PDA

View Full Version : Cameron vs. Konerko


Chisox_cali
05-07-2002, 11:30 PM
since Cameron's 4 HR's (3 off our Low A ball BP pitcher know as "Butter")

Mike Cameron- 4 games(4th still in progess)
1-11 3K's, 8LOB, 1R, 1RBI, 3BB, 0HR

Since the game .091, On season .248

Paul Konerko- 4 games
6-15 2K's, 4LOB, 1R, 3RBI, 2BB, 0HR

Since the game .400, On the season .354


Just thought us Sox fans would want to see the this info :smile:

cheeses_h_rice
05-07-2002, 11:36 PM
Odds that the multiple Chicago columnists who wrote that the Sox made a mistake in "giving up" on Cameron will notice these stats are currently running at 39552 to 1.

Chisox_cali
05-07-2002, 11:40 PM
Update on Camy's 4th game

0-3 now hitting .083 and .245

kermittheefrog
05-07-2002, 11:43 PM
I wrote a big column on the Cameron/Konerko comparison. I'm sure it's waiting in George's column queue for a chance to show it's head. I think it's a pretty interesting comparison.

Chisox_cali
05-08-2002, 12:38 AM
EDIT:

Camy's Final Line from the first 4 games since...

2-15, 3K, 9LOB, 1R, 2RBI, 3BB, 0HR

Since .133--- Season .252

DVG
05-08-2002, 12:52 AM
Hey, Philly Rog here from Der Tribuner. You Sox people gotta understand, I'm just a settler here in Chicago who decided
that the wonderful Cubs were the be-all and end-all of base
ball. There's something so magical and mystical about
them, you see. So, I have to rub Cameron's game in to all
the Sox people. It's my right as an ethics-free journalist.

Bmr31
05-08-2002, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I wrote a big column on the Cameron/Konerko comparison. I'm sure it's waiting in George's column queue for a chance to show it's head. I think it's a pretty interesting comparison.

The choice is easy for me. One one hand we have a gold glove type defensive player with a HUGE upside in all areas of the game and on the other hand we have a good hitter, who is a butcher on defense. It wasnt A horrible deal, but we certainly lost.

ode to veeck
05-08-2002, 08:54 AM
takes no special talent to hit a few dingers off of Parque (read that "park-kay" the HR ball), most folks in the minors can do the same on the 80 MPH heat down the middle

MattSharp
05-08-2002, 10:32 AM
I don't care what anyone says, this was a good trade for us. I still think Cameron is overrated.

Konerko is 4th in the league in average. 3rd in RBIs, and 2nd in hits. I don't know about you guys, but I am not complaing......

Randar68
05-08-2002, 10:41 AM
The choice is easy for me. One one hand we have a gold glove type defensive player with a HUGE upside in all areas of the game

WHo never improved in 4 years with us (8 total in our system). I guess we should wait forever

HE HIT .210 in his last season with us! LOL! Man, Hindsight is just too convenient, huh?





BLA!

Bmr31
05-08-2002, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


WHo never improved in 4 years with us (8 total in our system). I guess we should wait forever

HE HIT .210 in his last season with us! LOL! Man, Hindsight is just too convenient, huh?





BLA!


Did i say we shouldnt have made the deal at the time?? All i meant is i wouldnt think twice, id rather have cameron. Some players blossom late. There was a poll of major league scouts, prior to the season. Who, if anyone, is ready to bust out and become a superstar. Overwhelming answer: Mike Cameron. Paul konerko will never become a superstar. Again, its an easy choice.

raul12
05-08-2002, 12:13 PM
as good as cameron is defensively, i'd take paulie over cameron. granted, cameron hit 4 zingers that day, but 3 were when the game was already out of hand, AND against who we all agree has no spot in the major leagues (on ANY team).

who the scouts say who will be great and who won't is not really all that important when it comes down to it. where was beurhle on the depth chart when he was in the minors? on the flip side, how can we forget ruffcorn? just b/c the scouts say he's going to be a superstar doesn't mean it will definitely happen.

furthermore, if we had cameron, we wouldn't have lofton. so we'd have a hole at 1B (granted, it's easier to fill than CF), but we don't HAVE a hole in CF now that slow-swingleton is gone.

