Sox not adding a LH bat; looking at relief, Damon?

[hogan873]

Just plugging the hole that is the DH position would be nice. I don't care for the flexibility that Ozzie wants or sees for that matter. Even though he's not the LH bat we think the team needs, I like the idea of Damon. Hell, if we're not going to sign a DH, let's just have JR and KW plead their case to Bud Selig to get the Sox moved to the NL.

[ThunderBolt]

He's not going to retire. Half of that $6 million was deferred.

It's also a bit ridiculous to think that a guy really would retire over the difference of a few million $'s. It's petty. The man isn't going to retire unless he loses the ability or desire to play.

[Springfield Soxfan]

It's also a bit ridiculous to think that a guy really would retire over the difference of a few million $'s. It's petty. The man isn't going to retire unless he loses the ability or desire to play.

I wonder if Tavares is coming now that that A's have cut him.

[witesoxfan]

I wonder if Tavares is coming now that that A's have cut him.

 

If anything, the A's cutting Tavares limits their money. They acquired Taveras and his $4 mill salary and are on the hook for the entire thing. Unless they find someone willing to pay that, they are SOL.

 

In the meantime, even if they weren't for whatever reason stuck with that number, they just signed Gabe Gross today too. Their top 4 outfielders are currently Rajai Davis, Coco Crisp, Ryan Sweeney, and Gabe Gross, and they still have Travis Buck and Jack Cust too. Johnny Damon isn't going to end up in Oakland.

[scenario]

I wonder if Tavares is coming now that that A's have cut him.

 

 

I sure hope not.

 

Reading this clip from the AP story on the trade today only reaffirms my opinion about Taveras...

 

The Reds thought they’d filled their long-standing hole at the top of the batting order when they signed Taveras to a two-year deal, but he struggled with injuries last season, batted .240 and had an on-base percentage of only .275 with 25 stolen bases. A free swinger, Taveras drew only 18 walks in 435 plate appearances.

[ptatc]

It's also a bit ridiculous to think that a guy really would retire over the difference of a few million $'s. It's petty. The man isn't going to retire unless he loses the ability or desire to play.

 

The baseball season is a long seasonand he will need to spend a lot of time away from his family. He may decide just the opposite, that with all of the money he has made it is not worth it to go to go through a season with a new team and people he doesn't know for comparatively little money.

 

I personally don't think he will retire, but I could see a scenario where it's possible.

Edited February 2, 2010 by ptatc

[Springfield Soxfan]

I sure hope not.

 

Reading this clip from the AP story on the trade today only reaffirms my opinion about Taveras...

 

The Reds thought they’d filled their long-standing hole at the top of the batting order when they signed Taveras to a two-year deal, but he struggled with injuries last season, batted .240 and had an on-base percentage of only .275 with 25 stolen bases. A free swinger, Taveras drew only 18 walks in 435 plate appearances.

Wow, I didn't realize that he only had 18 walks, horrible and not what we need!!

[That funky motion]

From Lynn Henning of the Detroit News:

 

Johnny Damon, the free-agent outfielder who helped the Yankees to a world championship in 2009, would be happy to talk with the Tigers.

 

“Johnny believes the addition of him to Detroit’s lineup would make the Tigers a winner,” Scott Boras, Damon’s agent, said during a Monday phone conversation.

 

Boras agrees.

 

“He’s batted .363 at Comerica Park, he has a .412 on-base percentage at Comerica,” Boras said.

 

Boras added, quoting Damon before Damon signed earlier contracts with the Yankees and Boston Red Sox: “I told you I could make the Yankees a winner, and I told you before I left Oakland (where he played in 2001) I could make a Boston a winner.”

 

Boras says Damon has the same disposition toward the Tigers in 2010: “I can make the Detroit Tigers a winner,” Boras said, citing Damon’s words to him in December.

 

Damon in Detroit makes sense for the Tigers offensively. He might even be a defensive upgrade to Carlos Guillen, as well, who attempted to man left field in Comerica Park on a regular basis for the first time ever in 2009. Guillen’s UZR/150 at the position, over a measly 42 games, was -12.7 and, given his injury-prone ways, it would be worthwhile to use him as the designated hitter rather than in the outfield. Damon has absolutely no arm, but his range is not as bad – it is definitely still a negative, according to RngR, though not a huge negative – as many perceive it to be.

 

Will Detroit be willing to spend on Damon, though? In the end, that’s the real question.

[witesoxfan]

Yep, it was Johnny Damon who made the Red Sox and Yankees winners. Scott Boras is f***ing delusional.

[beck72]

From Lynn Henning of the Detroit News:

 

Johnny Damon, the free-agent outfielder who helped the Yankees to a world championship in 2009, would be happy to talk with the Tigers.

 

“Johnny believes the addition of him to Detroit’s lineup would make the Tigers a winner,” Scott Boras, Damon’s agent, said during a Monday phone conversation.

