User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.0294 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Pretty likely. His defense is fine. Who among the lower guys would you rate higher?
Yup, they didn't win 10 world series in the two-and-a-half years all were productive Mariners simultaneously. What a waste.
Two comments really stuck out to me as being strange:
Ryan Howard:
What do the strikeouts have to do with it? Seriously, isn't this one of those myths that the saber-community has been trying to dispel for years? Howard has power and patience. Who cares if he strikes out? Hell, you can make a great case that with his physique and the number of runners likely to be on base in front of him, the last thing you want is to turn those strikeouts into, say, ground outs.
Matt Kemp:
Couldn't you also say that you have to wonder, just a little bit, about an organization that won't give its best young talent a chance?
Did Neyer need to meet a deadline? I like him, but this list looks hastily produced.
Pretty likely. His defense is fine. Who among the lower guys would you rate higher?
Ah. For some reason I thought there were lots of questions about his defense. I'd probably rank Haren, Tex, Beckett, Crawford, Fielder, Verlander, McCann, Howard, J. Upton, and probably Gordon (bias, I know) ahead of Johnson. Which is not to say that Johnson isn't a very good player, just think he's ranked a bit too high.
He seems to have Fielder and Howard ranked awfully low. I think both will age poorly, but if we're talking about next five years, I think they'll probably be among the best hitters in baseball.
Melky has had ~600 more major league ABs and has hit about as well as Milledge in his major league time - .275/.340/.388 for Melky, .257/.326/.414 for Milledge. That's got to count for something.
Would any major league team prefer Dan Uggla to Bedard, Hamels, Felix, and Kazmir?
no kidding. Wow, ESPN really draws a mess of yahoos. It almost makes me agree with Bob Costas. Almost.
I expect better than this comment from Neyer.
Also,
You can agree or disagree with the Mariners choosing to trade him for Bedard, but they did not give him a real shot? If anything, they rushed him ridiculously, debuting him in MLB at age 20.
44. Dan Uggla (28)
He came out of nowhere two years ago and proved last year that he wasn't a fluke, but Uggla's not going to get better and there are legitimate questions about his defense.
45. Ryan Howard (28)
I understand that Howard is a one dimensional and plays a position where there are a lot of good hitters, but Uggla gives up .200 points of OPS. Then, Neyer slams Uggla's defense and states that he does not expect him to improve. So, how is he so much better than Howard? His 8 career stolen bases?
Looking over the list, it seems like Neyer places a lot of emphasis on position. Only 5 pitchers, Kelly Johnson #28, first basemen like Pujols, Howard, Fielder, Tex and Morneau much lower than expected.
edit: There are actually 7 pitchers.
Howard is an extreme outlier
his Ks are SO high, that basically he has to have a BABIP of .350 to hang around his career OPS+ of 151.
Personally I think Howard's already peaked, and we are going to be seeing a bad defensive 1B with declining playing time in a year or two, posting 130ish OPS+s, a nice player but not an impact player
I think he'll be more valuable than Uggla over the next 5 years though
There were, when he was in the minor leagues. He was a pretty terrible shortstop, though he was playing on some bad surfaces. He was briefly a less terrible, but still not good, third baseman, before becoming an acceptable left fielder. His defense at second base has been fine though. He had a little trouble going up the middle last year, but was otherwise easily a big league caliber second baseman. It seems that Glenn Hubbard is the second base equivalent of Leo Mazzone.
I think the underlying point is not so much about the value of the strikeout as opposed to other outs, but that it's going to be hard for Howard to keep up his career .291 batting average if he keeps striking out ~200 times a year. I believe it's Walt Davis who has often posted meaty info about Howard's "on-contact" stats being by far the best in history. Howard could very well keep that up (and I would personally bet that he would), but I can understand the logic that says that being an extreme outlier is at least a concern.
I appreciate that Rob used the BTF-esque maneuver of accompanying his comments about Sabathia's weight with a "fat picture," but if anything, the evidence is that fat pitchers age better.
