Deer was a career .220 hitter who only hit 30 homers twice, never drove in 90 runs, and didn't walk as much as Dunn. However, they're definitely overestimating Dunn. Thome played 100 games for the first time when he was 24 (turned 25 in August), and he hit .314 that year. I'd mention that. You should probably tell them to wait until Dunn hits .270 to make the Thome comparisons.

 

What exactly does batting average mean again? That a guy can hit a bunch of singles?

 

Adam Dunn is in the top 15 of best offensive players. Dunn is awesome.

Edited July 6, 2005 by CWSGuy406

[Kyyle23]

You definitely went too far with the Rob Deer comparison. Deer was a career .220 hitter who only hit 30 homers twice, never drove in 90 runs, and didn't walk as much as Dunn. However, they're definitely overestimating Dunn. Thome played 100 games for the first time when he was 24 (turned 25 in August), and he hit .314 that year. I'd mention that. You should probably tell them to wait until Dunn hits .270 to make the Thome comparisons.

 

I didn't see you do anything seriously wrong in the opinion/fact department in what I read. An opinion is simply the expression of your belief on a certain topic. This isn't a problem unless you start using opinions more like facts. Look at some of Anthrax's posts for an example of this.

 

I guess I just dont feel that Dunn projects into their lineup well. I see their lineup becoming more corpseball-like. Lots of strikeouts and homeruns.

 

Deer struck out alot and never really had a high average, and hit alot of homeruns. The difference I see is the ability to take a walk, but alot of pitchers unintentionally-intentionally walk Dunn to get to batters behind him.

 

Ah well, you just cant talk rational with most cubs fans right now.

[Kyyle23]

What exactly does batting average mean again?  That a guy can hit a bunch of singles?

 

Adam Dunn is in the top 15 of best offensive players.  Dunn is awesome.

 

 

aack, its like I am talking to them again. Im rather unimpressed by Dunn aside from the fact that he can hit homeruns

[CWSGuy406]

aack, its like I am talking to them again.   Im rather unimpressed by Dunn aside from the fact that he can hit homeruns

 

Well, really, what does BA mean? It puts singles, doubles, triples, and homers all on an even scale, even though a single isn't worth nearly as much as a homerun is.

 

Let's see... Dunn walks -- a lot. His lowest OBP was .354, in a little less than 400 AB's. He seems to have settled himself into a .390 OBP spot, he had a .388 OBP last year, and that's where he's at this year. He'll hit you 40+ HR's a year -- and, even though you might think that's a bad thing, it isn't. And he's at a .950+ OPS this year, after posting a .956 OPS last year.

 

I can care less about the low BA? Strikeouts? Eh, I could see over the course of the season getting a little annoyed at that, but let's look at what the player can do, rather than what he can't do.

 

His .250/.390/.570 (rounded by a few points) line would be the best on our team, regardless of how high or low his AVG is...

 

EDIT: Should have added -- he's 26 years old. I'd give up Sweeney + B-Mac + Tracey to get him, probably more.

Edited July 6, 2005 by CWSGuy406

[ZoomSlowik]

I guess I just dont feel that Dunn projects into their lineup well.   I see their lineup becoming more corpseball-like.   Lots of strikeouts and homeruns.  

 

Deer struck out alot and never really had a high average, and hit alot of homeruns.   The difference I see is the ability to take a walk, but alot of pitchers unintentionally-intentionally walk Dunn to get to batters behind him. 

 

Ah well, you just cant talk rational with most cubs fans right now.

 

Just thought I'd throw this in...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=opinion

 

Basically the other guy was full of s***. There are better guys to have than Dunn. Walks are only one facet of offense, and are of less importance for an RBI guy like Dunn than for a leadoff man. If you're going to bat him #3, the walks help. However, his prime job is to be an RBI guy, in which case batting average is more important, especially with men on and with men in scoring position. His low batting average and his abysmal BA with men in scoring position (.198) cost the Reds runs because he does not make contact. And I think you're right, the Cubs need a consistent leadoff man more than they need another slugger. They're better off without Sammy, why would they want to bring back a similar player, who even has a lower average than Sammy did?

