| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 02-07-2010 |
We're certainly into the dog days of the winter when it comes to player acquisitions, although considering the fact that Johnny Damon, Jermaine Dye, Pedro Martinez, Carlos Delgado and other big names have yet to find home, we'll probably see some more in the coming days leading up to spring training. But the Mariners are probably done adding impact talent for the rest of ... month.
Yes, I said 'month.' I think there's a good chance the M's get serious in trade talks during the Cactus League schedule, with Jose Lopez and/or involving a start pitcher or two, but until then, this may a good place to presume they are done until the pre-season begins.
So while I don't have any additional rumors to share, nor do I have any breakdowns or analysis coming just yet, I thought I'd take this time to catch everyone up on where we're headed between now and March.
Pitchers and catchers report in less than two weeks and the rest of the clan less than a week later, which, for me, means taking the thousands of words of prospect files and putting them in order for the 2009-2010 Dual Handbook.
The tentative release date remains March 1, but depending on how much time I find to spend on the construction, it could be sent out early, if anything.
This year's handbook will be a bit pared down as far as what goes in it. But here's a rough draft of the table of contents.
Draft Coverage
This year's draft coverage will, of course, be even better than last year. I'll see more players, talk to more scouts and front office executives and get some Prospect Insider exclusive video of as many prospects as I can.
I strongly suggest, however, that you subscribe to ESPN Insider so you can keep track of the daily happenings, get all of the video -- mine and Keith Law's, and get Keith's scouting reports to go along with them.
As for what will go up here at PI -- subscribers will get access to any and all video that I get with my own camera -- and in HD -- and any and all intel that goes with that. Not all the video will be premium, but a decent portion will be.
As for what I'll chase this year, it'll probably include a lot of Pac-10 talents, but will also include a number of local prep players that figure to be potential first-day selections.
It's a much better year for the Northwest as far as the draft is concerned and could include a Top 15 pick in Blanchett's Josh Sale, a left-handed hitting corner defender with plus raw power.
We're probably two weeks away from diving into the draft head first, bit I'll see three strong prospects the weekend of the 18th, including Bryce Harper, infielder LeVon Washington (Tampa's first-round pick last year) and lefty Jake Elipolous (Toronto's third-round pick last year).
The first Top 30 probably won't make it out until March at the earliest, while I get a feel for who the consensus top talents are, but after Harper the names being mentioned most now include Jameson Taillon and Anthony Renaudo.
But stay tuned, because it's going to be a lot of fun, again, despite the Mariners first selection coming at 42 or 43 (depending on whether Rod Barajas leaves the Blue Jays).
handbook-and-draft-updates
Comments
The following 104 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Chris Crawford on 02-07-2010 21:15:47 Gonna rock. Hard. |
| 2. By: ccroghan on 02-07-2010 22:07:37 Sounds awesome Jason. Very excited for the Handbook. Thanks for the update and keep up the good work! |
| 3. By: DAMellen on 02-07-2010 22:17:05 Yeah, what is going on with the upcoming draft? I'm assuming Osich's stock has dropped considerably? That's really too bad. I was hoping we'd get him. |
| 4. By: Jason A. Churchill on 02-07-2010 23:32:58 Osich will not be signing, most likely, though some team probably drafts him. He can redshirt, come back as a junior in 2011 and try to be a higher pick. But... if some club like Boston or New York -- that wisely do this all the time -- take a kid like Josh later, offer him top 100 money and start his pro career a year sooner, he may take the money. |
| 5. By: FatBat on 02-08-2010 11:39:56 Can't wait, look forward to it Jason. It should be a very interesting draft, considering the Mega hyped Bryce Harper one of my new Fav. Christian Colon and the plethra of pitching talent!!(not coming Seattles way). But Back to Harper...With out asking for a scouting report (I can wait on that) Jason, what do you think when the Nationals take him first over all, will happen when he starts facing faster competition? I mean High school is high school. Your Thoughts... |
| 6. By: Jerry on 02-08-2010 15:15:52 I could actually see Harper going from one of the more overhyped prospects in a while, to actually be undervalued by the time the draft rolls around. First, it always seems like scouts start to nit-pick with the elite players after watching them for months. Obviously, everyone knows about Harpers strengths, so I wouldn't be suprised if scouts start looking for the weaknesses more and more. Second, he will be playing against players far older than him all year. Not many draft-eligable players get put into that position. I think people will expect him to dominate, and perhaps be a little disappointed when he struggles a bit agains far more advanced competition. Who knows. If he still kicks ass, it will prove how awesome he really is. But the guy is still only 17. I wouldn't be suprised to see him put up unspectacular numbers, and for people to turn on him a bit. I don't think he will slide a lot, but this is a pretty unique situation. |
| 7. By: DMac33 on 02-08-2010 17:28:11 Honestly on a kid like Harper, and I haven't seen him play other than clips here and there, if you are judging him off of what he has done in high school, then you most likely are going to be missing the boat (true of most high schoolers). If you want a better measure of their ability, look at how they perform in their select leagues and tournaments around the country when they are consistently playing against elite level competition. As a case in point, my youngest brother will be a freshman in college this year. In his 3-year high school career in Texas, I'd estimate that he only faced no more than a half-dozen pitchers that threw in the 87-88 mph range or higher. However, playing in select leagues/tournaments, etc. throughout the state and regional/national tournaments, the frequency of seeing 87-88+ mph pitching was far more common. There was a kid on his high school team that could absolutely murder mediocre to above average high school pitching. But he couldn't hit the upper end high school pitching worth a damn. He's at a JC right now. |
| 8. By: Rudolf on 02-08-2010 18:40:33 Just throwing this out there... if his asking price comes down into the 3-5 million, 1 year range, could the M's put Felipe Lopez to use? I'm not sure where the ABs would come from, unless we traded Loafie. |
| 9. By: Jason A. Churchill on 02-08-2010 20:48:42 Re: Harper Thing is, he's doing it STILL at a JC versus 18-20 year old pitching. Remember, he's 17, and will be for the entire season. He will be 17 on draft day and for a few months after that, too. This is a junior in HS tearing up JC pitching. Kid is for real, but is not without holes. He's far and away, however, the top overall talent in the draft. As for Felipe, if he's the clubhouse problem I have heard he may be, that is probably one reason why he's still out there. The other is that his agent is Boras. |
| 10. By: Edman on 02-08-2010 21:37:32 Can we stop throwing Lopezerbation out there? Really, if Jack was gonna do something, he'd have done it by now. It's getting a little old. Either Jack doesn't want to trade him, or can't get back enough value to make it worthwhile. I have no idea what he's thinking. But, I suspect it's a bigger problem for bloggers, than it is for Jack. |
| 11. By: Rudolf on 02-08-2010 23:27:15 personality flaw much, Edman? It wasn't a question about trading Lopez; it was about acquiring Lopez. Did I mention a trade proposal? Did I give you the impression at all? You kill me dude. Who puts up with you in real life? |
