Gonzalez more likely now?
by Greybear on Dec 18, 2009 2:52 PM PST
Email
Print
So now we have Milton Bradley who, barring injury, can play LF everyday. And Langerhans has been resigned to a split major/minor contract, even though there is currentlly no real spot for him. With Hall and Langerhans available to spell Bradley in left field, Saunders is not only much less important, he's essentially blocked. Another year at AAA isn't going to really improve him much. Since Cliff Lee didn't cost us any of the top trade bait, does this make a Saunders/Morrow/ Triunfel trade for Adrian Gonzalez more likely? And if that happens, how awesome would it be?
70 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nah just sign Delgado
much cheaper don’t have to give up much
Hits for power and gets walks and hits above 260 and has high ops
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Chuck Norris lives in Texas
I still don't know if I'm all that excited about Adrian Gonzalez.
Partly because I’m afraid he’ll revert back to a being 3.5 win player, and partly because he reminds me of Rafael Palmeiro. He’s really cheap for two more years, but I just don’t know if he’s worth all that.
by Manzanillos Cup on Dec 18, 2009 3:35 PM PST reply actions
Are you implying Adrian Gonzalez takes Viagra?
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Dec 18, 2009 4:07 PM PST up reply actions
As I recall, Rafael Palmeiro was pretty good at hitting baseballs.
I just hate his face.
by Manzanillos Cup on Dec 18, 2009 4:58 PM PST up reply actions
And by help I mean the Mariners' shitty pitching staff.
...and now I'm here
There wasn't a much more beautiful, or infuriating
sight as watching Palmeiro effortlessly launch a ball 375’ down the RF line in Safeco.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
52 homeruns against us.
I hated him long before the steroid thing. He is stupid.
by Manzanillos Cup on Dec 18, 2009 5:22 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think that package gets it done.
Without a premier prospect, we’d have to probably give up Morrow plus 3 or 4 others in our Top 5. I don’t want to do that.
Morrow/Triunfel/Saunders/Moore/Fields or something like that would probably be what you’re talking about
There is no way I would want the mariners to make that move.
We would need to be trading only some of our good prospects, not the full list of them.
Morrow and Moore are both on the 2010 team, and probably Saunders as well. Doesnt help us much to get Gonzalez by trading away parts of the 2010 team.
And there's virtually no way we get Gonzalez without giving up at least 2 of those 3.
My Mariners blog - SodoMojo, Twitter Feed, Fuck the fucking Angels!
More likely? Maybe
but still not likely overall. Like a 5 percent changed to a 15 percent perhaps. I think Branyan’s return is the most likely.
Yeah already losing Aumont, Gillies, and Ramirez weakened out farm system
Trading for Gonzalez would strip our system almost clean.
I think bringing back Branyan or signing Delgado would be fine
Not that awesome, I think
Saunders/Morrow/Truinfel is a lot to give up for a 1B, albeit a good one. If you believe that he can maintain his 09 numbers then you should be ready to believe the same about Branyan. And Branyan doesn’t cost nearly as much.
On the other hand, if the deal can get done with only one of those three plus Lopez plus throw in player, then its probably ok. But that seems unlikely, doesn’t it?
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Dec 18, 2009 8:54 PM PST reply actions
Hmmm...
Overstatement.
A) among the toughest parks to hit a baseball in vs. a park that is much better suited for leftys
B) mid 20’s still ascending as a hitter and healthy vs. 34 and with a bad back.
I’m not saying the trade is the right decision, only that Branyon is less likely to repeat last year’s numbers.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
Actually, he was referring to Dave Branyon up in accounting.
That guy averaged 46.3 dollars saved per account hour last year. There’s no way he’s going to repeat those performances. Especially with his bad back.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 19, 2009 9:37 PM PST up reply actions
Ouch.
Not sure where that came from. My bad…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2009 10:21 PM PST up reply actions
Busted
it is a bit of an overstatement but not egregious. Gonzalez is young and studly but projecting him to repeat last season seems overly optimistic, even figuring some development into it. Players’ walk rates just don’t jump by 33% over a season, you know? That’s not really a tool that develops late. The power may be there to stay though, you’re right.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Dec 21, 2009 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
You're right about walk rates.
They don’t just explode like that and maintain, at least no normally. You should expect his BB’s to decrease, and generally his stats from last season to come back down a bit.
Something I haven’t seen discussed are his home/road splits.
2007-2009: home .253/.367/.434 road .303/.375/.595
It pretty much screams “I HATE PETCO!” I haven’t seen park effects for Safeco, but I seem to remember it was essentially a touch better than average for lefty power hitters? It’s obviously still a big park, but I have to think that at least some of that difference gets made up hitting half his games in Safeco, rather than in PetCo.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Dec 23, 2009 12:34 AM PST up reply actions
This is a good point
He’s also not strictly a pull hitter so Safeco will not be as nice to him as it might be to a Lefty Lopez or something.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Dec 23, 2009 8:47 AM PST up reply actions
Gonzalez got walked a ton because he had absolutely zero protection all year long
Pitchers didn’t have any reason to throw him strikes and it’s a wonder he got as many hits as he did.
