PDA

View Full Version : Brett Gardner?


JermaineDye05
12-10-2009, 06:54 PM
Link (http://blogs.suntimes.com/whitesox/2009/12/start_spreading_the_news_sox_e.html)

Cowley says the Sox are interested.

Cuck the Fubs
12-10-2009, 06:56 PM
I like this one...do it!

russ99
12-10-2009, 06:59 PM
I like this one...do it!

Now we're talking...

What about the Ryan Freel rumors? He's a FA.

Baron
12-10-2009, 07:04 PM
Make it happen

Baron
12-10-2009, 07:12 PM
Another thing that interested me is that everyone is walking away from Scotty since he wants that 2 year deal....Im guessing Scotty will come down eventually and we will get him back

JermaineDye05
12-10-2009, 07:14 PM
Another thing that interested me is that everyone is walking away from Scotty since he wants that 2 year deal....Im guessing Scotty will come down eventually and we will get him back

Not if the Sox get Gardner. You can't bring Pods in as a reserve.

Baron
12-10-2009, 07:16 PM
Not if the Sox get Gardner. You can't bring Pods in as a reserve.

Right Im just saying that if this story on Gardner ends up to nothing....Scotty could be on his way back

JermaineDye05
12-10-2009, 07:20 PM
Right Im just saying that if this story on Gardner ends up to nothing....Scotty could be on his way back

You're probably right and I really don't know how I feel about that.

Pablo_Honey
12-10-2009, 07:23 PM
Kenny should go after this guy hard. He is a cheap young lead-off hitter who can also play good CF, so we can have Rios in right and keep TCQ in left. I'm all for trading for this guy. What would the Yanks want in return for him?

Baron
12-10-2009, 07:23 PM
You're probably right and I really don't know how I feel about that.

Scotty is one of my favorite players and would love to have him back but can he keep up his play and not get injured often.....those are the questions

Frater Perdurabo
12-10-2009, 07:43 PM
How's his defense?

soxfandy
12-10-2009, 07:44 PM
I've liked this guy everytime I've seen the yankess play. I'm guessing they resign damon and have an everyday outfield of granderson, cabrera, damon. Swisher would rotate with damon between dh and the of. All this means is that there will be no room for gardner and that it will not cost much to get him. He is also cheap, plays good defense, and would be a solid lead off hitter. Maybe by getting a cheap guy like this, it would allow us to get that big bat we need at dh. Then our team would be ready to go on offense.

C AJ
1B Paulie
2B Beckham
SS Alexei
3B Teahen
LF Quentin
CF Gardner
RF Rios
DH ?

I believe that would be enough defense and offense to get by with our pitching staff.

DirtySox
12-10-2009, 07:53 PM
How's his defense?

Teal?

If not, it's rather good.

dickallen15
12-10-2009, 07:58 PM
This guy isn't an every day player. He would be fine as a defensive replacement/pinch runner/ occassional starter, but anyone penciling him in as the regular leadoff man is someone who, if it happens, will be very dissappointed.

JermaineDye05
12-10-2009, 08:01 PM
This guy isn't an every day player. He would be fine as a defensive replacement/pinch runner/ occassional starter, but anyone penciling him in as the regular leadoff man is someone who, if it happens, will be very dissappointed.

He hit .270 in 100+ games last year along with 26 SB and solid defense (not bad, not great). I'd consider him an upgrade over what we'd get from Podsednik.

dickallen15
12-10-2009, 08:17 PM
He hit .270 in 100+ games last year along with 26 SB and solid defense (not bad, not great). I'd consider him an upgrade over what we'd get from Podsednik.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but he's not an everyday leadoff hitter.

Pablo_Honey
12-10-2009, 08:18 PM
This guy isn't an every day player. He would be fine as a defensive replacement/pinch runner/ occassional starter, but anyone penciling him in as the regular leadoff man is someone who, if it happens, will be very dissappointed.
Dang it, you are right. I checked his number as a starter which is .240/.321/.330. Yikes! His overall season number is inflated by his amazing split as a sub - .519/.552/.778. Still, he would be nice to have for the defense and speed he brings. And he's still 25, not exactly young but he still has room for improvement.

soxinem1
12-10-2009, 08:21 PM
Gardner and LAA OF Reggie Willits are two guys KW should make a move on.

The only problem is that the NYY want Gardner to be their 4th OF.

tm1119
12-10-2009, 08:22 PM
Ehh I dont think hes anything special. Hes probably about equal to what Pods would give us in terms of offensive production(about .275/.345). Although, he is capable of handling CF and much better overall on D then Pods. Hes also cost controlled and cheap for several years as well. I guess it all depends on what the Yanks are asking for in return. Personally I wouldnt give up a whole lot, maybe a couple of prospects outside of our top 6(thats about all i care about in our system).

Rockabilly
12-10-2009, 09:47 PM
He would be a great lead off hitter for us.. I hope this gets done as well as signing Matsui, Putz and left handed reliever.