| 12. By: Edman on 02-09-2010 01:43:08 Don't get into my personality. You're the one who overracted. I didn't make it personal, you did. You're the one who stated that you couldn't see where they couldn't bring in Filipe, unless they traded Jose. So don't get on my ass about being tired of the numerous proposals that result from statements like that. So what, you didn't mention specific players? You opened the door to the Jose Lopez trade possibility (or probability). That starts the whole rosterbation crap that isn't at all likely to happen. Just what internet fan proposal idea hasn't been beaten to death by now? |
| 13. By: JD Kickastro on 02-09-2010 03:02:11 Funny you say this, when in this post, Jason says "Yes, I said 'month.' I think there's a good chance the M's get serious in trade talks during the Cactus League schedule, with Jose Lopez and/or involving a start pitcher or two" |
| 14. By: Edman on 02-09-2010 04:27:25 Funny that, eh? I took it to mean, nothing on moving Lopez is likely to happen for the next month or so, so let's move on to other things. Not a lead-in to continue to rosterbate about who'll be at second. |
| 15. By: Rudolf on 02-09-2010 10:24:28 You talk about people and things as if they aren't in the room next to you. It's a cartoon-like pompousness to which I cannot relate, and take offense with. Felipe Lopez is available. If we could acquire him as a super-utility player it would be fantastic. I doubt the notion, but it is an interesting thought. Ultimately it would require moving Lopez. I'm not delving into the remote possibility of which superstar we could fetch with Lopez's potential 35 bombs in the right stadium. Maybe the possibility of Felipe Lopez on the M's is interesting to someone other than myself. Maybe they've thought it through more than I, or have heard something I haven't. |
| 16. By: DMac33 on 02-09-2010 10:42:00 Jason: No doubt that Harper is a unique talent given the fact that he's still HS aged and playing at the JC level. My point was more of a general swipe at the HS prospects and how people will go crazy about a kid because of what he does on the field in HS. More often than not, the competition that a kid faces in HS just isn't that good as most of the overall talent is spread all over the place - even in larger cities. Because of that, I'd definitely put more stock into the select leagues/tournament scene when it comes to HS baseball players than I would by watching what they did in 95% of their HS games. |
| 17. By: maqman on 02-09-2010 12:46:53 I'm with Edman on the Lopez trade/acquisition proposal that subject has been discussed to death. Whatever Z does or does not do with either Lopez in fine. |
| 18. By: JHamlin22 on 02-09-2010 12:48:06 Felipe Lopez would be a horrible signing. He threw an absolute fit and was a bad teammate in the clubhouse when he didn't start. Jose Lopez is only costing us a couple million dollars this year and is much better than Felipe. I know the comparison isn't between those two, because you are assuming we would trade Jose if we signed Felipe, but for the money we are paying Jose (and because I think Jack Z has already tried to dip in the trade discussions with him but there hasn't been much interest in him YET...), he is a great value offensively. I know HR's aren't everything, but you have to at least have SOME pop in the lineup. Without Jose Lopez, who on our team can hit more than 20 homeruns? Maybe Guttierez, or Bradley, or Griffey? The only way I would see a Jose Lopez trade being a good trade is if you got some power in return for him, which is a hard thing to do right now, especially with a cheap contract. Willingham's name has been thrown out there, but Jose's stats are better almost all around. Plus with Felipe, where would he play? He would be a bench player that plays when a position player needs a day off? He threw a fit with the Nationals when he didn't start, he definitely wouldn't be happy with what role we would give him in Seattle. Signing Felipe and putting him at 2nd and trading Jose would be sickening. |
| 19. By: Rudolf on 02-09-2010 14:20:57 I too am with Edman about trade proposals regarding Lopez, AGon, etc.. If Edman stated that air and water were important, I would agree with him there, too. Is this how "God save the queen" becomes "A dog ate his spleen"? |
| 20. By: Rudolf on 02-09-2010 14:38:26 I wasn't aware that Felipe Lopez threw fits when he didn't start. It seems to me, though, that if his reputation was blown out of proportion, and he were willing to play less than full time, Felipe would be much more palatable than Hannahan, and would solve some of the 'what if/when Wilson gets hurt' drama, as well as allow us to play matchups with Jose, let Figgins rest, and perhaps perform other little line-up maneuvers. This would only play if he would accept the role and if he were affordable. Since no one seems to be rushing out to sign him, the thought came to mind. The reason I brought up Jose Lopez was a disclaimer for my proposal, nothing more. |
| 21. By: Edman on 02-09-2010 14:54:38 If Jack wanted to know about Filipe Lopez, all he has to do it talk to Jack Wilson, since they played together in Pittsburgh. |
| 22. By: StandinPat on 02-09-2010 15:05:57 Why would Wilson make up fictional stories about players he's never played with? |
| 23. By: JHamlin22 on 02-09-2010 15:34:23 Yeah, Felipe Lopez never played in Pittsburgh. |
| 24. By: Edman on 02-09-2010 19:10:56 My bad. I saw Mil and thought Pittsburgh, for some reason. |
| 25. By: dewey on 02-09-2010 23:07:08 #18 jhamlin I have a question where you in the clunhouse and saw him throw this alleged fit? Where you his teamate and now he is a bad teamate or is this secondhand gossip?Jose is a much better offensive player but not as good with the glove.If we our gonna throw out rumurs lets hear players names who said that he was a bad teamate.Will Cliff Lee be ready to pitch game 2 in Oakland after this surgery? Do you think Philly new something before they traded him? |
| 26. By: JHamlin22 on 02-10-2010 01:16:06 Dewey - Are you serious? Do you even pay attention to baseball? Did you hear the reason why Felipe Lopez was traded to the Brewers? Belliard took his job and Lopez became a crybaby. It was widely known. Seriously man? |
| 27. By: JHamlin22 on 02-10-2010 01:32:14 Correction, Lopez was traded to STL right after the Nationals. Then with Arizona the following year and traded to Milwaukee. Felipe Lopez has played for 6 different teams in his 9 year career. If he isn't a crybaby or bad in the clubhouse or so good at defense, why does he get traded or have a new team so often? Why hasn't anyone offered him the contract he wants, or anything near it yet? He is a Scott Boras client and won't accept anything less than an everyday starting gig. His pouts with the Nationals were widely written about. He had Boras demand a trade from the Nationals and when he was asked about his quote was, "Bench? I'm not going to be happy on the bench No. Hell no." With the Mariners defense already being as good as it is and their offense being as mediocre as it is, I value Jose's bat more than I would value Felipe's glove. Jose Lopez is also going to be cheaper than what Boras is asking for Felipe. |
| 28. By: dewey on 02-10-2010 09:36:27 I nrvrt saw a player quoted as saying he was a bad teamate thaqt was my point.Eddie Muttay was considered a bad guy because he didnt like to talk to the media could this be the same thing ? That was my thoughtIs everyone of Boras clients not trying to get the most money? I also like Jose Lopez more ban a man not ask a question without getting buried ? I would say i do pay attention to baseball quite a bit. |
| 29. By: JHamlin22 on 02-10-2010 15:01:35 You can definitely ask that question, but you will most likely get the same answer every time. On this team at this time, Jose Lopez's bat is a lot more valuable than Felipe Lopez's defense would be. That being said, if you could get a good bat to put in LF for Jose Lopez, then that would maybe be worth it...maybe, depending on how our LF situation folds out. |
| 30. By: jgstecker on 02-10-2010 15:59:10 Jason~ Just wondering if you know what Ryan Feierabend's story is these days? He seems to have survived the off-season on the 40-man. Does the organization think he has any value still? |