 

I would call him a good but not great hitter. He's obviously got a ton of pop and gets on base a lot, but there are much more reliable hitters in RBI situations. He's more valuable to moneyball disciples than he is to his real team. For those constantly referring to that book, I'd like to ask exactly what have the A's won of any importance and what is the benefit of duplicating what has often been a mediocre offense?

Edited July 6, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[southsider2k5]

Fun stats... The Cubs are 6-21 when the opponent scores in the first inning, including 3-19 in the last 22 times.

[CWSGuy406]

Just thought I'd throw this in...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=opinion

 

Basically the other guy was full of s***. There are better guys to have than Dunn. Walks are only one facet of offense, and are of less importance for an RBI guy like Dunn than for a leadoff man. If you're going to bat him #3, the walks help. However, his prime job is to be an RBI guy, in which case batting average is more important, especially with men on and with men in scoring position. His low batting average and his abysmal BA with men in scoring position (.198) cost the Reds runs because he does not make contact. And I think you're right, the Cubs need a consistent leadoff man more than they need another slugger. They're better off without Sammy, why would they want to bring back a similar player, who even has a lower average than Sammy did?

 

I would call him a good but not great hitter. He's obviously got a ton of pop and gets on base a lot, but there are much more reliable hitters in RBI situations. He's more valuable to moneyball disciples than he is to his real team. For those constantly referring to that book, I'd like to ask exactly what have the A's won of any importance and what is the benefit of duplicating what has often been a mediocre offense?

 

In RBI situations, he still posts an .800+ OPS. Looking at his three year splits, with RISP with two outs, he has a .432 OBP and an .813 OPS. With RISP regardless of outs, over the last three years, he has a .421 OBP and an .855 OPS. It's not as bad as you think it is... And, he was IBB 11 times last year, so it's not as much as you think. He earns his walks.

 

Zoom, I also should say that Dunn probably isn't the guy I want up in an RBI situation. But I'll take the good with the bad, and I think the good much outweighs the bad with him -- especially since he's making less than $10 million.

 

As far as comparing him to Sosa, how much does Dunn make? I can assure you that it's not even half of what Sammy makes. Even the past two years, which have been 'down' years for Sosa, he's been decent -- just, nowhere near worth $17 million or however much he makes.

 

As far as your comment about Oakland, I think they do a pretty damn good job for the money they have. They're last in their division in payroll, yet have made the playoffs in four years since 2000. It's better than anything the Sox have done (though hopefully this year that will change) with a payroll that's been behind everyone else's (in the West) for at least the past couple of years.

Edited July 6, 2005 by CWSGuy406

[ZoomSlowik]

In RBI situations, he still posts an .800+ OPS.  Looking at his three year splits, with RISP with two outs, he has a .432 OBP and an .813 OPS.  With RISP regardless of outs, over the last three years, he has a .421 OBP and an .855 OPS.  It's not as bad as you think it is...  And, he was IBB 11 times last year, so it's not as much as you think.  He earns his walks. 

 

Zoom, I also should say that Dunn probably isn't the guy I want up in an RBI situation.  But I'll take the good with the bad, and I think the good much outweighs the bad with him -- especially since he's making less than $10 million. 

 

As far as comparing him to Sosa, how much does Dunn make?  I can assure you that it's not even half of what Sammy makes.  Even the past two years, which have been 'down' years for Sosa, he's been decent -- just, nowhere near worth $17 million or however much he makes.

 

As far as your comment about Oakland, I think they do a pretty damn good job for the money they have.  They're last in their division in payroll, yet have made the playoffs in four years since 2000.  It's better than anything the Sox have done (though hopefully this year that will change) with a payroll that's been behind everyone else's (in the West) for at least the past couple of years.

 

Dunn is going to do well when you incorporate on base percentage, but walks very rarely drive in runs. His 3 year averages with runners on is .253, and .210 with runners in scoring position. That is abysmal for someone that is supposed to be an elite hitter, which is probably why Cinci doesn't bat him 3rd or 4th. I wasn't comparing the salary to Sosa, I was comparing the style of hitting, which is pretty similar except that Sosa actually has made more contact. As for Oakland, that didn't really answer my question. Their offense has not been what carried there team, and yet on base percentage is what everyone takes from Moneyball. They got there on the back of their superior pitching. Also, their drafting is what got them there, not their statistical analysis or great acquisitions. If you give Kenny Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Harden, Chavez, Tejada, and Giambi out of the farm system, I'm sure he'd do at least as well, and only one of them is a real moneyball player.