Bmr31
05-08-2002, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by raul12
as good as cameron is defensively, i'd take paulie over cameron. granted, cameron hit 4 zingers that day, but 3 were when the game was already out of hand, AND against who we all agree has no spot in the major leagues (on ANY team).

who the scouts say who will be great and who won't is not really all that important when it comes down to it. where was beurhle on the depth chart when he was in the minors? on the flip side, how can we forget ruffcorn? just b/c the scouts say he's going to be a superstar doesn't mean it will definitely happen.

furthermore, if we had cameron, we wouldn't have lofton. so we'd have a hole at 1B (granted, it's easier to fill than CF), but we don't HAVE a hole in CF now that slow-swingleton is gone.

scouts know more than us and even an idiot like me can see konerko doesnt have half the talent of cameron. I just dont have blinders on. Maybe it comes from my years of fantasy baseball. IT forces you to become objective.

FanOf14
05-08-2002, 12:19 PM
Bmr31, how in heck is Cam an all around player? Yes, he has a good glove, but what else? We waited 8 years on him and nada. We have a dang good centerfielder and at least another in the wings...how many firstbasemen of Konerko's caliber do we have in the wings then or now? Let's face reality, there may be plenty of 1st basemen out there, but how many of them with Konerko's bat and developing defense (or better) are JR willing to pay for? We got the better end of the deal with the Reds and the Mariners got the better end of the deal with the Reds. In any sense...


Go Sox!!!!!!!!!

raul12
05-08-2002, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


scouts know more than us and even an idiot like me can see konerko doesnt have half the talent of cameron. I just dont have blinders on. Maybe it comes from my years of fantasy baseball. IT forces you to become objective.

talent doesn't mean jack unless it translates to numbers on the field. right now, would you rather have paulie or cameron on your fantasy team? (looking ONLY at the numbers, not the upside) does cameron have a better upside than paulie? probably, but someone near the top of the league in most offensive categories doesn't need much more of an upside.

wow, bmr called himself an idiot. wonders never cease! :)

34 Inch Stick
05-08-2002, 12:32 PM
A thirty year old centerfielder, great defense, good speed, good power, does not hit for average, strikes out a lot, cannot hit lead off. Sounds similar to the guy we had last year.

Everyone likes Cameron. He is a great guy and a good player but he is not and will never be a star. We have had solid center field play since he left.

Why do we waste so much time longing for Cameron?

Paul is four years younger, and a much more disciplined hitter.

And for those questions about the difficulty of replacing a center fielder, did we have a difficult time finding one this off season?

Bmr31
05-08-2002, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by raul12


talent doesn't mean jack unless it translates to numbers on the field. right now, would you rather have paulie or cameron on your fantasy team? (looking ONLY at the numbers, not the upside) does cameron have a better upside than paulie? probably, but someone near the top of the league in most offensive categories doesn't need much more of an upside.

wow, bmr called himself an idiot. wonders never cease! :)

id take cameron over konerko in fantasy baseball without a 2nd thought.

kermittheefrog
05-08-2002, 12:42 PM
Well this will give away the conclusion of my article but this discussion is too juicy to pass up.

Cameron is without question move valuable to his team than Konerko.

Konerko may hit for higher average but they hit for similar power. Cameron makes up for the average he lacks and then some by walking more than Konerko and great baserunning.

In only one of the last three years has Konerko created more runs than Cameron. Meanwhile Cameron is doing this as a Gold Glove centerfielder in a great pitchers park and Konerko is Joe Defensive firstbaseman in a good hitters park. Cameron is simply better, it doesn't make Konerko a bad player just no Mike Cameron. I never agreed with trading Cameron and it's not exactly biting us in the ass but I think it would have been benefitial to keep him.