| 31. By: Jason A. Churchill on 02-11-2010 17:13:56 Problem with that, JHamlin, is that Felipe Lopez gets on base and Jose does not. So I hope you aren't saying Jose is a better hitter, because there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim. As for FLopez's off-field issues -- they are real. I don't know the specifics, but I'd guess that at least eight or 10 baseball people have said he's not ideal for the clubhouse. However, the same also think Boras is as much or more the reason he still hasn't signed as anything else. jg, If they needed to, they would have DFA'd Ryan, but this organization, as it always has been, doesn't like taking the opportunity from a player because of injury. Ryan may have cleared waivers anyway, but was as likely to be picked up as Gaby. I know of one team for sure that would have seriously considered taking a flier on him. He's expecting to be healthy, though, but I wonder with already spotty command, how well he pitches in 2010, even if his velo is back to 89-92. |
| 32. By: JHamlin22 on 02-11-2010 19:21:39 There is no question that Felipe gets on base more, but that is what we have Ichiro and Chone Figgins at the top of the lineup for. Jose Lopez is one of our few people on the team who can hit 25 homeruns and get 100 rbi's. For how the M's lineup looks right now, Jose Lopez is much more valueable than Felipe Lopez would be. Felipe has had only one season where he had more than 11 HR's or 57 RBI's in a season. Felipe is a career .269 hitter and Lopez is a career .271 hitter (although Felipe has had a better average the past few years). You can have all of the people who have high on base percentages in the lineup as you want, but if you have nobody who can drive in those people on base, then your offense will be a failure. |
| 33. By: FelixElRey on 02-11-2010 19:37:03 The hardcore stat guys on this site will probably not accept your traditional statistics are a measure of true value. That aside, if you load up your lineup with guys that get on base, runs will undoubtedly trickle across the plate. If you put Lopez behind 2 or 3 guys that get on base, he may hit into a double play or strikeout 4 times before he gaps one or hits a homer. |
| 34. By: JHamlin22 on 02-11-2010 19:54:51 Don't get me started with the hardcore stat guys. Some of that stuff is absolutely ridiculous. While some of it may be useful, some of it is nothing more than math nerds looking for new stats to make up. I know I will get slammed for saying that, but I don't really care. That being said, do you think that having Felipe Lopez in our lineup instead of Jose Lopez would be an improvement? If you take Jose Lopez out of our lineup, the next highest RBI guy on our team is 70 I believe, that being Franklin Guitierrez. What I am basically trying to say, is that Jose Lopez is more valuable to the Mariner's lineup than Felipe Lopez would be. Just my opinion though. I am sure I will get attacked for this post, so go at it. |
| 35. By: d2ret on 02-11-2010 20:11:01 Bloggers NOW!! ATTAAAAACK!!! |
| 36. By: FelixElRey on 02-11-2010 20:18:30 I'm not familiar enough with Felipe to make the argument worthwhile. My only point is that you don't have to have an "RBI guy" to get runs in if you've got 4-5 guys in a row who get on base. If Felipe, or whoever, just does their thing with 1-2 guys on base, they pick up RBIs by accident. |
| 37. By: rjfrik on 02-11-2010 20:18:48 Hamlin. I'm sorry but I have to chime in. You said "You can have all of the people who have high on base percentages in the lineup as you want, but if you have nobody who can drive in those people on base, then your offense will be a failure." I'm sorry but this statement is about as false as one can be. If you have 9 players that have an OBP of .450 the offense would be the furthest thing from a failure. That would mean that every man has a 45% chance of getting on base. With three outs to every inning and nine innings to a game you would score on average 7.67 runs a game and this is only if every time a man reached base, the man and the base runners, only moved up on base at a time. So all hits are either infield singles or walks. To put this in perspective the World Series Champs average 5.64 runs a game last year. So this team, that you claim, would be a failure would score over 2 more runs a game then the world champs. Your logic is completely flawed. Also I'm sure if guys averaged an OBP of .450 most likely they are fast, so I could see them hitting plenty of doubles and triples and of course advancing more then one base at a time. And we aren't even talking about stealing bases. So I'm sure that a starting nine would actually go a couple runs better then the 7.67 runs a game. If you are going to spout off about stats, at least know what you are talking about. Thanks |
| 38. By: StensonLarry on 02-11-2010 20:25:54 haha, i think rjfrik just had the worst argument of all time. that was a pretty good laugher. its simple guys. you need run producers in the lineup. if you didn't, why wouldn't a team go after signing a bunch of chone figgins type players? lets get juan pierre and bat him in the 4 hole. what a joke. |
| 39. By: shortstop9 on 02-11-2010 20:36:32 I totally agree.Why do you never see teams bat little OB guys 3-5? You do need pop in those spots.You do need big innings to win games once in a while. |
| 40. By: pwhit44 on 02-11-2010 20:37:30 He's actually correct, pal. You're right, it is helpful to have a guy or two who have high SLG percentages. Most good teams have them. But he's absolutely and completely right -- a team with a lineup of players with .450 OBP (even without a single power hitter), would absolutely destroy the opposition. They would utterly murder the league. And they wouldn't need a single power hitter. Now, no one has a lineup full of .450 OBP guys. But he's just illustrating a point. And he's right. You are flat wrong. |
| 41. By: StensonLarry on 02-11-2010 20:41:48 so you would rather have a lineup full of chone figgins than a lineup full of ryan howards? |
| 42. By: StandinPat on 02-11-2010 21:45:23 "so you would rather have a lineup full of chone figgins than a lineup full of ryan howards?" What the shit are you talking about? How are you coming to the conclusion that anyone here is actually trying to argue that Figgins is a better hitter than Howard? First off, Howard has a higher career OBP than Figgins, but more importantly he has a higher wOBA which takes into acct both OBP and SLG, but weights them much more accurately than just looking at OPS. But basically it all boils down to common sense. Your argument is that hitters with more power have a higher likely-hood of driving in runs, which is correct, but the notion that that higher likely-hood completely outweighs any potential increases in chances at driving in runs is just plain stupid. If a team with more power has a 40% chance of driving in any runner that gets on base, and puts 15 runners on base per game, they will score 6 runs. If a team with less power will only drive in 30% on the men on base, but puts 20 men on a game, because of a higher OBP, then they two will score 6 runs a game. By suggesting that a team can't score runs without having players with "pop" and meanwhile ignoring how often that teams players get on base, completely discounts 50% of the run scoring process. |
| 43. By: DKulich44 on 02-11-2010 21:51:24 I love how when talking baseball, math is the crazy science that doesn't make any sense, and gut instinct is the science we're supposed to buy and take for fact. Seems kind of backwards doesn't it? |
| 44. By: dewey on 02-11-2010 23:04:52 Jhamlin we do agree on 1 thing the nerds and stats crap has gotten so far out of hand its sad.I heard Harold Reynolds and Rosenthal both say enough is enough allready.These guys can make numbers look any way they want just depends on what they want the numbers to say. |
