PDA

View Full Version : Murton on the block...?


Craig Grebeck
05-23-2007, 07:53 AM
The Chicago Cubs (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/team_audit.php?team=CHN) desperately need bullpen help, and reportedly would part with outfielder Matt Murton (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/murtoma01.php) in the right deal
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6251

My oh my Murton would look wonderful in LF for the next five years.

balke
05-23-2007, 07:55 AM
I was thinking the other day they'll probably trade Floyd or Murton for some pitching. They have good bargaining chips on the hitting side.

IndianWhiteSox
05-23-2007, 08:12 AM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6251

My oh my Murton would look wonderful in LF for the next five years.

Keep dreaming, but he's look very good as a backup OF.

ondafarm
05-23-2007, 08:20 AM
So what, a little more right handed power is not what the White Sox need this year or for the next five or so.

Craig Grebeck
05-23-2007, 08:28 AM
He'd be a fantastic leadoff man with his patience. Murton put up an .800+ OPS in his first full season. He could progress into a great hitter.

chaerulez
05-23-2007, 08:32 AM
Murton would be a great #1 or #2 for any team. The only knock on his game is the fact that he is about as good as Pods at defense. His career minor league OBP is .380 and his career major league OBP coming into the 2007 season was .370. I think if given a full time playing chance, he can peak out as a 20-25 a year HR hitter. I would be pretty happy if the Sox got him.

rdivaldi
05-23-2007, 08:56 AM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6251

My oh my Murton would look wonderful in LF for the next five years.

As he drops balls and watches routine fly balls go right over his head? Murton is worse than Ozuna in the OF. No thanks.

jabrch
05-23-2007, 08:59 AM
You guys must be kidding.

The book is out on Matt Murton. Pitch him inside and up and he's toast. He has very little power and doesn't turn well on inside stuff. Teams have learned this and adjusted to it. He's a terrible defender, has no speed and little power. I'd MUCH rather see is give BA or Sweeney any ABs we have extra instead of having to give up a pitching prospect for Murton.

cws05champ
05-23-2007, 09:01 AM
Plus, the obvious....what would you give up in our BP to get Murton? Thorton, MacDougal? No thanks!!!

Getting him cheap is one thing, but we need all of our BP right now, and maybe some help ourselves. There is no fit here.

jabrch
05-23-2007, 09:19 AM
Plus, the obvious....what would you give up in our BP to get Murton? Thorton, MacDougal? No thanks!!!

Getting him cheap is one thing, but we need all of our BP right now, and maybe some help ourselves. There is no fit here.

Not only would I not give anyone from our pen, I would even give one of our TOP 10 pitching prospects. If they want Bret Prinz, fine. I'll throw Murton to AAA for a year or two and see if he gets strong enough to have some power and maybe someday be a seviceable extra LF. But I wouldn't give up anyone on our major league roster. I wouldn't give up anyone who might be a part of this team in the future - Phillips, Haeger, Floyd, Vazquez, Broadway, Russel, Harrell, Whisler, Egbert, Day, Gio, Honel, Wing, etc.

Matt Murton is a classic case of why baseball is played on a field, not a spreadsheet.

Craig Grebeck
05-23-2007, 09:27 AM
As he drops balls and watches routine fly balls go right over his head? Murton is worse than Ozuna in the OF. No thanks.
Hyperbole at its finest. 2nd in the league in zone rating and 5th in the league in range factor in 2006. Murton>>>>>Ozuna at the plate and in the field.
The book is out on Matt Murton. Pitch him inside and up and he's toast. He has very little power and doesn't turn well on inside stuff. Teams have learned this and adjusted to it. He's a terrible defender, has no speed and little power. I'd MUCH rather see is give BA or Sweeney any ABs we have extra instead of having to give up a pitching prospect for Murton.
Little power? .809 OPS in his first full season. I've already proved he's not a terrible defender. Sweeney projects to be as good as Murton already is right now.
Plus, the obvious....what would you give up in our BP to get Murton? Thorton, MacDougal? No thanks!!!

Getting him cheap is one thing, but we need all of our BP right now, and maybe some help ourselves. There is no fit here.
A full season in LF>>>>>>relief pitcher in terms of value and positive effect. The upgrade from Pods/Mack/Ozuna to Murton would be well worth giving up an injury prone, erratic reliever like MacDougal who has never pitched more than 70 innings.

Craig Grebeck
05-23-2007, 09:30 AM
Not only would I not give anyone from our pen, I would even give one of our TOP 10 pitching prospects. If they want Bret Prinz, fine. I'll throw Murton to AAA for a year or two and see if he gets strong enough to have some power and maybe someday be a seviceable extra LF. But I wouldn't give up anyone on our major league roster. I wouldn't give up anyone who might be a part of this team in the future - Phillips, Haeger, Floyd, Vazquez, Broadway, Russel, Harrell, Whisler, Egbert, Day, Gio, Honel, Wing, etc.

Matt Murton is a classic case of why baseball is played on a field, not a spreadsheet.
Are you serious? The guy has had nothing but success at every level and you wouldn't give up DEWON DAY OR KRIS HONEL for him? I don't care if baseball is played in a ****ing parking lot, Murton would do so much for a team that lacks quality, patient hitters and could use some youth.

rdivaldi
05-23-2007, 10:01 AM
Hyperbole at its finest. 2nd in the league in zone rating and 5th in the league in range factor in 2006. Murton>>>>>Ozuna at the plate and in the field.

Worthless stats at their finest. You know who finished FIRST in "range factor" in 2006? Alfonso Soriano. You know who finished THIRD in "zone rating"? Scott Podsednik.

How about actually watching a game once in awhile and leaving the meaningless propeller head stats to rags like BP?

rdivaldi
05-23-2007, 10:03 AM
I've already proved he's not a terrible defender. Sweeney projects to be as good as Murton already is right now.

:smokin:

You'd get laughed out of every scouting department in baseball if you suggested Matt Murton has anywhere near the same talent ceiling as Ryan Sweeney.

You haven't proven anything except that you can pull garbage stats from ESPN's website...

jabrch
05-23-2007, 10:15 AM
Worthless stats at their finest. You know who finished FIRST in "range factor" in 2006? Alfonso Soriano. You know who finished THIRD in "zone rating"? Scott Podsednik.

How about actually watching a game once in awhile and leaving the meaningless propeller head stats to rags like BP?


*****...Thanks RD - I wouldn't have seen that post had you not quoted it. FANTASTIC! ZONE RATING? RANGE FACTOR? That's rich.


Those are completely meaningless numbers (not statistics, just numbers) that have been debunked over and over again as being meaningless. Shannon Stewart is 2nd in MLB in RF for LFs. He SUCKS. Barry Bonds is 6th. 10 years ago - sure - today - no way. Here's the best one - who's the worst defensive LF in all of baseball? That's Adam Dunn - easily. He's got the 12th highest RF in baseball.

Want to look at ZR? Stewart 5th, Bonds 6th and Dunn 7th.

These are completely meaningless numbers.

If you watch him play, it is nearly impossible to not come to the conclusion that Matt Murton is a TERRIBLE defensive player. He does not get to a lot of balls, he has a weak arm, he makes stupid plays. If he were even remotely decent, the Cubs wouldn't have had to go out and sign 2 other LFs and wouldn't have since relegated him to being the ass end of a platoon with Cliff Floyd.

The Sox hardly need a LF with no power, no speed and no glove. If we aren't going to upgrade from Sweeney, BA, Pods, there's no reason to have a small market mentality and try and take the sloppy seconds from a sub-.500 team. Leave that to the As or the Royals.

Murton has one redeeming quality - if a pitcher doesn't throw a strike, Murton doesn't swing. That's nice and all, but it won't do a damn bit of good against good pitching.

The Immigrant
05-23-2007, 10:26 AM
If he were even remotely decent, the Cubs wouldn't have had to go out and sign 2 other LFs and wouldn't have since relegated him to being the ass end of a platoon with Cliff Floyd.

:roflmao:

That's high comedy right there. Thanks, jabrch.

For even better laughs, yesterday a few clowns at southsidesox.com were advocating trading Thornton AND MacDougal to the Cubs for Murton. :o: :mg: :nuts: :kukoo:

Craig Grebeck
05-23-2007, 10:26 AM
*****...Thanks RD - I wouldn't have seen that post had you not quoted it. FANTASTIC! ZONE RATING? RANGE FACTOR? That's rich.


Those are completely meaningless numbers (not statistics, just numbers) that have been debunked over and over again as being meaningless. Shannon Stewart is 2nd in MLB in RF for LFs. He SUCKS. Barry Bonds is 6th. 10 years ago - sure - today - no way. Here's the best one - who's the worst defensive LF in all of baseball? That's Adam Dunn - easily. He's got the 12th highest RF in baseball.

Want to look at ZR? Stewart 5th, Bonds 6th and Dunn 7th.

These are completely meaningless numbers.

If you watch him play, it is nearly impossible to not come to the conclusion that Matt Murton is a TERRIBLE defensive player. He does not get to a lot of balls, he has a weak arm, he makes stupid plays. If he were even remotely decent, the Cubs wouldn't have had to go out and sign 2 other LFs and wouldn't have since relegated him to being the ass end of a platoon with Cliff Floyd.

The Sox hardly need a LF with no power, no speed and no glove. If we aren't going to upgrade from Sweeney, BA, Pods, there's no reason to have a small market mentality and try and take the sloppy seconds from a sub-.500 team. Leave that to the As or the Royals.