And Petco is obviously a nightmare for hitters, but a chunk of that disappears with the league switch.
by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 23, 2009 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
Maybe at some point they just shurgged and said 'fuck it its not like they're scoring any more runs'
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Dec 24, 2009 8:30 AM PST up reply actions
I think a 1B is probably the least of our concerns
Z will figure something out.
by chrisisasavage on Dec 18, 2009 11:33 PM PST reply actions
I agree
but I wouldn’t mind getting some real power. I wonder if Ackley is going to be ready any time in the near future, there’s a kid that can really put some power behind the plate. And he’s a first base. I know, he’s got to go through the farm, but he looked pretty polished for a college product.
by seasnake333 on Dec 18, 2009 11:40 PM PST up reply actions
I'd take real OBP
or real defense, or real all around 1B, or doesn’t kill the team’s future or finances and adds a win. Don’t EXPECT Ackley until 2011.
by chrisisasavage on Dec 18, 2009 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
Ackley is a contact hitter, not a power hitter.
He will hit a lot of doubles, but anything over 20 home runs is not projected.
Also, Ackley is a center fielder by trade and the Mariners plan to play him at 2B. He only played first base last season because he was recovering from Tommy John surgery.
1B is an opportunity
We have Carp who can play the position about as well as any of the
FA 1Bs out there and for virtually no money. So if you go into the season with Carp as your 1B it doesn’t kill you.
However if you can find a way to add offense at that position via trade, you could theoretically improve on the production Carp will give you.
So if there’s some kind of blockbuster trade Z can pull off…awesome! If not…well that’s Ok.
Carp is virtually the definition of replacement level.
While this doesn’t mean that the Mariners ought to overpay for his replacement, it does make the position one that brings back a pretty good amount of run production improvement if we can land even an average 1B. As Dave Cameron noted the other day, the M’s are in a position now where every single win they add grants a pretty sizeable increase to their chances of getting into the playoffs as well as how far they go once they’re in there.
I would go so far as to say that starting the season with Carp at first (or Hannahan for that matter since he seems to be pushed as the #1 1B right now) would be a mild disappointment.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 19, 2009 1:51 AM PST up reply actions
In 65 plate appearances, Carp was worth 0.4 WAR.
I think over a full season Carp could reach 2-3 WAR. His brief stint in the majors was nothing out of line with what he has done in the minors. I won’t be surprised if Jack is comfortable going into the season with Carp at first base. Ideally, we should re-sign Branyan, but if we’re going to make a trade, I think we’ll need to look at 3+ WAR candidates.
With this lineup taking shape, though, everyone may gain an extra 1 WAR because the bases are going to be packed and causing headaches to opposing pitchers. I think that is what made the 2001 Mariners so good.
Whoever the last bench player is won't be Carp. They need someone who has defensive flexibility.
Also, right now the Mariners are an ~88 win team on paper so getting to that theoretical 90th win is paramount. There’s no way Z and co are going to fuck around with someone who is likely a 1 win player like Carp when they can bring in someone that is a good bet to give them two or three wins.
Who's the cutest first baseman in the world?!
You are! Yes you are!
Yes, a carp who can play 1B, would be the cutest
by chrisisasavage on Dec 19, 2009 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
This sounds like a great movie idea!
Perhaps we could cast someone from the sitcom Friends to be in it!
by Johnny Slick on Dec 19, 2009 6:41 PM PST up reply actions
They all look the same to me.
Say it with me: Washington Capitals. Capitals.
Preserved In All His Greatness - R.I.P. The Reignman 1989 to 1997
I think his defensive shortcomings over a full year and adjustment to the major leagues
would result in a WAR well below 3. 2 is pushing it in my opinion.
Defensive shortcomings?
He posted a +5.0 UZR/150. We don’t know how good he is defensively, but his positive rating should indicate he might be at least league average. And first base isn’t a premium defensive position anyway.
Don't use that small of a UZR sample for anything ever.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 19, 2009 7:10 PM PST up reply actions
Did I really use it?
I specifically stated that “we don’t know how good he is defensively.” I did indicate the positive rating might give some incite to Carp being at least league average, but I didn’t say it as a certainty.
I would like to know why Rudy thinks Carp has defensive shortcomings when there is no clear evidence either way.
You used it.
You may have only used it slightly, but you used it.
by Terminator X on Dec 19, 2009 7:54 PM PST up reply actions
Are these scouting reports made public?
Not that I don’t believe you, but how am I supposed to know these things?
You can get a feel for a player's defensive reputation fairly easily based on freely available information.
USSM, LL, Prospect Insider, etc are all good sources of info about prospect scouting reports. Minor League Ball, Baseball America, and scouts being quoted in news/blog articles are all good sources of information. The defensive reputation of high-level prospects aren’t especially hard to track down.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 20, 2009 1:52 AM PST up reply actions
As Mathew said, from everything I've gathered from scouting reports, he's projects
as a below average defensive 1B.