My other Larry King-esque thoughts... Zim, Peralta, Kinsler too high... Martin too low... it's too early to write Braun off as having no defensive value, although his overall ranking looks fine... Dan Uggla??? AsCab is questionable, too. He really seemed to overrate any half-decent middle IF.
It's funny how Rob's hitter-laden list kind of has the opposite problem as Bill James' own list of the top 50 young players, which had Tom Gorzelanny #19 and Kyle Kendrick #50. I'm not sure which of these lists is worse, but honestly I don't exactly think either of these articles are going to get mentioned in the respective writer's obituary.
No, there's less to say about a good list...
74 at bats in 32 games, then 65 at bats in 41 games???
No they did not give him a "real shot"
and yes, they probably rushed him too, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
He may be referring to last year, when the Mariners called him up at the beginning of August and mainly used him as a defensive replacement.
He appeared in 41 games, but only started 16 of those, and only got an at bat in 22 games.
Looking over the list, it seems like Neyer places a lot of emphasis on position.
Yea, and an emphasis on toolsy guys who are athletic over big slugging home run guys.
I think he's still smarting after calling Reyes the worst everyday player in baseball, only to see him blossom shortly thereafter.
What do the strikeouts have to do with it? Seriously, isn't this one of those myths that the saber-community has been trying to dispel for years? Howard has power and patience. Who cares if he strikes out? Hell, you can make a great case that with his physique and the number of runners likely to be on base in front of him, the last thing you want is to turn those strikeouts into, say, ground outs.
What do the strikeouts matter? To produce as he has, Howard has hit 426/893 on-contact. The greatest ever was Babe Ruth at 406/820. Jim Thome I think slipped below 400/800; McGwire challenged on SLG; Manny Ramirez used to have an over-400 on-contact BA. It's been a while since I looked at the list, but I think those were the only guys who seriously rivaled Ruth. Even someone like McGwire hit only 355/793.
So either Howard is, by far, the greatest on-contact hitter of all-time or his numbers, especially the BA (and thereby the OBP and SLG) are coming down because of all those strikeouts. Even if he's Ruth's equal, you're talking about last season with about 50 points less SLG. If he's less than Ruth, those numbers come down. That's still a damn fine hitter. And of course it's unlikely he could cut down on the Ks without losing that power so all you can do is live with it.
The other issue on the Ks is that for a guy to strike out that much (and he's on a near-historic pace for K-rate), he probably does have a hole in his swing and pitchers will find it eventually. Between his hitting style and body type and that he's already pretty old (28), I'm assuming Howard won't age well -- though the next 5 years should be awfully good.
We're hearing [stuff] from the Philly press about how the low bar on Howard's long term contract is Miguel Cabrera's contract. It sure seems like Howard's people think he is a once-in-a-lifetime transcendent player. I'm guessing contract disputes are going to be an annual thing. If I were the Phils, I'd be quietly shopping Howard to see if I could steal some young players, say Howard and Josh Outman for Kemp, Loney and Kershaw? It would help solve the Dodgers' OF logjam. <ducks>
And they should have done what? Play him more in the minors? But then they would not have given him any shot at all. Rush him even more when he was not ready?
There's a large gap after the top 3 guys.
Probably beats agents who say "we need a contract now because our guy is about to fall off the table"
Lastings is a year younger, though. He's continued to grow as a hitter, while Melky's 2006 and 2007 look almost the same. He projects to hit better next year. And he has much more potential for growth because of his power. He hasn't played much center field in the majors, but if he sticks there, even with subpar defense, he has to be a better bet. He's a better bet than Dan Uggla or Asdrubal Cabrera too, though. I don't mean to single out Melky.
To say nothing of the general comments: "This is an article written by a donkey on a site full of donkeys," " Secondly, Braun's bat is so much better than Tulowitzki's that an error 1 out of every 4 or 5 games should not put Tulowitzki ahead of Braun," "Two words... COLE FREAKING HAMELS," "I am not sure I lend a lot of credence to a list that does not include Jeff Francoeur or Nick Hagadone."
that made me laugh out loud
If they were going to rush him to the majors, they should have given him playing time there rather than letting him sit on the bench. Especially when he's a better hitter then your RF, LF, 1B, and DH.