| 45. By: rjfrik on 02-11-2010 23:38:12 Larry, Shortstop, Dewey, I'm not twisting numbers at all. I'm not making up some sort of stat out of my ass. I'm not a stat nerd, to the contrary, I'm a baseball loyalist, an old school baseball mind, but facts are facts. I'm illustrating a point. Hamlin was saying something that is absolutely false. The fact is that a roster of high OBP guys would win just like a roster full of high SLG guys or a mix of both. OBP and SLG have been a part of baseball for over 100 years. Guys like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth had SLG and OBP percentages. These stats are a fabric of baseball. I'm not trying to sound elitist here, but if this is a game you truly love, have ever played or even just follow, you should really educate yourself with the stats of the game, what they mean and how they are/can be implemented into the roster of your favorite ball clubs. This is the most sophisticated game there is, it's the greatest game ever invented. Honestly it's a strategy game just as much as it's an athletic game, that's what makes it so FUN. It's a lot like chess, you need to learn all the moves to excel at the game. Take some time to learn the basics. |
| 46. By: pwhit44 on 02-12-2010 00:15:44 "so you would rather have a lineup full of chone figgins than a lineup full of ryan howards?" No, Larry. Obviously, you would fill a lineup with .400 OBP and .600 SLG like 2006 Ryan Howard if you could. If you don't understand that wasn't what I was saying, I'm not really sure what to say. Because I didn't say that. All we're trying to point out is that "run producer" is of an ambiguous term, and that power isn't the only way to produce runs. In the absence of power, assembling a lineup of high OBP can produce runs. Would it be nice to have some power? Heck yeah! I love home runs. But the Mariners don't have that right now, and they've done the best they can to try to mitigate that with people who can get on base a lot. And they don't fit the ".450 OBP" example that "rjfrik" gave. They have three guys who might be right around .400 OBP. They clearly have issues, and it would be nice to have some power. But he made a totally legitimate point using a hypothetical example. And he's still right. Here's a question for you: Would you rather have A) a lineup of eight .300 OBP players and one Ryan Howard, or B) a lineup of nine .400 OBP players? I'd be interested to know. Because option A) would be the worst lineup in the league. |
| 47. By: JHamlin22 on 02-12-2010 00:23:56 This discussion has gotten a little off topic, but I think we can all agree that the best lineup has a mixture of the two. That is what I have been trying to say. I just think Jose Lopez is more valuable to our lineup than Felipe Lopez would be. Just my opinion though. |
| 48. By: StandinPat on 02-12-2010 00:27:19 So now we're living in a world where Jose Lopez is a mixture of both good OBP and good SLG......ok |
| 49. By: JHamlin22 on 02-12-2010 00:31:54 StandinPat - I never said that. I said a lineup has to have a mixture of the two. Jose Lopez is (sadly) our best power threat and can drive in 100 runs. I think that is more valuable to our lineup than a OBP guy like Felipe Lopez would be in his place. A good LINEUP has a mixture of the two. I never said Jose Lopez had a mixture of the two. |
| 50. By: StandinPat on 02-12-2010 00:40:59 In the first half of last year, when Branyan was healthy, he posted a .573 SLG and had 49 RBI, Ryan Howard, for example, had a SLG of .529 and had 67 RBI.... which should be impossible given how having an individual with a higher slugging percentage is so much more important than having a bunch on players that get on base is to scoring runs. |
| 51. By: StandinPat on 02-12-2010 00:45:42 Oh and Hamlin, Lopez has slightly above average power, yet horrible, horrible onbase skills. How is that a more valuable skillset than being average at both? |
| 52. By: JHamlin22 on 02-12-2010 00:47:38 You are not getting what I am trying to say Pat. I give up with you. Let's just move on. |
| 53. By: StandinPat on 02-12-2010 00:59:38 Actually I completely get what you are saying, but unfortunately its just completely wrong. Jose Lopez has been slightly below average at the plate the past two years, his best two years. Replacing him with an above average, or even completely average, player would make the offense better. Period. Ichiro is a better hitter than Jose, and would add more runs to your offense, more matter where he hit, than would Lopez. There is a reason there are more "should Ichiro hit 3rd" and "Should Lopez be traded" talk, than vice versa. |
| 54. By: Edman on 02-12-2010 01:37:31 Glad I sat this one out. I find it humorous that some believe the game of baseball is so easy, that they can make statements about who's right, who's wrong and what's best. Fact is, the is no one formula. And above any one particular stat or belief, it takes balance in a line-up to promote winning. All OBP guys, all average guys, all power guys.....it's not an all anything. It takes balance, because nobody has a line-up with nine of those guys. The A's for a few years, led the league in OBP. How many of those teams won a World Series? Or, made it to a Championship Series? If it was so damn easy to simply use a math equation, the game would be run by PhD's with math degrees. |
| 55. By: rjfrik on 02-12-2010 02:49:46 "The A's for a few years, led the league in OBP. How many of those teams won a World Series? Or, made it to a Championship Series?" Once again, you guys need to actually know what you are talking about to make an argument. Edman this statement is false. The A's have led the league in OPB one time in the last 60 years, 1992, which ranks only the 20th best in franchise history at a paltry .344. By the way that 1992 A's team in fact won their league and made it to the AL Championship game and lost 4-2 to the Bluejays. In fact if you were to look at the top 20 OBP seasons in the A's franchise history only 4 seasons would come up that have occurred in the last 50 years. The 2000 A's had a .360 OBP which was the 5th best in baseball. It was the 8th best OPB in franchise history. The 1999 A's had a .350 OBP which was the 6th best in baseball. It was the 12th best OPB in franchise history. The 2001 A's had a .345 OBP which was the 5th best in baseball. It was the 18th best OPB in franchise history. Then of course there was the 1992 A's who led the league and went on to the AL Championship Game. So to the contrary the only time they led the league they went to the AL Championship game. Maybe you were referring to the 99-01 A's but they never led the league, never higher then 5th. |
| 56. By: smartie11 on 02-12-2010 09:03:02 I tried to hold out on the new stats as long as i could but if you really think about it they make to much sense. You say we need a run producer but thats such a general term. If a guy hits .300 and has an OBP around .400 and hes hitting behind ichiro and figgins, he's gonna end up with a lot of rbi's no matter how many HR's he hits. Most likely more than J Lopez would get hitting there. Power is not the only way to produce a run. |
| 57. By: Edman on 02-12-2010 10:44:14 smartie.....those kind of generalizations are what makes some people disbelievers. On paper, that may be true. But, what does that same batter hit with runners in scoring position? It's an absolute flaw in the math to factor out human factors. Some hitters are better than others, in pressure situations. To say that a hitter with a .300 average is going to always average 3 hits in 10 attempts is greatly exhaggerated. What if he gets those three hits, consistantly, when there is nobody in scoring position? Stats are a good assessment tool, but they aren't absolute. It still takes observation and an in-depth review of all statistics. It requires both math and observation. Math will never tell you that a small adjustment could add 50 points to a hitter's average. And rif, yes, I generalized. BFD. Way to distract from the point of the message, to pick apart something that has nothing to with it's intent. And that, is why some people don't like statheads, because they concentrate too much on the spec of paint that's slightly discolored, so they can find a flaw in what might be a beautiful painting, when you step back and look. |
| 58. By: smartie11 on 02-12-2010 11:25:19 I would agree with that edman. The best part about baseball is all the factors that go into it but that a different argument. You could still have a very "clutch" hitter who doesn't hit many homeruns driving in 100 runs with players like ichiro and figgin on base in front of him. |