Murton has one redeeming quality - if a pitcher doesn't throw a strike, Murton doesn't swing. That's nice and all, but it won't do a damn bit of good against good pitching.
You don't want sloppy seconds from a sub .500 team? Look at our lineup! We have ****ty hitters at a lot of positions: Uribe, Erstad, Podsednik. How the hell would Murton not be a tremendous upgrade over Podsednik in every way shape or form.

jabrch
05-23-2007, 10:32 AM
:roflmao:

That's high comedy right there. Thanks, jabrch.

For even better laughs, yesterday a few clowns at southsidesox.com were advocating trading Thornton AND MacDougal to the Cubs for Murton. :o: :mg: :nuts: :kukoo:

Really? That's just NUTS.

I wouldn't give them Thornton for any of their OFs. (they either are very limited in skills, are overly injury prone, or are due $133MM).

We don't yet have the perfect answer for LF. But there's absolutely no way I'd give up anything of value for a guy who is less complete and less of an impact player than the 5 or 6 candidates that we have.

Craig Grebeck
05-23-2007, 10:36 AM
He had a rate of 105 (5 runs above average) http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?mode=viewstat&stat=143
He had a 15 FRAR http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?mode=viewstat&stat=143

He is not "terrible" defensively. Why are people struggling with the prospect of replacing Murton with Pods? Pods is AWFUL in every aspect of the game. Hell, people are saying Murton has no speed, no glove, no power yet he posted an .809 OPS in his FIRST FULL SEASON. And using Hendry's moves as defense to your views is mental. The guy signed middle relievers to multiple year deals, gave a good player a GREAT contract, and ignored his quality 4/5 starters in the minors so he could overpay for Jason Marquis. Excuse me if I'm not convinced that he's handling Murton the right way.

GoSox2K3
05-23-2007, 10:37 AM
Hyperbole at its finest.

Well, you ought to know about hyperbole at its finest:
Craig Grebeck (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=399598) on the Sox signing Darin Erstad: Absolutely dreadful. He provides zero value....Absolutely foolish. Giving Ozzie Erstad will come back to haunt KW....Terrible, terrible move.

Tragg
05-23-2007, 10:38 AM
Murton has one redeeming quality - if a pitcher doesn't throw a strike, Murton doesn't swing. That's nice and all, but it won't do a damn bit of good against good pitching.
I agree with you - the guys who's best skill is walking are limited and ultimately you have to be able to hit. Good pitching shuts most of them down Of course I feel the same way about slap hitters too - they can flail away at good pitching and hope to get lucky; some of them are really good.

The good news is that there is so much bad pitching or at least not good pitching that these guys can be useful.

Murton looks like a 4th outfielder to me. We have several of those on the team already, although his skill, walking instead of slap hitting, would be unique.

Edit to say that someone mentioned leadoff. You put these guys who are good walkers but bad hitters at leadoff and they flop - because pitchers throw them strikes. Leadoff hitters need to take walks for sure - but they also need to hit. Running bases well also helps. They're hard to find. When in his groove, Podsednik is pretty good at it -the best we've had since the great Tim Raines. BUt few people agree with me on that.

Craig Grebeck
05-23-2007, 10:47 AM
Well, you ought to know about hyperbole at its finest: Craig Grebeck (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=399598) on the Sox signing Darin Erstad: Absolutely dreadful. He provides zero value....Absolutely foolish. Giving Ozzie Erstad will come back to haunt KW....Terrible, terrible move.



Actually, it was quite prophetic that I knew Erstad's hustle would make Ozzie's head spin. I'm sorry for saying he'd provide zero value. His .672 OPS has provided .3 value.

jabrch
05-23-2007, 10:48 AM
I agree with you - the guys who's best skill is walking are limited and ultimately you have to be able to hit. Good pitching shuts most of them down Of course I feel the same way about slap hitters too - they can flail away at good pitching and hope to get lucky; some of them are really good.

The good news is that there is so much bad pitching or at least not good pitching that these guys can be useful.

Murton looks like a 4th outfielder to me. We have several of those on the team already, although his skill, walking instead of slap hitting, would be unique.


I think there are some slap hitters who are very good at what they do. Obviously Ichiro is the exception, not the rule. I'd much rather have a practiced and disciplined slap hitter who will be able to get his hits (those guys tend to do OK against tougher pitching) than a guy who requires the pitcher to throw a ball to be effective.

Murton has been exposed over time. Look at he YOY performance. Nobody is afraid of throwing him fastballs on the inner half of the plate because there is nothing he can do. He can't get his hands inside fast enough to pull the ball. He's not strong enough to muscle it.

He's the right handed platoon partner to Cliff Floyd and Jaque Jones. He would have little to no value in most other roles. He's surely not able to do the things that Pods does when healthy. He's not nearly as well regarded as Sweeney or BA. He's vastly inferior to those two defensively and if he had to play every day, against AL pitching, his offensive numbers wouldn't look any better than what we expect from those two.

Matt Murton - that's a joke. He's not good enough to play for the Cubs, and people want him hitting #1 or #2 for us? Really - what color is the sky in Spreadsheetville?

jabrch
05-23-2007, 10:51 AM
Edit to say that someone mentioned leadoff. You put these guys who are good walkers but bad hitters at leadoff and they flop - because pitchers throw them strikes. Leadoff hitters need to take walks for sure - but they also need to hit. Running bases well also helps. They're hard to find. When in his groove, Podsednik is pretty good at it -the best we've had since the great Tim Raines. BUt few people agree with me on that.

Very well said Tragg. I agree 100%

Craig Grebeck
05-23-2007, 11:05 AM
Yes, I would prefer Murton to Pods leading off in LF. Agree to disagree. I'm not going to argue with someone who can't see his obvious value.

oeo
05-23-2007, 11:14 AM
Actually, it was quite prophetic that I knew Erstad's hustle would make Ozzie's head spin. I'm sorry for saying he'd provide zero value. His .672 OPS has provided .3 value.

How about his clutch RBIs? Do you have a statistic for that? I mean, stats tell everything according to you.

Tragg
05-23-2007, 11:18 AM
Yes, I would prefer Murton to Pods leading off in LF. Agree to disagree. I'm not going to argue with someone who can't see his obvious value.

Through it all, I'd take him on the team because we need some walker types and we're loaded with slap hitters.
We'll have to disagree re him as a leadoff hitter or starter really.

ilsox7
05-23-2007, 11:21 AM
How about his clutch RBIs? Do you have a statistic for that? I mean, stats tell everything according to you.

No such thing as clutch in their world. No such thing as actual baseball, either. It's all played on a spreadsheet. Microsoft Excel is the ballpark. It's a beautiful place. You can even change the park's color scheme any time you'd like. Not to mention the possibility of circular references!

Hitmen77
05-23-2007, 11:24 AM
Actually, it was quite prophetic that I knew Erstad's hustle would make Ozzie's head spin. I'm sorry for saying he'd provide zero value. His .672 OPS has provided .3 value.

Yes, you are quite the prophet. I hate it when players impress Ozzie with their hustle. :rolleyes:

If you don't say so yourself, eh. Way to keep patting yourself on the back for something you are wrong about.

That's just nonsense. Get over yourself and your anti-Erstad obsession already.

There's just no rationalizing with you because you are one of those fans who roots for Sox players to fail and will keep pulling every stat possible out of your ass to prop up your lame argument. Keep on worshiping the almighty OPS - the rest of us will actually root for the players when they drive in runs and hustle.

kjhanson
05-23-2007, 11:27 AM
Actually, it was quite prophetic that I knew Erstad's hustle would make Ozzie's head spin. I'm sorry for saying he'd provide zero value. His .672 OPS has provided .3 value.

Oh WOW. I need to put the picture of Hawk in here: "Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it..."

Erstad:

RISP: .351 2 HR 21 RBI .958 OPS
2 outs, RISP: .421 1 HR 11 RBI 1.160 OPS

Murton:

RISP: .278 1 HR 7 RBI
2 outs, RISP: .125 0 HR 1 RBI

skottyj242
05-23-2007, 11:32 AM
I was thinking the other day they'll probably trade Floyd or Murton for some pitching. They have good bargaining chips on the hitting side.

They would trade Jones before Floyd.

ilsox7
05-23-2007, 11:34 AM
Oh WOW. I need to put the picture of Hawk in here: "Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it..."

Erstad:

RISP: .351 2 HR 21 RBI .958 OPS
2 outs, RISP: .421 1 HR 11 RBI 1.160 OPS

Murton:

RISP: .278 1 HR 7 RBI
2 outs, RISP: .125 0 HR 1 RBI

Doesn't count. Game situations mean absolutely nothing. See? I proved it. Now let me tell you all about me being right . . .

oeo
05-23-2007, 11:34 AM
Erstad:

RISP: .351 2 HR 21 RBI .958 OPS
2 outs, RISP: .421 1 HR 11 RBI 1.160 OPS

He means nothing to this team.

CHISOXFAN13
05-23-2007, 11:41 AM
Oh WOW. I need to put the picture of Hawk in here: "Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it..."

Erstad:

RISP: .351 2 HR 21 RBI .958 OPS
2 outs, RISP: .421 1 HR 11 RBI 1.160 OPS

Murton:

RISP: .278 1 HR 7 RBI
2 outs, RISP: .125 0 HR 1 RBI

Well, that should pretty much put an end to this thread. Good stuff!

Hitmen77
05-23-2007, 12:17 PM
Well, that should pretty much put an end to this thread. Good stuff!

Don't count on it. I expect the following response:


OPS blah blah blah OPS OPS. See, I was right all along!

UserNameBlank
05-23-2007, 01:37 PM
Not only would I not give anyone from our pen, I would even give one of our TOP 10 pitching prospects. If they want Bret Prinz, fine. I'll throw Murton to AAA for a year or two and see if he gets strong enough to have some power and maybe someday be a seviceable extra LF. But I wouldn't give up anyone on our major league roster. I wouldn't give up anyone who might be a part of this team in the future - Phillips, Haeger, Floyd, Vasquez (fixed that for you), Broadway, Russel, Harrell, Whisler, Egbert, Day, Gio, Honel, Wing, etc.