VMSNS
12-10-2009, 11:03 PM
He would be a great lead off hitter for us.. I hope this gets done as well as signing Matsui, Putz and left handed reliever.

That would be great, but Kenny is crying poor again, so the chances of us acquiring those three guys is slim to none.

oeo
12-10-2009, 11:38 PM
This guy isn't an every day player. He would be fine as a defensive replacement/pinch runner/ occassional starter, but anyone penciling him in as the regular leadoff man is someone who, if it happens, will be very dissappointed.

We don't really know that, but all the excitement over him is a little much. You'd think we're talking about Jacoby Ellsbury.

JermaineDye05
12-10-2009, 11:52 PM
We don't really know that, but all the excitement over him is a little much. You'd think we're talking about Jacoby Ellsbury.

I think it's because we all want one less question mark. The sooner we get the idea of Beckham in the lead off slot out of people's heads, the better.

johnnyg83
12-11-2009, 12:18 AM
That would be great, but Kenny is crying poor again, so the chances of us acquiring those three guys is slim to none.

If he can get all three for less than $8 million a year ...

Ranger
12-11-2009, 01:03 AM
I'm not disagreeing with you, but he's not an everyday leadoff hitter.

Be specific if you woudln't mind. He may not ultimately be an everyday player, but why don't you think he can? And I'm not looking for numbers...I'm wondering what it is about his game that you don't think could hold up for a full year.

Dang it, you are right. I checked his number as a starter which is .240/.321/.330. Yikes! His overall season number is inflated by his amazing split as a sub - .519/.552/.778. Still, he would be nice to have for the defense and speed he brings. And he's still 25, not exactly young but he still has room for improvement.

I don't think you can dismiss a player after he's played less than one full season's worth of games.

The Milkman
12-11-2009, 01:32 AM
Forget Gardner. Let's get that Swisher kid!

kruzer31
12-11-2009, 01:37 AM
not really excited about Gardner

cburns
12-11-2009, 01:53 AM
If he was that good, the Yankees wouldn't be shopping him.

JermaineDye05
12-11-2009, 02:19 AM
If he was that good, the Yankees wouldn't be shopping him.

They just traded for Curtis Granderson, I don't think they need him anymore.

Lillian
12-11-2009, 05:12 AM
Rios should be in CF. His offensive production is questionable and not up to the level of a corner outfielder. This team needs a bigger bat for the remaining outfield position. I'd prefer to see Jones in RF with Quentin in left and Rios is CF. That would leave a left handed DH. as the only remaining offensive hole to fill. Let Rios lead off.

I think De Aza already fills the role of a fourth outfielder for speed and defense. He and Gardner are similar players and he's actually a year younger than Gardner.

harwar
12-11-2009, 08:31 AM
there's no question that Gardner is still learning .. the guy runs like the wind and last year, while watching some yankees games, i saw him get to a few balls that a lot of guys wouldn't .. he knows how to bunt, so that's a plus

russ99
12-11-2009, 08:53 AM
That would be great, but Kenny is crying poor again, so the chances of us acquiring those three guys is slim to none.

Kenny's quoted as having interest in those players - but would he really say that if he had zero to spend?

He's only poor if he can't move anyone already on the roster, and we know he loves to make moves.

Gardner would be a nice acquisition, since he fills a need, has lots of talent and room for improvement, is MLB ready and is paid under $1M.

Not sure who we'd give up, though. He won't come cheap.

A thought, maybe Viciedo? The Yankees had interest in him and can afford him in AAA for 1-2 more years, and that cuts more payroll for the Sox.

Sargeant79
12-11-2009, 09:10 AM
Rios should be in CF. His offensive production is questionable and not up to the level of a corner outfielder. This team needs a bigger bat for the remaining outfield position. I'd prefer to see Jones in RF with Quentin in left and Rios is CF. That would leave a left handed DH. as the only remaining offensive hole to fill. Let Rios lead off.

I think De Aza already fills the role of a fourth outfielder for speed and defense. He and Gardner are similar players and he's actually a year younger than Gardner.

No, no, no, no, no.... Several things wrong with this.

Rios in CF: Aboslutely correct for all the reasons you mentioned, although I do think his offense will rebound to something close to his career norms. Granted, that's still not at a level that you would expect for a corner outfielder.

Rios at leadoff: No way. Decent speed, but has a low OBP and strikes out too much. Need someone there who is going to get on base more.

You lost me at "Jones in RF." Andruw Jones should not be used as an every day outfielder unless he just comes into spring training and hits .350 with about 12 home runs. And even then he'd be on a short leash.

De Aza: At most, he's a 5th outfielder/25th man. I'd rather have an extra bullpen arm up, at least early in the season though, particularly since Kotsay can play the outfield too. He probably belongs in AAA.

spawn
12-11-2009, 09:12 AM
We don't really know that, but all the excitement over him is a little much. You'd think we're talking about Jacoby Ellsbury.
I think people just want KW to make a move, be it Pods, Coco, and now Gardner. IMO, the natives are getting restless.