| 59. By: Edman on 02-12-2010 12:44:06 Smartie, it's exactly the point JZ raised when he talked about Kotchman. No, he's not the prototypical basher at first. But, if he meets the potential that was expected of him, he could generate enough extra-base hits to make him a value. You don't need homeruns, necessarily. But, you at least need good gap power. The point has been raised many times about the Cardinal and Yankee teams of the 90's that won a lot of games without the prototypical homerun hitters in the lineup. But, they both had guys who could set the table, and generate doubles and triples in the middle. There's no one formula. But, anyone who thinks that OBP by itself is all that's important, is mistaken, IMO. |
| 60. By: rjfrik on 02-12-2010 14:41:55 Edman, Nice attempt at spin my friend. LOL You said this "Way to distract from the point of the message, to pick apart something that has nothing to with it's intent." I didn't distract from the point of the message at all, I was pointing out that you and your beliefs on OPB are false and I proved it by presenting facts. This thing stated when someone made this ridiculous comment "You can have all of the people who have high on base percentages in the lineup as you want, but if you have nobody who can drive in those people on base, then your offense will be a failure" It is just flat out incorrect, I gave evidence supporting the fact that it is incorrect. You then agreed with the incorrect comment and your "fact" was this comment "The A's for a few years, led the league in OBP. How many of those teams won a World Series? Or, made it to a Championship Series?" I then pointed out that you were in fact incorrect in that statement as the A's never led the league in OBP for a few years and to the contrary the only time the A's did lead the league in OBP they went on to the AL Championship game and lost to Toronto 4-2. You guys may not like what the facts say, but the fact are the facts. If you had a lineup of nine guys that batted .333 with an OPB of .444 you dont' think you would kill baseball? You can ask any coach, player, front office type or "stat head" that question and they all would tell you the same thing. Yes. Am I for a lineup like this? No I like Homeruns as much as the next guy. But there is no reason to be ignorant and that is what most of you are being. |
| 61. By: Edman on 02-12-2010 16:19:08 And yet another example of why some can't stand those who quote stats. They are intolerant of those who don't agree that their science is exact. I'd rather be ignorant and open-minded. Then arrogant and absolute. I stand corrected that I didn't say "Were near the top of the league in OBP". If being that exact floats your boat, have fun. I won't let the game I love boil down to mincing words and being over-analyzed by a computer. I love to watch Star Trek, but when I have a need to know the Klingon language, to the point where I can tell that someone used the syntax incorrectly, that's when I know I have too much time on my hands. |
| 62. By: JHamlin22 on 02-12-2010 16:53:14 rjfrik, Just asking a question here, nothing personal about it, I am just wondering...have you ever played competitive baseball before? Just wondering...because most people who have played the game don't go as in depth in stats as you do. I doubt Bobby Cox and Joe Torre base all their decisions on nothing but the in-depth stats like you do. Baseball is a game of gut decisions and seeing things in players that stats can't reflect. There are SO many stats in baseball that anyone can find a stat somewhere that will reflect their opinion. That is why I find some of the hardcore stat guys completely ridiculous. Baseball is much more than that. MUCH more. |
| 63. By: ARock on 02-12-2010 17:48:06 "rjfrik, Just asking a question here, nothing personal about it, I am just wondering...have you ever played competitive baseball before? ..." Now this thread has everything! :) Yes, everyone promoting the use of statistical analysis is a nerd, lives in their mom's basement, and has never actually played baseball before. "On paper, that may be true. But, what does that same batter hit with runners in scoring position? It's an absolute flaw in the math to factor out human factors. Some hitters are better than others, in pressure situations. To say that a hitter with a .300 average is going to always average 3 hits in 10 attempts is greatly exhaggerated. What if he gets those three hits, consistantly, when there is nobody in scoring position?" You know, maybe there have been some statistical studies on this as well. They might even have found that the hitters that perform well in clutch situations one year have almost no relation to those who perform well in the clutch the next year. Tom Tango, who works for the Mariners, might even have done a study in which he discovered how much of clutch hitting is a skill that some players have (related to having good bat control). But we shouldnt listen to these people, because they live in their mothers basements, go to sleep with their spreadsheets, and never even played in little league. |
| 64. By: JHamlin22 on 02-12-2010 17:52:06 Arock - Seriously man? Really? That is what you got out of what I said? You are a lost cause. |
| 65. By: ARock on 02-12-2010 17:53:55 "These guys can make numbers look any way they want just depends on what they want the numbers to say." Don't pay attention to any 'analyst' who does this. Any good analyzer of baseball talent will use a consistnet methodology accurately, to inform their opinion, not the other way around. Some analysts being idiots doesnt mean they all are. |
| 66. By: rjfrik on 02-12-2010 19:59:03 You guys are too funny. Yes I played competitive baseball all through High School and at the University of Oregon. My entire point of this argument was that the original statement "You can have all of the people who have high on base percentages in the lineup as you want, but if you have nobody who can drive in those people on base, then your offense will be a failure" was false. I proved that this was false by basic facts. Some people chose to ignore the hard facts and claim that the facts were wrong. They based their decision on logic like this statement "The A's for a few years, led the league in OBP. How many of those teams won a World Series? Or, made it to a Championship Series?" And then I proved that statement was false by, once again, facts. By doing so I get labeled a stat head, stat nerd, a guy who lives in my moms basement, made up or twisted numbers to support my argument. When the fact is all I am is a baseball loyalist. I wasn't trying to start quarrel with anyone. All I was trying to do was educate people on one of the facts of the game. A stat that has been a part of the game for over a 100 years. By the way Edman, "the statement I'd rather be ignorant and open-minded." is hilarious. You do know that's about the biggest oxymoron that one could say. |
| 67. By: Plaws on 02-12-2010 21:15:25 "Stats Geeks" or whatever you want to call them, tend to use a scientific method that looks for what the outcomes produced, not what they want to find. They know about small sample size and the arguments against here have been of the"in this particular instance...therefore" variety. So I can say "Bill Bavasi liked 'Run Producers' and you see where that got him" and be as bad as you're claiming stat-heads are, yet it's something they wouldn't do. That is the smllest of sample size and isn't wholly indicative of why Bavasi was bad in the first place. You use the example to support your argument that stats don't tell the whole story, without telling the whole story. The arguments against looking at statistics I've seen here are nonsense. Statheads look at multiple stats, not just wOBA or OPS. For instance if a stathead was curious how clutch Jose Lopez was in 2009 they could look up Clutch(-3.2) , or Leverage Index' (Like PLI 1.00), Win Probability Added (0.14), Base Runners Scored %(18% which is lower than his 19% GIDP) RISP(.255), but most true statheads would look up all available pertinent information and not just love one stat. In case you missed it, Jose Lopez was not "Clutch" in 2009. His RBI's appear to have been more because of where he hit in the order and the sheer quantity of base-runners on for him (huh, OBP might be good for someting) than some clutch-run-producer skill that doesn't bear out in any of the statistics geared towards revealing such. The propaganda and cliche's I'm hearing have no value in comparison to the stats you're trying to dog on. Join the Dark side. |