Matt Murton is a classic case of why baseball is played on a field, not a spreadsheet.
I'd LMAO if KW could get Murton for any combination of those players. There is no way that happens.

That said, I like Murton but I think the Sox need to aim higher as far as a young LF is concerned. With Thome in the end of his career, Dye possibly walking after this year, and Crede maybe on his way out as well, the Sox are going to need more than 20 HR power out of a corner OF spot if they plan on contending.

UserNameBlank
05-23-2007, 01:42 PM
Oh WOW. I need to put the picture of Hawk in here: "Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it..."

Erstad:

RISP: .351 2 HR 21 RBI .958 OPS
2 outs, RISP: .421 1 HR 11 RBI 1.160 OPS

Murton:

RISP: .278 1 HR 7 RBI
2 outs, RISP: .125 0 HR 1 RBI
Erstad has been surprisingly clutch so far this year. Still, Murton is younger and all signs point to him being a pretty solid, consistent producer.

But you go fall in love with Optimus Grind. I guarantee that if Murton was available this past offseason, he would have gotten a much better deal than what we gave him and he would have had more than 2 teams interested in his services.

jabrch
05-23-2007, 01:47 PM
Erstad has been surprisingly clutch so far this year. Still, Murton is younger and all signs point to him being a pretty solid, consistent producer.


There are no signs of that if you watch him hit today. He can not handle anything on the inside half of the plate unless he completely gives up the outer half.

He's either going to take a pitch, or guess on where the ball is coming. That's not good for a young hitter.

D. TODD
05-23-2007, 02:03 PM
Murton is the red headed stepchild of a leadoff hitter at best.:tongue:

Jjav829
05-23-2007, 02:11 PM
Don't count on it. I expect the following response:

You left out VORP, OPS+ and a bunch of other random letters thrown together which all value the same kinds of things and completely ignore the baseball part of...baseball.

JGarlandrules20
05-23-2007, 02:21 PM
Murton is the red headed stepchild of a leadoff hitter at best.:tongue:
:o: That was mean! :tongue:

His hair is the best and I'm not just saying that because I'm a red head too.

UserNameBlank
05-23-2007, 02:21 PM
You guys must be kidding.

The book is out on Matt Murton. Pitch him inside and up and he's toast. He has very little power and doesn't turn well on inside stuff. Teams have learned this and adjusted to it. He's a terrible defender, has no speed and little power. I'd MUCH rather see is give BA or Sweeney any ABs we have extra instead of having to give up a pitching prospect for Murton.

I agree here and I wouldn't want take Murton over Sweeney or Anderson, and I also think that if next year's OF consists of Sweeney and Anderson we will need a legit 40 HR/year guy to make up for all that lack of production.

There are no signs of that if you watch him hit today. He can not handle anything on the inside half of the plate unless he completely gives up the outer half.

He's either going to take a pitch, or guess on where the ball is coming. That's not good for a young hitter.

I'd be lying if I said I watched the Cubs enough to know a whole lot about Murton's swing, but if a guy has that much trouble handling an inside pitch and still puts up a line of .299/.364/.449 in 683 career major league AB's, I think he's definitely a worthwhile player.

Again though, I'm definitely not hoping the Sox go after this guy. They need to aim much, much higher for their OF. A Murton-Anderson-Sweeney OF in '08 would be a nice bet for 40-50 HRs. That is simply not anywhere near good enough in the AL, especially for us since we play in the Cell.

jabrch
05-23-2007, 02:37 PM
I'd be lying if I said I watched the Cubs enough to know a whole lot about Murton's swing, but if a guy has that much trouble handling an inside pitch and still puts up a line of .299/.364/.449 in 683 career major league AB's, I think he's definitely a worthwhile player.

Look at his numbers Year over Year. Each year teams have built more a book on him. Now he hardly ever sees anything over the middle or out. Teams know what to throw him and his numbers show it. Look at what he's done so far this year, and why he is now Cliff Floyd and Jaque Jones RH platoon partner.

He's not a .299/.364/.449 hitter today - he's a .273/.326/.364 hitter.

Don't listen to me - don't read the stat line. Watch Cubs games a bit and make your own opinion. But look at how he does or doesn't get his hands inside and how he is or is not able to get power on pitches on the inner half of the dish.

The question is what you want him to do. If you want 20-25 HRs, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. If you want a .450 SLG, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. If you want a guy to hit .300, he's probably not it either.

Murton would probably be a serviceable 4th/5th OF if he played RF and CF, but he hardly plays LF to an acceptable level. Giving the Cubs what they want (pitching) is what I probably wouldn't be willing to do. He's going to add nothing that we likely can't get from our existing roster.

UserNameBlank
05-23-2007, 02:51 PM
If he were even remotely decent, the Cubs wouldn't have had to go out and sign 2 other LFs and wouldn't have since relegated him to being the ass end of a platoon with Cliff Floyd.

Don't use Hendry's moves as a reason to say a player is bad at anything. Hendry is the same guy who:
-traded a bunch of pitching to FLA for one year of the weakest CF ever in Juan Pierre
-defended Dusty Baker when he tried to **** with Corey Patterson and turn him into a leadoff hitter, and THEN dumped him for nothing so he could become a very respectable CF in Baltimore
-had 2 corner OF and no CF on his major league roster, and then went out and got 2 more corner OF's and still no CF
-spent $17mil/year on 2 no. 4 starters
....and this list goes on.

Hendry is the reason the Cubs suck. In 2003 the Cubs had a team that was close to advancing to the WS, but failed in Game 6. That same exact year, across town the Sox had a team that failed to even make the playoffs. In three years, Hendry has taken his team from a WS contender to a 60-some win team in need of rebuilding, while KW has rebuilt his entire roster, hired a new manager, shook up the coaching staff, and won a WS. You can make the case that the injuries to Wood and Prior hurt the Cubs tremendously, but the Sox meanwhile had Danny Wright blow up in their faces, lost Bartolo Colon to FA, had Cy Young contender Esteban Loaiza blow up, and still managed to put together the one of the best starting rotations in postseason history in a matter of about 1 1/2 years.

The upgrade from Pods/Mack/Ozuna to Murton would be well worth giving up an injury prone, erratic reliever like MacDougal who has never pitched more than 70 innings.

Murton would make a nice upgrade right now, but for the future of our team I think it would be a waste to trade anything really good for him, and Murton would cost something really good.

I've said this for a while, and I still believe it, but the Sox should really shop Thornton and MacDougal. I wouldn't mind giving one of those guys up at all along with some of our low ceiling minor leaguers if it means us getting either a highly touted prospect with a very high ceiling and/or a major league impact player.

UserNameBlank
05-23-2007, 02:56 PM
Look at his numbers Year over Year. Each year teams have built more a book on him. Now he hardly ever sees anything over the middle or out. Teams know what to throw him and his numbers show it. Look at what he's done so far this year, and why he is now Cliff Floyd and Jaque Jones RH platoon partner.

He's not a .299/.364/.449 hitter today - he's a .273/.326/.364 hitter.

Don't listen to me - don't read the stat line. Watch Cubs games a bit and make your own opinion. But look at how he does or doesn't get his hands inside and how he is or is not able to get power on pitches on the inner half of the dish.

The question is what you want him to do. If you want 20-25 HRs, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. If you want a .450 SLG, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. If you want a guy to hit .300, he's probably not it either.

Murton would probably be a serviceable 4th/5th OF if he played RF and CF, but he hardly plays LF to an acceptable level. Giving the Cubs what they want (pitching) is what I probably wouldn't be willing to do. He's going to add nothing that we likely can't get from our existing roster.
I'll take your word for it then because I don't watch the Cubs and I never will watch the Cubs, unless of course they are playing the Brewers, but you also have to factor in all the AB's that are being taken away by Cliff Floyd.

No matter what though, I still think the Cubs made a bad move in not starting him everyday. The Cubs need to rebuild, and Jones and Floyd taking up roster space isn't helping them.

kjhanson
05-23-2007, 03:07 PM
Erstad has been surprisingly clutch so far this year. Still, Murton is younger and all signs point to him being a pretty solid, consistent producer.

But you go fall in love with Optimus Grind. I guarantee that if Murton was available this past offseason, he would have gotten a much better deal than what we gave him and he would have had more than 2 teams interested in his services.

Huh? Who said I was falling in love? I was making the point that right now Erstad is much more valuable to our club than a guy like Murton and his "gaudy" OPS. I think Murton is OK, but a 20 HR, bad defensive OFs are a dime-a-dozen. (Just look at the Cubs, they have 3 or 4 of them) In 3 years Murton will be a pretty solid offensive player (he already is close), but we are discussing the 2007 White Sox, not the 2010 version.

UserNameBlank
05-23-2007, 03:23 PM
Huh? Who said I was falling in love? I was making the point that right now Erstad is much more valuable to our club than a guy like Murton and his "gaudy" OPS. I think Murton is OK, but a 20 HR, bad defensive OFs are a dime-a-dozen. (Just look at the Cubs, they have 3 or 4 of them) In 3 years Murton will be a pretty solid offensive player (he already is close), but we are discussing the 2007 White Sox, not the 2010 version.
Erstad is more valuable to us right now than Erstad mainly because he plays CF. He's been really clutch so far this year, but I don't know how much longer that is going to hold up. If Murton played CF and played it as good as Erstad, I've take Murton over him in a heartbeat. That is not the case though, so Murton wouldn't be a good pickup for the team considering what he will cost.

jabrch
05-23-2007, 03:25 PM
I'll take your word for it then because I don't watch the Cubs and I never will watch the Cubs, unless of course they are playing the Brewers, but you also have to factor in all the AB's that are being taken away by Cliff Floyd.