Bmr31
05-08-2002, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Well this will give away the conclusion of my article but this discussion is too juicy to pass up.

Cameron is without question move valuable to his team than Konerko.

Konerko may hit for higher average but they hit for similar power. Cameron makes up for the average he lacks and then some by walking more than Konerko and great baserunning.

In only one of the last three years has Konerko created more runs than Cameron. Meanwhile Cameron is doing this as a Gold Glove centerfielder in a great pitchers park and Konerko is Joe Defensive firstbaseman in a good hitters park. Cameron is simply better, it doesn't make Konerko a bad player just no Mike Cameron. I never agreed with trading Cameron and it's not exactly biting us in the ass but I think it would have been benefitial to keep him.

Good, objective post. I appreciate your insight.

raul12
05-08-2002, 12:46 PM
Paulie

GP AB R H TB 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS SF SH OBP SLG OPS AVG
32 130 19 46 67 9 0 4 31 6 12 0 0 2 0 .377 .515 .892 .354

Cameron
GP AB R H TB 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS SF SH OBP SLG OPS AVG
31 111 27 28 64 5 2 9 18 21 34 3 1 1 0 .378 .577 .954 .252

i'd take someone with 13 more rbi's and who strikes out one-third as many times over 5 more zingers and 2 more triples, since we don't have a hole in CF. if we still had slow-swingleton, your point would be more valid. i'm not saying you're smoking crack, but i think we'll have to agree to disagree.

gotta get back to work....

voodoochile
05-08-2002, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


id take cameron over konerko in fantasy baseball without a 2nd thought.

This comes back to what some people were talking before. Cameron is an excellent statistical CF. Paulie is an average statistical firstbaseman. If you get Cameron on your fantasy team, you will outpreform most other fantasy CF. You can normally get a guy with similar stats to Paulie later on because there are many firstbasemen who put up comparable numbers.

Regardless of how people view Paulie's importance to the team - and I agree that I would rather have Paulie than Cameron - from a purely fantasy standpoint, Cameron is the more important player...

From a live baseball perspective, Paulie brings more to the plate because he is a team leader and is just entering his prime...

Bmr31
05-08-2002, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by raul12
Paulie

GP AB R H TB 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS SF SH OBP SLG OPS AVG
32 130 19 46 67 9 0 4 31 6 12 0 0 2 0 .377 .515 .892 .354

Cameron
GP AB R H TB 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS SF SH OBP SLG OPS AVG
31 111 27 28 64 5 2 9 18 21 34 3 1 1 0 .378 .577 .954 .252

i'd take someone with 13 more rbi's and who strikes out one-third as many times over 5 more zingers and 2 more triples, since we don't have a hole in CF. if we still had slow-swingleton, your point would be more valid. i'm not saying you're smoking crack, but i think we'll have to agree to disagree.

gotta get back to work....

id take history and upside over 31 games of stats. I guess thats why i win so much .... :)

Bmr31
05-08-2002, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


This comes back to what some people were talking before. Cameron is an excellent statistical CF. Paulie is an average statistical firstbaseman. If you get Cameron on your fantasy team, you will outpreform most other fantasy CF. You can normally get a guy with similar stats to Paulie later on because there are many firstbasemen who put up comparable numbers.

Regardless of how people view Paulie's importance to the team - and I agree that I would rather have Paulie than Cameron - from a purely fantasy standpoint, Cameron is the more important player...

From a live baseball perspective, Paulie brings more to the plate because he is a team leader and is just entering his prime...

ahhh did you forget the all important defensive aspect of the game. I agree on offense they are pretty close. Defense and upside seperate the two.

raul12
05-08-2002, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


id take history and upside over 31 games of stats. I guess thats why i win so much .... :)

LOL! well, i really gotta go now. i must hang my head in shame as i try to convince myself that my life isn't worthless....sniff, sniff :)

34 Inch Stick
05-08-2002, 12:53 PM
It would be a good post if it was factually correct. Cameron strikes out MUCH more than Konerko does. They do not have similar power. Cameron has good power for a centerfielder, but has had only one very good power year. Same with Paul. However his numbers have increased every year he has been in the league and he is only 26.

