Prospects in the Doug Fister-David Pauley trade
by David Tokarz on Jul 30, 2011 8:33 AM PDT
Email
PrintHello Lookout Landing! My name is David Tokarz, and I'm a contributor over at Bless You Boys (I mainly do minor league content). Just thought I'd stop by and give you a bit of information on the prospects coming to Seattle in the Doug Fister/David Pauley trade.
Francisco Martinez, 20 year old 3B
Martinez is one of our top prospects. A young, toolsy third baseman out of Venezuela, Martinez was pushed quickly (he's in AA as a 20 year old this year) but has reacted to the challenge admirably. He's got quick bat speed and the line drives tend to fly off his bat, though he's also got some power potential which he'll probably realize as he grows. His speed is above average, and his arm and hands mean that he'll probably stick at third base, provided he gets the time to work on his glove. His stock was rising reasonably fast in Detroit, and we'll be sad to see him go.
Wells is a really good piece- he's a little old for a prospect, but entering his prime. Earlier this year, as an extra outfielder, he created 1 WAR in 125 plate appearances and various appearances as a defensive replacement. His glove could play in center, but he's a plus defender in a corner spot. His bat's pretty good as well: he's got 20 home run potential and decent patience, though the strikeout rate is (and will remain) high. Tigers fans know that this kid needs a chance to start, so he'll probably get that in Seattle.
Charlie Furbush, 25 year old LHP
Furbush rocketed through the farm system last year with really good numbers, especially in the strikeout department. Don't let that fool you; his ceiling is that of a #4 starter or a long reliever/swingman type. His delivery is very deceptive, which lead to most of the strikeouts, but he gets roughed up the second time through the order (hence the likelihood he becomes a swingman). As far as stuff, Furbush features a fastball that sits 89-91, a pretty good curve and a useable change. He does have a tendency to give up home runs, but Safeco should help with that.
Anyways, the package looks pretty good on your end (at least to me). Cheers!
265 comments
|
28 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm hoping for a #3
But hell, if he’s a solid #4 for a few years…
"Aside from the stuff I haven’t been diagnosed for yet, I don’t have a problem."- Phil Coke
Contributor, Bless You Boys
by David Tokarz on Jul 30, 2011 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm curious to see how he'll upgrade himself next year
One season he just stopped walking people, then he started getting loads of ground balls and this year he’s added one or two MPH to his fastball. Next year: switch pitching.
Martinez isn't going to upper levels (I'd imagine) until he learns to hit.
As it stands, he looks somewhat like Detroit’s Triunfel
He's already in Double A
You think the M’s send him to High Desert?
Totally agree with the Triunfel comp, that’s exactly who he looks like to me.
I tend to agree
Except that High A for the Mariners is High Desert, which is a terrible place to try and fix bad habits.
I understand that you know that already
I just find it curious you think that’s the right place for him.
Regardless, reports I’ve seen have him heading to Jackson.
Could also fling Triunfel / Vinnie to Tacoma to make room.
Though it would be hilarious to see Triunfel playing next to his clone.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jul 30, 2011 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Catricala's been playing mostly left field lately.
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors
One point
Triunfel turned 21 before the season
martinez will turn 21 after this season. There is actually a significantly different rate of development for players who are decent in AA at 20, than guys who are decent in AA at 21.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Didn't he lose about a year for a badly broken leg?
I seem to recall something like that.
by Aussie Mariner on Aug 2, 2011 4:17 AM PDT up reply actions
He did, but that's just a reason why he's successful in AA at 21 and not 20
he still lost a full year of development, maybe more once you consider the rehab time
Not really :)
Here’s a little study I did on 20 year olds and 22 year olds in the Southern League. It isn’t deffinitive evidence, but everytime I’ve looked I’ve found similar results . . .
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/5/12/1469228/micheal-stanton-vs-joe-borchard
The differnece between similar players in AA at the ages of 20 and 22 is HUGE, and Im sure it substantial from 21 year olds too.
This of course doesnt say that decent 21 year olds dont make it and 20 year olds do, but that they are differnt things - like a .262 hitter and .325 one, thier other skills being equal.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Holy shit, you misspelled four different players' names in your example/similarity lists alone.
by thehemogoblin on Aug 2, 2011 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Including one in the title!
One of the most common names in the United States.
by Mariner John on Aug 3, 2011 5:53 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
So because there (might be) a HUGE difference when the playes are 24 months apart
You assume there’s going to be a significantly different rate of development for two guys who are 6 months and two days apart?
Makes sense to me.
Some people seem to consider Martinez a star prospect
But yes, I agree with you that he seems more like Triunfel than a star at first glance. It would be really swell if the PTBNL was a good prospect of sorts. Otherwise, I get the feeling that we have dealt Fister at the height of his value for a bunch of spare parts. I hope I’m wrong, though.
People can consider Martinez to be whatever they want, but looking at his numbers shows that he doesn't hit for power and has little clue about the strike zone.
These are not things that bode well for a hitting prospect.
That's not an entirely fair assessment.
He’s 20 years old and in AA facing pitchers much older and with far more experience.
I’m not saying he’s a certified star or even anything more then he appears, but context is important and most players don’t begin to hit for power until at least their mid-twenties.
Also
Guys who even hold thier own at AA at the age of 20 have a pretty good track record. You may may not like the Ks or the power but, he puts the bat on the ball pretty well and has the arm, athletic ability for third base. Let the kid develop a little.
His power isn’t bad either – .405 slugging, EL Slugging .396
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
I do NOT notice
. . . nor do I ever unless a guy is like 7 for 12 or something. Whats the point? We have no idea of whether he is good at stinging the basball around the yard, or not, so I dont care much for BABIP.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Maybe you should...
since it directly impacts a player’s SLG%.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 30, 2011 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe, but maybe not
Id say that my assertion that he has average power for the Eastern Leagu, while being very young for the league, is more accurate than saying he “doesnt hit for power”
I try to saty away from all BABIP talk, it gives me the willies, but in the convoluted BABIP theory does it account for a kid with 25 xbh’s? I know homers aren’t counted in BABIP, and 7 isnt a bad totall for a young kid, in a tough league. Are the other 18 xbh’s accounted for really either? Do guys hit a lot of lucky doubles and triples?
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
If you want to talk power, use ISO, not SLG
by Matthew on Jul 30, 2011 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Iso is intertesting and good
but, everybody doesnt hit the same amount of singles and singles move runners up and drive them in. Why would we not count them when talking about a player?
Only if we consider all singles to be the result of luck, and i dont feel that waty at all.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Hey there moving goalposts!
I was addressing your contention about judging a player’s power, not his overall ability. Singles are not generally considered a part of what baseball people call “power” and more or fewer singles hit will change a player’s SLG. It will not change a player’s ISO.
“Only if we consider all singles to be the result of luck”
Please don’t make up strawman arguments. Especially batshit insane ones.
by Matthew on Aug 1, 2011 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 14 recs
Its part of his power, thats why?
Singles move runners along, and drive in runs, and are the same thing really. I’m not talking about his “power” in the abstract sense of just his ability to hit extra base hits. I was talking about the totality of his hitting ability, and hitting singles – hence slugging percentage, not isolated power.
Feel free and tell me what stat you want me to use, or what kind of arguments to make, or to characterise them any way you’d like. Just don’t be surprsied If I don’t listen much ok? I do my own thinking Man, ok cranky guy?