Craig Grebeck
12-11-2009, 09:30 AM
I would take Gardner in center field with Rios shifting over to right. Rios is a tremendous outfielder at any position, and the addition of a solid glove like Gardner to center would allow for some needed roster flexibility in the outfield. I'm in favor of this.

soxinem1
12-11-2009, 09:52 AM
I would take Gardner in center field with Rios shifting over to right. Rios is a tremendous outfielder at any position, and the addition of a solid glove like Gardner to center would allow for some needed roster flexibility in the outfield. I'm in favor of this.

For once I agree with you, though the productivity of the OF is a little questionable when you think about it.

This is especially true if Rios does anything less than 25-85.

If we inked one of Matsui, Delgado, or the proverbial KW Out of Nowhere DH/1B/OF Acquisition, it might be enough to offset the lack of power in this OF.

ChiTownTrojan
12-11-2009, 09:53 AM
I think most of us would welcome ANY solution to our leadoff issue right now, let it be Gardner, Crisp, Pods, etc. This could be a pretty solid, cheap solution.

I wonder why Detroit didn't get him back in the Granderson trade? Would have seemed logical to me. They're still looking for a CF/leadoff guy.

CHISOXFAN13
12-11-2009, 09:55 AM
I think most of us would welcome ANY solution to our leadoff issue right now, let it be Gardner, Crisp, Pods, etc. This could be a pretty solid, cheap solution.

I wonder why Detroit didn't get him back in the Granderson trade? Would have seemed logical to me. They're still looking for a CF/leadoff guy.

They got the Yankees top center field prospect back in the deal. No real reason for Gardner to be included as well.

Jimmy Piersall
12-11-2009, 10:03 AM
I think people just want KW to make a move, be it Pods, Coco, and now Gardner. IMO, the natives are getting restless.

True stuff.Kenny making a trade and/or a signing in the next 5 minutes
would fix this.All this noise but no movement gets our shorts in a knot.

soltrain21
12-11-2009, 10:49 AM
If he was that good, the Yankees wouldn't be shopping him.

That logic doesn't make much sense in baseball.

Sargeant79
12-11-2009, 11:15 AM
You know... I'm warming up to this idea the more I look into Gardner.

As you check out his minor league numbers, he has a track record of a high OBP and doesn't seem to strike out excessively. Each time he was promoted a level, his numbers dipped, but never to the point where you'd call it failing. Then when we'd repeat the level, he came out and had a great season.

His half season or so with the Yankees last year follows that pattern. It was really his first significant time at the major league level, and he did some things well and some not so well. He definitely has room for a good deal of improvement to be made, but his track record says that he makes it by the second time around.

He has stolen a lot of bases everywhere he's been, and if his defense is good, he could be a really good pickup.

PaleHoser
12-11-2009, 11:48 AM
If media reports are true and the Yankees want to re-sign Johnny Damon, I'd rather have Melky Cabrera than Gardner. Either can be had if the Yankees re-sign Damon.

The Immigrant
12-11-2009, 11:49 AM
I would offer Jeff Marquez, Jhonny Nunez and a cardboard cutout of Wilson Betemit for Gardner. If Brian Cashman laughed at this trade proposal, I would kick him in the nuts.

DirtySox
12-11-2009, 11:57 AM
i would offer jeff marquez, jhonny nunez and a cardboard cutout of wilson betemit for gardner. If brian cashman laughed at this trade proposal, i would kick him in the nuts.

potw

JermaineDye05
12-11-2009, 12:06 PM
If media reports are true and the Yankees want to re-sign Johnny Damon, I'd rather have Melky Cabrera than Gardner. Either can be had if the Yankees re-sign Damon.

Cabrera would cost way more than Gardner.

cburns
12-11-2009, 12:13 PM
That logic doesn't make much sense in baseball.

When was the last time the Yankees traded away an everyday player? Unlike the White Sox who have to move good players to free salary, the Yankees only move players who are bad.

Bucky F. Dent
12-11-2009, 12:36 PM
They just traded for Curtis Granderson, I don't think they need him anymore.


And doesn't that tell you quite a bit about what they think about Gardner as their everyday CF.

thomas35forever
12-11-2009, 12:44 PM
I'd take Gardner in a heartbeat. Not only would it solve our lead-off problem, but it would set in stone an outfield of Quentin-Gardner-Rios. Kill two birds with one stone please, Kenny.:praying:

KMcMahon817
12-11-2009, 12:55 PM
I would offer Jeff Marquez, Jhonny Nunez and a cardboard cutout of Wilson Betemit for Gardner. If Brian Cashman laughed at this trade proposal, I would kick him in the nuts.

Haha I'm still laughing..

seventyseven
12-11-2009, 01:36 PM
I'd take Gardner in a heartbeat. Not only would it solve our lead-off problem, but it would set in stone an outfield of Quentin-Gardner-Rios. Kill two birds with one stone please, Kenny.:praying:

Because Gardner has done so much to show he's a starting CF? :scratch: GAFB.