As far as defense goes there is no question who is better. However, after trading Cameron we were able to put Singleton in place and he did well. Take Paul away and THomas is our 1B. A full year of Thomas at first at this time in his career would be scary.

FanOf14
05-08-2002, 12:59 PM
The last three years offensively:

Konerko:
http://bigleaguers.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5/5908/career.html

Cameron:
http://bigleaguers.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5/5492/career.html

I, too, will take history; for the three years listed, Konerko is by far the better player offensively. defensively, Konerko isn't as bad as some people have made him out to be either. Konerko actually has the higher career field percentage - but this is comparing apples to oranges, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Bmr31
05-08-2002, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
The last three years offensively:

Konerko:
http://bigleaguers.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5/5908/career.html

Cameron:
http://bigleaguers.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5/5492/career.html

I, too, will take history; for the three years listed, Konerko is by far the better player offensively. defensively, Konerko isn't as bad as some people have made him out to be either. Konerko actually has the higher career field percentage - but this is comparing apples to oranges, but the numbers speak for themselves.


uh i didnt look at your stats and i dont need to. Cameron is a more valuable baseball player and a more valuable fantasy player.

FanOf14
05-08-2002, 01:04 PM
That's not what the stats say. The reason cam has more value than PK is because he is on the mariners.

Bmr31
05-08-2002, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
That's not what the stats say. The reason cam has more value than PK is because he is on the mariners.

Im going to try and say this without coming off arrogant. I spend a great deal of my free time watching baseball and studying stats. Fantasy baseball is like heaven to me and an absolute passion of mine. When i say i dont need to look at your stats its because i already know them. Cameron is more valuable in both baseball and fantasy baseball. Im as sure about this as i am about my age.

34 Inch Stick
05-08-2002, 01:10 PM
Valuable to who (or is that whom)? The Mariners have lost Johnson, Griffey, Rodriguez and now Martinez but keep getting better. The loss of "the great" Mike Cameron would barely register compared to these players. The most valuable member of the Mariners is Pinella.

kermittheefrog
05-08-2002, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
It would be a good post if it was factually correct. Cameron strikes out MUCH more than Konerko does. They do not have similar power. Cameron has good power for a centerfielder, but has had only one very good power year. Same with Paul. However his numbers have increased every year he has been in the league and he is only 26.


By the way, I keep using over the last three years because thats as long as Konerko has been a regular.

Their power isn't similar eh? Well how about we compare extra base hit totals over the last three years.

Konerko 59; 52; 67
Cameron 64; 54; 60

Thats pretty damn similar. I think you'd have a good case that these guys are close to eachother in power production. Cameron strikes out a lot more? True but WHO CARES? Really what's the difference between a pop out and a strikeout? Nothing other than strikeouts make you look worse in the box score.

Ya know what's a lot worse than striking out? Grounding into double plays and Konerko does that a lot more than Cameron. Over the last 3 years Cameron has grounded into 17 double plays. Konerko grounded into 17 last year, 22 the year before that and 19 the year before that. I'd rather have a guy who strikes out all the time than a guy who grounds into a bunch of double plays. I dunno about you.

34 Inch Stick
05-08-2002, 05:12 PM
My "Same as Paul" setence indicates that I agree that their power numbers are similar.

No I would not rather have a person who strikes out more than a person who hits into double plays. As you can see by the total (17 over an entire year) the double play is a rare occurence. Granted it is killer but not really an indication of a poor or undisciplined hitter.

But the person who is hitting the ball versus striking out is putting the ball into play. That puts stress on an opponent. A strikeout with a man on third does nothing. A fly ball may mean a run.

kermittheefrog
05-08-2002, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
My "Same as Paul" setence indicates that I agree that their power numbers are similar.