Don't take my word for it. That's no more helpful than reading a box score and trying to construct a reality from that. Watch him play a bit. If after you do, you still believe that this guy is the answer, then I can respect that.

IMHO, OPS is a terrible way to measure a guy like Murton. You need to look at each of the components individually instead of try and make one number out of them.

Batting Average - .270 - OK
OBP .326 - OK
SLG .364 - Poor
HR/AB 1:88 - poor
K:AB or K:BB - OK
Defensively he has average to below average LF range, an average LF arm and very poor fielding instincts.

I just haven't seen anything in him that leads me to believe he can do anything more than what I believe Sweeney or Anderson can do - surely not enough to give up a pitcher for him, and surely not enough to take ABs away from either of those two - who aren't even on the roster right now.

Now if the Sox are going to give up on Mack and Terrero, and look to upgrade LF, we should be looking at a GREAT hitting LFs who we can get, not fringe big leaguers.

jabrch
05-23-2007, 03:25 PM
Erstad is more valuable to us right now than Erstad

I can't argue with that.

getonbckthr
05-23-2007, 03:45 PM
You don't want sloppy seconds from a sub .500 team? Look at our lineup! We have ****ty hitters at a lot of positions: Uribe, Erstad, Podsednik. How the hell would Murton not be a tremendous upgrade over Podsednik in every way shape or form.

Yes, I would prefer Murton to Pods leading off in LF. Agree to disagree. I'm not going to argue with someone who can't see his obvious value.
Lets say their defense is equal (for the record I feel Pods is better) lets move to offense. Will Murton ever steal 40 bases? Will Murton ever be capable of scoring 100 runs plus season in season out? Does Murton create the havoc on the bases that Pods does? Sure Murton might finish with an overall better average however Pods will have a better overall positive impact. Matt Murton might not be able to start at Charlotte let alone be on our roster. No thank you let some other team have the "Gingerbread Man."

ilsox7
05-23-2007, 03:54 PM
Lets say their defense is equal (for the record I feel Pods is better) lets move to offense. Will Murton ever steal 40 bases? Will Murton ever be capable of scoring 100 runs plus season in season out? Does Murton create the havoc on the bases that Pods does? Sure Murton might finish with an overall better average however Pods will have a better overall positive impact. Matt Murton might not be able to start at Charlotte let alone be on our roster. No thank you let some other team have the "Gingerbread Man."

Murton finished with a 142.234 HAVoC++ rating last year to Pods' 127.945 HAVoC++. Therefore, Murton is better. I've just shown that!

kjhanson
05-23-2007, 04:17 PM
Lets say their defense is equal (for the record I feel Pods is better) lets move to offense. Will Murton ever steal 40 bases? Will Murton ever be capable of scoring 100 runs plus season in season out? Does Murton create the havoc on the bases that Pods does? Sure Murton might finish with an overall better average however Pods will have a better overall positive impact. Matt Murton might not be able to start at Charlotte let alone be on our roster. No thank you let some other team have the "Gingerbread Man."

Actually to tell you the truth, and I'm one of the last people to say nice things about Cubs players, I think Murton could score 100 runs a season, or at least get close. Last year he scored 70 runs in 144 games. While that is hardly impressive and not even close to 100, consider that 66 of his at bats were from the 2, 3 or 4 spots. The other 389 were from hitting 5th or lower in a weak National League lineup. It's hard to score any runs when you hit that low in any National League order. I think he is a very solid #2 hitter; 45 BB: 62 K last year.

jabrch
05-23-2007, 04:25 PM
I think he is a very solid #2 hitter; 45 BB: 62 K last year.

#2 hitter? Have you seen him play? The only thing he does well that you want a #2 hitter to do is not swing the bat. He doesn't handle it well, he doesn't sacrifice well. He's not good at hitting behind runners. He's not particularly good when he gets behind in the count. He picks a zone and he camps on it. If he gets it, he can hit it. He's got no ability to adjust to what the pitcher does. His hands are slow and his swing is largely defensive on anything on the middle/in.

If he were to be on this team, he'd hit in the bottom of the order where you usually put guys with no speed, no power and an incomplete skillset in terms of what he can hit effectively.

kjhanson
05-23-2007, 04:48 PM
#2 hitter? Have you seen him play? The only thing he does well that you want a #2 hitter to do is not swing the bat. He doesn't handle it well, he doesn't sacrifice well. He's not good at hitting behind runners. He's not particularly good when he gets behind in the count. He picks a zone and he camps on it. If he gets it, he can hit it. He's got no ability to adjust to what the pitcher does. His hands are slow and his swing is largely defensive on anything on the middle/in.

If he were to be on this team, he'd hit in the bottom of the order where you usually put guys with no speed, no power and an incomplete skillset in terms of what he can hit effectively.

OK, I used to have a lot of respect for your ability to scout and rate players. However, you have been caught with your pants down on this one.
Murton, Career:

Counts
After 0-1: .270 .681 OPS
After 0-2: .210 .512 OPS
After 1-2: .271 .706 OPS
After 2-2: .261 .758 OPS

After 0-1: .276 .710 OPS
After 0-2: .224 .565 OPS
After 1-2: .227 .587 OPS
After 2-2: .244 .707 OPS

Guess who the second player is? It is probably one of the best 2nd place hitters in recent memory, Roberto Alomar. Now, by no means am I saying that Matt Murton is Roberto Alomar. Hell, he's no Darin Erstad. None-the-less, he can handle the bat pretty well when down in the count.

Despite your mistaken evaluation, I agree that he does not possess the power you would want out of a corner outfielder. That's not a big deficiency if you are hitting in the #2 spot though.

jabrch
05-23-2007, 04:56 PM
OK, I used to have a lot of respect for your ability to scout and rate players. However, you have been caught with your pants down on this one.
Murton, Career:

Counts
After 0-1: .270 .681 OPS
After 0-2: .210 .512 OPS
After 1-2: .271 .706 OPS
After 2-2: .261 .758 OPS

After 0-1: .276 .710 OPS
After 0-2: .224 .565 OPS
After 1-2: .227 .587 OPS
After 2-2: .244 .707 OPS

Guess who the second player is? It is probably one of the best 2nd place hitters in recent memory, Roberto Alomar. Now, by no means am I saying that Matt Murton is Roberto Alomar. Hell, he's no Darin Erstad. None-the-less, he can handle the bat pretty well when down in the count.

Despite your mistaken evaluation, I agree that he does not possess the power you would want out of a corner outfielder. That's not a big deficiency if you are hitting in the #2 spot though.

I'm not sure I understand the conclusion you are drawing there. Robbie wasn't a great hitter from behind the count either. Robbie solved that by hardly getting behind in the count.

Just watch Murton a bit - watch him bat. Behind in the count, he becomes very defensive (like all hitters do) but the difference is he doesn't have the hands to recover. Look at him this year - when pitchers have adjusted to him. He's a different hitter than he was two years ago when he'd see more stuff away and up.

Beautox
05-23-2007, 05:03 PM
Hyperbole at its finest. 2nd in the league in zone rating and 5th in the league in range factor in 2006. Murton>>>>>Ozuna at the plate and in the field.

Little power? .809 OPS in his first full season. I've already proved he's not a terrible defender. Sweeney projects to be as good as Murton already is right now.

A full season in LF>>>>>>relief pitcher in terms of value and positive effect. The upgrade from Pods/Mack/Ozuna to Murton would be well worth giving up an injury prone, erratic reliever like MacDougal who has never pitched more than 70 innings.

ahh the sound of reason, i would go so far to say if they wanted Mmac and Day consider it done.

5 years of him in LF and in the #1 or #2 spot would be great. His defense is underrated; true he doesn't have a cannon but he is at least league average if not more so and he is only 25 years old and hasn't even entered his prime.

The sox have alot of promising BP arms coming up through our system at all different levels, and BP pitchers in general are erratic outside of a select few. you make this move 7 days a week and twice on sunday.

another "late bloomer" i would be interested in, in the off season is the D-Rays Brendan Harris(.320/.361/.416) hes only 26 and had only 110 Career AB coming into this season. The Sox have shown a willingness to go after said late bloomers with Scott Podsednik. The Rays have Reid Brignac who is scuffling a little bit down at AA but should be ready for a sept call up and a starting position going into '08. They also have Zobrist who hasn't gotten it together again since being sent down.

Send Uribe packing to Toronto.

UserNameBlank
05-23-2007, 05:51 PM
Don't take my word for it. That's no more helpful than reading a box score and trying to construct a reality from that. Watch him play a bit. If after you do, you still believe that this guy is the answer, then I can respect that.

IMHO, OPS is a terrible way to measure a guy like Murton. You need to look at each of the components individually instead of try and make one number out of them.

Batting Average - .270 - OK
OBP .326 - OK
SLG .364 - Poor
HR/AB 1:88 - poor
K:AB or K:BB - OK
Defensively he has average to below average LF range, an average LF arm and very poor fielding instincts.

I just haven't seen anything in him that leads me to believe he can do anything more than what I believe Sweeney or Anderson can do - surely not enough to give up a pitcher for him, and surely not enough to take ABs away from either of those two - who aren't even on the roster right now.

Now if the Sox are going to give up on Mack and Terrero, and look to upgrade LF, we should be looking at a GREAT hitting LFs who we can get, not fringe big leaguers.
When in any of my posts did I say Murton was the answer? I said that with the way the Sox OF is looking right now going into '08, we need some serious power out there and Murton is not the right guy to provide it.