[CWSGuy406]

Dunn is going to do well when you incorporate on base percentage, but walks very rarely drive in runs. His 3 year averages with runners on is .253, and .210 with runners in scoring position. That is abysmal for someone that is supposed to be an elite hitter, which is probably why Cinci doesn't bat him 3rd or 4th. I wasn't comparing the salary to Sosa, I was comparing the style of hitting, which is pretty similar except that Sosa actually has made more contact. As for Oakland, that didn't really answer my question. Their offense has not been what carried there team, and yet on base percentage is what everyone takes from Moneyball. They got there on the back of their superior pitching. Also, their drafting is what got them there, not their statistical analysis or great acquisitions. If you give Kenny Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Harden, Chavez, Tejada, and Giambi out of the farm system, I'm sure he'd do at least as well, and only one of them is a real moneyball player.

 

But he still gets on-base in those situations -- actually, he does a better job at getting on-base in those situations. And, apparently he's doing enough to drive in runs, he drove in 102 last year.

 

So, he's really not failing in those situations. If they're not giving him good pitches to hit, is it his fault that he's not driving in runs?

 

BTW -- I believe during Oakland's run, their offense hasn't been terrible -- I think it's been right around middle of the pack. Your last comment about, "if you give them blah and blah and blah" -- I dunno, that's pretty dumb, 'cause Beane drafted most of those guys. Your blaming Beane for drafting all of those guys now, too?

 

I take it you haven't read Moneyball, because all you seem to hit on is that OBP is the key stat, which really, if you read the book, isn't what you're supposed to take from it. OBP was the undervalued stat then, so that's what he bought -- now that it's been valued correctly, he has to find something else that's undervalued -- it seems to be defense. I don't see how Harden/Zito/Mulder/Hudson aren't the type of players they like. All came from college, which is what Beane (apparently) thought was undervalued during in the past couple years -- and, 'cause he thought that college stats actually meant something. Zito and Mulder were both soft-tossers, and Hudson was 'too small' for many of the scouts. Giambi was an OBP machine, and Chavez/Tejada both played stellar defense along with real good SLG% numbers. Chavez has also turned into a guy who BB's a lot, too, though I doubt anyone knew whether or not that would come through.

 

It's really silly, IMO, for you to make it seem like Beane 'lucked' into all of those guys, when he keeps on doing it. Look at their roster now -- Street, Blanton, Swisher, Crosby, Chavez, Zito -- a pretty huge part of the team, all homegrown. Plus the guys they lose 'cause they can't afford 'em...

[ZoomSlowik]

But he still gets on-base in those situations -- actually, he does a better job at getting on-base in those situations.  And, apparently he's doing enough to drive in runs, he drove in 102 last year.

 

So, he's really not failing in those situations.  If they're not giving him good pitches to hit, is it his fault that he's not driving in runs?

 

BTW -- I believe during Oakland's run, their offense hasn't been terrible -- I think it's been right around middle of the pack.  Your last comment about, "if you give them blah and blah and blah" -- I dunno, that's pretty dumb, 'cause Beane drafted most of those guys.  Your blaming Beane for drafting all of those guys now, too?

 

I take it you haven't read Moneyball, because all you seem to hit on is that OBP is the key stat, which really, if you read the book, isn't what you're supposed to take from it.  OBP was the undervalued stat then, so that's what he bought -- now that it's been valued correctly, he has to find something else that's undervalued -- it seems to be defense.  I don't see how Harden/Zito/Mulder/Hudson aren't the type of players they like.  All came from college, which is what Beane (apparently) thought was undervalued during in the past couple years -- and, 'cause he thought that college stats actually meant something.  Zito and Mulder were both soft-tossers, and Hudson was 'too small' for many of the scouts.  Giambi was an OBP machine, and Chavez/Tejada both played stellar defense along with real good SLG% numbers.  Chavez has also turned into a guy who BB's a lot, too, though I doubt anyone knew whether or not that would come through. 

 

It's really silly, IMO, for you to make it seem like Beane 'lucked' into all of those guys, when he keeps on doing it.  Look at their roster now -- Street, Blanton, Swisher, Crosby, Chavez, Zito -- a pretty huge part of the team, all homegrown.  Plus the guys they lose 'cause they can't afford 'em...