Reminds me of what Rex Hudler said on yesterday's Angels broadcast, "As a player there are only two things you can control: your hustle, output and attitude."
My god. Rex Hudler...I mean...I can't even begin to...for crying out... [reboot]
Player MORP SVORP Upside
Wright: 129, 328.6, 445.6
Ramirez: 132, 335.2, 486.4
Cabrera: 105, 262.6, 323.6
Sizemore: 97, 228.6, 268.9
Santana: 97, 235.3, 355.4
Zimmerman: 111, 278.0, 344.6
Reyes: 105, 259.0, 354.2
Utley: 74, 181.9, 224.1
Pujols: 131, 354.5, 440.8
Rodriguez: 101, 259.1, 346.7
Cano: 87, 226.2, 285.6
Granderson: 75, 184.6, 209.5
Tulowitzki: 86, 203.7, 273.8
Braun: 88, 224.1, 276.3
Upton: 80, 194.3, 236.9
Rollins: 78, 188.1, 237.3
Webb: 79, 196.8, 268.0
Mauer: 99, 253.6, 358.5
Sabathia: 77, 190.8, 259.5
Longoria: 106, 261.9, 339.1
Peralta: 77, 185.5, 243.6
Markakis: 72, 163.8, 174.7
Peavy: 85, 204.1, 303.6
Pedroia: 76, 182.4, 220.4
Kinsler: 68, 157.5, 186.6
Beltran: 62, 157.8, 180.9 *
Martinez: 55, 120.5, 167.4
Johnson: 67, 168.1, 181.9
Swisher: 58, 132.5, 141.3
Hart: 71, 179.8, 211.0
Haren: 66, 162.5, 218.2
Teixeira: 67, 179.0, 174.5
Martin: 76, 185.1, 269.9
Beckett: 65, 166.7, 215.9
Jones: 77, 194.6, 243.0
Crawford: 58, 145.1, 154.9
Verlander: 63, 153.8, 203.2
Gonzalez: 67, 173.9, 156.2
Pence: 70, 176.5, 207.4
Fielder: 84, 219.3, 223.0
Holliday: 58, 136.4, 144.9
McCann: 69, 160.0, 226.0
Upton: 70, 155.9, 198.0 **
Uggla: 59, 137.7, 155.4
Howard: 51, 125.5, 119.8 *
Melky: 63, 148.2, 172.6
Morneau: 54, 135.3, 113.5
Asdrubal: 54, 118.9, 149.3
Gordon: 65, 155.6, 169.7
Kemp: 62, 161.6, 196.2
Some of the older players, notably Beltran and Howard, project much better over the five year stretch, becuase PECOTA is projecting large decline in the 6th and 7th years. Justin Upton's best season by far according to PECOTA would be his 7th, so you have to discount him a but for a five year range.
According to this (so, naturally, YMMV and all that), Rob would appear to have greatly undervalued Fielder. His is the one that instantly jumps out at me as being out of place. The rest of it looks mostly OK. Now, whether or not you trust PECOTA to be accurate five years out is another question.
As for the Ryan Howard strikeouts issue, I did not know the contact stats breakdown (though I suppose I should have surmised as much), and that is pretty amazing. However, hasn't much of the theory behind high strikeout sluggers rested on the fact that the strikeouts are a product of the all or nothing approach to swinging? Jim Thome is always the guy I think of in this case. I mean, it may not be coincidence that Howard both strikes out at a record rate and produces on contact at a record rate. If production on contact is a sustainable skill, then eventually don't we have to start giving Howard the benefit the doubt? Nonetheless, point taken, though I wish Rob had mentioned the contact rates explicitly instead of leaning more towards the "strikeouts == bad" line of reasoning.
EDIT: Fixed formatting.
Look, I know he's heavy but he doesn't weigh 300 lbs. He's a legit 250 or so.
And now his wife has him eating very healthy/veggie dishes. The Brewers don't verbalize it but club officials are concerned that Fielder has lost some strength. And his game/value is all about POWER.