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
If you want to discuss his hitting, great
The problem is, when you say power, it definitely communicates extra base hit ability. If that’s not what you meant, thanks for clarifying, but don’t be surprised if people misunderstand you when you’re using terms completely different than the way they are normally used.
by dnc on Aug 1, 2011 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Sure
Whats funny is that the point is moot anyways really. He has about averge ISO for the league – slighly below – and an about average sluggging percentage too.
Its a little nitpicky to focus on that when I am discussing a real, live ballplayer you know? I just dont know exactly what is served to discuss a players hitting ability, minus his singles. I dont believe in it. And I LOVE Bill James!
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
You're still wrong about what power is.
Ichiro doesn’t have a lot of power just because he hits lots of singles, and Adam Dunn doesn’t have no power because he doesn’t. Power specifically refers to the ability to hit balls for more than singles. Contact ability, base running ability, and “hitting ability” are all appropriate phrases when discussing someone’s ability to hit singles, and power is not. The issue is not that one person is choosing to “ignore singles” (they’re not), the issue is that when you use power, you’re referring to something that does not refer to the ability to hit singles.
...and now I'm here
Cap Sea
The kid, Martinez, has both an average ISO and an aveerage Slugging Percentage.
I used his slugging percentage, a pretty old stardard way to talk about somebodys power.
Are you telling me that that stat, ISO, doesn’t ignore singles? It certainly does.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
What
Sir, it may measure extra base opower flawlessly but, you could bat .800 with all singles and your ISO would be .000.
Heck, ISO could just as well be called “Slugging without singles average”.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
That's because ISO is slugging without the singles.
BECAUSE IT’S DESIGNED TO JUDGE POWER.
by thehemogoblin on Aug 3, 2011 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Right
. . . but I wasnt talking about pure, isolated, power.
I was talking about total base ability, something like Ichiro’s 2004 season.
He has an .083 ISO but a .455 slugging percentage. His slugging was a better measure of his total base abilityy.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
It's almost like slugging is sort of kind of maybe a measure of total base ability.
It’s also almost like you’ve been saying “Power” the whole time and then arguing vehemently until now using some argument about “moving guys up” until now when you’ve changed your target.
NO!
Lets take this slowly okay?
I used slugging to begin with for a reason, get it?
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Sometimes when you're driving down the highway and thousands of idiots are driving the wrong way and making it hazardous as hell for you,
the problem isn’t with everyone else.
by abender20 on Aug 4, 2011 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 8 recs
Part of the frustration is that you didn't clearly explain your reason at first.
Your numbers have to back up your argument, which they didn’t here.
What are you talking about???
I said he has an average slugging percentage, and he DOES
He also has about an average ISO too.
How does my numbers not back up what Im saying?
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
You have just perfectly described what ISO is!
Why can’t you get your head around this? ISO is a power measure. Power != singles.
You understand the concept perfectly well – what’s the resistance to accepting it?
People are dumber than you want them do be
by seattlebruin on Aug 3, 2011 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
I accept it!
That just wasn’t what I was talking about. Martinez total bas ability is great er than his ISO. Iso doesn’t express this as well as Slugging does.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Also, you claim to look at triple slash lines.
You may not realize it, but you’re already creating ISO every time you look at slugging, because chances are you’re comparing the slugging to the batting average to find out power. Most likely when you see a slugging of .500 and a batting average of .300 you’re mentally calculating out the batting average to find out the player’s power. That’s what ISO is. ISO just explains it in a much better number.
...and now I'm here
That makes sense
. . and I get that. I just dont get that I cant use slugging percentage anymore. That was the genisis of this whole thing.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
You can still use slugging percentage, and any statistic really, as long as you know what it tells you.
Slugging % includes singles, and therefore isn’t an ideal measure of a player’s power. You can have a different definition of power, but don’t expect that to be a commonly understood definition. This is the important part:
Singles are not generally considered a part of what baseball people call "power" and more or fewer singles hit will change a player’s SLG. It will not change a player’s ISO.
"Satisfaction is the enemy of success." SanFranPreps Twitter: @d_quazzo
Right
but take this example
player one has a .250 average, and a .450 slugging
player two has a .350 average, and a .450 slugging
Obvioulsy one has a .200 Iso, and another has a .100 ISO
I think in player two’s case, his .100 ISO would not accurately describe what he brings to a team. It may describe his “power” in a sense but, why leave the singles out? Thats what Im saying.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Because if you are talking solely about a player's power, you need a statistic that accurately represents that.
ISO does. There’s a reason it’s called Isolated Power.
"Satisfaction is the enemy of success." SanFranPreps Twitter: @d_quazzo
I never was
I was talking about his entire offensive game
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
You mentioned power.
“His power isn’t bad either – .405 slugging, EL Slugging .396”
You seem to be confusing me/others taking umbrage over one aspect of your argument (the part where you equated SLG with “power”) with saying your entire argument (that Martinez isn’t a bad hitter) is wrong.
I’m not. I have no interest in the discussion of Martinez’s offensive skillset, but I do have an interest in people using the best data possible to make their arguments, no matter if I agree or not. If you want to talk about power, the tool, then ISO is far better than SLG. That’s the entirety of my point. Nothing more than that.
But it’s not “nitpicking,” it’s important to be accurate.
by Matthew on Aug 2, 2011 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Many people in this thread have answered this question many times
Singles are not within the definition of “power”. Never have been, never will be. Are they important? Yes, they are. But when you’re talking about “power”, you are not talking about singles. Why is this hard to understand?
by pdb on Aug 2, 2011 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Because
. . . I was never really talking about power, in that sense. I was describing the abilities of a player and I thought his slugging percentage was ok to do so. You realize slugging percentage has been used to describe a ballplayers power for at least, what, 60-70 years right?
The singles are included in the slugging, and not in the ISO. I also discussed his ability to hit XBH’s too.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
The sense in which you are talking about power is not a sense in which anybody else does, though
If you use the word “power”, people think – with good, historical reason, and with much evidence to back up said thought – that you are not talking about singles hitting, or hitting as a whole, but that you are talking about one specific aspect of hitting. Which is what power is. One part, not the whole.
by pdb on Aug 2, 2011 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions
I quoted
slugging percentage
It has been used to discuss a players power for decaces now, and it includes singles in it.
Every time a player quotes slugging, he is including a players ability to hit singles in the conversation. Even if he doesn’t think he does.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
And for decades,
home runs have been used to discuss a player’s power and it excludes a whole bunch of useful data.
We don’t care that “they” quoted home runs a lot. We don’t care if they quote slugging. ISO is a relatively recent term. And it better encapsulates what is the intuitive and common sense definition of “power” Power, as a tool, is better represented by ISO than SLG. That’s the point.
Yes
I agree with that, however If a guy hits a lot of singles it is part of his offensive game just like hitting a lot of doubles. ISO doesn’t include them, slugging does.
You may think ISO renders Slugging Percentage useless, I’m not so sure.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
I never said ISO renders SLG useless.
I never even came within the realm of saying that.
by Matthew on Aug 3, 2011 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Case... having watched you a bunch on Minorleagueball, let me offer you a free piece of advice:
Your style of “using your own insane stat logic” will not fly here at all. You might want to drop it, and while you’re at it, the attitude you’re expressing towards one of the authors on this site.
Just sayin’. Self preservation and all that.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Aug 2, 2011 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Dude
As long as I have respect for the subject i am talking about, and the people I am talking with, I can feel any way Id like to about anu statistic I want to Man, but thanks.
I just got here, and I dont even know the guy. I’m just dropping in to talk about a little baseball bro. I dont need to worry about self preservation.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
"The guy" is one of the authors of this site, and a respected. published baseball analyst
and to to your earlier point:
I just dont know exactly what is served to discuss a players hitting ability, minus his singles.
It’s called “slugging”, and it’s the power hitting to which Matthew has referred multiple times. Singles are not power. You can disagree all you want, but that doesn’t make you correct. There is a difference between hitting singles and hitting for power – Ichiro is not a power hitter, for instance. You are correct in that singles move runners along, but you are incorrect if you include singles in power numbers.
by pdb on Aug 2, 2011 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Hey pdb
Matthew may be the president of the united states, and I have ZERO problem with the him but, I have never met him ok? He’s a guy, and Im a guy.
We can have a little disagreement without you jumping it to defend him. We are civilized people here, at least I am.
Moving on, there are two parts two offense – getting guys on, and moving them in.
To me, anytime you are discussing a players power, you are discussing the ability to move them in right? I’m not interested in “isolating” his ability to hit doubles, triples, or homers. I’m interested in his overall ability to move runners up.
Ishiro is a good example actually. He is not a power hitter. He does not have a high ISO. However, in discussing his offensive contribution it would be pretty silly to take his ability to hit singles ouyt of the equation, wouldnt it? He’s one of the greatest singles hitters ever to live. I dont mean this as any kind of insult either.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
No, that is not correct
anytime you are discussing a players power, you are discussing the ability to move them in right?
No. You are discussing a player’s ability to hit balls that enable him to get to second or third base, regardless of whether anybody is on base at the time.
but, I have never met him ok? He’s a guy, and Im a guy.
This basically means you should show him the respect he deserves and not snark at him, especially as a newcomer to the site. LL is not like other web sites – we’re not looking for your “take”. We’re looking for intelligent discussion based on facts.
by pdb on Aug 2, 2011 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I quoted
. . . facts about his slugging percentage, that was accurate, and his age, also accurate. We just got into a minor disagreement over using slugguing instead of ISO. Both stats have thier usages, in my opinion.
Justified or not, he caalled me “Moving Goalposts” and “Batshit Insane”
I merely said he was cranky.
I hold no grudges, its just the internet. I have respect for all. But, when someone starts off thier relationship with me in that way, its just a guy Man.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
I didn't call you batshit insane,
I called your straw man argument about considering singles to be entirely products of luck to be batshit insane. Which it is.
by Matthew on Aug 2, 2011 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It may be a strawman to you
but there are lots of people who feel this way. The entire prospect community’s opinion of Ben Revere, for instance, is based on two premises….
One, that his ISO is low so thats bad
Two, that he has a high average, and hits a lot of singles, which is the result of luck and will normalize one day.
I don’t think singles are great, or like them but, If you remove them from the discussion of a player when it is the strength of thier game, it isn’t doing them justice.
Not saying you were doing that, just saying that in Francisco Martinez’s case, slugging pct was a better fit for what I was trying to express about him – NOT pure power, but power AND his ability to his singles. I shouldn’t have used the word power, my bad.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
That's not how a strawman argument works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument
May be a strawman to me? That’s the only part that matters because you were responding to my comment. This isn’t minorleagueball. I didn’t claim anything resembling singles being entirely luck-driven. Therefore, you representing that as somehow an argument that I put forth, which you did, is a strawman.
We're not saying ISO is the be-all, end-all of player evaluation.
It’s just a good method of judging how effective a player is at hitting for power. Ichiro never has had a very high ISO, but it’s not as if he’s been a terrible player.
by thehemogoblin on Aug 3, 2011 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
A) No politics
B) holy shit how can you not spell player’s names? I’m better than this two glasses of scotch and six beers in
C) Matthew may be “just a guy,” but he’s a guy who happens to 1) moderate this site and 2) be right more often than not about baseball – it’s one of those problems with being a talented analyst.
Great
I didnt say anything disrespectful to him.
He called me a couple things, and I said he was cranky.;
I have no doubt hes’s a talentaed analyst. He also isn’t without flaws, and doesn’t need defending because I am not attacking him.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
No one uses Slugging to discuss Ichiro's offensive contribution, because he doesn't hit for power.
It sounds like you wISH there wAS a stat that wOULD show how Ichiro has value beyond slugging, because his ability to hit singles wELL is still pretty valuable. Obviously power alone wON’T cover it, but at the same time one can’t ignore the value of a single. Hopefully someone wILL create such a stat in the future.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Aug 2, 2011 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
Well
does a player who hits .250 with a .400 slugging move as many runners up as a player who
hits .333 with a .400 slugging.
In this case ISO sells the second player short when discussing thier ability to move runners up.
Im not saying singles are good or I think Ichiro needs credit. Im saying, when Ichiro was good it would be silly to not unclude his singles when trying to discuss what he gives you on the field. Its his #1 strength.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
No one thinks ISO is the sole stat to say "what a player brings to the field."
It measures one thing, and one thing only. A player’s ability to hit for extra-bases (aka power). ISO doesn’t describe how well a player “moves runners up.”
"Satisfaction is the enemy of success." SanFranPreps Twitter: @d_quazzo
No, you are right
Thats what slugging percentage does.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Slugging percentage is a player's total bases/AB.
In other words, how many bases a player gets per AB. It tells you nothing about how well a player “moves runners up.”
"Satisfaction is the enemy of success." SanFranPreps Twitter: @d_quazzo
I think what you're looking for is the sacrifice fly and the RBI
Golden oldies of baseball stats but waaaaay overdue for a comeback
It is indeed his number 1 strength
but you are, again, incorrect when you say that equates to “power”. That’s all we’re all saying – Ichiro gives you many things, offensively. Power, though, is not one of them.
You’re starting from a slightly flawed premise when you say:
does a player who hits .250 with a .400 slugging move as many runners up as a player who hits .333 with a .400 slugging.
Nothing about batting average or slugging percentage is designed to, or needs to, tell you how many runners “get moved”. All those numbers tell you is how well the guy at the plate hits – and those hits, as with the 2010 Mariners, can often come with nobody on base, which negates your whole premise.
by pdb on Aug 2, 2011 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Id disagree
But If a guy hit .350 !!! and he only was descrtibed as a guy wuith a .100 ISO, that wouldn’t be desribing what we are trying to describe.
I was trying to =characterise the complete , offensive game, of Fransisco Martinez. Not just his “power” in some abstract sense. He hits .280 with some pop, .406 Slugging.
He has a slighly below average ISo, but his a good amount of singles. That is included in his slugging and not in his ISO.
The fact that you pointed out, that singles with two outs and nobody on aren’t real valuable don’t meen they arten’t moreso in a good offense. In other words, I LOVE the longball but, it isnt the guy who hit a singles fault there was nobody on.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Let's take an quick look, shall we?
His power isn’t bad either – .405 slugging, EL Slugging .396
Sounds like what you’re trying to describe is power, not
the complete , offensive game, of Fransisco Martinez.
Slugging percentage is also a terrible way to describe a “complete offensive game,” but given the enlightenment in this conversation I gather convincing you of that will bear no fruit.
"Satisfaction is the enemy of success." SanFranPreps Twitter: @d_quazzo
You are right!
You have convinced me! Of course i never needed to be convinced of this. I’m well aware of the importance of getting on base as well.
Its just part of a conversation, not all of it. I dont know If I could convince of that.
What ironic is that his slugging percentage and his ISO are similar as far as relatuive to the league and what we were discussing.
So the whole thing was for nothing. His power can be described as average with hi slugging or his ISO. Same difference!
Escept, he hits more singles than average, which makes his slugging a better representation of what we are measuring – how he moves baserunners up.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
you are missing what I am saying
two parts of offense, basically
1 getting on base
2 total bases
I was just discussing part two. Not “power” in its pure sense but ALL of his total bases
Wasn’t discussing his on base ability at all. Of course that is the other part in discussing his complete game.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
every player
moves runners up to some degree, even if they dont have power. Slugging is just a way to quantify this, even if its a shorthand way.
I totally look at a player as One part: Getting on base, Second Part: Moving runners up, driving them in.
We have to have some way to talk about this dont we? Purely quantifying power doesnt cut it.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
A minor distinction
Offense is all getting on, and moving them up, and across home. Thats it.
Moving runners up, when they aren’t there, isnt a skill but, getting total bases is.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Except
“getting on” = OBP. While “getting on” isn’t an exact term, I’m pretty sure we can all agree that OBP is what “getting on [base]” reflects.
“moving them up” = what? What does that mean? Where is the intuitive translation to a formula for “moving them up”. Do sac bunts count as moving them up? Sac flies? Reaching via error? Walks? All those things “move runners up”.
Do you see how you are using non-intuitive terms and that’s what’s causing this entire mess?
Man, I am impressed by the patience
exhibited within this conversation. I’d like to think of myself as a patient individual, but I probably would’ve given up and started dropping ad hominem attacks by now.
I can see that
I really can.
I am not just saying this to be argumentative though.
Here’s two hypothetical players, and thier slash lines, to easily illustrate my point (and it has nothing to do with sac flies, errors, or any of that)
Player 1 -
.100 / .200 / .350 slugging
This would be something that maybe Kilian Sams would achieve if he was givin a month or so to play in the big leagues. he would have ,250 ISO
Player 2 -
.372/ .414/ .455
This is, of course, Ichiro’s 2004. His ISO is .083
Player 1 would have more “power” but if I was talking about which players hits moved runners up more (since there exists no term to describe this apparently) slugging would work more.
Ichiro is better at this, primariy because of singles.
To me, it is alo clear what I was trying to say, and not complex at all.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Player 1 sucks. No one said the player with the highest ISO is the better player.
They were taking issue with your use of the word “power” which you have clarified. Player 1 would have more pure power but he can’t do anything else. Everyone now understands that you meant total base ability or whatever, they were just saying that as a measure of power, as in one of the five tools, ISO is the best measure for only that skill. It is by no means the best measure for evaluating who is the better player. ISO shouldn’t be used in isolation to evaluate anything more than the ability to get extra base hits.
total bases
there is a term
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Hey, I warned you. Have fun!
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Aug 2, 2011 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I am actually
in a weird way
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Yes... it's the same standard...
If you want to deviate from that significantly, you better come armed with lots of line drives and infield singles and the numbers (or visible evidence, which will be taken lightly) to back them up… otherwise, quoting a barely above average SLG% propped up by a unsustainable BABIP doesn’t really mean he has the power you’re claiming. You can, however, stick to the XBH totals if you like, but then you have to give that context vs what the league is doing like you tried to do with the SLG%.
A better number for you to stick to would be ISO which has gone up significantly over last year, but not so significantly over the year prior. Unfortunately, his walk rate has also decreased, while his K rate has increased… although neither significantly to worry about.
You can also look at his wOBA, which at .318 isn’t good, and is a decrease from last year. He’s obviously got lots o’ time to figure this stuff out.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 30, 2011 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
No need to look at wOBA
. . . because looking at his entire batting line gives you the exact same information, only more naunced. I can already tell what kind of qulity of offensive player he is by looking at his regular stats – plus context: age, position, etc – that wOBA cant tell me. I dont see any use for the stat personally.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Why would you willfully disregard a more accurate and refined statistic?
I write for Stumptown Footy, SB Nation's Portland Timbers blog.
by thehemogoblin on Aug 1, 2011 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Perhaps because one size doesn't fit all?
Looking at an overall batting line may not be as refined, but that doesn’t mean it’s less informative. wOBA is meant as an quantitative evaluation of a player’s overall offensive production, but tells you nothing at all about how he got there.
by nathaniel dawson on Aug 1, 2011 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Right
Thanks, thats kind of exactly what I was saying actually.
I’d also add that it is less refined to try and look at one number to come up with answers than many stats. In my opinion. It is more refined to look at a variety of things to see the totality of a player.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Far more?
wOBA includes RBOE, which isn’t included in triple slash lines, but unless there’s some other iteration I’m unaware of, that’s it.
by nathaniel dawson on Aug 2, 2011 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Triple slash line is average, OBP and SLG, three stats. wOBA is walks, singles, doubles, triples, home runs and RBOE, five stats.
That seems like more and seems like it would be more accurate.
Triple slash lines include walks, singles, doubles, triples, and home runs, five stats.
The same ones that wOBA uses, with the addition of RBOE. You could get more particular and split up the walks category and say that triple slash lines also include IBB’s, which wOBA doesn’t, or maybe HBP’s, depending on how someone is figuring it. Whatever, those things usually amount to minor differences.
The differences between the stats that wOBA uses and what a triple slash line uses comes down to RBOE and IBB’s.
Unless…..
Is there an iteration of wOBA that includes stolen bases/caught stealing? That would also be something that triple slash lines don’t include.
by nathaniel dawson on Aug 3, 2011 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions
According to David Appleman in the comments of this post, it does.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/
David Appelman says:
November 25, 2008 at 2:45 pm
wOBA does include SB and CS on FanGraphs.
Whoops. I was trying to figure it out for myself, since I wasn't sure.
I wish FanGraphs’ glossaries included their formulas, when easily available. I get that Slowinski wants to make things easy to understand, but having the formula right there would help some people.
Yeah, I did the same thing.
I was sure that they didn’t include stolen bases in their baserunning score because they already factored stolen bases in wOBA, but it was difficult tracking something down that definitively said that.
You could only look at wOBA, but then you'd be an idiot.
No one does that. People look at BABIP, they look at home runs, they look at ISO. They look at all of these things already, and anyone that suggests otherwise is being needlessly argumentative because that’s all they can contribute. wOBA, however, is a better evaluation of talent than traditional slash lines suggest, and it thanks to statistics like wOBA that people are now able to understand how to read triple slash lines in a way that wasn’t previously considered.
To point this out again:
Why would you willfully disregard a more accurate and refined statistic?
He didn’t say “Why wouldn’t you only use wOBA?” You could only use batting average and home runs, but why wouldn’t you use slugging and OBP? You could only use slugging and OBP, but why wouldn’t you also use wOBA? You should use all of them, because they’re helpful.
Casejud can “look at many stats” to come up with an opinion, but so does everyone else that uses wOBA. That’s a stupid argument that acts like everyone else is blindly following a number, and they’re not. wOBA is a number that is more convenient for what most people are trying to explain – the talent of a ballplayer and how they’ve contributed to a club. That’s it. People that use wOBA also look at every other stat just like everyone else.
Also, it is thanks to the creation of other statistics that people understand how to look at the “many stats” that are available. It was not long ago where walks were considered much less valuable than singles, or that batting average alone was a good indicator of talent. Then new statistics – like wOBA – came out that showed that walks were important, and that you could be a productive ballplayer without getting a lot of hits, and it is thanks to those statistics that we now know that seeing a lot of walks is an even better thing than we previously anticipated, and that a good slugging and OBP can make a great player regardless of average. It is profoundly ignorant to deride using stats like wOBA in favor of looking at the “other stats” when it is thanks to stats like wOBA that people have learned how to correctly understand the stats they’re looking at in terms of contribution.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Aug 2, 2011 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Ok
I dont know how me or anybody having a preferance for one stat or the other could offend anybody but, okay, that your opinion.
By the way, I think OBP did what you are saying wOBA did for walks. I’ve appreciated them for a great while now.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Hello!
- I wasn’t responding to you.
- Good for you, I’m glad you appreciated walks.
- Your argument against wOBA is that “looking at all the stats is better” which is a bad argument, because everyone looks at all the stats AND wOBA. No one just looks at wOBA. You made a bad argument.
- OPS is useful. wOBA is nearly the same as OPS, except weighted for historical context. When you look at slugging and OBP, you are looking at OPS. So why not also look at wOBA? Now, I don’t give a flying fuck if you look at wOBA, but claiming that “I look at all the stats and that helps me learn more about a player” is stupid, because everything you do is using shortcuts and everyone that looks at wOBA looks at the same thing that you do, AND wOBA.
- I didn’t say wOBA did it for walks. I said “Stats like wOBA.” Same with research into player contribution.
- Because I don’t want to scroll up, "power’ refers to ISO, Slugging does not. A player can bat 1.000 and have a 1.000 slugging and still have zero power. Slugging doesn’t tell you power. It may imply power, but it doesn’t tell you power. A player that slugs .350 may look like someone with no power, but when you see their batting average is .100, you realize they have a crapload of power and simply don’t get hits, ergo slugging was not a good representation of power. Please do not use the term “power” incorrectly or change discussion to “hitting contribution” after someone calls you out on your use of “power” without admitting fault.
Fin.
...and now I'm here
OK
1 I think If you mention me, and critique my thoughts in a post, I can reply to it. No?
2 Waks are great and valuable, but we agree on this.
3 I can see where you are coming from here. I feel like some people use wOBA as a replacement for other stats at times and I just don’t find the stat necessary. But, yes, according to my “argument” one more good sta added to the whole is not a bad thing. You have a good point there. I was wrong.
4 Same point here, with more vitiol. I like wOBA, its fine. I guess there is no need to for it to be one or the other. Point taken again.
5 I dont think your point that I somehow, set back the movement into intelligent offensive baseball analysis is set back by me not caring for a stat.
6 I HAD to invent a new term! Because power devoid of the ability to sting single base hits wasn’t what I was talking about. Slugging includes this, ISO doesn’t. My “fault” was using the term “power”. I can admit fault in that.
I can’t admit fault to shifting to what I was relly talking about – the guys ability to move up runners with ALL of his hits which is better represented by his slugging percentage
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
I'll avoid most of these since it seems we are closer to agreement now and just respond to this:
I dont think your point that I somehow, set back the movement into intelligent offensive baseball analysis is set back by me not caring for a stat.
There is a habit among many to assume that the knowledge they have now is based on the knowledge that has always been around, and that’s not the case. Self promoting example here. There are people that credit their own ability to evaluate defensive talent better than the defensive metrics (UZR, etc.) to their own eye. But the reality is that until these defensive metrics came about, most fans – and many front offices – truly believed that fielding percentage was an important stat, among other things.
Defensive metrics came around and changed the game. They showed that things like range are more important, and that errors are essentially meaningless and often prone to observer bias. From there, fans (especially) learned about the importance of range, the unimportance of errors, among other things. Now fans do a much better job of telling when a player is good defensively, even if they drop the ball a lot.
And from there, we’ve found that UZR and other defensive metrics fucking suck. Because now that we ignore errors and pay more attention to range, we’ve found that the defensive metrics are wrong. But despite that we have to give credit to these metrics – the stats, however wrong they may be, changed the way that defensive is evaluated visually. Without it, most people would still site a person’s errors when looking at defensive ability.
So too with advancements in things like wOBA, and even OPS (since that was adopted more recently). You don’t need to look at wOBA, but it was wOBA (and OPS, and other various stats) that made it easier to accurately evaluate talent by looking at those other numbers in the first place.
That’s why it seems silly to not look at wOBA to answer questions like “How good a hitter is this guy?” Because when one looks at all of the other stats to come up with the same conclusion, one is essentially calculating their own imaginary and non-mathematical wOBA themselves, and that mental calculation and assessment is possible because of what things like wOBA taught.
This was a really long post but the reality is that I hate the Internet and I’m trying to use up every last byte so that it implodes on itself and dies.
...and now I'm here
I disagree with #2
Wak was not very great or valuable, that’s why the M’s got rid of him. Wedges are where the value is now.
by Craptastic-J on Aug 3, 2011 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Good stuff
I’m glad my shitty spelling produced some humor at least.
I agree with you about the internet sometimes. I’m not comfortable being anonymous. I like to argue face to face!
I see your point about wOBA, I guess I’m feeling too lazy to learn another stat-to integrate it. Like you said, we just learned how sniff out all of the biases in a basic stat line. Im set in my ways, even though Im open minded.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
And yet you use acronyms
and I’d be willing to bet you’ve used Wikipedia.
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 2, 2011 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions
He's a line drive hitter with little loft adn good speed
I don’t think that BABIP is particularly high for his offensive profile.
Wells is better than I initially thought
Sounds like a league average hitter with well above average COF defense. 1 WAR in 125 PA’s.
So say he’s a 2.5-3 WAR LF. You fix one gaping hole, move Carp to DH where he belongs, pickup Furbush to replace Fister in the rotation (downgrade to be sure), AND add an interesting, if risky prospect to throw on the 3B pile.
I don’t love it, but I like it. The PTBNL could make me love it.
by dnc on Jul 30, 2011 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's dead on
Wells isn’t exceptional with the bat, but the glove is really quite good.
"Aside from the stuff I haven’t been diagnosed for yet, I don’t have a problem."- Phil Coke
Contributor, Bless You Boys
by David Tokarz on Jul 30, 2011 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions
By the standards of our current outfield
he’s exceptional with the bat.
by The Ancient Mariner on Jul 30, 2011 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Dude
Sounds like a league average hitter with well above average COF defense. 1 WAR in 125 PA’s.
125 PAs. Your overall assessment is probably right but why even mention WAR over such a sample?
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 30, 2011 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Because I thought it was interesting?
That’s the number that got my attention and caused me to reevalute Wells, who I initially wrote off as just another mediocre hitting corner OF. I’m not saying it means he’ll keep up that pace (in fact as you clearly understood I was pretty much saying it won’t), but it’s still an interesting number that at least caused me to take a closer look at the guy. Perhaps it will pique some others’ interest in him as well.
Look I don't mean to be a hard on about it
but you certainly shouldn’t reevaluate him based on 125PAs. I’d be more excited about his AA seasons.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 30, 2011 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions
The puhtubnul is rumored to be a significant piece
by Craptastic-J on Jul 30, 2011 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah I saw that
PTBNL’s are almost never interesting. But given the timing of this trade and the plehtora of draftees that signed on August 15th, it certainly makes sense that it could be a 2010 draft choice, who could theoretically be interesting.
If it’s an August 15th guy we should know who he is in a few weeks, which is nice.
Well now I need to go dig through the Tigers 2010 draft haul
by Craptastic-J on Jul 30, 2011 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions
They did pretty well in the draft.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jul 30, 2011 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Their top pick was a third baseman, and having obtained Martinez, it seems unlikely that we'd acquire another 3B.
They do have a slew of good young pitchers in their system, though. It could be any of them.
Don't drafted players have to stay with their initial team for something like a year?
Not sure of that, but I think it’s part of the whole scheme to keep teams from trading draft picks.
by nathaniel dawson on Jul 30, 2011 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes...
which is why the Mariners have to wait until Aug. 20, at the latest, to get someone from Detroit’s 2010 draft class.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 30, 2011 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
It's not a fleecing, to be sure
(unless Martinez comes up big) but given our huge need in the OF, adding a guy who should at least be league-average out there without opening a hole somewhere else (downgrade though it will no doubt be from Fister to Furbush) has to go down as a good idea.
by The Ancient Mariner on Jul 30, 2011 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Martinez provides the upside, imho
I understand your reaction to him, but for a 20-year-old in AA, I don’t think his strike-zone judgment looks unfixable; he’s far from a sure thing, but you don’t get sure things for the Doug Fisters of this world, and there doesn’t seem to be anything lacking that can’t reasonably come with physical development and good coaching. There’s a decent chance our ML team is stronger now than it was yesterday, especially if Sickels’ more optimistic take on Furbush bears out, and we now have an interesting prospect to add to a position of organizational weakness. It’s not brilliant (probably), but that’s a good deal.
by The Ancient Mariner on Jul 30, 2011 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't know that Furbush goes into the rotation.
Well, at least not unless Bedard is also dealt or remains ineffective/injured.
Right now I would just assume they slide Beaven into Fister’s slot.
He kind of reminds me of when I thought we'd get Matt Joyce from the Tigers.
Mostly just because he seemed like a serviceable outfielder but with a little upside for more.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jul 30, 2011 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I was going to write exactly this...
but you beat me to it, and probably better than I would have. Wells earned rec’.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 30, 2011 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
I know nothing about the players involved.
I do know it’s a wash in terms of hilarious names, though.
Because they traded Doug Fister.
Really? (Is this some sort of meme?)
Let's check out that comment history
My, but you seem like a reasonable fellow. What’s got you all riled up all of the sudden?
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 30, 2011 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Trading one of our lone young bright spots...
…for more spare parts you can already find in Tacoma will do that to you.
Fister is one of our lone young bright spots?
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 30, 2011 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
And apparently Felix Pineda Vargas and Beavan don't count
and that’s just the pitchers.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 30, 2011 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I'm trying to find a quality arm like Furbush or a good offensive / defensive outfielder down there, too.
Let me know when you discover one under a pile of Sean Kazmar’s.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jul 30, 2011 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions
You are kidding, right?
First of all, there is nowhere to go but up. Second, we have loads of starting pitchers on the way (Walker, Paxton, Beaven, probably Hultzen). Third, Fister’s value is high right now and he’ll probably never be more than a fourth starter. Fourth, by trading Fister it means we’re not dealing Felix or Pineda. Fifth, if either of Wells or Martinez develops into a regular position player, we come out ahead. Sixth, there’s a player to be named that Larry Stone says is a significant part of the deal. This is not a bad deal under any stretch of the imagination. If you are done with the M’s it’s understandable, but not because of this trade.
by Alex Johnson on Jul 30, 2011 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Only two of these reasons have anything to do with the value returned for Fister.
Your first point is a platitude, your second doesn’t matter because all that matters is that you get good value for your assets, your third is okay until the second half. Fister has been very good this year, like 10% better than a league average starter which when you combine with durability, is really valuable. Your fourth point doesn’t justify anything. Fifth, no, it matters how good they are not whether they earn some nominal title.
Agreed
And to the first point, if you’ve been watching these past two seasons, you should know that there are actually several other places to go besides up.
"because all that matters is that you get good value for your assets,"
Organizational context is important here.
Furthermore, I feel like you’re overvaluing Fister by a good deal. He’s a good pitcher, and I like the guy (and will be rooting for him to have success in Detroit), but he’s not as amazing of a talent that he just can’t be parted with. Whether or not this trade will pan out as a win for the M’s nobody can say (just like you can’t say whether Fister will get injured in his next start, etc), but it doesn’t seem like an unreasonable value we got in return here.
I've been trying to type a comment for 5 minutes...
to try and say this. I’ll miss Fister. A lot. But it wasn’t because he was amazing. It was just an interesting story to watch develop. Jeff’s article for my northwest sums it up, I think. (Third time it has been linked, now).
While it's easier for a team deep in pitching to replace Fister in theory, that doesn't mean he should be given away for less.
You don’t sell a ten dollar bill for five bucks just because you also have a five at home on your dresser.
You're making the assumption that this is in fact what happened here.
Like I said, I feel like you’re overvaluing Fister here.
And we got back two quality players who are under lots of team control while remaining cheap.
Not to mention a prospect with upside and another possibly big piece.
Far as I am concerned, value has been matched here. Unless you think Pauley is that amazing, too.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jul 30, 2011 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yuo missed the point
I was responding to his statement that he’s done with the M’s. Read my comment in that context, not as a pure evaluation of this trade.
by Alex Johnson on Jul 30, 2011 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not yet a fan of the trade,
but this is stupid overreaction. Not to mention that there’s another piece coming.
by Matthew on Jul 30, 2011 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You'll be back.
They always come back.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jul 30, 2011 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Your assessment of Furbush is a little bleak relative to the Sickels blurb tarheels dug up
He’s picked up velocity as he’s recovered from TJ and Sickels seems to think both the curve and change are good pitches. He’s not super young but Im not so concerned by that; he lost a year to injury and pitchers have different aging curves than batters. His StrSw% is a tick above average, and while he walked a lot of batters in his brief stint in the majors, he was actually in and around the zone more than not, which suggests either some poor timing or a command issue. Since his BB rates in the minors were acceptable, I’m cautiously optimistic its the former. All this is over 140 TBF which is a decent sample for the stats I mention.
On the whole, he strikes me as a guy who is currently a couple of steps behind Fister but has a higher ceiling on account of better stuff. The speed with which he went through the upper minors makes me think he’s a quick learner.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 30, 2011 9:59 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Yes. I like Fister a lot, but my comment isn't really about him
If you’re talking about the stuff comparison, I am no expert on that but I think it’s no secret that Fister gets by primarily on command. Furbush’s a lefty with better velocity and a much better StrSw%. Again, I am going off internet scouting reports and a just-enough statistical sample but it seems to add up to Furbush has better stuff.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 30, 2011 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Hey David. Thanks for the write up.
I’m not registered at BYB, but this is a good write up Jeff did for a local sports blog/radio show.
Dog Fister
I think we just found out Dog the Bounty Hunter’s last name
Isn't it more likely for us that Furbush goes to the bullpen and Beavan remains in the rotation?
Unless there is another deal in place for Bedard that would open another hole in the rotation
I don't think Furbush is ready to start up here, frankly.
In the Mariners’ situation I would let him work on things in the minors. Casper, however, is ready to play every day. And would be an upgrade.
If the PTNL is insignificant, add me to the list of those
who are rather underwhelmed by this trade.
...but it's looking like it is.
No reason not to trust Larry Stone.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 30, 2011 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Stone reports on Twitter that the PTBNL is from a list of three players, all of whom are "significant prospects."
Also, the deal will be finalized in three weeks. As speculated above, that lends credence to the idea that at least one of the players was drafted in 2010.
Yeah
Perhaps Chance Ruffin? Id doubt it would be Drew Smyly becasue we already got a lefty starter prospect from them,
Perhaps Chance because he fits the mold of the other 2 big leage ready pieces, besides Martinez. Thats my guess.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
David Tokarz...
Thanks for your effort. Will you please come back and give a report on the PTBNL, when he gets a name?
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 30, 2011 10:46 AM PDT reply actions
I don't think anyone needs a scouting report on Miguel Cabrera.
by Eyeball Kid on Jul 30, 2011 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
Given the quality of the above...
I’d still give it the respect of reading it… if it came to that. Justin Verlander, too.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 30, 2011 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, sure
I’d be more than happy to.
"Aside from the stuff I haven’t been diagnosed for yet, I don’t have a problem."- Phil Coke
Contributor, Bless You Boys
by David Tokarz on Jul 30, 2011 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 30, 2011 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks, and thanks for this write up.
Greatly appreciated. Enjoy Fister and Pauley, they’re good pieces, and Pauley is an awesome guy – admittedly based on a very brief interaction but still.
by Aussie Mariner on Jul 30, 2011 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions
FanGraphs' take
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 30, 2011 12:18 PM PDT reply actions
Wells might be the real draw here
The Mariners are getting him for the “hypothetical” peak years of his career at league minimum. He drew positive reviews in the minors for his tools. This includes a very strong arm that reportedly could hit from the low to mid 90s combined with above average speed. At least, there is a very good probability that he can be an above average corner outfielder if not average or above average centre fielder.
He also has demonstrated tremendous raw power according to BAs reports on him after his 2008 breakout season. He has maintained a .200+ ISO every season in the minors since then which just seems to affirm this. The same 2009 report says he is also plagued by a long swing. There is evidence that this problem may have persisted as he moved into the upper minors as his K % surpassed 25 %. However, this year he has reduced his swinging strike % by 1 and also managed to reduce his outside swing % to below league average. While these numbers are plagued by SSS, plate discipline numbers stabilise much faster.
Wells’ situation in Detroit was rather poor in terms of playing time. Ordonez’s contract had him blocked in one corner. The deceptively high BABIP’s of Boesch and Jackson, the latter also having shinier tools, had him blocked in the other positions. His performance to date in the majors really can’t tell us much for a variety of reasons. A limited sample of PAs, of which 60 % of them were against LHs, being one or the problems with UZR or any other fielding metric being another.
Doing a rough projection of what kind of value he might have is difficult with the limited playing time he has received. Realistically, I think it is not unreasonable to expect him to be a slight above average defender in LF, let’s say +5(I assume he will not unseat Gutierrez for now). The .313 BABIP might be a bit above average even considering his speed so to be on the conservative side I would say .290. His K % should probably be regressed a little also as he probably faces more RHs.
What you are left with looks like a line of .235/.300/.435. It is not pretty but about league average and similar to J.P. Arencibia. With the +5 defence, -7.5 positional, and +20 for replacement, it looks like we conservatively have a 1.8 WAR player at league minimum for the prime of his career. There is the potential that he could be a much better defender in LF or CF than he already is. Any improvements that the he makes at the plate through coaching, as he enters his prime, or has already made and Zduriencik’s scouts have spotted can turn him into an above average player.
There is less debate concerning Furbush. If he can turn into a serviceable back-end starter or long-reliever maybe he can average .5-1 WAR a year at minimum. This leaves you with similar around 2.5 WAR at minimum for the next 3 years at least in exchange for Fister. When considering Fister is likely to regress a little to a 3 WAR player and will no longer be at minimum after next year, it does not seem like a bad trade. The only negative is that Wells and Furbush will take up more than 1 roster spot.
The prospects make this deal a solid trade even if it is not the typical larceny of Zduriencik. Martinez is sustaining his batting line on a .331 BABIP, but he managed a similar BABIP in 2010 suggesting it might be sustainable. Furthermore, as 20 year-old in AA there is always potential in the sense that he could be the next Asdrubal Cabrera or the next Luis Valbuena. The rumors that we might get a solid PTBNL in a former 2010 1st round pick pulls the balance sheet further in our favor.
by tdot mariner fan on Jul 30, 2011 3:45 PM PDT reply actions 17 recs
Nice look at this, tdot.
I like how you estimated a batting line for Wells by piecing together the stats availble for him.
by nathaniel dawson on Jul 30, 2011 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Thank you
In retrospect, I should have also mentioned park factors but it is really hard to guess what moving from friendlier Comerica to Safeco. It evens out a bit in my mind with me being a bit conservative about his BABIP and possible defensive value.
by tdot mariner fan on Jul 31, 2011 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Looking at Wells' numbers, it does look like there's some upside potential there as well.
As far as I can tell he doesn’t seem to struggle with any specific pitch, good power, sustained (not necessarily sustainable, but sustained) BABIP, not embarrassing contact rate. He could be quite a good piece. I’m looking forward to seeing what he can do.
...and now I'm here
Wells writeup sounds like Guti 3 years ago.
Optimistic, until he gets AIDS in 2 years.
by joof on Jul 30, 2011 5:53 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Not odd enough.
Wells will take a vacation trip to New Guinea in the off season and contract kuru.
How come you can do all this other great shit, but you can't lie the fuck down and sleep?
Just as an FYI to Tigers fans about Martinez
it’s not that we don’t consider him a good prospect, or a potential useful player – it’s that we’re comparing him to a prospect of our own who sounds very similar, Carlos Triunfel.
Triunfel was pushed aggressively through the low minors based on his plus plus hit tool and strong arm, with the promise that he would eventually work his way into some power and learn a bit of plate discipline – four years later though, neither has happened, and in a lot of ways he’s the same player at age 21 that he was at age 17.
So, it’s not that we hate the guy we got back, it’s that our experience with a very similar player tells us to be cautious about our optimism.
by seattlebruin on Jul 31, 2011 2:20 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
-1
Im all for comps but, because Truinfel has stalled in the minors this realtes to Martinez how? He is still a 20 year old ballplayer who is holdiong his own in AA ball. These kinds of guys have a pretty good track record.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
My bad
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
I think he was talking to me actually
but thanks for taking the fall
by dnc on Aug 1, 2011 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
No, Jason Churchill says he is "hearing" that the PTBNL is Chance Ruffin.
He may be right, but he also may be wrong.
by Aaron Campeau on Aug 1, 2011 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
By taking it correctly?
For humanity’s sake, how difficult is it to not jump to instant conclusions? Is it actually difficult? Is there some sort of internal setting that other people have that requires more effort to refrain from taking hearsay as fact than it does to treat it for what it actually is?