 

Boras agrees.

 

“He’s batted .363 at Comerica Park, he has a .412 on-base percentage at Comerica,” Boras said.

 

Boras added, quoting Damon before Damon signed earlier contracts with the Yankees and Boston Red Sox: “I told you I could make the Yankees a winner, and I told you before I left Oakland (where he played in 2001) I could make a Boston a winner.”

 

Boras says Damon has the same disposition toward the Tigers in 2010: “I can make the Detroit Tigers a winner,” Boras said, citing Damon’s words to him in December.

 

Damon in Detroit makes sense for the Tigers offensively. He might even be a defensive upgrade to Carlos Guillen, as well, who attempted to man left field in Comerica Park on a regular basis for the first time ever in 2009. Guillen’s UZR/150 at the position, over a measly 42 games, was -12.7 and, given his injury-prone ways, it would be worthwhile to use him as the designated hitter rather than in the outfield. Damon has absolutely no arm, but his range is not as bad – it is definitely still a negative, according to RngR, though not a huge negative – as many perceive it to be.

 

Will Detroit be willing to spend on Damon, though? In the end, that’s the real question.

Sounds like Damon and Boras are so desperate to land a gig that they have to go out begging like this to Detroit.

[ThunderBolt]

Signing Damon would make the Granderson deal all the more nonsensical. If the Valverde signing hasn't done that already.

[southsider2k5]

Sounds like Damon and Boras are so desperate to land a gig that they have to go out begging like this to Detroit.

 

Exactly. He totally misplayed this one... It is almost like he is left field already.

[caulfield12]

If Damon retires, he won't make it to the HOF!

 

Oops Johnny, nobody thought you were going to actually make it (personal website glowing "bio" to the contrary) anyway, but there's nothing like a little false bravado and desperation...

 

Comments like this make me appreciate the likes of Jermaine Dye all the more. You'll never hear him make similar comments to what Boras and Damon are putting out there, too funny.

 

Exactly. He totally misplayed this one... It is almost like he is left field already.

Not to mention the fact that it probably doesn't sit too well with Carlos Guillen, either.

Edited February 2, 2010 by caulfield12

[heirdog]

I wonder if Tavares is coming now that that A's have cut him.

 

Why did Beane bring in Tavares and then cut him so fast? The A's are on the hook for the salary. Is this the Moneyball theory of leveraging inefficiencies in the game, in this case frivolous spending? Or is there some onus that all teams that don't pay the tax must spend money, like Stern dictates in the NBA?

[BaseballNick]

Signing Damon would make the Granderson deal all the more nonsensical. If the Valverde signing hasn't done that already.

 

How so? They traded for some really good prospects in Scherzer, Jackson, and Schlereth.

 

They just got younger and could potentially replace Granderson's bat with Damon's.

Edited February 2, 2010 by BaseballNick

[Balta1701]

How so? They traded for some really good prospects in Scherzer, Jackson, and Schlereth.

 

They just got younger and could potentially replace Granderson's bat with Damon's.

Don't forget though that getting Scherzer and Jackson also cost them their #2 starter, Edwin Jackson.

 

The reason why the Granderson move would make less sense is that they'd wind up with virtually zero cost savings, and they'd almost certainly be seriously downgrading from Granderson to Damon (Anyone think Damon's power won't vanish if he moves to Comerica from Yankee stadium?)

[chw42]

Don't forget though that getting Scherzer and Jackson also cost them their #2 starter, Edwin Jackson.

 

The reason why the Granderson move would make less sense is that they'd wind up with virtually zero cost savings, and they'd almost certainly be seriously downgrading from Granderson to Damon (Anyone think Damon's power won't vanish if he moves to Comerica from Yankee stadium?)

 

I wonder why they beg the Tigers...

 

It would take away a lot of his power.

[witesoxfan]

I wonder why they beg the Tigers...

 

It would take away a lot of his power.

 

Well duh, he'd hit .360 there so it wouldn't matter

[bigruss]

Well duh, he'd hit .360 there so it wouldn't matter

But wait, he wouldnt be facing Tiger pitching.

 

I never really got that stat, yes some ballparks make a difference but so does the quality of the pitching your facing. I understand the use of it when you compare your home ballpark to away games.

[witesoxfan]

But wait, he wouldnt be facing Tiger pitching.

 

I never really got that stat, yes some ballparks make a difference but so does the quality of the pitching your facing. I understand the use of it when you compare your home ballpark to away games.

 

It's about sample size too. He put up an OPS of less than .600 there last year, but it was in a limited sample size. Less than 200 plate appearances doesn't dictate how well a player is actually going to play there, and thus really makes Boras look dumber rather than smarter, and Dombrowski and company know that.