NLaloosh
12-11-2009, 01:40 PM
Gardner is a nice 4th outfielder...unless you want an outfielder that can hit.

soltrain21
12-11-2009, 02:41 PM
Gardner is a nice 4th outfielder...unless you want an outfielder that can hit.

Um. It appears he can hit? What are you talking about?

Lillian
12-11-2009, 03:14 PM
No, no, no, no, no.... Several things wrong with this.

Rios in CF: Aboslutely correct for all the reasons you mentioned, although I do think his offense will rebound to something close to his career norms. Granted, that's still not at a level that you would expect for a corner outfielder.

Rios at leadoff: No way. Decent speed, but has a low OBP and strikes out too much. Need someone there who is going to get on base more.

You lost me at "Jones in RF." Andruw Jones should not be used as an every day outfielder unless he just comes into spring training and hits .350 with about 12 home runs. And even then he'd be on a short leash.

De Aza: At most, he's a 5th outfielder/25th man. I'd rather have an extra bullpen arm up, at least early in the season though, particularly since Kotsay can play the outfield too. He probably belongs in AAA.

Just to respond to your comments: I agree that Rios is not a great candidate for leadoff, however he may be our best option. He would probably put up numbers at least as good as Gardner would.

I'm also not thrilled with Jones, but his half season's worth of production last year projects to pretty good power for a corner outfielder with good defense. It would certainly be better than Gardner's offense, and while Jones is no longer a Gold Glove centerfielder, wouldn't you think that he would be a very good defensive right fielder?

As far as De Aza is concerned; no one is penciling him in the starting lineup, but he should be ready to be at least a very good defensive backup, and pinch runner.

I just don't see the need for Gardner, and that is from someone who advocated his acquisition before Pods was signed.

oeo
12-11-2009, 03:23 PM
If media reports are true and the Yankees want to re-sign Johnny Damon, I'd rather have Melky Cabrera than Gardner. Either can be had if the Yankees re-sign Damon.

Meh, Melky would likely cost more and doesn't really fit a need.

NLaloosh
12-11-2009, 04:26 PM
Um. It appears he can hit? What are you talking about?

Hit what ? He has less power than Jerry Owens.

soltrain21
12-11-2009, 04:29 PM
Hit what ? He has less power than Jerry Owens.

He also hit .270 last year with an OBP of .345. I wasn't aware we were looking for power from our lead off guy.

oeo
12-11-2009, 04:30 PM
Hit what ? He has less power than Jerry Owens.

Uh...no. Nice try though.

Craig Grebeck
12-11-2009, 04:38 PM
Hasn't NL been campaigning hard for Scott Podsednik? Is it not clear that Gardner's combination of a low salary, good defense and solid baserunning makes him far more valuable than Scott?

soltrain21
12-11-2009, 04:42 PM
hasn't nl been campaigning hard for scott podsednik? Is it not clear that gardner's combination of a low salary, good defense and solid baserunning makes him far more valuable than scott?

But what did Brett do for us in 05?!

Domeshot17
12-11-2009, 05:15 PM
I don't know, Pods was fantastic last year, the best player on our team offensively. The guy literally carried us back into playoff contention for a short while. I don't have a reason to believe he can't do it again. Mostly because we saw a different Pods this year. (1) he was healthy, which he credits to a new training regime, which if true means he should stay healthy and (2) looked like a different offensive player. He was steady the whole year, not building stats off like 2 sicks months and the rest blah. I also don't hold a lot to the base running mistakes by pods. Just trying to do too much on a bad team. Figgins got picked off more last year.

Im intrigued by Gardner, but the guy seems dime a dozen. I wouldn't give much for him. Hes probably a career backup, but with the **** we run out every year in the OF, thatd be first class here.

Craig Grebeck
12-11-2009, 05:29 PM
I don't know, Pods was fantastic last year, the best player on our team offensively. The guy literally carried us back into playoff contention for a short while. I don't have a reason to believe he can't do it again. Mostly because we saw a different Pods this year. (1) he was healthy, which he credits to a new training regime, which if true means he should stay healthy and (2) looked like a different offensive player. He was steady the whole year, not building stats off like 2 sicks months and the rest blah. I also don't hold a lot to the base running mistakes by pods. Just trying to do too much on a bad team. Figgins got picked off more last year.

Im intrigued by Gardner, but the guy seems dime a dozen. I wouldn't give much for him. Hes probably a career backup, but with the **** we run out every year in the OF, thatd be first class here.
1. Pods' numbers were fueled by two great months, July and September. His OBP in the other months: .343, .323, .319. Ouch.
2. Gardner is considerably better than Pods. He can actually play CF and run the bases.

NLaloosh
12-11-2009, 06:11 PM
I agree that Gardner is a better defender than Pods and just as good or better on the bases.

All I said was that he's not much of a hitter and he isn't. He also isn't a proven player.

Gardner had as few extra base hits as any player that I can recall even throught his minor league career.

One reason that Pods was so valuable last year was that he was driving in a lot of runs and in clutch situations off of good pitchers.