We will see............
Yes, but he's been other worldly for two years, prior to that he was merely Thome-esque (AAA + MLB)
at a Ruthian 406/820, and with last year's K rate he's at .253/.380/.516- which in his home park is good for an OPS+ of 125
BAd defensive 1B who hits 150 is major star
Bad defensive 1B who hits 125 is Paul Konerko, nice player, but you'd be crazy to give him Miguel Cabrera money
he's giving pitchers no respect as a general rule it seems
probably should be a separate list for pitchers and position players.
Finding myself defending Howard is actually fairly funny, since my opinion of him is actually that he's high on the list of overrated players. People have this idea that he's young, but he isn't and with his body type, I would not be surprised by a precipitous and rapid decline. So on the one hand, I don't feel that we should hold Howard's strikeouts against him, and on the other, I feel like he's probably not long for stardom anyway. And, yes, it's not that he won't be good, just not eight year max money contract good, which seems to be the general perception of him.
Nonetheless, I find this particular topic interesting enough that I may actually double click on my Excel icon and start crunching some numbers myself. I promise myself often that I will do this, and it rarely happens.
I generally ignore batter Ks myself, but Howard's numbers are just so far out there....
Of course if he slugs .900 on contact a third year in a row, well I'm gonna have to concede it is a skill and he's the best EVAH at it.
Maybe not, if Jack Cust can replicate his 2007 season too.
We may have an entirely new way to be a star hitter on our hands, people.
even so, I'd rather have Verlander than Haren for the next 5 years
Brandon Phillips backers seem to be as clueless "he's got a .290 average, Ramirez has a .260 average" -----can you say OPS+ guys.
Rob really screwed up with the inclusion of Longoria, that is something he should fix as it completly invalidates the parameters which he set the list and opens up a lot of issues about other guys. Heck I would argue that a list of this type should only include established starters, or players who are guaranteed starting spots this year.
there were guys on espn complaining about no bonds or clemens, which I found to be funny (hopefully they were attempting to be funny)
I can see the argument: Verlander's younger and throws harder. But Haren's put up better peripherals with more durability so far.
Neyer always states that it is more probable for a pitcher to flame out or get injured than win 100 games. Projecting 5 years, he's going with that.
Look, I know he's heavy but he doesn't weigh 300 lbs. He's a legit 250 or so.
He's also, what, 23? How many people do you know that don't gain weight when they get older?
He's also, what, 23? How many people do you know that don't gain weight when they get older?
Fact: At age 18 Prince Fielder weighed 305 lbs
Fact: At age 20 Prince Fielder weighed 270 lbs
If you don't believe the published reports I am sure you can likely dig up an image for when Prince was drafted. He was Smokey Burgess fat when he was 18. He has legitimately worked to take off the suet.
Also, and this was discussed in earlier threads, Fielder's wife had him read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and since that time Fielder has become a vegetarian. The Brewers clubhouse now has to feature a good many vegetarian AND vegan-based dishes.
I have repeatedly stated that Milwaukee should NOT commit to Prince beyond age 30 because he could be nibbling sunflower seeds and sipping water and come 30 his destiny is to be fat. Inside every Fielder there is a fat man yearning to be free.
But right NOW, at THIS moment, he isn't 300 lbs. And Rob is just taking a cheap shot instead of pointing out that Fielder will likely have issues down the road due to weight. But by age 28?
I don't think he's John Mayberry.
Matt Holliday is top 3. I think he's probably the most underrated player in baseball. He trails only Wright and Pujols.
Cano, Kinsler, Pedroia, Kelly Johnson; all the second baseman rank lower, except for Utley, who is #4.
Tulowitzki is the top shortstop. I was shocked. Reyes and Ramirez are both top 15, though.
Ryan Howard - Top 10. Prince Fielder - Top 20. Teixeira's up there too.
Zimmerman is Top 25, but nowhere near #6.
Not only Alex Rios, but also Vernon Wells place on the list. The latter is the biggest "on" surprise for me.
