The Count possibly to the Astros?

[WCSox]

I am not cherry picking anything ( you really like that word btw). 73%? Thought you knew what i was talking about and did not have to make it known. 73% is still not good enough to help your team consistently.

 

Oh, really? Podsednik's was only 72% this year. Don't tell me he didn't help the Sox win consistently.

[Felix]

Wow, another weak counter-argument.  You're just full of them today, aren't you?

 

I'm simply saying that a team that's just won a WS and is in position to win another would be better off going with proven talent, rather than a question mark.  It may not be wise to give up a starting pitcher for said proven talent, but a less-costly trade for said player is something that the GM should at least consider.

But AGAIN, what has Taveras proven? That he's a below average offensive player? That he gets thrown out 35% of them time when stealing bases? That he can't get any extra-base hits, or get a high OBP (which is needed for his type of player to be effective at all)? Or that he can't hit anywhere outside of Minute Maid Park? All of this is proven, but none of it supports your argument.

Edited December 31, 2005 by Felix

[SSH2005]

Wow, another weak counter-argument.  You're just full of them today, aren't you?

 

I'm simply saying that a team that's just won a WS and is in position to win another would be better off going with proven talent, rather than a question mark.  It may not be wise to give up a starting pitcher for said proven talent, but a less-costly trade for said player is something that the GM should at least consider.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Astros started the 2005 season with an unproven player in center field and ended up making it to the World Series. Guess which player that was?

[Felix]

Oh, really?  Podsednik's was only 72% this year.  Don't tell me he didn't help the Sox win consistently.

In the first half of the year, his SB% was 83%. In the second half of the year, his SB% was 52%. When did he help the team more, the first or second half?

[CWSGuy406]

Wow, another weak counter-argument.  You're just full of them today, aren't you?

 

I'm simply saying that a team that's just won a WS and is in position to win another would be better off going with proven talent, rather than a question mark.  It may not be wise to give up a starting pitcher for said proven talent, but a less-costly trade for said player is something that the GM should at least consider.

 

Proven talent? He put up a .291/.325/.341. That isn't a good line at all. And, don't tell me about his .291 BA, because SLG% and OBP correlate much better to scoring runs than BA does. It's such an overrated statistic.

[Chisoxfn]

The downside to stealing bases is greater than it is not to. But no one here will ever believe it ( well most).

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2607

I know stats show that, but I stick to my guns that stats don't show how the style of play changes when you have a speedster on 1st. You don't have accurate stats (just showing what someone hits with a runner on 1st doesn't do that) that can account for a hitter seeing more fastballs when a quick guy is on 1st. You don't have stats that show how a pitcher gets rattled when he's worried about changing his move to the plate as well as varying his pickoff move to 1st so he can keep the guy close.

 

There are a lot of things statistics can't take into account. Now I dont' think everyone should steal and sure there is a point where its not worth it, but I don't agree with any one particular percentage. I think it varies.

 

You also don't have a stat talking about how in a hit and run you open up a full side of the infield allowing a good slap hitter to get a much easier basehit (and in result you 1st and 3rd them). There is a lot of the game that can't be determined by stats.

 

If this game was won by stats, than some robot programmed with all the stats would be better than any manager out there. And that isn't the case.

 

You also can't show me defensive stats the say a guy has a great arm. Defensive stats are for the most part very imperfect. The eye and a good judge of talent is way better at telling how good a defensive player is than the statistics statheads spout off (such as Range Factor and Zone rating).

 

There is a lot more to the game of baseball than stats. For example...offensively Juan Pierre >>> Aaron Rowand if you are looking for a leadoff hitter. If your not, than thats another story. Everything fits into a mold. Whose the better all around player, I feel its Aaron and I think most would agree with that.

 

That said, Pierre has his value and to some teams he'd be more valuable than Rowand. It all depends on what a team needs. If you are the Yanks or Cubs and are desperate for a leadoff hitter, than I think you'd be better off with Pierre than Rowand.

 

I'll take a good mix of both stats and scouts and use them to come up with what works. Hell, if we listened to stats you'd have a lot of those stat people tell us how the Sox shouldn't have won the world series. We ran ourselves out of tons of runs and didn't walk enough to score effectively. However, stats would show we had great pitching. The mix was good enough to be the 5th team in baseball history to go wire to wire and win it all

 

I'm also glad that Ken Williams isn't Billy Beane. Last I looked Kenny has one of what matters (a World Series Ring as a GM).

 

Edited: For some reason I typed in Juan Uribe instead of Pierre

[Guest JimH]

The only reason all this is coming up is because it appears the Sox might be shopping Contreras. Just like it appeared they were shopping Garland.

 

So he could get signed like Garland or they will keep listening to offers. I doubt they let him walk for nothing.

[qwerty]

Ah yes, the ole' "well you answer this before I answer yours."

 

I'd much rather see BA take a hit in average if it meant his OBP for an entire season wasn't a crappy .325.  How many of Taveras' "hits" were bunt singles in the infield?  Brian is not the same type of hitter as Taveras which is why I expect him to have an OPS at least 100 points great than Taveras next season.

 

Why is hitting .291 such a big deal to you?  It's nothing out of this world with the exception that the player's OBP is only .325.