Pods is a much better hitter than Gardner. That's my point.

Plus, Pods has proven to be a valuable part of the White Sox offense not only in 2005 but just last year. He has experience and has proven that he can do the job.

I have nothing against Brett Gardner but he's proven nothing so far.

The fact is that the Sox know that Pods can lead this team to a championship. No one knows if Gardner can.

Pablo_Honey
12-11-2009, 06:47 PM
All I said was that he's not much of a hitter and he isn't. He also isn't a proven player.
At this point, Pods is just as unproven as Gardner due to his injury history and track record. Remember that last season was Gardner's first season and while he didn't put up all that great numbers in limited playing time, he's still fairly young and has room for growth. 2009 was Pods' FIRST productive season since 2005. I want to believe, I really want to believe Pods has turned his career around but all signs are indicating to the contrary.

Gardner had as few extra base hits as any player that I can recall even throught his minor league career.

One reason that Pods was so valuable last year was that he was driving in a lot of runs and in clutch situations off of good pitchers.
Extra base and clutch hits are useless on lead-off hitters. Sure it's a nice plus to have but if you are relying on your lead-off guy to drive guys in with big hits, you're doing it all wrong. Not to mention, clutch depends too much on luck and chances. I do agree that Pods' clutch hits were a nice change from the usual Sox offense trend, but there is no guarantee he will do the same next year.

chunk
12-11-2009, 07:30 PM
You can't just compare them to leadoff hitters. Leadoff is not a position. Does he have a league average bat/glove at his position? That's the question you have to ask.

Daver
12-11-2009, 07:47 PM
You can't just compare them to leadoff hitters. Leadoff is not a position. Does he have a league average bat/glove at his position? That's the question you have to ask.

That question makes zero sense, offense has nothing whatsoever to do with the position you play. Judging players based solely on offense has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen.

tm1119
12-11-2009, 07:49 PM
You can't just compare them to leadoff hitters. Leadoff is not a position. Does he have a league average bat/glove at his position? That's the question you have to ask.

Not only that, but the definition of leadoff hitter has really changed in recent years. For instance, the 2 world series teams had leadoff hitters of Rollins and Jeter. Neither are your typical light hitting leadoff hitter of the past. Just because Gardner is fast and looks the part, does not make him a good candidate. Would he be the best candidate on our current team? Sure. Does that mean we should acquire him? I dont think so. If we can get a truely good hitter at a position of need then I say go for it instead settling for somebody just because they look the part.

chunk
12-11-2009, 07:54 PM
That question makes zero sense, offense has nothing whatsoever to do with the position you play. Judging players based solely on offense has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen.

I said bat/glove. Gardner has excellent defensive abilities, enough so that he's better than average, despite his powerless bat (but good OBP). Besides, it's completely the norm to expect different offensive production based on position. A league average 2b or C is almost certainly not going to produce the at the same level your average 3B or 1B would. That's why players like Chase Utley are so incredibly valuable. Rios has great numbers compared to the average CF, but moved over to RF his value decreases.

Daver
12-11-2009, 07:56 PM
I said bat/glove. Gardner has excellent defensive abilities, enough so that he's better than average, despite his powerless bat (but good OBP). Besides, it's completely the norm to expect different offensive production based on position. A league average 2b or C is almost certainly not going to produce the at the same level your average 3B or 1B would. That's why players like Chase Utley are so incredibly valuable. Rios has great numbers compared to the average CF, but moved over to RF diminishes his value.

That approach might work for fantasy baseball.

dickallen15
12-11-2009, 07:58 PM
1. Pods' numbers were fueled by two great months, July and September. His OBP in the other months: .343, .323, .319. Ouch.
2. Gardner is considerably better than Pods. He can actually play CF and run the bases.
Take away May and June and Gardner's OBP, and remember this is a guy with zero power, he rarely gets any extra base hits, was below .300. So whats the point? He's an extra OF. Not a leadoff man.

Pablo_Honey
12-11-2009, 08:06 PM
Not only that, but the definition of leadoff hitter has really changed in recent years. For instance, the 2 world series teams had leadoff hitters of Rollins and Jeter. Neither are your typical light hitting leadoff hitter of the past. Just because Gardner is fast and looks the part, does not make him a good candidate. Would he be the best candidate on our current team? Sure. Does that mean we should acquire him? I dont think so. If we can get a truely good hitter at a position of need then I say go for it instead settling for somebody just because they look the part.
At every level, he has displayed a great plate discipline and a good ability to make contact with the ball. What more could you possibly want from him? Power? The recent trend saw rise in lead-off men with ability to hit for power too, but given our limited resources, power on our #1 hitter is a luxury we can only dream about. A lead-off man's job is plain and simple: get on base and score the run by utilizing good enough speed. Now, should KW consider Gardner as Plan A? Heck no, if he can find somebody better, get that guy, but with Kenny crying poor, Gardner is one of the more feasible options. He can be had for cheap, plays good D, get on bsae and can steal bases.