I'm not trying to pile on here, really I am not, but if you know this, why did you use it?
UZR is a wonderful statistic, but only when it is used properly. In many contexts it is merely uninformative, but in the case of a player with 127 innings in MLB, it is anti-knowledge. It tells you quite literally nothing at all, and if you are using it to try and draw any sort of conclusion it is really, really misleading.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 20, 2009 1:47 AM PST up reply actions
I think at the time, if the belief is that all you have to go on is short season UZR - no scouting reports, no other metrics, no other years of data
You have to be able to draw at least he most minimal conclusions out of whatever you can. But the availability of scouting reports, as you mentioned earlier, override this minimal data, making the point no longer relevant. At the time of his writing, though, his impression was that we (average LLers) have no other data available to us right now.
...and now I'm here
I don't want to speak for you Wilder, but this is the impression I got of what you were saying.
...and now I'm here
Certainly.
I thank you for this. I wasn’t trying to use his SSS UZR as hard evidence, only that it was the only thing I had to go by. And as much as other people might think, I used the UZR in context that we may not know how good Carp is defensively— I wasn’t trying to say Carp was good based on the stat.
Scouting reports are all fine and dandy when it comes to defense, but we know they are not a perfect measure. I haven’t seen many, if any, scouting reports on Carp. I used what was available to me and concluded he might be average if given playing time.
I don’t mind being wrong, but Rudy didn’t point to any reports himself. I still feel he is just saying “scouting reports” just because, even though it might be accurate. I’m done with it, though. We all make our opinions based on the information available to us and I will leave it at that.
So you admit ignorance and go from there.
Defensive statistics are simply not good enough to draw any sort of meaningful conclusions from based on that small of a sample. Hell, offensive statistics aren’t good enough to draw any sort of meaningful conclusions from that small of a sample.
You’ve just got to ignore it.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 20, 2009 2:09 AM PST up reply actions
So how big of a sample do you need?
Basic statistics teaches you only need ~35 samples to make a 95% conclusion. For UZR, when does it consider a sample significant enough? ~35 games? ~35 opportunities? Does it need more samples?
I’m seriously curious and I’m open to any responses from anybody on the matter.
What?
Your statistical sentence is gibberish.
I won't proclaim to be a statistician, but anyone who is would understand what I am trying to get at.
You only need roughly 35 random samples to have an outcome be considered statistically significant (95% accurate; within three standard deviations).
It’s okay if you can’t answer my question. I left it open to anyone who could explain when a UZR sample size can be considered significant enough to be valid. Is it 10 games? 35 games? 162 games? Never, because players age?
"You only need roughly 35 random samples to have an outcome be considered statistically significant"
Uh
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 20, 2009 7:13 PM PST up reply actions
You're just flat-out wrong.
Three seasons of UZR are roughly equivalent to one season of offensive metrics. Drawing firm conclusions based on one season of offensive performance isn’t all that great an idea. 35 is never a statistically significant sample.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 20, 2009 7:19 PM PST up reply actions
See, that is what I am looking for.
35 is a general guideline, but it may not work in baseball because you don’t have a constant (players are always standing in different place, balls are hit differently, runners are fast/slow, weather comes into play, etc.).
I didn’t realize three seasons was the equivalent of one season of offensive stats. But that can be misleading too because players age and lose mobility.
And to be clear, I never drew any firm conclusion about Carp’s defensive abilities.
I was one and you are grossly misrepresenting statistical sampling.
What matters is the size of your confidence interval. I can make a 95% confidence guess based off one sample. It’s just meaningless because that guess is going to be huge. You also left out such important considerations as distribution type and deviation estimate. It’s not a one-variable equation. Not even close.
I don’t know where you got this nugget, but it’s a sound byte, not a statistical principle. Not in the slightest.
Good to know, and I mean that.
I took it from a college stats class a few years ago. I know I barely scratched the surface when it comes to statistical analysis, but it’s just something I have remembered and thought it might apply.
UZR, unlike most offensive stats, isn't exact.
It’d be like seeing a ball hit off the bat and then guessing if it was a home run or an out. So it takes way more of a sample to know anything definitive, because not only can the data be misleading, but it can also be wrong. It can think that catches should have been made that couldn’t have been made by the best defensive outfielder in history, or believe that a ball could not have been caught by an average outfielder, but the actual outfielder only moved two steps to their right (which anyone could have done). Because of that, sample sizes have to be a whole lot bigger. I’d guess at least one year before you can start to assume someone might be a good fielder, and 2 to 3 years before you can say so with any high degree of confidence.
...and now I'm here
I can definitely see how measuring defense can be difficult to measure because there are so many variables at play.
You might never get enough samples for every situation to come to a statistically significant conclusion.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
- Have you criticized Hanley Ramirez on Twitter? Your name may be on his bat!
- U.S. senator cries foul over Nationals plans to take back park from Phillies fans
- Photo: Comerica Park readies itself for Hockeytown
- Podcast: Dirk Hayhurst talks about Italy, the reality of the big leagues and his new book
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