| 68. By: JHamlin22 on 02-12-2010 21:17:54 All I can say to Plaws post is...yikes. rjfrik - My original statement that started this whole mess was that I believe Jose Lopez is more valuable to the Mariner's lineup than Felipe Lopez would be. I am curious to hear what you think. Would you rather have Felipe Lopez or Jose Lopez in our lineup? |
| 69. By: Plaws on 02-12-2010 21:42:10 Jose has played 2nd and 1st, Felipe has played 1st, 2nd, 3rd, SS, LF and RF. Felipe has speed, OBP and defensive flexibility as well as a bit better glove at 2nd to make up for the power difference and then some. Since the personality is an issue and the price is certainly higher it's not going to happen anyway. Jose Lopez isn't horrible, but there's far more to producing runs than HR and RBI and he's around average at everything else. If the character questions weren't there I'd pick Felipe. He's more valuable in every skill based aspect that isn't extra base hits. Aside from situational leverage, a Run is a Run and Jose doesn't produce as many on both sides of the ledger as Felipe. |
| 70. By: dewey on 02-12-2010 23:58:35 I would rather have both Lopezs Jose at first Felipe at second and no Kotchman myself he brings no pop at 1st and no speed .Yes he is a very good defender but i will say it one more time you have to score runs to play in October in the A.L. |
| 71. By: Edman on 02-13-2010 02:32:59 Yes, rif, I do realize what I wrote. you're the one who enjoys labeling others "ignorant". Just applying your label. |
| 72. By: Jackson on 02-13-2010 16:20:03 Jose Lopez loses a lot of his value if you move him from second to first. |
| 73. By: dewey on 02-13-2010 17:10:35 Value for what? A trade? Last time i checked we actually have a chance to contend finally after 5 years of the Bavasi plan and as we all know that sucked!We have Jose for 2 more years he has a great contract if we move him for 1 year what does it hurt? I want to see us play 1 playoff game soon its been a long cold run watching everyone else play in the playoffs and World Series hell even Tampa and Houston have gotten there we havent and me as one fan is starting to think it will never happen in my life time.So i dont care how its done our who plays what but please lets just get into the playoffs soon .My faith is in Jack i think he is a cat burgular who slips in and out in the middle of the night and gets deals done without anyone knowing and i kind of like his style! |
| 74. By: Chris Crawford on 02-13-2010 20:42:55 One thing we have to keep in mind is...not all stats are created equally. The problem with OPS is that it tries to do just that, make on base percentage and slugging equal. They aren't. Jose Lopez is a below average offensive player as long as he continues to get on base around 30 to 31 percent of the time...it's just not good enough. Yes, at this point Kotchman doesn't have as much power as Lopez...but the fact of the matter is that he 1. plays better defense at the position and 2. gets on base at a much higher rate. Lopez the 1B doesn't make sense. |
| 75. By: marinermanmatt on 02-13-2010 23:12:24 Question about the handbook, who gets access to it? Is it an online e-book or a hardcopy? Do we have to order it or is it free, or subscriber only? (If there was someplace I could have easily found this information but seem to have overlooked I apologize in advance for wasting a post.) |
| 76. By: Jackson on 02-13-2010 23:23:24 dewey, see this: http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2009/12/20/1210466/why-jose-lopez-at-first-base-is-a |
| 77. By: furlong on 02-14-2010 09:25:31 I think some of the so called experts on this site might be choking on their grits when they see Jose Lopez on the cover of the 2010 media guide. |
| 78. By: DKulich44 on 02-14-2010 10:06:02 Career SLG%: Jose Lopez: .412 Milton Bradley: .450 Ichiro: .438 Ryan Garko: .441 Even if a so called "run producer" or "power bat" is actually a real thing and this lineup needs it, just because Jose Lopez led the team in RBIs one season does not make him one. Garko knocked in 90 runs last year, why isn't he being defended as a bona-fide run producer? Jorge Cantu somehow had 100 RBI in Florida last year, would we consider him to be that run producer? Of players with more than 90 RBI, Lopez has the lowest OBP and 2nd lowest SLG. His SLG% last year eclipsed his previous career high by 20 points, and his OBP was close to the bottom of every day players. While he's a useful piece, he probably has more value in trade than he does as a Mariner, which is why its suggested we move him. I'm not going to complain that he's still here, but I'm not crying if he's traded to bring back something of value either. Moving him to first base would be a disaster, as he'd probably be well below league average with the bat from that position. And what does being on the cover of anything have to do with player analysis. |
| 79. By: DKulich44 on 02-14-2010 15:03:44 Also, on the cover of the media guide I've seen are Gutierrez, Felix, Ichiro, and Griffey. Not sure where you saw Lopez. |
| 80. By: FelixElRey on 02-14-2010 19:56:48 Jose's numbers actually prove the point that if you put tons of guys on base in front someone, anyone becomes a "run producer". |
| 81. By: Edman on 02-15-2010 11:04:13 I don't give a rip, one way or the other, Felix. It does prove that people are willing to accept generalizations. Until the numbers are broken down fairly, and with unbiased objectivity, that's a pretty shallow statement. |
| 82. By: DKulich44 on 02-15-2010 11:32:38 Edman, I'm actually a fan of Lopez, don't mind him, hope he does awesome. I think his numbers have been broken down more than fairly. He had a career high SLG, and a terrible OBP last year. He hit worse than average in clutch situations, and worse with runners on base. In fact, Plaws did exactly what you asked. I compared him to similar (or better) hitters, and made the point that no one is defending that these guys are run producers like they have with Lopez. The generalizations being made are the ones that state that Jose Lopez is a run producer because he lead a team (with a well below average offense, and an injured Russell Branyan) in RBIs for one year. Hitting behind Ichiro, Branyan, Gutierrez, the three best hitters on the baseball club certainly helped his RBI numbers, and you should expect any league average ballplayer to be able to do what Lopez did last year. It's just insane that the people looking at this from all angles (using stats, scouting, and facts) are the ones being labeled as close minded. Lopez doesn't have the value to the Mariners that he does other teams because of his pull happy ways in Safeco, so some one may give something of value for a power hitting 2B that plays decent defense. If Lopez could get on base at a higher clip than 30% of the time, he'd be extremely valuable, but until then, he's average with a good contract. |