You can't just look at his numbers this year when he's been sitting a lot more than he should be and then disregard the numbers he posted before when he was playing more regularly.

He can get on base a lot better than Anderson can, but that is not the point. Anderson is a CF and is in no way comparable to Murton. The real question is who would you want between Murton and Sweeney, and if it's me I choose Sweeney because I think he will be the better player of the two.

The Sox aren't going to give up on Mack or Terrero because they are bench players and both fit that role well. They were not brought in to be everyday starters. Pods was supposed to be a starter but he's injured, so any upgrade would be an upgrade over the injured Pods and come at the expense of Pods.

What in the hell makes you think that Murton is a "fringe" big leaguer? Don't you think the A's would have rather picked him up rather than all those AAA players? Don't you think they'd consider him an upgrade over Shannon Stewart? Or how about the Braves who are running Matt Diaz out there? Or the Royals with Emil Brown? There are several teams that would consider him an immediate upgrade, ours included, but I don't think he is the answer for the Sox. The Mets would be a great fit IMO because their OF aside from Beltran is on its last legs and they have lots of power from their IF. There are a lot of teams that would love to have him. He's in no way in danger of being a AAA lifer right now because all he's done is produce at every opportunity.

UserNameBlank
05-23-2007, 06:05 PM
Just watch Murton a bit - watch him bat. Behind in the count, he becomes very defensive (like all hitters do) but the difference is he doesn't have the hands to recover. Look at him this year - when pitchers have adjusted to him. He's a different hitter than he was two years ago when he'd see more stuff away and up.
I'm not trying to make any comparisons between the two, but lots of people here were begging for PK to be sent away for a bag of balls during and after the 2003 season.

Hitters can make changes. Put him on another team with a better hitting coach and give him more opportunity and then say something. It's not like he's forever doomed because of whatever it is that he's doing wrong right now.

Here's an idea: Murton to the Rangers for Akinori Otsuka. The Cubs get a closer who doesn't suck and has performed very well in less than ideal conditions, and the Rangers get a LF to replace Catalanotto.

Edit: I'll even expand on that idea. Murton + Pagan to Tex for Otsuka, Lofton, and a midlevel prospect. Texas gets a young LF and a backup CF who can start for now, and the Cubs get a CF who can play everyday until Pie is ready next year and a closer.

Craig Grebeck
05-23-2007, 06:20 PM
I respect the fact that everyone is posting legitimate reasons for why they don't want Murton backed up with some good to great analysis of his swing and approach at the plate (thanks especially Jabrch, you're making some good points).

But at the same time, his PT this season has been limited, and he has been relegated to a backseat role behind two not very good players. I know people say there's a "reason" he's being platooned, but that reason is that Cubs brass is insane. Given Jacque Jones or Matt Murton, I'll take Murton.

UserNameBlank
05-23-2007, 06:23 PM
Lets say their defense is equal (for the record I feel Pods is better) lets move to offense. Will Murton ever steal 40 bases? Will Murton ever be capable of scoring 100 runs plus season in season out? Does Murton create the havoc on the bases that Pods does? Sure Murton might finish with an overall better average however Pods will have a better overall positive impact. Matt Murton might not be able to start at Charlotte let alone be on our roster. No thank you let some other team have the "Gingerbread Man."
That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen on here. If you don't think Murton could beat out Jerry Owens for a roster spot in Charlotte you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And if you also think that he wouldn't be starting over Mackowiak/Pablo right now on our major league team... wow.

SB's are not exactly the most important thing in the universe you know. How much havoc is Pods wreaking on the DL right now? How much havoc has he wreaked on the DL the last two seasons?

Sorry, Murton >>> Pods. A healthy Pods, that's different, but you'd be trading OBP from Murton for SB from Pods. Two totally different players in that scenario.

kjhanson
05-23-2007, 06:58 PM
I'm not sure I understand the conclusion you are drawing there. Robbie wasn't a great hitter from behind the count either. Robbie solved that by hardly getting behind in the count.



I hate to expose you once again, but your statements have once again proven false.

Murton
% of At-bats that went:
0-1: .455
0-2: .154
1-2: .248
2-2: .174

Alomar
0-1: .438
0-2: .154
1-2: .248
2-2: .200

Only one of these differences is statistically significant, the last one. Robbie Alomar had more at-bats go past 2-2 than Murton has had in his career. As you can see, the rest of the numbers are extremely similar and provide no statistical difference.

jabrch
05-24-2007, 07:13 AM
I'm not trying to make any comparisons between the two, but lots of people here were begging for PK to be sent away for a bag of balls during and after the 2003 season.

That only goes to show you that lots of people are complete morons and don't understand the game.

It does take patience with development of hitters.

But Matt Murton isn't a good hitter. He would not be an upgrade for this club's starting lineup, and he is not worth giving up any legitimate pitching for.


If he were good - he'd be playing.

jabrch
05-24-2007, 07:17 AM
I hate to expose you once again, but your statements have once again proven false.

Murton
% of At-bats that went:
0-1: .455
0-2: .154
1-2: .248
2-2: .174

Alomar
0-1: .438
0-2: .154
1-2: .248
2-2: .200

Only one of these differences is statistically significant, the last one. Robbie Alomar had more at-bats go past 2-2 than Murton has had in his career. As you can see, the rest of the numbers are extremely similar and provide no statistical difference.

Where the heck does that data come from?

I still see no legitimacy in comparing Murton to Robbie Alomar, even after the disclaimer that you aren't comparing them and using that to conclude that Murton should hit in the top of the order, because Robbie did.

kjhanson
05-24-2007, 10:39 AM
Where the heck does that data come from?

I still see no legitimacy in comparing Murton to Robbie Alomar, even after the disclaimer that you aren't comparing them and using that to conclude that Murton should hit in the top of the order, because Robbie did.

That data come from Baseball Reference. And I never said that I am comparing the two. I am merely disproving your "observations".

1.) You said that Murton can not hit down in the count, which makes him a bad #2 hitter. I found data that the greatest #2 hitter of this generation was a little bit worse hitter when down in the count than Murton.

2.) You said that Alomar didn't have to swing from behind because he never was behind. I found and presented data that showed there is no statistical difference between the percentage of at-bats Alomar was down in the count and the percentage of at-bats Murton has been down in the count in his career.

Throughout of all of this, I feel kind of cheap defending Matt Murton simply because someone's evaluation was grossly off. Personally, I would take Sweeney or BA everyday over Murton.

The Dude
05-24-2007, 11:05 AM
My oh my Murton would look wonderful in LF for the next five years.

In a word, NO.

FarWestChicago
05-24-2007, 07:12 PM
Throughout of all of this, I feel kind of cheap defending Matt Murton...They you shouldn't have. I suspect this statement is quite disingenuous.

JB98
05-24-2007, 07:30 PM
Matt Murton is a fourth outfielder and a pinch-hitter. Nothing more. And he can't play CF, so that doesn't exactly make him an ideal fourth outfielder.

champagne030
05-24-2007, 07:39 PM
Matt Murton is a fourth outfielder and a pinch-hitter. Nothing more. And he can't play CF, so that doesn't exactly make him an ideal fourth outfielder.

Yep, pretty much the RH version of Mack with a better eye and higher average.

Tragg
05-24-2007, 10:49 PM
Yep, pretty much the RH version of Mack with a better eye and higher average.

I think that's a pretty accurate descrpition. Which means he's a 4th outfielder, perhaps an incremental upgrade over what we have (which I've said enough that I think is sorely lacking).

jabrch
05-25-2007, 12:28 AM
Don't use Hendry's moves as a reason to say a player is bad at anything. Hendry is the same guy who:
-traded a bunch of pitching to FLA for one year of the weakest CF ever in Juan Pierre
-defended Dusty Baker when he tried to **** with Corey Patterson and turn him into a leadoff hitter, and THEN dumped him for nothing so he could become a very respectable CF in Baltimore
-had 2 corner OF and no CF on his major league roster, and then went out and got 2 more corner OF's and still no CF
-spent $17mil/year on 2 no. 4 starters
....and this list goes on.

Hendry is the reason the Cubs suck. In 2003 the Cubs had a team that was close to advancing to the WS, but failed in Game 6. That same exact year, across town the Sox had a team that failed to even make the playoffs. In three years, Hendry has taken his team from a WS contender to a 60-some win team in need of rebuilding, while KW has rebuilt his entire roster, hired a new manager, shook up the coaching staff, and won a WS. You can make the case that the injuries to Wood and Prior hurt the Cubs tremendously, but the Sox meanwhile had Danny Wright blow up in their faces, lost Bartolo Colon to FA, had Cy Young contender Esteban Loaiza blow up, and still managed to put together the one of the best starting rotations in postseason history in a matter of about 1 1/2 years.


I'd take KW over Hendry every day - but I think you are being a bit rough on him. I mean - Corey Patterson is FAR from respectable. He's one of the worst hitters in baseball who plays every day. Pierre is still a very good leadoff hitter - he is amongst the league leaders in hits every single year and he never strikes out at all. The money he spent this year on starters has gone very far - he did better with Marquis and Lilly than you make it sound. He's also brought in, off the scrap heap, Derek Lee and Aramis Ramirez for Hee Sop Choi and Bobby Hill. Not to defend Hendry - his roster construction has been awful (your point on him having 4 LFs and no RF/CF is spot on). But I'm not sure that Hendry is the Cubs problem - it's much deeper than that.