[ptatc]

It's about sample size too. He put up an OPS of less than .600 there last year, but it was in a limited sample size. Less than 200 plate appearances doesn't dictate how well a player is actually going to play there, and thus really makes Boras look dumber rather than smarter, and Dombrowski and company know that.

 

Out of curiousity, if you run the power analysis for an entire season what is the number of at bat needed to consider the methodolgy valid?

 

I've never seen this posted.

[witesoxfan]

Out of curiousity, if you run the power analysis for an entire season what is the number of at bat needed to consider the methodolgy valid?

 

I've never seen this posted.

http://books.google.com/books?id=uxdvwQdXb...%3F&f=false

 

I don't have the book with me, but this is part of the article from the book itself. This part of it divulges into whether certain hitters are simply better against certain pitchers or not, and the title of the article is something along the lines of "Does Mike Redmond own Tom Glavine?" These are looking very small sample sizes - I think the minimum they use is 25 plate appearances - but they likely range up into the area of 100+ plate appearances - Mike Redmond was 21 for 48 against Glavine with 3 walks, while Tony Gwynn was 39 for 91 against Greg Maddux with 10 walks and 2 sacrifices. The article basically points to the fact that, while these guys may hit a certain type of pitcher better than others (Redmond is known to hit lefties very well, and Gwynn was a fantastic hitter period), their actual splits against these single pitchers is not necessarily accurate of how good or bad they actually were simply because they didn't have enough plate appearances to prove it. This same thought process works exactly the same with a hitter in a specific ballpark as well - just because a hitter has a good stretch of about 185 plate appearances at a ballpark doesn't necessarily mean they are actually that good in the ballpark but rather they've had a good stretch.

 

Anyways, after rambling about information that is generally common sense, I would guess that you'd want to be looking at 400-500 plate appearances at the minimum, and the more and more you get the more statistically relevant it is. You probably want atleast a year's worth of data, which is around 500-600 plate appearances to determine traits of a hitter against a certain pitcher (whether specific or type) or ballpark. 185 plate appearances suggests basically that a guy got hot for 2 months worth, and he might put up worse numbers over the next 4 months worth of playing time.

 

[ptatc]

http://books.google.com/books?id=uxdvwQdXb...%3F&f=false

 

I don't have the book with me, but this is part of the article from the book itself. This part of it divulges into whether certain hitters are simply better against certain pitchers or not, and the title of the article is something along the lines of "Does Mike Redmond own Tom Glavine?" These are looking very small sample sizes - I think the minimum they use is 25 plate appearances - but they likely range up into the area of 100+ plate appearances - Mike Redmond was 21 for 48 against Glavine with 3 walks, while Tony Gwynn was 39 for 91 against Greg Maddux with 10 walks and 2 sacrifices. The article basically points to the fact that, while these guys may hit a certain type of pitcher better than others (Redmond is known to hit lefties very well, and Gwynn was a fantastic hitter period), their actual splits against these single pitchers is not necessarily accurate of how good or bad they actually were simply because they didn't have enough plate appearances to prove it. This same thought process works exactly the same with a hitter in a specific ballpark as well - just because a hitter has a good stretch of about 185 plate appearances at a ballpark doesn't necessarily mean they are actually that good in the ballpark but rather they've had a good stretch.

 

Anyways, after rambling about information that is generally common sense, I would guess that you'd want to be looking at 400-500 plate appearances at the minimum, and the more and more you get the more statistically relevant it is. You probably want atleast a year's worth of data, which is around 500-600 plate appearances to determine traits of a hitter against a certain pitcher (whether specific or type) or ballpark. 185 plate appearances suggests basically that a guy got hot for 2 months worth, and he might put up worse numbers over the next 4 months worth of playing time.

 

I understand what you mean and obviously the more the better. However, why not just run a power analysis to determine the actual number of at bats needed to make the statistical formula valid for a season or group of seasons then determine what is needed to be statistically significant. This is basic statistical analysis.

 

This is some of the problem I have with the SABR guys. I'm the first one to look at numbers with all of the research I do. However, if you are going to use any type of numerical analysis you need to back it up to make sure the numbers are meaningful.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Taveras for Linebrink and $1.5M in 2011 IMO. Then cut Taveras again and give Hudson Linebrink's pen slot. Get out of Linebrink's 2011 commitment at all costs!

[joeynach]

Taveras for Linebrink and $1.5M in 2011 IMO. Then cut Taveras again and give Hudson Linebrink's pen slot. Get out of Linebrink's 2011 commitment at all costs!

 

I have a better idea. Let Linebrink pitch until the All Star break and then cut him. Hes has proven historically he breaks down, looses velocity and command, or whatever his problem is in the 2nd half. So let him post his 2.5 ERA in the first half and just cut out the part where he posts an 8+ ERA in the second half. Release Linebrink on July 14th, 2010, that way u at least got ur moneys worth in the first half.