Is it actually possible that, for once in their bedraggled existence, the Mets might actually have their Stan Musial, their Yaz, their Joe D., and not #### it up, the way they did with their Feller/Koufax/Grove???
Probably not. It's too much to hope for. Even once.
Sigh.
That is a surprise. If I had to guess who the second ranked Jay would be, for a list like this, I would probably have gone with McGowan. That said, I suspect that's based more on observation than statistics. As such, I'm not surprised McG isn't on Neyer's list.
But Vernon? I would not have suspected that one.
Zimmerman seems high.
I do like #1!
And two others in the top 7! It's a good time to be a Mets fan...at least until Monday comes along.
League difference.
Does anyone disagree that Brandon Webb is a fantastic pitcher and has, after the last two seasons, at least a reasonable case for being the best in the game? The case for Santana is a longer track record in the league that has been tougher to dominate over most of his career. I think that's a convincing case, but it's not open-and-shut.
Who says Mets' fans can't be reasonable and see both sides of things?
For the next five years, Howard and Fielder will be the two top homerun hitters in the National League, and in the top five for rbi's. Just watch...
I must be on the glue again, where is this selected from?
Could you explain why you think he has outpitched Santana the last two years? Santana has the small advantage in VORP.
You can say it about Fielder, but Howard is a different story. He's going to be 29 this year. I'm not sure I'd bet on a 280 pound 33 year old to still be in the top of the leaderboards.
Does anyone disagree that Brandon Webb is a fantastic pitcher and has, after the last two seasons, at least a reasonable case for being the best in the game? The case for Santana is a longer track record in the league that has been tougher to dominate over most of his career.
Webb's good, and been one of the most dominant for the last two years, but he's not as good as Santana, and I'm not sure I'd take him over CC.
I'm telling ya', he's a dead ringer for Luke Easter. And no, I don't think all black guys look the same.
That's for Bernal if he's reading. Such a wise#ss.......
Over the last two years, Webb has the better ERA+ (154 to 145) in more IP (471 to 452). Webb's GB tendencies have caused him to allow 50% more unearned runs than Santana, though, which VORP takes into account.
Webb's a great pitcher, but I'd put him and Oswalt a step behind Santana. Webb's had a pretty low BABIP allowed for a GB pitcher, but maybe that's sustainable for him. He has beaten his FIP every year he's played.
That's a huge if. When these guys start hauling 300 lbs around, knees, hips, ankles, and feet start breaking down.
Andruw Jones has done this over the past 5 years (2nd in the NL in HR, 3rd in RBI). If he were a poor defensive 1B, he wouldn't have been anywhere near one of the best players in the league over those 5 years (116 OPS+).
FWIW, Howard does look a little slimmed down this year, like 5 lbs. slimmer.
I don't think there's a pitcher in baseball who's a good bet to stay healthy over the next 5 years, much less stay healthy and remain very effective. If we were making this list 5 years ago, here are some of the pitchers we'd be considering:
Best ERA+ 2000-2002, minimum 400 IP:
Cnt Player ERA+ IP From To+----+-----------------+----+------+----+----+
1 Pedro Martinez 229 533 2000 2002
2 Randy Johnson 188 758.1 2000 2002
3 Derek Lowe 167 402.2 2000 2002
4 Greg Maddux 152 681.2 2000 2002
5 Barry Zito 145 536.1 2000 2002
6 Kevin Brown 141 409.1 2000 2002
7 Curt Schilling 141 726.1 2000 2002
8 Tom Glavine 133 685 2000 2002
9 Mark Buehrle 131 511.2 2000 2002
10 Jarrod Washburn 131 483.2 2000 2002
11 Tim Hudson 128 675.2 2000 2002
12 Matt Morris 127 479.2 2000 2002
13 Al Leiter 126 599.2 2000 2002
14 Bartolo Colon 126 643.2 2000 2002
15 Darryl Kile 125 544.1 2000 2002
16 Mike Mussina 124 682 2000 2002
17 Wade Miller 123 481.2 2000 2002
18 Roger Clemens 120 604.2 2000 2002
19 Javier Vazquez 119 671.2 2000 2002
20 David Wells 117 536.2 2000 2002