This year, McDonough came in and said they were going to win it right now - no excuses. And he enabled Hendry to go out and set the market for Soriano when that was exactly what they didn't need. Before any team started spending money, they committed nearly 150mm to Soriano and Derosa - while they already had multiple players at 2B and SS ready to go. Yeah - Hendry deserves some blame - but he's not the biggest problem.

And Corey Patterson? How's he respectable ?

That said - you are right - Hendry is definitely not as good as many thought he was in 2003/4.

FedEx227
05-25-2007, 09:00 AM
And Corey Patterson? How's he respectable ?


.276/.314/.443, 16 HR, 53 RBI, 45 SB

Not terrible numbers. With that being said I would never want him on our team and I don't think hes a great player but he is respectable and has seemed to move on from those horrid Cubbie days.

Those are completely meaningless numbers (not statistics, just numbers) that have been debunked over and over again as being meaningless.

Yeah Zone Rating sure is worthless. All it does is tell you the amount of balls a player has fielded in his zone. Pretty easy to skew those numbers. I don't know why people freak out at statistics all the time when they are very basic percentages most of the time. Granted I see why people hate PECOTA/VORP and that garbage, which is understandable... but I don't see the logic in calling the percentage of balls a player fields compared to the amount of balls hit into his area as a real gray area stat that can be skewed in anyway.

Could it be possible that your blind observations are skewed? NO WAY.

D. TODD
05-25-2007, 09:39 AM
.276/.314/.443, 16 HR, 53 RBI, 45 SB

Not terrible numbers. With that being said I would never want him on our team and I don't think hes a great player but he is respectable and has seemed to move on from those horrid Cubbie days.



Yeah Zone Rating sure is worthless. All it does is tell you the amount of balls a player has fielded in his zone. Pretty easy to skew those numbers. I don't know why people freak out at statistics all the time when they are very basic percentages most of the time. Granted I see why people hate PECOTA/VORP and that garbage, which is understandable... but I don't see the logic in calling the percentage of balls a player fields compared to the amount of balls hit into his area as a real gray area stat that can be skewed in anyway.

Could it be possible that your blind observations are skewed? NO WAY.
It still does not take into account how hard the balls hit into the area were, except for the judgment of some stat head who makes that judgment and could easily skew it. BOO OVER USING STATS... HOORAY BEER! apologies to Red Stripe.

GoSox2K3
05-25-2007, 09:41 AM
Matt Murton is a fourth outfielder and a pinch-hitter. Nothing more. And he can't play CF, so that doesn't exactly make him an ideal fourth outfielder.

Yep, pretty much the RH version of Mack with a better eye and higher average.


But- OPS, OPS, OPS. See, I have been right all along. I have proved it and no real game situations will ever change how right I am. I'm not going to argue with you guys if you refuse to see this.

FedEx227
05-25-2007, 09:48 AM
But- OPS, OPS, OPS. See, I have been right all along. I have proved it and no real game situations will ever change how right I am. I'm not going to argue with you guys if you refuse to see this.

Granted, I see where you're coming from in terms of Murton, but to call OPS completely worthless is stupid... just for context some NL guys with better/similar OPS then Murton had last year:

Albert Pujols
Ryan Howard
Lance Berkman
Miguel Cabrera
Carlos Beltran
Matt Holliday
Garrett Atkins
Nick Johnson
Jason Bay
Adam LaRoche
David Wright
Aramis Ramirez
Alfonso Soriano
Carlos Delgado
Chase Utley
Bill Hall
Brad Hawpe
Andruw Jones
Todd Helton
Adrian Gonzalez
Adam Dunn
Josh Willingham
Jose Reyes
Hanley Ramirez
Prince Fielder
Ryan Zimmerman
Dan Uggla
Jimmy Rollins
Rafeal Furcal

So basically, a lot of guys who really suck in game situations.

GoSox2K3
05-25-2007, 09:54 AM
Granted, I see where you're coming from in terms of Murton, but to call OPS completely worthless is stupid... just for context some NL guys with better/similar OPS then Murton had last year:


So basically, a lot of guys who really suck in game situations.

I don't recall ever saying it was completely worthless. If you can point to a post where I said this, then yes I was mistaken. I was just reacting to the blind devotion of some people earlier in this thread to only OPS as the sole measure of a player's worth (or lack of worth).

I think we're on the same page on this.

FedEx227
05-25-2007, 10:01 AM
I don't recall ever saying it was completely worthless. If you can point to a post where I said this, then yes I was mistaken. I was just reacting to the blind devotion of some people earlier in this thread to only OPS as the sole measure of a player's worth (or lack of worth).

I think we're on the same page on this.

Okay, my fault then. I understand, yeah you can't isolate OPS and claim that a player is great based JUST on that. The thing about all those guys I listed is that they all do a lot of things quite well, steal bases, hit for power, hit for average, etc. Sorry bout the misunderstanding.

jabrch
05-25-2007, 10:10 AM
It still does not take into account how hard the balls hit into the area were, except for the judgment of some stat head who makes that judgment and could easily skew it. BOO OVER USING STATS... HOORAY BEER! apologies to Red Stripe.

There's a TON that it doesn't account for. It is a horsecrap number, and not at all a statistic and it doesn't measure defensive skill whatsoever.

There are absolutely no good defensive statistics that I have yet seen. There are too many variable factor to try and aggregate defense out to one measurement.

FedEx227
05-25-2007, 10:12 AM
There's a TON that it doesn't account for. It is a horsecrap number, and not at all a statistic and it doesn't measure defensive skill whatsoever.

There are absolutely no good defensive statistics that I have yet seen. There are too many variable factor to try and aggregate defense out to one measurement.

Agreed, but Zone Rating is getting much closer. Definitely better than Range Factor which rewards having a terrible throwing arm and bad instinct which in turn lead to people taking extra bases on you, which will eventually lead to a bunch of OF assists.

ilsox7
05-25-2007, 10:27 AM
There's a TON that it doesn't account for. It is a horsecrap number, and not at all a statistic and it doesn't measure defensive skill whatsoever.

There are absolutely no good defensive statistics that I have yet seen. There are too many variable factor to try and aggregate defense out to one measurement.

Well said. Many stats are quite useful. But there will never be a way to measure defense statistically b/c of the many variables that simple cannot be measured. There is no way to measure how good of a jump an outfielder gets. Or how well positioned he is.

FedEx227
05-25-2007, 10:29 AM
Well said. Many stats are quite useful. But there will never be a way to measure defense statistically b/c of the many variables that simple cannot be measured. There is no way to measure how good of a jump an outfielder gets. Or how well positioned he is.

Or how hard the ball is hit, what shift they were in, who the pitcher is, how big the OF is, etc.

I don't think we'll even be able to truly find a defensive stat that shows true defensive skill which is why I don't mind Zone Rating because I believe its the closest we are, at this point.

ilsox7
05-25-2007, 10:42 AM
Or how hard the ball is hit, what shift they were in, who the pitcher is, how big the OF is, etc.

I don't think we'll even be able to truly find a defensive stat that shows true defensive skill which is why I don't mind Zone Rating because I believe its the closest we are, at this point.

I still have major issues with ZR. From Baseball Factory (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/what_is_zone_rating/):


Zones of Responsibility
While each ball is recorded for location, distance and speed, not every ball is a defensive player’s responsibility. That is, only balls that could reasonably be fielded from a typical defensive position are considered to be in a player’s zone.


My problem here is someone has to judge what is reasonable. What is reasonable to one person is not to another.

First Base: The first baseman is responsible for covering zones V through X, the three zones closest to the right field line. This includes all grounders hit within approximately 25 feet of the right field line, and anything right up the line as well.

This doesn't seem to take into account when a runner is being held on.

Second Base: The second baseman is responsible for zones O through T. The left boundary of Zone N is second base, so the right boundary (about 8 feet from second) is where the second baseman’s zone starts, and runs up to Zone U. Notice that Zone U is not in anyone’s zone. It is ‘the hole’ on the right side and not an infielder’s ‘responsibility’.

Again, positioning is not taken into account.

I just pulled a couple of examples, but I think ZR is very flawed, as is any "defensive" statistic. I just do not think there is any worthwhile means of measuring defense other than watching the game. Hence my mockery of using any such stat. But to each their own.

FedEx227
05-25-2007, 10:49 AM
I just pulled a couple of examples, but I think ZR is very flawed, as is any "defensive" statistic. I just do not think there is any worthwhile means of measuring defense other than watching the game. Hence my mockery of using any such stat. But to each their own.

But even then just watching the game can skew stats. 8/10 casual baseball fans would probably consider Aaron Rowand a superior defender because he dives a lot and puts his face into walls.

ilsox7
05-25-2007, 11:11 AM
But even then just watching the game can skew stats. 8/10 casual baseball fans would probably consider Aaron Rowand a superior defender because he dives a lot and puts his face into walls.

Agreed. I think stats are good to some degree, but watching the game and coming to one's own conclusions is my preferred method of analysis. Stats certainly have their place, but I think a lot of people go way too far and try to measure things that simply cannot be measured.

FedEx227
05-25-2007, 11:13 AM
Agreed. I think stats are good to some degree, but watching the game and coming to one's own conclusions is my preferred method of analysis. Stats certainly have their place, but I think a lot of people go way too far and try to measure things that simply cannot be measured.

I wish more people did actually mesh the two. Too often you have guys who debunk every single stat and don't accept numbers as a method of baseball evaluation in any way or on the opposite side guys who only look at numbers and don't look at the psychological or instinctual skills of a player.

ilsox7
05-25-2007, 11:23 AM
I wish more people did actually mesh the two. Too often you have guys who debunk every single stat and don't accept numbers as a method of baseball evaluation in any way or on the opposite side guys who only look at numbers and don't look at the psychological or instinctual skills of a player.

Agreed. There is a place for both methods of analysis. I only rip or mock stats to the degree that people overuse them, IMO. Just as I rip or mock people that say things like, "Aaron Rowand is the best thing since sliced bread" or "Jeter is a Gold Glove SS."

The bottom line is that stats used the right way are a good tool. Just as analysis based on simply watching the game is a good tool, if used the right way.

jabrch
05-25-2007, 11:58 AM
Agreed. There is a place for both methods of analysis. I only rip or mock stats to the degree that people overuse them, IMO. Just as I rip or mock people that say things like, "Aaron Rowand is the best thing since sliced bread" or "Jeter is a Gold Glove SS."

The bottom line is that stats used the right way are a good tool. Just as analysis based on simply watching the game is a good tool, if used the right way.

There is a place for both when done right. There is no place for sloppy use of statistics and then the interpretation that said slop is proof of anything.

Zone Rating proves absolutely nothing. If fails to incorporate any sort of reasonable context for events.

Craig Grebeck
05-25-2007, 12:10 PM
I just don't understand how you can say Murton is not a good hitter and then in the same thread defend Juan Pierre. Murton is 100x the hitter that Pierre is (not to mention a better leadoff guy).

getonbckthr
05-25-2007, 01:29 PM
I just don't understand how you can say Murton is not a good hitter and then in the same thread defend Juan Pierre. Murton is 100x the hitter that Pierre is (not to mention a better leadoff guy).
I will take Juan Pierre over Matt Murton any day of the week. Not even close.

jabrch
05-25-2007, 01:32 PM
I will take Juan Pierre over Matt Murton any day of the week. Not even close.

So long as baseball is played on a field, Pierre will be of more value than Murton. When played in a 2 dimensional cell based grid, you can make lots of stupidass decisions and rationalize them away with poorly manipulated numbers that are disguised as logic.

QCIASOXFAN
05-25-2007, 01:51 PM
I will take Juan Pierre over Matt Murton any day of the week. Not even close.
Twice on Sunday also.

rdivaldi
05-25-2007, 02:48 PM
I just don't understand how you can say Murton is not a good hitter and then in the same thread defend Juan Pierre. Murton is 100x the hitter that Pierre is (not to mention a better leadoff guy).

This thread had been getting some good posts until this gem. Do you own a large quantity of Matt Murton rookie cards or something?

jabrch
05-25-2007, 04:39 PM
This thread had been getting some good posts until this gem. Do you own a large quantity of Matt Murton rookie cards or something?

Stupid stuff like that point (not your's Rdiv) is a perfect example of how I love the proper use of statistical analysis in baseball, but am completely and totally digusted by the complete and unconditional ignorance that has spawned from the glut of information available to people.

A little bit of information is very dangerous in the hands of the uninformed.

SoxxoS
05-25-2007, 05:13 PM
Jayson Stark just wrote about Juan Pierre and how he is in the top 10 of overrated players -

Speed guys aren't automatically overrated. (See Reyes, Jose for more details.) But for years now, we've been getting way too worked up about players whose mere ability to bring their legs with them to first base can make a pitcher want to call his therapist between pitches. And that brings us to Pierre, a fellow so likable, it pains me to put him on this list. How can you not like a guy who loves baseball so much, he beats the grounds crew to the ballpark?
But I've been listening to GMs (mostly American League GMs) gripe for so long that Pierre is as overrated as any player in baseball, I'm finally ready to concede.
It was easier to argue the other side in 2003, the year Pierre and the Marlins won the World Series. That year, Pierre walked 55 times, struck out only 35 times, got 204 hits, reached base more than any leadoff man in baseball and led the league in steals.
But leadoff hitters with .303 on-base percentages, who are on pace to walk 31 times in 748 trips to the plate -- i.e., the Juan Pierre presently playing out the first season of his five-year, $44 million contract with the Dodgers -- they're overrated. When Pierre reaches first in the late innings of a close game, he's still a game-changer. But think how much more often he would reach first if he actually walked three times a week instead of once.

jabrch
05-25-2007, 05:58 PM
Jayson Stark just wrote about Juan Pierre and how he is in the top 10 of overrated players -

He's struggling so far this year - but he's been a slow starter the past two years. He regularly (including last year) is amongst the leaders in the league in hits. Sure - he doesn't walk much - but he get on base frequently, even against good pitchers - because of his legs - and he then makes things happen. There are a few better leadoff hitters than Juan Pierre - but none on the Sox or the Cubs.

There is a lot more to being a good leadoff hitter than OBP.

FarWestChicago
05-25-2007, 09:29 PM
Jayson Stark just wrote about Juan Pierre and how he is in the top 10 of overrated players -You do realize Jayson Stark is a complete ignoramus? You know, FedEx was making a good showing for you statheads? Now we have both you and Grebeck totally embarrassing yourselves. Is it any wonder why most think you are beyond silly? Just go away. Quit while you are behind. You are a blight on baseball and any other sport you pollute. Go, find something else to do. Please...

jabrch
05-25-2007, 11:22 PM
You do realize Jayson Stark is a complete ignoramus? You know, FedEx was making a good showing for you statheads? Now we have both you and Grebeck totally embarrassing yourselves. Is it any wonder why most think you are beyond silly? Just go away. Quit while you are behind. You are a blight on baseball and any other sport you pollute. Go, find something else to do. Please...


I luv that duck
:hawk

Craig Grebeck
05-25-2007, 11:23 PM
Juan Pierre is also among the league leaders in outs recorded almost every season. The job of every hitter is to avoid outs, especially the leadoff hitter. Reaching base is a skill, and it's one Juan Pierre does not excel at.

getonbckthr
05-26-2007, 06:57 AM
Juan Pierre is also among the league leaders in outs recorded almost every season. The job of every hitter is to avoid outs, especially the leadoff hitter. Reaching base is a skill, and it's one Juan Pierre does not excel at.
This makes Matt Murton better than him where?

Craig Grebeck
05-26-2007, 07:16 AM
This makes Matt Murton better than him where?
Matt Murton has a better eye, more power, and last year even hit for a better average. Juan Pierre records a lot of hits each year because he swings at everything and plays 162 games. Despite having so many hits his slugging percentage is weak.

FedEx227
05-26-2007, 08:51 AM
Matt Murton has a better eye, more power, and last year even hit for a better average. Juan Pierre records a lot of hits each year because he swings at everything and plays 162 games. Despite having so many hits his slugging percentage is weak.

That's the one thing I don't really like about Pierre, his inability to hit for extra bases. Otherwise I think he makes up for his horrendous OBP with his speed, but if he actually added some power to at least get some gap doubles, etc I think he would be that much better.

Tragg
05-26-2007, 08:59 AM
He's struggling so far this year - but he's been a slow starter the past two years. He regularly (including last year) is amongst the leaders in the league in hits. Sure - he doesn't walk much - but he get on base frequently, even against good pitchers - because of his legs - and he then makes things happen. There are a few better leadoff hitters than Juan Pierre - but none on the Sox or the Cubs.

There is a lot more to being a good leadoff hitter than OBP.

I am sort of in the middle - I find Pierre overrated, a little better than average hitter overall. Pierre's career OBP is .348 and he has little power. Ho hum. I see him about like I see Pods (he's had more "good years" than Pods) at 3 times the price.

Yet, on the other hand, I certainly can't take the side of Murton. Murton's not an everyday ballplayer. I agree with a lot of the global sentiments - we need some team patience - but Murton specifically is a 4th outfielder that I wouldn't mind the Sox having.

IndianWhiteSox
05-26-2007, 09:16 AM
Thread had a 100 replies?

:o::o::o::o::o:


Crebeck, shut up with your FOBB **** and just become a sCrUB fan where you can worship guys like him an your favorite RF Jockstrap. That would be much easier for knowledgeable baseball fans like you.

jabrch
05-26-2007, 09:23 AM
I am sort of in the middle - I find Pierre overrated, a little better than average hitter overall. Pierre's career OBP is .348 and he has little power. Ho hum. I see him about like I see Pods (he's had more "good years" than Pods) at 3 times the price.

Yet, on the other hand, I certainly can't take the side of Murton. Murton's not an everyday ballplayer. I agree with a lot of the global sentiments - we need some team patience - but Murton specifically is a 4th outfielder that I wouldn't mind the Sox having.

I can buy that. I think Pods is underrated - certainly by a lot of folks here. When healthy (I know) he is a catalyst to this offense.

That discussion ends up back to what the job of the leadoff hitter is. My opinion is that his job is to get on base, get into scoring position, and score - and that all of those are equal. This bull**** anthem of BP about "not making outs" is completely assinine in the context some people take it. That is not the job of a leadoff hitter - to merely not make outs. His job is to also get in scoring position, ultimately to score, to distract pitchers attention, etc.

I'd rather have a guy like Pierre or Pods leading off than a slow guy who might get on base 10-15 times more per season. I'd also rather have a guy like Pierre who gets on base via the hit rather than a guy who hits 50 pts lower and makes it up with walks - because that walker has less control of his ABs - he depends on a pitcher failing in order to succeed. Give me a guy who will out the bat on the ball and make things happen every day. Pierre is amongst the league leaders in hits every year. That's a skill GMs and managers value.

Either way Tragg - your last point is right. Matt Murton is not an everyday player on a team with WS aspirations and would not be worth the price we'd have to pay for him while we have Sweeney, BA, Mack, Terrero and eventually/hopefully Pods. If we are to upgrade in LF, we can do MUCH better that him.

SoxxoS
05-26-2007, 09:36 AM
You do realize Jayson Stark is a complete ignoramus? You know, FedEx was making a good showing for you statheads? Now we have both you and Grebeck totally embarrassing yourselves. Is it any wonder why most think you are beyond silly? Just go away. Quit while you are behind. You are a blight on baseball and any other sport you pollute. Go, find something else to do. Please...