| 83. By: Plaws on 02-15-2010 23:48:36 Edman, If by 'numbers broken down' you mean 'explained' then it'd seem like I was hi-jacking a thread to basically create my own. I gave a large group of statistics and didn't avoid any to prove a point. I was curious where they'd lead. I didn't say that two of those '09 numbers were career lows, but he's never had a solid year in any group of those stats. There's far more info in the group of numbers I provided than 25HR and 96RBI. I can understand wanting context for some of those numbers, but I tried to avoid the more difficult to understand metrics. Since Base-runners Scored % is one that sticks out to me, '09 AL average BRS% is 15%. Lopez' 18% in 2009 was a career high, tied for 45th (through 64th) in the AL. His 19% GIDP (AL avg. 10%) was tied for 5th (through 6th) worst among AL hitters with at least 100 hits. If you want to know about another particular stat or 2 I have no problem answering but I can't know what you specifically want broken down unless you're specific. What do you find biased or unobjective about me showing the easier to understand stats (I avoided some of the more complex simply because they're more complex) that have been designed to study or at least speak to how 'clutch' someone is? I didn't go into what I was researching with a goal other than to find out how he did and I stat-checked only when I got to that spot in the response. I don't see how my wording (prior to the stats) sounds biased at all. His career stats certainly biased me at that point but what they show seem deserving of that bias. I am also biased against incorrect blanket statements. Jose Lopez' 429 Base Runners to start a PA led the M's as the only one over league avg./600PA(379) (Gutierrez 350, Branyan 340) and was 17th most in the AL (Teixeira, Cano led league). Do you find that more indicative? Again, I don't have a problem with Lopez. He's highly likely to be our 2nd baseman through this year and they can win with his production. I am just tired of hearing how important his bat is to drive in runs when that's not even true. The onus should be on the people making the claims to prove it, but they obviously think '25HR, 96RBI's' is proof enough. Reality is far more complex. |
| 84. By: on 02-15-2010 23:59:44 Edman, If by 'numbers broken down' you mean 'explained' then it'd seem like I was hi-jacking a thread to basically create my own. I gave a large group of statistics and didn't avoid any to prove a point. I was curious where they'd lead. I didn't say that two of those '09 numbers were career lows, but he's never had a solid year in any group of those stats. There's far more info in the group of numbers I provided than 25HR and 96RBI. I can understand wanting context for some of those numbers, but I tried to avoid the more difficult to understand metrics. Since Base-runners Scored % is one that sticks out to me, '09 AL average BRS% is 15%. Lopez' 18% in 2009 was a career high, tied for 45th (through 64th) in the AL. His 19% GIDP (AL avg. 10%) was tied for 5th (through 6th) worst among AL hitters with at least 100 hits. If you want to know about another particular stat or 2 I have no problem answering but I can't know what you specifically want broken down unless you're specific. What do you find biased or unobjective about me showing the easier to understand stats (I avoided some of the more complex simply because they're more complex) that have been designed to study or at least speak to how 'clutch' someone is? I didn't go into what I was researching with a goal other than to find out how he did and I stat-checked only when I got to that spot in the response. I don't see how my wording (prior to the stats) sounds biased at all. His career stats certainly biased me at that point but what they show seem deserving of that bias. I am also biased against incorrect blanket statements. Jose Lopez' 429 Base Runners to start a PA led the M's as the only one over league avg./600PA(379) (Gutierrez 350, Branyan 340) and was 17th most in the AL (Teixeira, Cano led league). Do you find that more indicative? Again, I don't have a problem with Lopez. He's highly likely to be our 2nd baseman through this year and they can win with his production. I am just tired of hearing how important his bat is to drive in runs when that's not even true. The onus should be on the people making the claims to prove it, but they obviously think '25HR, 96RBI's' is proof enough. Reality is far more complex. |
| 85. By: FWBrodie on 02-16-2010 03:22:46 Jason, tried to e-mail you via the "Contact" tab on the top of the page, but it was super sketchy (don't think it got sent). Is it broken or what? I have a question for you. |
| 86. By: dewey on 02-16-2010 05:59:32 That comment it just shows anyone can be a RBI guy if alot of runners our on base in front of him.Thats bullshit there guys who hit better with runners in scoring position and others who our 300 hiyyers with no one on that my friend is something they call clutch i think? Lopez i have no idea if he is either but i heard one comment Kotchman hasnt domne it yet? Who is older him our Lopez? One last time i will say this YOU HAVE TO SCORE RUNS TO PLAY IN OCTOBER IN THE A.L. we will not score enough runs period!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| 87. By: marinermanmatt on 02-16-2010 08:30:08 Okay, let's take a look at what our "run producer" Jose Lopez did last year with RISP vs. a guy like Casey Kotchman. (Note: I'd use better statistics than these usually but most here seem to be allergic to them.) Lopez: 157 AB .255/.307/.395 4HR 62 RBI Kotchman: 103 AB .282/.394/.417 2HR 39 RBI Now say you give Kotchman another couple of AB to tie with Lopez. Kotchman gets to 59 RBI (59.45) and 3 HR (2.93). Now Kotchman is not a guy known for his RBI, but you stick him in front of just as many guys on base and you can easily get the same production as Lopez, and even better I'd argue because he also got on base more for other people to drive him in. Who would you rather have hit with RISP? |
| 88. By: DMac33 on 02-16-2010 11:14:43 Some of the arguments sound great in theory but play out in reality quite poorly. The hypothetical of "what if you had everybody in the lineup that had an on-base % of .450" is absurd and crazy. The rationale is overly simplistic, makes some very generic assumptions, and highly ignores a lot of reality. Everybody assumes that Ichiro would be a great #3 hitter - and I think to a certain extent he could be a very good #3 hitter. But the fact of the matter is that one of the things that makes him so dangerous as a lead-off hitter is the fact that he can get a lot of infield hits by utilizing his speed. Does he get the same infield hits with 1-2 runners on base or do those hits turn into FCs? There's no doubt that Lopez has flaws. However, he does have an ability to hit homers and produce extra base hits. Moreover, one of the main benefits I see out of him in the middle of an order is that he doesn't strike out a ton which I consider to be very important - particularly if you are looking at situations with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs. One could argue that he showed some improvement in areas last year and showed some regression as well. He's still young enough where the expectation is that he still has room to continue growing. I'm not entirely sure I believe that he's certain to regress versus last year's numbers. And those that remind that there are those that produce better in various situations are definitely correct. Anybody that has played sports realize that there are some that perform better in pressure situations and those that retreat. There are guys that want to be up to bat in those situations and those that are praying for a walk. There are guys that can't wait to take the last shot in a basketball game and others that want to hide in the corner. That's pretty much a fact of sporting life. |
| 89. By: Edman on 02-16-2010 11:31:12 Kotchman = Firstbaseman Lopez = Secondbaseman See the difference? Lopez, in is probably going to be Seattle's secondbaseman. At what point can we qwell the constant ramblings to replace him? |