KMcMahon817
12-11-2009, 08:12 PM
That question makes zero sense, offense has nothing whatsoever to do with the position you play. Judging players based solely on offense has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen.

You're obsessed with calling people out on this even though you are wrong. LF, RF, 1B and 3B are usually where the most productive offensive players play. Where as C, 2B, and SS are your lighter hitting players and CF's are all over the place.

That is just the way it works, there are obviously exceptions, but more often than not it is true.

Pablo_Honey
12-11-2009, 08:17 PM
Rios has great numbers compared to the average CF, but moved over to RF his value decreases.
I keep reading this and it makes no sense. Rios is better defensively at RF than CF, so moving him to RF is improving the team. It doesn't matter where he plays, a 25/85 season at CF is a 25/85 season at RF. We are getting a 25/85 season out of him regardless. Of course, there is the issue of supply and demand, but I can't name one single RF that we can acquire that can potentially out-perform Rios. (Note: Emphasis on "potentially")

Daver
12-11-2009, 08:29 PM
You're obsessed with calling people out on this even though you are wrong. LF, RF, 1B and 3B are usually where the most productive offensive players play. Where as C, 2B, and SS are your lighter hitting players and CF's are all over the place.

That is just the way it works, there are obviously exceptions, but more often than not it is true.

It still has nothing to do with a players performance at his position, and as far as the vague term "value" goes, it is a meaningless term, a players value can only be determined on what he adds to his teams roster, on both sides of the ball.

Gordon Beckham is the best third baseman on the White Sox roster right now, but he will play second because that is where his value is.

chunk
12-11-2009, 09:07 PM
It still has nothing to do with a players performance at his position, and as far as the vague term "value" goes, it is a meaningless term, a players value can only be determined on what he adds to his teams roster, on both sides of the ball.

Gordon Beckham is the best third baseman on the White Sox roster right now, but he will play second because that is where his value is.

I didn't take you for a believer of VORP. Gardner has value because he can get on base at a level above that expected of a CF and has strong defensive skills. Although he lacks power, his other talents are better than that of an average CF. This should be the standard to compare him against, not against that of a leadoff hitter.

Daver
12-11-2009, 09:24 PM
I didn't take you for a believer of VORP. Gardner has value because he can get on base at a level above that expected of a CF and has strong defensive skills. Although he lacks power, his other talents are better than that of an average CF. This should be the standard to compare him against, not against that of a leadoff hitter.

I'm not sure I know what VORP is, I am quite sure I don't care though.

I prefer to judge baseball players on their ability to actually play baseball, not on what the numbers they have produced dictate.

chunk
12-11-2009, 09:30 PM
VORP stands for Value Over Replacement Player. I also care and judge players based on their ability to play baseball. I just think that objective stats are better tools than subjective evaluations for making those judgments.

Daver
12-11-2009, 09:35 PM
VORP stands for Value Over Replacement Player. I also care and judge players based on their ability to play baseball. I just think that objective stats are better tools than subjective evaluations for making those judgments.

Have fun with that.

Billy Beane thinks he can do it with stats too, hasn't done him much good either.

Tragg
12-11-2009, 09:40 PM
You can't just compare them to leadoff hitters. Leadoff is not a position. Does he have a league average bat/glove at his position? That's the question you have to ask.
Well you included defense. Per reports, he plays good D, which puts him ahead of Podesednik (whom I wouldn't re-sign because of his defense) in my opinion.
But I'm also not a huge fan of light-hitting leadoff hitters; one year their grounders get through 20% more than normal, the next year they don't. I can't see these guys keeping up high walk rates if they have them because there's no reason not to throw them strikes if they can't drive the ball.
VORP stands for Value Over Replacement Player. I also care and judge players based on their ability to play baseball. .
I think VORP is an interesting offensive statistic. It just measures a player's offense v. the league average for that position.
It think the stats analysis on pitching is generally terrible (all they look at are strikeouts) an I doubt that it's possible to develop a good stat for defense.

chunk
12-11-2009, 09:52 PM
Have fun with that.

Billy Beane thinks he can do it with stats too, hasn't done him much good either.

Yup, Beane is the only GM who uses stats to evaluate players. He also has 5 playoff berths in the past decade while maintaining a very low payroll. In fact, only two MLB teams don't have sabermetric departments. The use of it has grown so much that now Bloomberg is entering the market.

DSpivack
12-11-2009, 10:04 PM
Yup, Beane is the only GM who uses stats to evaluate players. He also has 5 playoff berths in the past decade while maintaining a very low payroll. In fact, only two MLB teams don't have sabermetric departments. The use of it has grown so much that now Bloomberg is entering the market.

Beane also had arguably the best trio of SPs this decade. What has he done since they left?

tm1119
12-11-2009, 10:06 PM
VORP stands for Value Over Replacement Player. I also care and judge players based on their ability to play baseball. I just think that objective stats are better tools than subjective evaluations for making those judgments.