No I would not rather have a person who strikes out more than a person who hits into double plays. As you can see by the total (17 over an entire year) the double play is a rare occurence. Granted it is killer but not really an indication of a poor or undisciplined hitter.

But the person who is hitting the ball versus striking out is putting the ball into play. That puts stress on an opponent. A strikeout with a man on third does nothing. A fly ball may mean a run.

Thats just silly. Double plays are more than twice as costly as strikeouts. A strikeout is an out, nothing more. On the other hand a double play is not only an out, not only two outs but it also eliminates a baserunner that has the potential to score. It's the worst possible thing to do as a hitter.

How many runs over the course of a season do you think a guy who strikes out a lot will cost you versus a guy with the same stats but not a lot of Ks? Couldn't be more than a couple. Five tops and I'm being generous.

ScottyTheSoxFan
05-08-2002, 06:30 PM
if we still had cameron :ray would be leading off.

Bmr31
05-08-2002, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by ScottyTheSoxFan
if we still had cameron :ray would be leading off.


I dont remember anyone saying we wish we had cameron. Cameron is the better player.

FanOf14
05-08-2002, 07:17 PM
I don't know much about fantasy baseball so I will concede that point to you. All I know is that I am looking at the stats as I write this and it shows as Konerko as the better ball player on the field. That doesn't mean I think Cam sucks or anything like that. I am voting for Cam on the all-star team (appx 35 times now). I also think Cam is a great defensive player, but the stats show that Konerko is a notch above in the over-all category for both offense and defense. I will also concede that you can't compare them defensively since they play two different positions. The proof that I am offering for my statement here are the html tags left in the other post. I wish I could understand why Konerko has had so much difficulty in garnering respect, every year he improves himself in one stat or another. Some players just don't do well on certain teams and do wonders with others and both these men are prime examples of this. With the Sox, Cam was the equivalent of Clayton - great glove, no bat. With the Mariners, he still has the glove and has finally achieved decent marks in offense. Konerko didn't do much with the Dodgers or the Reds while actually in the NL (did great in the Dodger minor league system) because he didn't play anywhere regularly. He came to us, got the opportunity to play regularly and has proven his worth to the team year in and year out for the 3+ years he's been here.

Bmr31
05-08-2002, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
I don't know much about fantasy baseball so I will concede that point to you. All I know is that I am looking at the stats as I write this and it shows as Konerko as the better ball player on the field. That doesn't mean I think Cam sucks or anything like that. I am voting for Cam on the all-star team (appx 35 times now). I also think Cam is a great defensive player, but the stats show that Konerko is a notch above in the over-all category for both offense and defense. I will also concede that you can't compare them defensively since they play two different positions. The proof that I am offering for my statement here are the html tags left in the other post. I wish I could understand why Konerko has had so much difficulty in garnering respect, every year he improves himself in one stat or another. Some players just don't do well on certain teams and do wonders with others and both these men are prime examples of this. With the Sox, Cam was the equivalent of Clayton - great glove, no bat. With the Mariners, he still has the glove and has finally achieved decent marks in offense. Konerko didn't do much with the Dodgers or the Reds while actually in the NL (did great in the Dodger minor league system) because he didn't play anywhere regularly. He came to us, got the opportunity to play regularly and has proven his worth to the team year in and year out for the 3+ years he's been here.

ummm how many games have been played this year? Why is it that so many people base talent of limited games played. Cameron is clearly the better player. Ive said what i need to say, its stupid to keep this going.

bjmarte
05-09-2002, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Im as sure about this as i am about my age.

You mean you are from the Dominican Republic :?:

Blueprint1
05-09-2002, 12:13 PM
I disagree that Cameron is a better player. As for grounding into more DP's that could change based on where you are batting in the lineup. I believe that Cameron has batted early in the lineup which means that there is less of a chance that you are batting with runners on base. It also seems to me that the Comiskey Park infield produces alot of DP's its not a slow infield but its also not a fast one. This means the fielder has time to adjust but not like a Wrigley where the runner has time to beat the ball.