| 90. By: Plaws on 02-16-2010 15:46:38 I'm not talking about replacing him. His replacement is aprox. a year away. There doesn't seem to be enough to gain by acquiring a replacemet for one year to spend resources on what's available at this point. It is not fair or true to say that anyone would produce with that many runners. It's more accurate to say that smeone who advances runners more often (to make up for Lopez occasionally advancing them further) would be able to score runners as often. Even with that if they advance runners without getting an RBI they have still increased the likelihood of scoring in the inning. With that in mind, looking at the players put together I have to say the Mariners will score more runs this year. Lopez' 18% runners scored was actually the only Mariner above league average of 15% (Gutierrez 15%, Branyan 14%.) Kotchmans career % is 17, Garko 16%, Byrnes 14% and Bradleys is 14%. With Gutierrez and Lopez still here. we lost a 14%RS player and gained a 17, 16 and two 14's. Other players who drive in runs are now on the roster, but people are focusing on last years roster to say the M's won't score. I'd go more in depth with the others but I'm trying to keep it short. Still, RS% happens to be the one pertinent statistic that Lopez somewhat shined in. His low strikeouts are more than deflated by his high amount of double plays hit into. Jose Lopez hit into the 2nd most DP in the AL in 2009. That was a career worst just as his 18% RS was a career best. Had there been options earlier to replace him for a year it would have been good to pursue. The fact that they didn't may speak to hopes that Ackley will progress quickley or that the only players they deemed worthy wanted more years in commitment than the M's were willing to offer with Ackley on his way. Either way, Lopez is not a negative draw on the team it's just the overall package is a bit below average for 2nd. I see it as somewhat of a non-issue aside from the run-producer claim being overstated by people without looking deeper than HR and RBI. |
| 91. By: JHamlin22 on 02-16-2010 16:08:58 Yikes. This has turned into too much of a hardcore stats argument. If these so called in-depth numbers tells the whole truth, then what is the point of having scouts? My point being... while some of the numbers may be helpful or useful, some of it is just going too far. These arguments will never end because someone can always find a certain weird stat that will support their argument. I'm sick of this stuff, I can't wait for the season to start so we can actually talk about the baseball that is being played. Pitchers and catchers report soon! Can't wait! |
| 92. By: Plaws on 02-16-2010 17:18:05 Back to what the thread started as... Jason, do you think the M's go for an overslot signing with the supplemental pick? It seems like they could afford to do that with maybe a couple of their earlier picks since they pick so late. I've heard a lot of talk elsewhere about the use of Dr. Marcus Elliot prescribing personalized workouts for our top 41. What impact do you see him as having? |
| 93. By: subterranean on 02-16-2010 18:12:53 This argument will never end because one person's explanation and defense of using statistics in the pursuit of testing the validity of someone else's claim (not that statistics are or will ever be the whole truth and nothing but the truth) somehow incurs the response: "If these so called in-depth numbers tells the whole truth, then what is the point of having scouts?" How is it possible that people who cites statistics and evidence to support an argument treated like they are trying to force a dogma on everyone else? I don't recall anyone saying that statistics tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and yet rather than discussing these things reasonably, this is the counter-argument: calling something extreme and narrow minded that is anything but. I feel like we all keep saying that we should be reasonable but then we aren't. bleh. |
| 94. By: JHamlin22 on 02-16-2010 18:55:30 Sub - I don't think you have encountered some of the hardcore stat people here. Some of it just makes me laugh. |
| 95. By: dewey on 02-16-2010 20:15:43 Plaws you say Lopez replacement is a year away.Have you ever seen Ackley play? He hasnt even proved he is a good A-ball player yet do we just assume he is gonna be a player because he was drafted high? Most guys it takes a few years and then a position change isnt real easy either.I think we should be happy with Lopez and a good contract that he has.Im with some of these guys there the one thing a computer cant tell you if the player has guts our big balls.YOU CAN NEVER TAKE THE HUMAN ELEMENT OUT OF THE GAME AND IF YOU THINK YOU CAN YOU WILL MAKE ALOT OF MILLION DOLLAR MISTAKES! |
| 96. By: marinermanmatt on 02-16-2010 20:47:50 Dewey, can you please take it easy on the caps lock? Your point will be understood just the same without it, just in a lot less annoying way. Not trying to make this a personal attack or anything but yeah, caps lock really bugs me. |
| 97. By: DKulich44 on 02-16-2010 21:26:08 For those people who don't know the new stats, Lookoutlanding.com is doing a pretty neat series over there. If you're interested, or just want to learn where this stuff comes from, check out their Sabermetrics 101 posts. |
| 98. By: Plaws on 02-16-2010 22:53:14 dewey, I agree that Ackley could take longer than a year and may not even pan out at 2nd. I was attempting to get in the perspective of the M's front office when I talked about that. I may be entirely wrong as to my thoughts of how they may view him, but the shared conversations and public statements have sounded like they expect him soon. I was not saying that the stats were everything but they're far more available to the average fan than video and scouting reports. I'm not saying there's no video available but we have stats for every plate appearance. It's all valuable and should be used together to evaluate. As to the particular topic ("clutch") that stats were recently being discussed I can't see much of a scouting side being pertinent. Unless something was noticed in his stance or swing mechanics being different with runners on I can think of nothing. Certainly no such information was being shared. How, exactly, was I dogging scouting in any way? Is big balls the 6th tool? It's a spiritual thing? |
| 99. By: shortstop9 on 02-17-2010 09:15:49 If Felipe Lopez is will ing to sign as a backup going into spring it would be a great fit here.He would be a huge upgrade to the bench versatility. He could backup 3b,ss,2b,and a little in LF if needed. He would allow us to carry 12 pitchers to start the season. Bench: Bard Langerhans/Byrnes Garko F.Lopez |
| 100. By: Edman on 02-17-2010 12:20:13 Filipe Lopez is not signing anywhere to be a utility guy. He fired Boras as his agent, which tells me that his expectations are unreasonable. Boras isn't holding him out because he's so marketable. It's because his personality is such that teams don't want him near, even at a bargin price. He doesn't fit in Seattle, with their idea of how to construct a team. Personality matters. For all that bad that's out there about Milton Bradley, his teammates haven't been the ones with issues. Filipe Lopez, is a different matter. They'll have their hands full with Milton, though I think he's manangeable. I don't think the same of Lopez. |
| 101. By: Edman on 02-17-2010 12:21:07 Felipe, even....sorry for the typo. |
| 102. By: JohnMcD on 02-17-2010 13:05:09 Happy First Day of Baseball friends! |
| 103. By: shortstop9 on 02-17-2010 13:20:36 He may not have many choices at this point. Not many teams are still looking for a starting 2B/SS.Make him an offer and let him decide,if not move on. free agent 2B just are not getting $$ this year.Unless you have played on the same team you don't know anything about his personality- it's all hear say. |
| 104. By: Edman on 02-17-2010 14:35:05 shortstop, it is not hear-say. Jason has addressed this and it's well documented that Felipe is, to be blunt, a pain in the ass to those around him. You don't think Jack has close ties in Milwaulkee with whom he's enquired about Lopez? There's a reason that a guy with his kind of numbers, hasn't signed with anyone. Hell, Adam Kennedy was more sought than Felipe. I've used the hear-say arguement in the past, and it doesn't apply to Lopez. He's his own worse enemy, and perhaps this offseason will temper down that huge ego of his. ARod is more humble than him. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
| ESPN MLB Draft Blog 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Post Link | ||||||||||||||||||
| Mar. 8 | Four lead-off prospects | ||||||||||||||||||
| Mar. 7 | SEC Plain Ol' Loaded | ||||||||||||||||||
| Mar. 6 | Strengths and weaknesses | ||||||||||||||||||
| Mar. 5 | Scouts to Cook: Pick Pitch | ||||||||||||||||||
| Mar. 5 | Brantly flashes good bat, solid arm | ||||||||||||||||||
| Mar. 4 | Bama SS moving up in draft. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright 2008-2009 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox |