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 0.6320 seconds
54 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.
That seems not quite right, though, as it appears that there's pretty significant difference among projection systems as to Murphy.
CHONE: 336/410
CAIRO: 375/473
ZiPS: 324/422
James: 369/476
PECOTA: 327/405
I would have just dismissed that James projection as another one of their failures to adequately adjust MLEs, but I have CAIRO liking Murphy even more than James does.
As a side note, the author is misreading the fangraphs page - it's not Marcel that projects Murphy to a .330 wOBA, but CHONE. Using Marcel to project a player with only 150 MLB PA would be quite silly.
I don't root for the player, but rather random variation on the plus side. It's so satisfying.
The point is, if he didn't have the super high LD rate, we'd be more likely to think his performance will decline, everything else being equal. Maybe Murphy was getting significantly better during the season and has even more over the offseason - but we don't know that for certain yet.
Predicting breakouts is (duh) an inexact science. It's not surprising that the projection systems disagree on a player ilke Murphy - but I think looking at all of them is useful because it gives you a range of outcomes. I don't think anyone here would really be shocked if Murphy hit any of those five projected lines, save maybe a few Mets fans here who would be shocked if his OPS didn't top .750, and I think they represent a preety good range out outcomes.
If nothing else, there's no reason he can't have a career similar to a poor man's John Olerud or Paul O'Neil.
So basically, a guy whose offense is marginal as a so-so corner OF defender or a very good 4th OF?
My guess that he will be somewhere in the 60th-70th percentile of his Chone projection: between 280/349/438 and 290/362/459.
I'm totally pissed off.
Or, alternately, some Mets fans are possessed of truly remarkable persecution complexes.
I agree with every word save the first.
Or, alternately, some Mets fans are possessed of truly remarkable persecution complexes.
I say will burn the non believer Matt Clement of A.
Or, alternately, some Mets fans are possessed of truly remarkable persecution complexes.
I don't feel persecuted, at all, because the vast majority of non-Mets' fans (and quite a few Mets' fans, to tell the truth) don't share my view very bullish views of Daniel Murphy's potential and likelihood of reaching it. What I do feel is that they (some of them, anyway) are overly slavish in their adherence to the statistical models that tell them that Murphy's performance with the Mets last year was a fluke, and unwilling to really consider (with an open mind) the arguments based on observation of his hitting that some of us have made in support of the opposing view. It is my observation of his approach that leads me to believe that he will succeed, not the results from 131 ABs. Anyone is free to reject my arguments based on my observation, obviously, but no one can't blame me for getting a bit annoyed if I sense that he or she isn't even willing to consider them with an open mind. OTOH, if I get more than a bit annoyed, and then laugh it off and move on, then I'm taking things WAY too seriously.
But at the end of the day, his performance will tell us who was right, so it really doesn't matter whether I convince anyone. He will be an outlier from what the statistical models tell us, based on minor league performance, he was likely to do as a major leaguer. Or he won't. I certainly get why many of you doubt him, and I don't blame you. But that won't keep me from giving you a hard time when he exceeds YOUR wildest expectations . . . .
Which is a bit of what makes baseball great. Almost 20 years later Red Sox fans are wondering how Phil Plantier never became what they thought he would.
Murphy is a tough case because while his performance at St. Lucie 2 years ago screams non-prospect, he has improved as he has moved up the ladder and really looked the part in the majors last season. That type of rapid progression is hard to accept. I think he is getting better and would bet on an OPS over .800 this season.
I agree with every word save the first.
Huh. I figured he could've left out the second word and let the sentence stand just fine.
Personally, I am hopping for something like .360/.420 from him. That'd make him a solid contributor. I'd probably set the over-under on .350/.400 though.
That said, it's reasonable for someone to point out that a look at the stats doesn't project Murphy to be all that great, and it's reasonable for someone to counter that they've seen him play and they feel he can be the exception to the rule. There is really no reason to get angry about it on either side.
Why haven't they signed Odalis Perez yet?
Well at least its against the Nationals and he is not pitching against the college team (Michigan)
I don't mind the criticism about my writing or my points but I do take offense to the ad hominems. I try very hard to remain objective, which is why I use statistics so heavily.
Absolutely my love of the Phillies colors my perception, there is no doubt about that. But I think you're making the mistake of thinking, "This guy is a Phillies fan, therefore none of his criticisms of the Mets [or his defenses of the Phillies] are legitimate."
Also, I'm not a journalist, so I really don't have to be objective, but I try to anyway.
Yeah, Redding got killed. But it was his first start after being hurt all spring, so i'm willing to give him a break.
We can't make too much of Pedro's performance yesterday considering the opposition but considering the way the spring has gone so far, the Mets need to be considering adding another starter. I'd prefer Pedro but Odalis Perez would be acceptable as well.
Absolutely, Murphy can improve on what he did last year. Overall, it's not likely he'll match that 129 OPS+ in '09 though, when all of the regresses and progresses are factored in. He can still take great steps forward even if he doesn't match his production from last year.
Anyone know if that's the difference between the projections? Do some adjust for L/R splits but others don't?
If nothing else, there's no reason he can't have a career similar to a poor man's John Olerud or Paul O'Neil.
Or Andre Ethier. But the question is whether that's his upside or more like his mean projection.
Overall, it's not likely he'll match that 129 OPS+ in '09 though, when all of the regresses and progresses are factored in. He can still take great steps forward even if he doesn't match his production from last year.
With all due respect, you are stating the obvious if that's all your analysis is saying. I don't think even Sam, who awknowledges he is going out on a limb with Murphy, is expecting that much from him. Met fans aren't expecting him to post last year's rate states over the entire year.
And it wouldn't surprise me if they go with Livan to start the season regardless of how he performs in ST. They seem really hung up on his durability and innings eating 'ability'.
Well, in the other thread about the Phillies and Mets, questions were raised when I claimed the Phillies had a slight advantage in left field. Raul Ibanez is pretty much a lock for a 125-ish OPS+ which is about what Murphy had last year.
That's fine. I need criticism like that to improve, so feel free to pile on. My point is just that I don't benefit from ad hominems, which is what I thought you were going for.
I didn't take your two paragraphs as being related. I took the first one as being about me specifically, and the second as being about Murphy pessimists in general. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
I wasn't the one who raised those questions, just for the record. What I said about LF was that the Phillies will be worse than they were in 2008, because they lose on the Burrell for Ibanez "trade." And overall, I think the Phils are a worse team than they were last year and the Mets are clearly better than they were in 2008 (mostly because of the bullpen upgrade, but also because of getting a full year from the Murphy/Tatis platoon instead of the black hole they had the first half of last year). The Mets' LFers don't have to be better than Ibanez; they just have to give the Mets improved production over 2008, enough that together with the vastly improved pen they leapfrog the Phillies. Which is what I expect to happen.
I don't think even Sam, who awknowledges he is going out on a limb with Murphy, is expecting that much from him. Met fans aren't expecting him to post last year's rate states over the entire year.
Well, since I think they're going to platoon him, I don't think we're ever going to find out -- if a full, non-platoon year is what you mean by "entire year," anyway. In a platoon role, I do indeed expect Murphy to pull off something very close to last year's OPS of .870. Significantly above .800, anyway, using a .400 OBP as his jumping off point, and with enough doubles and occasional HR power to keep the SLG in the mid-.400s, too.
I'm all in here. Don't kid yourself.
They essentially have the same team that they had last year. The only differences are:
- No Adam Eaton (replaced by Happ/Kendrick/Park/Carrasco; I'd say Happ and Park are the only ones left who have a shot at the #5 spot)
- A full season of Jayson Werth instead of a half-season of a Werth/Jenkins platoon
- J.C. Romero's 50-game suspension
Not by a whole lot.
Burrell's OPS+ the last four seasons: 128, 122, 127, 125 (career 119)
Ibanez's OPS+ the last four seasons: 115, 125, 121, 124 (career 113)
Ibanez should benefit from moving from one of the most pitcher-friendly parks to one of the more hitter-friendly parks as well.
Understood and your point is salient, but what I meant was that, in saying that LF isn't an advantage for the Phillies, whoever is saying that is also saying that Murphy will have similar production to Ibanez, which is a 120-125ish OPS, which is close to what he did last year.
Yes, and 17 did it in 2007, and 16 the year before. Ten is kind of low.
And if Murphy comes in at .390 or .394 or something like that, I hope no one's going to quibble because I said .400. There are years where well over 20 players have OBPs over .390, and if you include players who are restricted to platoon roles (and thus often don't qualify among the leaders, but have really nice rate stats in part because of the platoon edge), that number would be even higher.
Hey, we'll see, right?
No, you said: "Phillies’ Huge Advantages: First base, second base, left field, defense."
I'd agree with slight advantage for Ibanez, but I think defense evens it up, as Ibanez is a butcher and both BP and fangraphs had murphy as playing very good defense in LF last year (small sample size of course, but still a plus defender.
Except that he isn't; Safeco is very friendly to Left handed Power Hitters, which he happens to be.
Murphy: -5 runs/150 hitting, +1 fielding
Ibanez: +7 hitting, -13 fielding
Of course, Murphy's fielding projection is based on a small sample.
--
I want to defend Crashburn's argument. Clearly Murphy had great success last year. Crashburn is saying that the way Murphy achieved that success was very unusual. If he'd hit .313/.397/.473 while looking more like the "typical" .310/.400/.470 hitter, to the extent that there is such a thing, I'd be more confident that he could come close to repeating the performance.
This kind of reasoning would have led me to underrate Vlad Guerrero (how could anyone have that kind of plate coverage?) and Dustin Pedroia (with such a big swing, how can he make good contact?). The difference is that it doesn't take long looking at Vlad or Pedroia to see that what they're doing is real and repeatable. For all I know, the same is true for Murphy -- that's what Sam is saying -- but since I don't follow the Mets, all I have to go on is the stats.
So Werth has value. But he's Matt Mieske's big brother. Mieske owned Randy Johnson but you could be Livan Hernandez tossing underhanded and Matt would dribble one to shortstop.
I also like Murhpy's approach to the game, and think he has a very good chance of being an adequate LFer for the Mets this season. I do think there's not much point projecting beyond a general range in his case since we can't know simply from the numbers he's put up so far whether (among other things)
1--there's a hole in his swing that can be exploited
2--how well he'll be able to make adjustments as ML pitchers make adjustemnts to him
3--whether his fielding will be enough of an issue that it significantly undermines his abilities with the bat
4--whether he really is more than a platoon player. One problem the Mets have is that Church is not durable, and even the great Beltran is not the most durable of OFers. That means Tatis is going to get a lot of ABs, and even if Murphy is limping along with a 700 OPS, if the optiuon is sending him to the plate in the 8th inning or ph for him with Angel Pagan, it's likely that Murphy will stay in to face the lefties, or that given the construction of the Mets roster, the platoon option simply won't be available at the start of a game.
Good fun, this. I put Murphy at an .832 OPS. He'll struggle in two ways--a slump that he doesn't have the experience to get out of quickly, and he'll wear down a bit in late summer. But he'll be good enough and smart enough to stay in the lineup for 562 PAs. Book it.
Actually, it's not a bad idea to use observational data to fine-tune statistical models. Remember that statistical models by their nature reflect aggregate performance; there may very well be individual reasons why Murphy could be expected to do better than the model projects.
Having said that, Bill Baer does make some good points in the article, specifically that Murphy isn't likely to continue to hit line drives at the rate he did in his major league debut. Pitchers very likely will make adjustments the more that they see him, and Murphy's ability to continue his success will depend on how well HE adjusts to the changes that the pitchers make.
-- MWE
That's fair. Left field isn't a huge advantage for the Phillies, for reasons you and others have pointed out. I stand corrected.
Assuming this was a serious post I will give you the courtesy of letting you know that I read your message.
And will ignore the directive.
So feel free to brand me as you deem necessary.
But I don't give a flying f*ck what folks do in the bedroom. What I do know is that if you can't hit the ball from here to there you are a pansy.
And for that matter, so too are you a pansy if you're constantly whining about how the GM of the sports team you follow didn't follow your off-season plan.
No, he's not. Age and a little BABIP regression.
Sure, if by "benefit" you don't mean "be more valuable."
You are using this slur incorrectly. A pansy would be someone that is considered less masculine than the majority; in a baseball sense it might be used to deride a person who is afraid of the ball, not someone lacking the skill to hit the ball.
/sarcasm
Clearly, it isn't a matter of "proper slur application", but rather a matter of not slurring at all.
If the season started tomorrow, Livan would be the 5th starter. How is that even possible?
So this is the Jason Werth Love Train that required you to make clear that he's a "pansy"?
It might be if the word didn't already have a history attached to it:
a. a male homosexual.
b. a weak, effeminate, and often cowardly man.
If you're using this word, you might as well be calling someone a faggot.
It's fair to compare somebody weak to a pretty flower without involving your sexuality.
I have a pretty harsh and unforgiving interpretation of slurs I find demeaning, and I don't see too much trouble in what Harvey's said at all. Not that he or anyone cares, but to someone who does (me) that's pretty no-fault in this personal instance.
To state as 52 does that there isn't any kind of history in the term (different from simply not really caring as Harvey's does, which actually makes a lot more sense), and it is solely a flower IS completely ignoring a very real historical view of contextual use.
LASTLY, as far as our 5th starter, I know that Pedro will cost something to acquire, but I'd rather pay that cost to have him as a 5th starter than have Livan. I mean, hey, Livan might surprise us all, but it is not worth my sanity to find out.
No, you really might not as well be.
If you choose to believe that I regard homos*xuality as a bad thing that is your choice.
Having been around all types of domesticated animals I am quite aware this situation exists. And while something of a hindrance in the breeding of a livestock otherwise it doesn't matter all that much.
Kudos for a unique spin on "Some of my best friends are..."
Lassus, I'm having trouble reconciling your first two paragraphs.
I was working to clarify.
Clearly I should let folks just wallow in their presumptions.
Understood.
But would I make a big deal out of it in HW's case? Um, no. I've never gotten anything but respect and great dialog with him, so he's right at the top of the list of those I'd give a pretty complete pass to about the language they choose.
FWIW.
This pretty much covers it. We're probably not in \"######\" territory, but it's not very far, if at all, from calling someone guinea, or jewboy, or polack. If anyone think it's harmless, allow me to suggest you head to Christopher Street during the next Gay Pride parade and call out, "you pansies!" Then let me know to which hospital you'd like me to send that get-well-soon bouquet of pansies.
In 2007 Werth had a LD% of 27.3, which led to a BABIP of .391.
In 2008 Murphy was at 33% LD and BABIP of .386.
I think it's fair to say Werth was a little luckier in 2007 relative to how Murphy was last year , as he had a lower % of line drives yet a higher Babip. Murphy had a higher BB/K ratio, but their ISO are near identical(.161 for Werth vs. .160 for Murphy). Last year Werth's Babip dropped to .327 as his LD% fell to 22.7%, but his ISO rose to .225.
Everything said about Murphy this year could have been said about Werth heading into last year and he did fine. Murphy also will be in his age 24 season, and is LH, which both weigh heavily in his favor. Werth was in his age 29 season and RH.
What Sam wrote covers it in regards to Harvey's.
Right?
I don't know, maybe you should go into the Phillies' locker room after a loss and call out "you daffodils!" Then let me know to which hospital you'd like me to send that get-well-soon bouquet of daffodils.
Am I reading you right to say that you have no problem with someone who's been respectful toward you using a homophobic epithet as an insult?
Man, you're really bent out of shape. Are you a florist?
Nah, I'm into calling people names. You feel free though if that's important to you. (Although, I have a feeling you'd get a lot of perplexed faces.)
In fact, if you're so keen on using the term pansy, you could try saying that to their face.
Sounds good, crapweasel.
Do you deny that pansy has actually been used frequently as a specific insult to someone's sexual orientation? I haven't quite heard that yet. Could you at least say so, in order to get clear you don't know what you're talking about?
I blame this on Arky.
The fact is, Jason Werth hits rhp like a girl. I am sorry this offends you.