 

Brady Anderson hit 50 homers in a season before.  Maybe we should get him on the line to play CF.

 

We "all" don't know that BA could be Borchard part II because he hasn't had a chance to play an entire season like Taveras.

 

Sheesh, give him a chance before you throw him overboard.  How confiendt were you in Taveras for 2005 after hitting .000 in 2004? 

 

150 of his 172 hits were singles, 70 were infield singles, and 29 of those were bunt hits... he led the league in both categories. If he could raise his obp to the .350-.360 range he would be that much more dangerous... right now he is more so meh.

[Guest JimH]

Jason, what a great post, one of your best. Nice job.

[WCSox]

In the first half of the year, his SB% was 83%.  In the second half of the year, his SB% was 52%.  When did he help the team more, the first or second half?

 

How did the team do back in August when he was injured?

[qwerty]

In the first half of the year, his SB% was 83%.  In the second half of the year, his SB% was 52%.  When did he help the team more, the first or second half?

 

This is just great.^^^

 

Podsednik was pitiful in the second half when it came to running the bases let alone steal bases.

[Felix]

How did the team do back in August when he was injured?

How did the team do in the second half (when he had was 52% at SB) compared to the first half?

 

Also, we had Timo Perez taking his place. Timo Perez..

Edited December 31, 2005 by Felix

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(WCSox @ Dec 31, 2005 -> 03:46 PM)

Wow, another weak counter-argument.  You're just full of them today, aren't you?

 

I'm simply saying that a team that's just won a WS and is in position to win another would be better off going with proven talent, rather than a question mark.  It may not be wise to give up a starting pitcher for said proven talent, but a less-costly trade for said player is something that the GM should at least consider.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LMFAO!

 

Taveras is "proven talent?"

 

What does that make the guy we're giving up, first ballot hall of famer?

 

Was Mike Caruso "proven talent" after the 1998 season?

 

You're really overrating Taveras.

[sayitaintso]

How did the team do back in August when he was injured?

Not good, and what's your point.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Dec 31, 2005 -> 03:50 PM)

Proven talent?  He put up a .291/.325/.341.  That isn't a good line at all.  And, don't tell me about his .291 BA, because SLG% and OBP correlate much better to scoring runs than BA does.  It's such an overrated statistic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Overrated is not a good word. I think "misleading" is better.

[WCSox]

Proven talent?  He put up a .291/.325/.341.  That isn't a good line at all.  And, don't tell me about his .291 BA, because SLG% and OBP correlate much better to scoring runs than BA does.  It's such an overrated statistic.

 

You forgot about the 34 stolen bases and the fact that he plays a tough defensive position (CF) very well. And at least Taveras has proven that he can play good defense, run the bases well, and not be a liability at the plate in the majors. Last time I checked, Anderson has proven absolutely nothing.

 

But if you want to think that OBP and SLG mean everything, go right ahead. If that were the case, though, Aaron Rowand would be lucky to be a bench player.

[WCSox]

You're really overrating Taveras.

 

LMFAO at the homers who are "overrating" a player who hasn't really played in the majors yet.

[SSH2005]

You forgot about the 34 stolen bases and the fact that he plays a tough defensive position (CF) very well.  And at least Taveras has proven that he can play good defense, run the bases well, and not be a liability at the plate in the majors.  Last time I checked, Anderson has proven absolutely nothing.

 

But if you want to think that OBP and SLG mean everything, go right ahead.  If that were the case, though, Aaron Rowand would be lucky to be a bench player.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OBP damn sure means more than AVG for a leadoff hitter like Taveras.

Edited December 31, 2005 by SSH2005

[Felix]

You forgot about the 34 stolen bases

And you forgot to read just about all the posts in this thread..

[Kalapse]

Why does Caruso's name keep comming up? I still don't understand why this guy is the ultimate example of a bust.

[SSH2005]

Why does Caruso's name keep comming up? I still don't understand why this guy is the ultimate example of a bust.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, Mike Caruso was more of a flash-in-the-pan.

[qwerty]

LMFAO at the homers who are "overrating" a player who hasn't really played in the majors yet.

 

No one is overating anderson. You are the one that does not even want to give him a chance. Like others have said ... did you think taveras deserved to be the astros starting centerfielder in 2005 after his 2004 season?

[WCSox]

OBP damn sure means more than AVG for a leadoff hitter like Taveras.

 

Who said that he would replace Pods as a leadoff hitter?

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(WCSox @ Dec 31, 2005 -> 03:55 PM)

LMFAO at the homers who are "overrating" a player who hasn't really played in the majors yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you please answer one of my questions? (ok, well now two.)

 

Was Mike Caruso "proven talent" after the 1998 season? His BA was .301.

[Chisoxfn]

Jason, what a great post, one of your best.  Nice job.

I just hate how people can pigeon hole a player based on a couple stats. If we looked at stats we wouldn't have acquired Juan Uribe. He's not a statiticians dream but what he is is a very talented shortstop that can play some defense and hit for power (and I think we'll continue to see him develop offensively). Sure Uribe has flaws, but I for one am glad we traded a stat type player (Aaron Miles) for a scouts type of guy (Juan Uribe).

 

In general, good baseball players with skills are an asset to a club.