We probably would have dismissed the old guys (RJ, Maddux, Brown, Schilling, Glavine, Schilling, Leiter, Clemens, Wells) while focusing in on the rest. We probably would have considered guys like Prior and maybe Santana. A reasonable top 5-7 would include some of Pedro, Zito, Buehrle, Washburn, Morris, Colon, Kile, Miller, Prior, and Santana. How many of these guys were among the 50 best players over the next 5 years? Let's look at the best pitchers over that span:
Best ERA+ 2003-2007, minimum 800 IP:
Cnt Player ERA+ IP From To+----+-----------------+----+------+----+----+
1 Johan Santana 154 1070.2 2003 2007
2 Roger Clemens 146 849.2 2003 2007
3 Brandon Webb 144 1089 2003 2007
4 John Smoltz 143 813.1 2003 2007
5 Roy Oswalt 139 1038.2 2003 2007
6 Roy Halladay 137 986 2003 2007
7 Carlos Zambrano 136 1077.1 2003 2007
8 Jason Schmidt 127 843.2 2003 2007
9 Curt Schilling 126 843 2003 2007
10 Jake Peavy 124 989.2 2003 2007
11 Tim Hudson 123 1063.1 2003 2007
12 C.C. Sabathia 122 1016 2003 2007
13 Ben Sheets 122 861.2 2003 2007
14 Kelvim Escobar 122 833.1 2003 2007
15 Andy Pettitte 119 943.1 2003 2007
16 Mark Buehrle 119 1117.1 2003 2007
17 Bronson Arroyo 118 852.2 2003 2007
18 Randy Johnson 118 847 2003 2007
19 Josh Beckett 117 882.2 2003 2007
20 John Lackey 116 1053 2003 2007
The repeats from the previous list are RJ, Clemens, Schilling, Hudson, and Buehrle. The 800 IP minimum is just 160 IP per season. Only 5 of the original 20 guys were able to stay reasonably healthy while maintaining their effectiveness over the next 5 years.
I think Santana and possibly Hudson/Buehrle would have been the only pitchers that would have made the list in 2002 and have actually succeeded in being one of the 50 best players over the next 5 years. Santana hadn't even spent a full year in the rotation at that point, so who knows if he even would have been picked. And Hudson/Buehrle would be at the tail end of the 2003-2007 top 50, if they made it at all.
Most of the guys that would have made the 2002 list either got hur or became ineffective. Pedro would have been top 5, Prior likely would have been on there somewhere, and Zito crapped out last year. Washburn, Kile, Morris, Miller, and Colon all failed to be consistently good for various reasons.
The problem is that there's a very strong relationship between how often you strike out and your performance when you don't. Howard's performance when not striking out may be one of the best ever, but since he's striking out more often than has generally been seen, performance out of line from what we've seen on contact is not unusual.
Another point to make is that while Howard's will BABIP will tend to regress substantially down, his strikeout rate might also do so (though not nearly as much as far as statistical history goes).
I guess the point is that high strikeout totals often come with substantial benefits in addition to their substantial drawbacks. His strikeout totals may have a negative affect on his future batting average projections, but they also probably have a positive effect on his future power and BABIP projections. These are the sort of things we _don't_ see with high strikeout pitchers: the high strikeouts tend to be beneficial across the board.
So I think Howard's 2007 season is probably a reasonable mean performance for him over the next few years.
Yeah, I was looking for Bill Pulsipher on this list, but my browser must be broken.
Do you know who the Mets' all-time leader in at-bats is? I guessed Mookie, but he's only fourth.
The top 4 players in games played for the Mets are all from the 1965-1975 period.
Fielder 2007: 156 OPS+
Howard 2006-07: 167, 144 OPS+
Jones 12 season career high: 136 OPS+
I don't disagree with most of what you've said in #78, but I have a couple comments.
That 2000-2002 period was dominated by older pitchers, and if you run the same screen on 2005-2007, you'll see it's dominated by younger pitchers. I think there's a lot more young established pitching talent in the majors right now than there was in 2002, so I think we'll have a better success rate if we put together a list today.