I love when people try to act as if stats aren't a direct correlation of what is seen on the field. Like some how their subjective opinion is more valid. What is it about stats that turns people off so much? And Im not trying to call anyone out or anything, just curious. I understand that there are subtle nuances to the game that can't be calculated, but to completely throw away stats because of that is pretty ignorant in my opinion. Now Im not a huge stat head like some and would never judge a player completely off of stats, but what other way is there to judge a player if you dont see them play regularly(such as Gardner)?

Oh and just to keep this on topic, Gardner had a VORP of 11.4 last season. That was good enough for 24th in the league of all players who had at least 275 PA's at CF. Kemp was the leader with 49, and just as a gauge, Span was at 37 last season. In other words, saber stats dont think too highly of Gardner. As I said early, hes nothing special and I hope he is more of a last ditch effort of KW than a player that he covets.

DSpivack
12-11-2009, 10:09 PM
I love when people try to act as if stats aren't a direct correlation of what is seen on the field. Like some how their subjective opinion is more valid. What is it about stats that turns people off so much? And Im not trying to call anyone out or anything, just curious. I understand that there are subtle nuances to the game that can't be calculated, but to completely throw away stats because of that is pretty ignorant in my opinion. Now Im not a huge stat head like some and would never judge a player completely off of stats, but what other way is there to judge a player if you dont see them play regularly(such as Gardner)?

Oh and just to keep this on topic, Gardner had a VORP of 11.4 last season. That was good enough for 24th in the league of all players who had at least 275 PA's at CF. Kemp was the leader with 49, and just as a gauge, Span was at 37 last season. In other words, saber stats dont think too highly of Gardner. As I said early, hes nothing special and I hope he is more of a last ditch effort of KW than a player that he covets.

Problem to me with stats like VORP is that they are completely made up algorithms. Stats like OBP and slugging are much more direct. I think when you start adding so many variables to the equation, the stat loses meaning. It's not directly measuring anything.

sullythered
12-11-2009, 10:11 PM
I love when people try to act as if stats aren't a direct correlation of what is seen on the field. Like some how their subjective opinion is more valid. What is it about stats that turns people off so much? And Im not trying to call anyone out or anything, just curious. I understand that there are subtle nuances to the game that can't be calculated, but to completely throw away stats because of that is pretty ignorant in my opinion. Now Im not a huge stat head like some and would never judge a player completely off of stats, but what other way is there to judge a player if you dont see them play regularly(such as Gardner)?

Oh and just to keep this on topic, Gardner had a VORP of 11.4 last season. That was good enough for 24th in the league of all players who had at least 275 PA's at CF. Kemp was the leader with 49, and just as a gauge, Span was at 37 last season. In other words, saber stats dont think too highly of Gardner. As I said early, hes nothing special and I hope he is more of a last ditch effort of KW than a player that he covets.
The real underlying problem is that the old schoolers want to throw out sabermetrics completely, and often the sabermetricians want to throw out the subtle nuance and human element completely. They will never agree. It's almost like arguing politics. It's annoying and endless, and the truth is that the correct tact to take is to use all the scouting tools in your arsenal.

Craig Grebeck
12-12-2009, 01:36 AM
Christ. What a stupid argument. Hey Daver, you do know that Beane has scouts, right?

Lip Man 1
12-12-2009, 10:55 AM
Reading this page and trying to understand all the abbreviations reminds me of Mr. Gumby..."my brain hurts..."

Just play the friggin game and leave the mathematics in the classroom.

Lip

OmarLittle
12-12-2009, 11:37 AM
Reading this page and trying to understand all the abbreviations reminds me of Mr. Gumby..."my brain hurts..."

Just play the friggin game and leave the mathematics in the classroom.

Lip

yeah because using stats means advocating not really playing the game of baseball. in fact i have never watched a baseball game in my life. i just sit in my parents basement and plug numbers into my computer and it churns out results. :rolleyes:

people who ignore stats completely are just as ignorant as people who want to deal with stats as absolutes.

Craig Grebeck
12-12-2009, 11:38 AM
Reading this page and trying to understand all the abbreviations reminds me of Mr. Gumby..."my brain hurts..."

Just play the friggin game and leave the mathematics in the classroom.

Lip
You do know that every franchise in MLB has a department that looks at similar forms of evaluation? They may not look at VORP per sť, but they do look at things in that vein.

DirtySox
12-12-2009, 11:53 AM
You do know that every franchise in MLB has a department that looks at similar forms of evaluation? They may not look at VORP per sť, but they do look at things in that vein.

Give it up Craig. You are compromising the purity of the game with all these numbers.

NLaloosh
12-12-2009, 11:54 AM
Take away May and June and Gardner's OBP, and remember this is a guy with zero power, he rarely gets any extra base hits, was below .300. So whats the point? He's an extra OF. Not a leadoff man.

He's Jerry Owens revisited.

johnny_mostil
12-12-2009, 12:15 PM
It think the stats analysis on pitching is generally terrible (all they look at are strikeouts) an I doubt that it's possible to develop a good stat for defense.