Wow- I just state something relevant to the story and that is the reply I get. You need to relax. I am glad you enlightened me that I am a "stat head" Thanks for wasting 2 minutes of my time reading your reply.

FarWestChicago
05-26-2007, 12:13 PM
Wow- I just state something relevant to the story and that is the reply I get. You need to relax.Sheesh, I didn't make the silly assed post. You did. You're the one that needs to relax. :nod:

FedEx227
05-26-2007, 02:12 PM
Crebeck, shut up with your FOBB **** and just become a sCrUB fan where you can worship guys like him an your favorite RF Jockstrap. That would be much easier for knowledgeable baseball fans like you.

Nice contribution. Btw, calling people who like OBP is not FOBB really. Billy Beane follows market trends and builds teams based on getting value. For a time he was getting great value by going after high-OBP guys (Scott Hatteberg, etc). Since those days, many other teams have went after similar players based on them either working with Beane in Oakland or just having a similar philosophy (Boston, Toronto, Dodgers). So High OBP does not equal Billy Beane. Recently, he has been targeting failed top prospects like Jack Cust and Chris Denorfia. Obviously, high OBP is still a prerequisite he likes to have, but people on this board make it seem like if you enjoy your players having OBP it must be Billy Beane. He's not the only GM to ever use statistical analysis in building his team.

You might have heard of a certain someone... I believe his name was Branch Rickey. Obviously another FOBB.
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/pages/essays/rickey/goodby_to_old_idea.htm

Either way Tragg - your last point is right. Matt Murton is not an everyday player on a team with WS aspirations and would not be worth the price we'd have to pay for him while we have Sweeney, BA, Mack, Terrero and eventually/hopefully Pods. If we are to upgrade in LF, we can do MUCH better that him. That's how I am as well. I think if we could find a guy LIKE Murton with a bit more skills we'd be better off. Murton by himself isn't enough to earn an everyday starting OF position, especially in the AL. Yes he's patient, yes he has a tremendous OBP, but he doesn't have a whole lot of real skills outside of that. He'd be a great addition to the team if he was a bit better, I'd like to see him 1) be a better defender 2) add some speed to his game 3) add some power.

IndianWhiteSox
05-26-2007, 09:08 PM
Nice contribution. Btw, calling people who like OBP is not FOBB really. Billy Beane follows market trends and builds teams based on getting value. For a time he was getting great value by going after high-OBP guys (Scott Hatteberg, etc). Since those days, many other teams have went after similar players based on them either working with Beane in Oakland or just having a similar philosophy (Boston, Toronto, Dodgers). So High OBP does not equal Billy Beane. Recently, he has been targeting failed top prospects like Jack Cust and Chris Denorfia. Obviously, high OBP is still a prerequisite he likes to have, but people on this board make it seem like if you enjoy your players having OBP it must be Billy Beane. He's not the only GM to ever use statistical analysis in building his team.

You might have heard of a certain someone... I believe his name was Branch Rickey. Obviously another FOBB.
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/pages/essays/rickey/goodby_to_old_idea.htm

That's how I am as well. I think if we could find a guy LIKE Murton with a bit more skills we'd be better off. Murton by himself isn't enough to earn an everyday starting OF position, especially in the AL. Yes he's patient, yes he has a tremendous OBP, but he doesn't have a whole lot of real skills outside of that. He'd be a great addition to the team if he was a bit better, I'd like to see him 1) be a better defender 2) add some speed to his game 3) add some power.

How the hell can you compare the same guy who signed Jackie Robinson to this guy:

:fobbgod:

"Craig Crebeck is my bitch."

Listen, it's a good thing if a lead-off guy has a high OBP, as long as he doesn't strike out a lot and still steal some bases along the way. While playing average to above average defense. The problem with him is that, he keeps praising these loser OFs for who can't play everyday for the sCrUBS, saying that they're the answer for the SOX based on one stat.

Craig Grebeck
05-26-2007, 09:49 PM
How the hell can you compare the same guy who signed Jackie Robinson to this guy:

:fobbgod:

"Craig Crebeck is my bitch."

Listen, it's a good thing if a lead-off guy has a high OBP, as long as he doesn't strike out a lot and still steal some bases along the way. While playing average to above average defense. The problem with him is that, he keeps praising these loser OFs for who can't play everyday for the sCrUBS, saying that they're the answer for the SOX based on one stat.
First of all, nice to see you're all class with that misspelled and poorly conceived insult. I am surprised you're not banned yet.

Just because Piniella/Hendry do not start Murton does not mean he is not able enough to patrol our outfield. Right now we are relying on some combination of Erstad/Mackowiak/Ozuna/Terrero to cover two spots in the outfield. Even when Pods comes back, the offense will be sorely lacking above average hitters. Murton is above average. How on earth does a guy hit .297/.365 with double digit home runs in his first full season and not be above average? If Erstad/Podsednik/Sweeney/BA put up those numbers people would be blowing their loads left and right. He'd be a good addition in LF.

FedEx227
05-27-2007, 02:19 AM
How the hell can you compare the same guy who signed Jackie Robinson to this guy

Um, I didn't. But to call out anybody who attempts to provide stats as a formation of an argument as a FOBB is just stupid and you do it all the time. Just because people enjoy statistical elements of baseball doesn't mean they are Beane's bitch.

There are plenty of guys well ahead of Beane in the statistical revolution, hell if it weren't for the work of JP Riccardi you wouldn't have heard a damn thing about Beane. Riccardi was the brains of the operation.

IndianWhiteSox
05-27-2007, 04:33 AM
First of all, nice to see you're all class with that misspelled and poorly conceived insult. I am surprised you're not banned yet.

Just because Piniella/Hendry do not start Murton does not mean he is not able enough to patrol our outfield. Right now we are relying on some combination of Erstad/Mackowiak/Ozuna/Terrero to cover two spots in the outfield. Even when Pods comes back, the offense will be sorely lacking above average hitters. Murton is above average. How on earth does a guy hit .297/.365 with double digit home runs in his first full season and not be above average? If Erstad/Podsednik/Sweeney/BA put up those numbers people would be blowing their loads left and right. He'd be a good addition in LF.

All right I apologize for the remark, and I took it way out of proportion. But listen, OBP is a nice stat to have a positive effect in, but at the same time it doesn't mean everything and that's why I get a little pissed when some of the people here treat it like the end all be all. That said, it doesn't mean what I said was right.

But back to Murton, I think the reason why people say that, is because he would be a much lesser version of El Caballo if he did patrol LF for the Sox. The Sox these days, love to pride themselves on pitching, speed and defense, those are the things that he wouldn't improve the team with. Yes he may get on base, but the fact is he won't score unless there's a HR or three hits.

Um, I didn't. But to call out anybody who attempts to provide stats as a formation of an argument as a FOBB is just stupid and you do it all the time. Just because people enjoy statistical elements of baseball doesn't mean they are Beane's bitch.

There are plenty of guys well ahead of Beane in the statistical revolution, hell if it weren't for the work of JP Riccardi you wouldn't have heard a damn thing about Beane. Riccardi was the brains of the operation.

I know that, but at the same time OBP isn't the end all be all for a proper evaluation of a ballplayer.

Edit: I probably shouldn't lump you in that category with Crebeck, I over read a few points you typed up.

FarWestChicago
05-27-2007, 08:01 AM
That's how I am as well. I think if we could find a guy LIKE Murton with a bit more skills we'd be better off. Murton by himself isn't enough to earn an everyday starting OF position, especially in the AL. Yes he's patient, yes he has a tremendous OBP, but he doesn't have a whole lot of real skills outside of that. He'd be a great addition to the team if he was a bit better, I'd like to see him 1) be a better defender 2) add some speed to his game 3) add some power.This is the difference between you and a FOBB like Grebeck. You like stats, yet you still think, kind of like ma-gaga. You have made some great posts in this thread. :thumbsup:

Craig Grebeck
05-27-2007, 08:55 AM
I just can't understand how Murton is not considered an upgrade in LF. His value is at an all time low and Kenny is dealing with the Isiah Thomas of MLB.

getonbckthr
05-27-2007, 09:35 AM
I just can't understand how Murton is not considered an upgrade in LF. His value is at an all time low and Kenny is dealing with the Isiah Thomas of MLB.
I just don't see where his extremely slight upgrade to what we have currently is worth what we would give up. I don't see a justification of going from a C rated player to a C+ and have to give a prospect or 2 to do it.

gosiu
05-27-2007, 10:09 AM
I just can't understand how Murton is not considered an upgrade in LF. His value is at an all time low and Kenny is dealing with the Isiah Thomas of MLB.
Basically, it depends on these two things:

1. Who can get into scoring position more often? Murton has a higher on base and slugging percentage for his career, so he'd get there more often. However, Pods speed can get him into scoring position in other ways, such as a straight-up steal and preventing the double play from being turned.
2. Who is less of a liability in left? Eh they both suck.

While I can't calculate the numbers from the first part, I'd suspect that they'd get into scoring position about the same number times with the same number of plate appearences.

jabrch
06-04-2007, 10:28 AM
Matt Murton update

.266/.339/.358 - crappy defense - no speed

We can easily get that performance from Terrowens, Sweenson or Mackzunik.

chaerulez
06-04-2007, 02:32 PM
Murton can be an everyday player if he does one of two things:

1) Learns to play defense. I never realized until recently how poor of a defender he is.

2) Hits with a OBP of around .380

I'd say a OBP (for certain teams, such as a struggling offensive team) of .380 from a player is worth it at the risk of a bad defensive player and no speed.