Yes, the risk of washout for pitchers is high, but I'd guess the same is true for 28-yo second baseman who have played just 2 major league seasons. This type of list should be dominated by position players, but I think this list is over-emphasizing that washout risk.
You can bank on it, with no worries. D-Wright was the getaway driver when our gang robbed a crackhouse during the offseason, and funneled the proceeds to al-Qaeda. I never saw a guy with better reflexes. He couldn't have been any cooler during the gun battle. What a gent. I don't share his obsession with kiddie sex, but it's never affected his performance on the field yet. So fear not, Sam, your Mets have finally hit the jackpot.
That's not the "problem" that's the "point."
In two ways. First, if you K a lot, you have to kill the ball when you hit it or you never make the majors or don't stick around. Unless you play MI like Bellhorn or CF like Cameron in which case you still need to kill it much more than others at your position. It's straightforward math.
Secondly, yes it's a tradeoff and, selection bias aside, usually a good one for hitters. But even if you look at high-K players (Deer, Pena, Dunn, Bo Jackson, etc.), none of them have been able to maintain anything close to what Howard is doing. The most promising comp is Thome and his K-rate is only around 1 per 3.3-3.4 AB and his on-contact rates substantially lower. Howard is a little bit under 1 per 3. If memory serves, only one player in MLB history has had a K-rate worse than 1 per 3.2 and received substantial playing time and that's Deer. (Jackson depending on where you put your cutoff for "substantial").
Maybe Howard is the most powerful hitter in MLB history and maybe he can overcome that apparently historic K-rate. But that would be a dumb thing to expect.
For comparison, in 2001, Bonds hit 407/1073 on-contact; in 2002, 419/904; in 2004 407/913. The last couple years, Howard has been around 440/940.
Note, I'm not saying he's going off a cliff, I'm saying he's gonna be more like 250/350/550 going forward. Or he's the most powerful hitter, by far, in MLB history.
And I will grant, we may have simply entered a new era. Certainly things have been trending this way for some time -- hitters trading Ks for power. We have seen several seasons recently of ridiculous on-contact production -- Howard, Braun, Upton, Pena for a while, presumably Sosa's great years -- so it could be a real shift.
Danny's list in 78 is interesting but hardly comprehensive. If you go back to 1997 and repeat the study, who makes your list of top pitchers? It's dominated by guys like Clemens, Maddux, Pedro, Johnson, Glavine. Were they good bets over the next 5 years? Absolutely.
Wasn't Clemens in the twilight of his career then?
No pitcher is.
HOW CAN THIS BE
OUTRAGED I TELL YOU
Roger Clemens was the Triple Crown winner, making Johnson's season a distant runner-up for Cy Young.
Don't make me look it up - did he miss 1996?
Pitchers can be injured - sometimes seriously - in ways that have nothing to do with their arms. It's true.
I thought the Johnson signing was nuts at the time - nuts to the degree that the Kevin Brown contract, despite its length and cost, was the better deal.
I've never met a dude who could chug turpentine and juggle lit M80s like D. Helluva damn guy.
Roy Neyer must have mailed this in.
What happened to Defense?
It's also quite possible that Howard's strikeout numbers could come down. I got burned on this one year in a fantasy league when I inherited Bobby Abreu. I similarly decided there's not any way Abreu's going to continue the way he did in 1998 and assumed the average would come down. Instead the strikeouts dropped and the power went up and trading Abreu turned out to be the worst thing I did in the four years I had the team.
The selection bias stuff is a point, but then it also works at the other end of the spectrum (guys who don't strike out much also tend to do poorly on contact compared to average) and it isn't really an issue on that end. So it seems to me to be very real in any case. Howard's on contact numbers might drop, but then his strikeouts might too (down to say 165 per 550 at bats). When I do my projections, there is very little shift in value (shape changes but not the value) if I move strikeouts up and down and leave the rest the same. Only when you get up into the 250+ strikeout range (for 550 at bats) does the value really seem to drop.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main