The focus on strikeouts is because they are the best single predictor of career longevity. This isn't opinion, it's proven. You can argue all day about why this is and what it means.

Pitcher career quality is much harder if not impossible to predict, mostly, I think, because injuries are what control pitcher destinies as much as anything. One pop and it can all be over.

As for defense, I agree with you, because there is too much variability of opportunity. No two players face the same pattern of chances.

Tragg
12-12-2009, 06:51 PM
The focus on strikeouts is because they are the best single predictor of career longevity. This isn't opinion, it's proven. You can argue all day about why this is and what it means.
Well, a)my objection is using it to judge quality of pitcher, which it assuredly is used for; I wish they would stick to using it for longevity; Nolan Ryan was that, but he wasn't the best pitcher of his era by any stretch b)even it is "proven" as the "Best" predictor of longevity, what is the significance? It doesn't mean it's accurate, just less worse than everything else.
A lot of pitchers who "miss a lot of bats" give up a ton of home runs. That hasn't been reconciled.
And then there's the notion of Ks being the most important stat for a pitcher, but the least important for a hitter.

Lip Man 1
12-12-2009, 07:03 PM
So strikeouts are a measure of pitching longevity? Interesting.

Yet doesn't strikeouts mean more pitches thrown which puts more wear and tear on an arm?

Isn't say the ground ball pitcher who can consistently get guys out on a first or second pitch more likely to have a longer career because he throws fewer pitches?

Something seems amiss here.

Lip

Pablo_Honey
12-12-2009, 07:41 PM
So strikeouts are a measure of pitching longevity? Interesting.

Yet doesn't strikeouts mean more pitches thrown which puts more wear and tear on an arm?

Isn't say the ground ball pitcher who can consistently get guys out on a first or second pitch more likely to have a longer career because he throws fewer pitches?

Something seems amiss here.

Lip
Absolutely agreed. Saying strikeouts determines longevity sounds a bit farfetched. I see why strikeouts are so valued, but to be a power pitcher, one needs to throw hard and have a nasty secondary pitch. Unless the pitcher in question has great mechanics and is a genetic freak like Nolan Ryan, doing those two things puts some serious stress on the pitching arm. For every Ryan, there are about 10 Pedros.

TheVulture
12-12-2009, 09:01 PM
Absolutely agreed. Saying strikeouts determines longevity sounds a bit farfetched. I see why strikeouts are so valued, but to be a power pitcher, one needs to throw hard and have a nasty secondary pitch. Unless the pitcher in question has great mechanics and is a genetic freak like Nolan Ryan, doing those two things puts some serious stress on the pitching arm. For every Ryan, there are about 10 Pedros.

It seems to me "career longevity" in this context would have more to do with simply having the ability to remain a major league player for a long duration - the ability to succeed in the majors for a sustained period - more than the ability to just remain healthy. The strikeout rates, especially at younger ages, are a better predictor that a player has that ability than it is a standard for success that has already been achieved. Basically, most players with poor career longevity are such due to the inability to hack it at the major league level. Granted, you look at guy like Buehrle and throw the K rate idea out the window, but, interestingly, Buehrle's highest K rates in his ML career have immediately preceded his most successful years. 2000>>2001 and 2002. 2004>>2005. And as a minor leaguer, his K/BB rates were very good which I'd argue is an even better indicator than just K rates. So even with him the concept seems to add up.

And Pedro's been in the majors for what? 16 or 17 years now? I'd say that's good career longevity compared to the guy, of which there are hundreds for every Pedro, who gets demoted after a couple of months or a year or two of mop up duty and failed attempts at establishing themselves in a starting rotation.

Pablo_Honey
12-12-2009, 09:36 PM
It seems to me "career longevity" in this context would have more to do with simply having the ability to remain a major league player for a long duration - the ability to succeed in the majors for a sustained period - more than the ability to just remain healthy. The strikeout rates, especially at younger ages, are a better predictor that a player has that ability than it is a standard for success that has already been achieved.
Hmm, that makes more sense now. The word "longevity" automatically had me assume we were talking about how long the pitcher can last in terms of health-wise and age-wise.

And Pedro's been in the majors for what? 16 or 17 years now? I'd say that's good career longevity compared to the guy, of which there are hundreds for every Pedro, who gets demoted after a couple of months or a year or two of mop up duty and failed attempts at establishing themselves in a starting rotation.
I was more of thinking along the lines of his health, which I think lasted about 13 seasons. He was the first person that came to mind when thinking about pitchers that flamed out a bit too fast. Now that I think about it, it's not as bad as I thought (I guess I was thinking about how long he lasted after those 4 crazy seasons with Boston)

DSpivack
12-12-2009, 10:34 PM
So strikeouts are a measure of pitching longevity? Interesting.

Yet doesn't strikeouts mean more pitches thrown which puts more wear and tear on an arm?

Isn't say the ground ball pitcher who can consistently get guys out on a first or second pitch more likely to have a longer career because he throws fewer pitches?

Something seems amiss here.

Lip

"Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic."