The Official MLB Offseason Topic

[The Czech Republic 0]

Is Paul Bako better than Michael Barrett? The Cubs should just use him more if that's the case.

Bako is better than no one. Barrett could hit around 15-20 HR if he gets clsoe to 450-500 at bats.

Whatever. I still don't know what stopped them from getting Pudge.

[Bored 0]

Is Paul Bako better than Michael Barrett? The Cubs should just use him more if that's the case.

Bako is better than no one. Barrett could hit around 15-20 HR if he gets clsoe to 450-500 at bats.

Bako was better than Barrett last year although that's not saying much. Barrett has shown that he can be a half-way decent hitting catcher in the past but he has problems staying healthy. Bako though has never shown any ability to hit.

 

Good catchers list, but may I reccomend switching Rodriguez with Lopez? One is locked into a cushy 4 year contract in a vortex for hitters park with the worst team in baseball just because they offered him the most money, while the other is with a renergized team on the rise, with a goal of winning in a notoriously nice hitters park (oh, and coming off the single most impressive offensive year for a catcher in history). But, yeah, minor quibble!

Well again it's not necessarily a projection of how they will do this year and I did the list based on if everyone played on an even field. Obviously it's a good bet than Lopez will have better numbers than Rodriguez this year but it doesn't necessarily mean Lopez is the better catcher. Lopez's numbers last year really came out of no where too as he was just wasn't very good the previous two seasons.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Good catchers list, but may I reccomend switching Rodriguez with Lopez? One is locked into a cushy 4 year contract in a vortex for hitters park with the worst team in baseball just because they offered him the most money, while the other is with a renergized team on the rise, with a goal of winning in a notoriously nice hitters park (oh, and coming off the single most impressive offensive year for a catcher in history). But, yeah, minor quibble!

 

If you're going to take points away from I-Rod because of his cushy four year contract, why not take points away from Lopez for his nearly as cushy three year contract? Besides, I've never seen any evidence that contract years, or big contracts effect a player's performance n any way. Second, you can't discount I-Rod moving into a pitcher's park, because he's leaving one even worse in Florida.

 

The big thing is, Javy's coming off an out of context career year, while I-Rod is coming off a down year (for him). I-Rod is MUCH more likely to maintain his performance than is Lopez. Look at Lopez's walk rate. Despite his hitting surge, it remained the same. Lopez's improvement was due to a rise in batting average, and that's likely to flucuate.

 

As an aside, both Lopez and I-Rod have the same career OPS+. I find that odd.

[Styles 0]

Irod is clearly playing for a team he doesn't want to be with, his motivation is probably nonexistant beside cashing his paychecks. Javy on the other hand is legitemly excited to be with the O's and be a part of a team thats trying to rebuild its competitiveness.

As for Javy's "fluke" season, it might not be as much of a fluke as people like to think. He was injured for much of the previous 2 seasons and had a self admitted weight problem and was going through an obviously draining divorce with his wife. All these things made for a downright bad 2002. With his personal issues behind him, his injuries healed and a new strict diet and training regiment (there was a great article in the Baltimore Sun where Javy describes the grueling training and dieting he put himself through after 2002 to redeem himself) he had a career year. Really age would be the only factor in his way (and Irod is only a year younger).

[Bored 0]

Lopez's career OPS+ numbers (not including '92 and '93 since he barely played)

 

1994: 84

1995: 118

1996: 100

1997: 129

1998: 122

1999: 133

2000: 105

2001: 91

2002: 76

2003: 174

 

As you see he's never had a season close to the 2003 season although he had a very nice run, especially for a catcher, from '97 to '99. I think Lopez could definetly be as good as his pre-2000 numbers but it is really hard to expect him to match or come close to 2003 again. Nothing wrong with hitting like he did before 2000 as it still makes him one of the best catcher's in the game.

[Styles 0]

Hey, he's better than Brook Fordyce!

[Guest OctoberBlood]

Is Paul Bako better than Michael Barrett? The Cubs should just use him more if that's the case.

Bako is better than no one. Barrett could hit around 15-20 HR if he gets clsoe to 450-500 at bats.

Bako was better than Barrett last year although that's not saying much.

No ... no he wasn't.

[Guest OctoberBlood]

Watch out America .. Baby Face assassin ... Danny Graves:

 

 

[Bored 0]

Is Paul Bako better than Michael Barrett? The Cubs should just use him more if that's the case.

Bako is better than no one. Barrett could hit around 15-20 HR if he gets clsoe to 450-500 at bats.

Bako was better than Barrett last year although that's not saying much.

No ... no he wasn't.

Yes, yes he was...well when park adjusted. Both Olympic Stadium and Hiram Bithorn Stadium (Puerto Rico) were hitter's wet dream parks last year. In OPS+ Bako had a 69 and Barrett had a 63.

[Guest OctoberBlood]

Is Paul Bako better than Michael Barrett? The Cubs should just use him more if that's the case.

Bako is better than no one. Barrett could hit around 15-20 HR if he gets clsoe to 450-500 at bats.

Bako was better than Barrett last year although that's not saying much.

No ... no he wasn't.

Yes, yes he was...well when park adjusted. Both Olympic Stadium and Hiram Bithorn Stadium (Puerto Rico) were hitter's wet dream parks last year. In OPS+ Bako had a 69 and Barrett had a 63.

Hahah, no.

 

Barrett had a high OPS. More HR. More RBI. Better slugging and was better defensively than Paul Bako.

 

OPS+ does nothing when you have 188 at bats. OPS+ is great to judge a regular player, but not Paul Bako or Barrett. They rarely played and when they did, Barrett out produced Bako offensively and defensely. Period.

 

Oh oh .. heres Bako's numbers in Hiram-Bithorn: 1-7, 1 K.

 

Seriously. OPS+ is used to judge a regular player, and does a great job - but clearly shows its flaws in this case. Theres more than baseball than a few park factors will show you. Paul Bako was not better than Michael Barrett. Though, I do agree - they both sucked, and this shouldnt be an arguement.

[Cartman 0]

Man I think Varitek is WAY underrated around baseball. He may not be the great hitter like Piazza, Posada, or Lopez but without him Boston's pitching would be ass.

 

Go back and look at the seasons before his injury, then the season he missed, and then the season after. HUGE evidence of just how great and valuable he really is to a pitching staff.

[Bored 0]

First off it is a valid point about OPS+ not being as effective to compare part time players. Hell I'm not even sure if there is an individual statistic that effectiely compares part time position players. Problem is you completely contradict yourself with a sample size of seven at bats to prove Bako couldn't hit in Puerto Rico either. Funny thing Barrett went just 2 for 32 in Puerto Rico. Both hits were homeruns. Not surprising since Hiram Bithron was even more homerun friendly than Coors Field.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Hey, he's better than Brook Fordyce!

and Geronimo, don't forget Geronimo Gil.

[Bored 0]

Man I think Varitek is WAY underrated around baseball. He may not be the great hitter like Piazza, Posada, or Lopez but without him Boston's pitching would be ass.

 

Go back and look at the seasons before his injury, then the season he missed, and then the season after. HUGE evidence of just how great and valuable he really is to a pitching staff.

Well it's very debatable how important an individual catcher is to a pitching staff. Just looking at last year Red Sox pitchers had an ERA of 4.51. With back-up Doug Mirabelli they had an ERA of 4.46. Hell I had him #6 overall so that's not exactly low.

 

Posada I think is definently the best catcher in baseball, just overall consistency and he gets better every year. Pudge is still very good and then Lopez which has already been discussed is coming off an incredible year but had him #3 since his numbers were so above anything else he'd ever done. Piazza if healthy would still be an elite catcher so that's why he's still so high. After those four it was between Varitek and Pierzynski for #5. Pierzynski is five years younger, has improved every year he's been in the majors, and is better at throwing out runners than Varitek so I went with him.

 

Hmm well I generated a debate about shitty Cubs catchers, Javy Lopez, and now Jason Varitek. Guess I'll keep posting rankings then. I'll post my first basemen rankings tonight.

[Guest OctoberBlood]

Problem is you completely contradict yourself with a sample size of seven at bats to prove Bako couldn't hit in Puerto Rico either.

That was sarcasim. No way part of the arguement.

 

Hmm, BTW Barrett at Wrigley: 2-8~!

[Cartman 0]

Nevermind...

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Is Paul Bako better than Michael Barrett? The Cubs should just use him more if that's the case.

Bako is better than no one. Barrett could hit around 15-20 HR if he gets clsoe to 450-500 at bats.

Bako was better than Barrett last year although that's not saying much.

No ... no he wasn't.

Yes, yes he was...well when park adjusted. Both Olympic Stadium and Hiram Bithorn Stadium (Puerto Rico) were hitter's wet dream parks last year. In OPS+ Bako had a 69 and Barrett had a 63.

Hahah, no.

 

Barrett had a high OPS. More HR. More RBI. Better slugging and was better defensively than Paul Bako.

 

OPS+ does nothing when you have 188 at bats. OPS+ is great to judge a regular player, but not Paul Bako or Barrett. They rarely played and when they did, Barrett out produced Bako offensively and defensely. Period.

 

Oh oh .. heres Bako's numbers in Hiram-Bithorn: 1-7, 1 K.

 

Seriously. OPS+ is used to judge a regular player, and does a great job - but clearly shows its flaws in this case. Theres more than baseball than a few park factors will show you. Paul Bako was not better than Michael Barrett. Though, I do agree - they both sucked, and this shouldnt be an arguement.

The problem is you assume since a statistic does not support your claim, then it is invalid. If sample size is a problem, then lets look at career OPS+. Barrett's is 75, and Bako's is 70. Since Barrett is entering his prime, he clearly has the edge here. Of course, neither look like the kind of guy you want in a lineup.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Man I think Varitek is WAY underrated around baseball. He may not be the great hitter like Piazza, Posada, or Lopez but without him Boston's pitching would be ass.

 

Go back and look at the seasons before his injury, then the season he missed, and then the season after. HUGE evidence of just how great and valuable he really is to a pitching staff.

Catchers do not make their pitchers better. Lets take a look at a table.....

 

Year Games Runs Allowed Wins

1997 1 857 78

1998 86 729 92

1999 144 718 94

2000 139 745 85

2001 51 745 82

2002 132 665 83

2003 142 809 95

 

1997 to 98 was due to Pedro coming to the Sox. Take a look at 2000-2001. Varitek catches 80 less games, and the Sox allow exactly the same number of runs. 2002 was due to the emergence of Derek Lowe.

 

There's no evidence that catchers make their pitchers better. Chalk it up to traditional baseball voodoo, along such relics as veteran leadership and team chemestry.

[Bored 0]

Here are my rankings of the projected regular first basemen for this year. Again it's based on what they did last year and loosely based on what they might do this year but not meant to be a true projection. Also it's based on if everyone played on an even field and if everyone is relatively healthy. Adam LaRoche is the one rookie in the group and like all rookies I'll probably have them rated a little too high but it's tough to compare them when they've never played in the Majors.

 

1. Albert Pujols, Cardinals

2. Todd Helton, Rockies

3. Carlos Delgado, Blue Jays

4. Jim Thome, Phillies

5. Jason Giambi, Yankees

6. Richie Sexson, Diamondbacks

7. Derrek Lee, Cubs

8. Nick Johnson, Expos

9. Jeff Bagwell, Astros

10. Doug Mientkiewicz, Twins

11. Phil Nevin, Padres

12. Shawn Green, Dodgers

13. Mike Sweeney, Royals

14. Jason Phillips, Mets

15. Rafael Palmeiro, Orioles

16. Carlos Pena, Tigers

17. Mark Teixeira, Rangers

18. Adam LaRoche, Braves

19. Kevin Millar, Red Sox

20. J.T. Snow, Giants

21. Ben Broussard, Indians

22. John Olerud, Mariners

23. Tino Martinez, Devil Rays

24. Paul Konerko, White Sox

25. Hee Seop Choi, Marlins

26. Sean Casey, Reds

27. Randall Simon, Pirates

28. Scott Hatteberg, A's

29. Lyle Overbay, Brewers

30. Darin Erstad, Angels

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Nick Johnson is a little high on the list. Wait until his slugging percentage shoots up before ranking him among the elite.

[Vern Gagne 0]

I'd like to see Mientkiewicz drive in more runs before rating him in the Top 10.

[geniusMoment 0]

Look at someones batting average with two outs and runners in scoring position, and just with runners in scoring position in general. Look at someones at bats from the 7th inning on, look at how often they convert runners on third, with less than 2 outs, into runs. See how they hit against good pitching, do they only get hits off of bad pitching. Stats do not reflect a ballplayers true ability unless the stats are broken down into the categories that truly matter. I have seen plenty of hitters who get meaningless hits all of the time but cannot come through when it truly matters, or hitters who kill bad pitching and strike out against good pitching.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Look at someones batting average with two outs and runners in scoring position, and just with runners in scoring position in general. Look at someones at bats from the 7th inning on, look at how often they convert runners on third, with less than 2 outs, into runs. See how they hit against good pitching, do they only get hits off of bad pitching. Stats do not reflect a ballplayers true ability unless the stats are broken down into the categories that truly matter. I have seen plenty of hitters who get meaningless hits all of the time but cannot come through when it truly matters, or hitters who kill bad pitching and strike out against good pitching.

 

You're just asking me to jump all over this. Clutch hitting is a myth. There is no inate ability to hit in clutch situations. And if there is, I have to ask why the hell don't these "clutch" players get hits all the time? Are they incredibly lazy with no one on base? The more at bats you collect, the more so called "clutch hitting" stats tend to look exactly like career stats. Look at Derek Jeter. He's praised for his postseason performance.......

 

Career 317/389/462

Postseason 314/385/469

 

Like I said before, clutch hitting is a myth.

[Vern Gagne 0]

The ability comes more from knowing how to approach the AB differently, than a hitter would with 2 outs and no one on base. Call it whatever you like, but there are players who hit in the clutch, and others who are horrible.

[treble 0]

I don't nescessarily think that 'clutch hitting' means an otherwise bad hitter somehow becomes a good one when the game's on the line, but someone who can stand pressure. I mean, there are just some people who fold like a chair whenever something depends on them, yet can hit like there's no tomorrow when nothing's on the line.

[geniusMoment 0]

You are kidding me, right Al? Some players play well under no stress, the second a stressful, meaningful, situation occurs they choke. Hitting for a high average with runners in scoring position is a kept fact, that many times remains high or low throughout ones career, not always relating to their overall average. There are certain players I want to come up with the game on the line, and certain ones I do not, and yes I am talking about players of the same skill level. I cannot believe that someone who is a baseball does not consider this to be true. Some players only get the guy in from third 20% of the time while some are willing to use a short quick swing, just trying to get the bat on the ball. I have also come to know first hand players who feast on bad pitching, Reggie Sanders, and choke when facing big game pitchers. This skews their facts, as their overall facts are good, yet, those good facts mainly come from nothing games.

[Bored 0]

Reggie Sanders with runners in scoring position last year: .308 AVG, .390 OBP, .647 SLG.

 

Runners in scoring position with two outs (the definition of "clutch hitting"): .300 AVG, .395 OBP, .629 SLG

 

You were saying?

 

Now Reggie Sanders postseason numbers are not good to say the least but let's compare his league championship series numbers to his World Series numbers

 

LCS: .102/.214/.102

World Series: .273/.320/.432

 

Now his LCS numbers are just horrendous. But on an even bigger stage, the World Series, he performed better. Why is that? You say he can't get any big hits well he hit .304 in the 2001 World Series and slugged .524 in the 2002 World Series. Why can Reggie Sanders hit better in the World Series than the League Championship Series?

 

The point about things like clutch hitting though is you can't compare such a small sample size to a player's career numbers. Reggie Sanders has 5,102 career at bats in the regular season. He has 147 at bats in the postseason. What's to say if Reggie Sanders has 5,000+ at bats in postseason he doesn't put up similar numbers to his career numbers?

 

Oh finally as for him not performing well against "big game pitchers", did you ever think he hits worse against them because they are *gasp* good pitchers? Don't you think most hitters hit better against bad pitching?

[Vern Gagne 0]

espn.com

 

Add another to a favorite. Saying a player who either spent a year, or no time on a team. Example. Former Marlin Mike Piazza, or former Royal Harmon Killebrew. It works for all sports.

[CanadianChris 0]

Jayson Stark's latest article was so fucking fantastic that I had to post a link to it:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2004/c...yson&id=1748433

 

My favourite quotes:

 

"The Yankees getting A-Rod," Todd Jones says, "that's like IBM trying to enter an eighth-grade science project."

 

"Boy, that's some kind of World Series drought the Yankees have going," quips Devil Rays manager Lou Piniella. "How long has it been since they won one? I thought it was two years, but it's actually been three. Three years. That's like 30 to anybody else."

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

You are kidding me, right Al? Some players play well under no stress, the second a stressful, meaningful, situation occurs they choke. Hitting for a high average with runners in scoring position is a kept fact, that many times remains high or low throughout ones career, not always relating to their overall average. There are certain players I want to come up with the game on the line, and certain ones I do not, and yes I am talking about players of the same skill level. I cannot believe that someone who is a baseball does not consider this to be true. Some players only get the guy in from third 20% of the time while some are willing to use a short quick swing, just trying to get the bat on the ball. I have also come to know first hand players who feast on bad pitching, Reggie Sanders, and choke when facing big game pitchers. This skews their facts, as their overall facts are good, yet, those good facts mainly come from nothing games.

I'm not kidding you at all. Clutch hitting comes from a matter of luck, basically. The more at bats you collect in a sample, the more a player's situational stats tend to resemble his real stats. Look at Reggie Sanders. Luckily, Yahoo has situational stats all the way back to 1987, so we can measure his entire career. Total, he has an .835 career OPS. With RISP and 2 out, its .870. Down the list, they all fall in the 800 level. Derek Jeter, clutch god, does his best hitting with the bases empty, although his situational stats tend to match his career stats.

 

I've yet to see a truly "clutch" measuring tool, and I don't think one exists. If a player truly is clutch, he should perform at a high level all the time. When a player has tremendous numbers in a single category, its usually due to a small sample of at bats. Nothing more.