Even disregarding the (actual) fact that Churchill has been wrong before about Mariner transactions, this is the source for that post
Hearing the M’s PTBNL in the deal for Fister-Pauley with Detroit is RHP Chance Ruffin.
That first word in the sentence is important.
by Matthew on Aug 1, 2011 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
At the moment, the PTBNL isn't anybody
If you want to say, “The PTBNL will be Chance Ruffin,” feel free to do so, and then to be right or wrong as it happens; but even if both sides already know with certainty who that player will be, he hasn’t formally been named as a part of the trade yet, and so his formal status is still future.
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 1, 2011 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Huh?
What do we care what the “formal status” is? If we jknow it “will be” Chance Ruffin, we can run with it as far as we need to as far as integrating him into the future of the team and evaluating the trade. This is the internet, we dont need to cross the I’s and T’s before we go. In fact, its sort of expected isn’t it?
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
We don't know it will be Chance Ruffin
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 1, 2011 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Right
I get that but, I thought he was saying something else entirely. By the way, im new around here but, I just read your article on the Bedard trade and I thought it was excellent.
I think Bedard is an interesting guy and I’m happy to see that so many people have some good feelings about the guy around here, as he leaves town.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
This is not merely a trivial epistemological distinction
Because the player has not yet been formally named, the decision has not actually been made — and could therefore change. Two weeks before the 2005 draft, the Mariners had decided to take Troy Tulowitzki. Then they took Jeff Clement. Right now, it may well be true that the M’s have decided to take Chance Ruffin; they might be absolutely certain they’re going to take Chance Ruffin. That doesn’t necessarily mean that when the time comes to formally name the PTBNL, they will choose Chance Ruffin; they might choose a different player instead. It happens.
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 2, 2011 7:10 AM PDT up reply actions
point taken, gotcha
i wish we would have taken Tluowiski or any of the other several other future All-Stars that were avaialble
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
We prefer that people don't let the level of behavior expected on the rest of the internet dictate how we behave here.
by Matthew on Aug 2, 2011 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
I love this place so much it's hard to bear.
It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray
by Faux on Aug 2, 2011 5:39 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thats cool
I respect that.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Why? Ruffin doesn't suck.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Aug 2, 2011 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
There's a lot of presumption going on here.
We really don’t know who the three people on the list are. None of them may be starters. I realize that we have a good idea based on reports and some logical deduction, but that doesn’t mean we know that a starter (such as Smyly) is even on the list.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Aug 2, 2011 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
No, he doesn't suck, but he's a reliever
Churchill seems to think there’s a chance they could convert him to a starter, at which point he might be interesting. But as a reliever he’s pretty fungible. I’d much rather have Smyly, Brantly or (especially) Fields.
This, too.
If we’re getting pitching, I almost always hope we’re getting a lefty and/or starter. Especially if the talent level is similar. This is why I’d rather have Smyly.
He might mean Daniel Fields...
though I don’t know that he fits the description of players the Mariners will receive from the Tigers.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Aug 2, 2011 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Only if you assume all three players they get to choose from were 2010 draftees
Which seems unlikely.
I don’t think FIelds is on the list, but I do think chances are there’s a player (or two) who no one has really mentioned because all the focus is on the 2010. All it takes is one 2010 draftee of the three to make it worthwhile to wait until August 20 to decide.
As far as I've seen,
that’s exactly what we’re assuming for the time being, based on the timing and this.
I understand
I suppose if you believe the PTBNL was decided from day one and the whole “three players to choose from” thing was posturing, then that could be. I tend to think they’re at least considering more than one guy.
If the only guys they can choose from are the top 3 2010 draft picks, well then they take Castellanos and there’s no need for further discussion. But I’m sure it’s not Castellanos. Which means there’s at least one guy on there who wasn’t one of their top 3 draft choices from 2010. Could it be another 2010 draft choice? Sure. But I don’t think we have any reason to assume it is one way or the other.
I just think we really don’t have much info on this. People seem to be reading a lot more into that tweet than I’m comfortable with, that’s all.
But yay, Ruffin.
If I was assuming anything...
it was based on the Mariners trading for three other high-level outfielders and Z saying publicly they’d be getting a recent high-round pick from the Tigers. Fields is too much of the former and not enough of the latter, even if you want to ignore the reports of the PTBNL being from the 2010 draft.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Aug 4, 2011 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Good point about the OFs
I did not hear Z publicly state that it was a recent high round draft choice, I have just seen the tweets (particularly Dreyer’s) which all seemed a bit murky. Given what you just said, I’ll gladly concede it’s not Fields (and like I said, I didn’t think he was on the list anyway).
Lefty hitter with supposed great CF range who's not afraid to take a walk
Scouts seem to think he will learn to make more contact and hit for more power.
Definitely more of a lottery ticket type who would take patience and development. But given the choice of that lottery ticket or a guy who might be a good setup man, I’ll take the lottery ticket. Relievers just don’t excite me.
Once again, we don't know who the available players are.
So saying you’d “rather have” x, y, or z, when all or none of x, y, and z might be available is setting yourself up for disappointment.
And, yes, I’ve seen the same rumors you have. Interesting that “three” prospects supposedly available has turned into four names (Ruffin, Smyly, Brantly, Fields). I’m just saying, don’t go making assumptions as if they’re facts. We don’t know if Smyly, etc, is even available for us to choose.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Aug 2, 2011 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Your making some weird asssumptions here
I’m in no way stating that I think they are choosing Ruffin over Smyly or any other better options. I’m just saying I’d rather it be any of those other names. And I’m in no way intimating that all of those guys are on the list, they certainly are not. Given the choice of Ruffin or two C- prospects, I’ll gladly take Ruffin. I’m just saying I hope that’s not the choice.
I'm not the one throwing out names.
This is what you said:
But as a reliever he’s pretty fungible. I’d much rather have Smyly, Brantly or (especially) Fields
My problem is that people are being quick to not like the idea that Ruffin is the guy BASED ON the assumptions that there might be other names available. We don’t know who is available for us to pick. So why are you already disgruntled while being ignorant? That just seems silly to me.
If it’s Ruffin, and the other options were Nobody A and Nobody B, would you complain then, or would you still complain that we didn’t get Smyly or a starter? That’s what I am saying. Don’t get negative without having reason to do so.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Aug 3, 2011 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions
He clearly said that he would take Ruffin over two shittier options.
He would just rather have someone better/not a reliever if possible, which remains to be seen. Nothing here is anything more than speculation.
I'm hoping it's someone better than Ruffin
Why is that hard to understand?
Who said I'm already disgruntled?
I’m hoping it’s not Ruffin because when Jack said the PTBNL was significant, that did not equal “relief prospect” to me. If Ruffin’s the best of the three options, great, I’d obviously rather we take him than the lesser choice. I am hoping we have a better option than Ruffin.
I can’t tell if you really don’t understand what I’m saying or just like playing the contrarian.
Actually I'm "playing" the "I'm done fucking talking about this" now.
And I’ll just wait until the player is named before commenting on it. Hoo hah. What a concept.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Aug 4, 2011 2:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Guys guys, I think we can all agree that Mike Trout blows.
...and now I'm here
Other issues making me grumpy. I think I'll take a hiatus for a bit.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Aug 4, 2011 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lookout Landing
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