 

My point was that OBP percentage is what most people take out of that book, and it is also something that you seem to value a ton. Dunn may have driven in 102 last year, but that's kind of weak for a guy that hit 46 homers. He could have driven in an awful lot more. I never said that Oakland's offense was terrible, I said it wasn't stellar, so I don't know why teams would build around their philosophies. Pitching might be another story, but taking college players isn't exactly a determining criterion, since that only eliminates about 40% of pitchers in the draft.

 

I think you're giving him too much credit for their drafts anyways. Their scouts also play a huge role in that area, and after drafting them he has little to do with their development. He also supposedly wanted to pass on Chavez, and was a big reason they took Ariel Prieto over Helton. Also, no matter how well you scout, there's going to be a major element of luck in the draft. There are tons of guys that can't miss that do, and guys that people didn't think would do anything that turn into valuable players. Also outside of the drafted guys I mentioned the only player that I would call a success thus far is Street.

Edited July 6, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[CWSGuy406]

My point was that OBP percentage is what most people take out of that book, and it is also something that you seem to value a ton. Dunn may have driven in 102 last year, but that's kind of weak for a guy that hit 46 homers. He could have driven in an awful lot more. I never said that Oakland's offense was terrible, I said it wasn't stellar, so I don't know why teams would build around their philosophies. Pitching might be another story, but taking college players isn't exactly a determining criterion, since that only eliminates about 40% of pitchers in the draft.

 

I think you're giving him too much credit for their drafts anyways. Their scouts also play a huge role in that area, and after drafting them he has little to do with their development. He also supposedly wanted to pass on Chavez, and was a big reason they took Ariel Prieto over Helton. Also, no matter how well you scout, there's going to be a major element of luck in the draft. There are tons of guys that can't miss that do, and guys that people didn't think would do anything that turn into valuable players. Also outside of the drafted guys I mentioned the only player that I would call a success thus far is Street.

 

Well, like I said, w/r/t Dunn -- if he's not getting real good pitches to hit in RBI situations, is that his fault?

 

And, if Oakland's offense isn't terrible, that's good enough for their pitching. I dunno, I think an average offense on a payroll that is usually in the lower third of all of baseball is pretty damn good. I'd certainly like to see what Beane could do on a higher payroll...

 

The places where Moneyball/Sabermetric theories have been planted in, it's done average or better. Epstein in Boston won a WS ring, DePo in LA made the playoffs last year (though you can't really call it a success, as this year they've been bad -- but a team with that many injuries should do bad), and Toronto -- they've done about average, considering the division that they're in. I'd like to see how Ricciardi's talent that's in the system now does before I really judge him.

 

Alright, so I shouldn't give Beane any credit, 'cause it's the scouts/player personel that develop the talent. Does that mean GM's don't deserve credit for their drafts? 'Cause that's what you're making it seem like. Seems like your slamming it just to slam it now, but I'll digress.

[Rowand44]

Batting average means you can hit your way on base. OBP is great and all but you need to be able to get hits at times. He's never going to drive in 120 runs because he's just can't a ton of hits when he needs to. By the way it's hard for me to believe that Dunn can a a top 10 offensive player when he's basically a platoon player, .197 batting average against lefties :puke

[CWSGuy406]

Batting average means you can hit your way on base.  OBP is great and all but you need to be able to get hits at times.  He's never going to drive in 120 runs because he's just can't a ton of hits when he needs to.  By the way it's hard for me to believe that Dunn can a a top 10 offensive player when he's basically a platoon player, .197 batting average against lefties :puke

 

...in 92 AB's. But hey, if we like sample size so much, I think Kevin Walker eventually should pitch well, 'cause he had such a good Spring Training.

 

 

Three year splits line vs. lefties -- .241/.363/.483 -- good enough for me.

[Rowand44]

...in 92 AB's.  But hey, if we like sample size so much, I think Kevin Walker eventually should pitch well, 'cause he had such a good Spring Training.

Three year splits line vs. lefties -- .241/.363/.483 -- good enough for me.

Good call about sample size, that was half assed researching on my part. Still those splits don't thrill me but we're not going to see eye to eye on this, so just agree to disagree.