No. I'm saying that context matters in more ways than just looking at the historical context of the use of the word "pansy" as an anti-gay slur. ark, for example, said this (# 63):
If anyone think it's harmless, allow me to suggest you head to Christopher Street during the next Gay Pride parade and call out, "you pansies!" Then let me know to which hospital you'd like me to send that get-well-soon bouquet of pansies.
But that is NOT the context in which HW used the word "pansy." He didn't shout it out towards a group of gay people, and he didn't direct it to a bunch of strangers in a directly hostile manner. He used it in a descriptive way about a baseball player, and he used it here among people who know him, have a background with him, and can (if we choose) give him the benefit of the doubt.
So if we're going to be contextual, what I'm saying is let's be fully contextual. Let's not just look at part of the context, the part that allows some to jump all over Harvey's and take what he said in the most negative possible way. Let's also ask whether there would have been a better, less hostile & confrontational way to bring up the issue, given his status around here and the presumption (which he has richly earned) of no ill intent. Hence my approach (# 62): I'd rather it not be used, but I know Harvey's well enough to know he intended no offense to me or anyone else. I don't need to bludgeon him, I don't want to, and I'm sorry -- but I just wouldn't. Not without a hell of lot more provocation than what happened here.
EDIT:
Can I also add that I love the song Love Train? Give me those early '70s smooth harmonies . . . .
Leaving aside "Met Fan" (who was apparently dropped on his head as a child), if we're going to be fullly contextual, I want to note I haven't jumped all over anyone. I took issue with what HW said, but I didn't do it in a personal way. HW though, got touchy, and launched a couple of rockets:
I didn't brand him anything, but look at the hostility of the reply.
I agree we're not on Christopher Street during Gay Pride week. You're also not shooting pool, just you and HW, at his place on a Friday night, drinking beers and talking shop. This is a public forum, and what we say and how we say it matters. If you use a word as loaded as "pansy", it's not unreasonable to get called out on it. If you defend the use of it, you can expect a follow-up. Did anyone accuse HW personally of gaybashing, or bigotry? If they did I missed that post. The objections. as far as I can tell, are to content, indifference, and, yes, ignorance.
I won't speak for anyone else, and I'm not sure precisely what post or poster you're objecting to, Sam, but for my purposes I'll point out again that I hardly could have brought the issue up in a simpler, less confrontational way without being so vague no one would have known what the heck I was talking about. I won't requote HW's reply, but it was indeed he who flew off the handle, at least wrt me.
No, you were obnoxious.
That's funny. I knew whether I was gay without benefit of this thread. Something to do with not really having the slightest interest in Jessica Alba . . . . You might have more to explore than you think, Crashburn. ;-)
Are you hitting on me? :-P
I have actually discussed this subject (not Jessica Alba specifically) with some gay friends of mine, and I am convinced that I am pretty much the gayest person I know. Not "gayest" in terms of the stereotypical cultural traits we think of as associated with gay men (i.e., effeminacy). But gayest in the Kinsey sense: I have absolutely no attraction to or interest (sexually) in women whatsoever. It doesn't matter how attractive they are to most men; they just do nothing for me. I don't notice them in a "Hmmmmmm" sort of way. I don't ever fantasize or dream about them. It's just men, period.
I am, IOW, a Kinsey 6. A rare bird, apparently, but there it is.
Are you hitting on me? :-P
Four words: You're a Phillies fan.
In other words, no.
Well, if other people share your logic, this severely limits the pool of available mates for me.
Speaking of Brattain...
Ah, don't worry. Most people are more open-minded than I am.
And truth be told, if I met someone whom I really liked, and he turned out to be a Phillies fan, I guess I could deal with a mixed marriage. Hell, I spent 14 years with a Dookie. What the hell.
Now, a Yankee fan . . . That's where I draw the line. Even a Mets' fan has standards, after all!
Seriously. We need the season to start posthaste.
Fine, but we really don't know if he uses the word pansy or if he's into Jessica Alba, so what's the point?
And, not speaking of which, we still haven't picked a nickname for him. I know the first time he makes a diving, sliding, sno-cone catch in left the Post caption will read "Murph the Surf!", but I'd like to think we're better than that.
edit: What's a "Dookie"? Do I want to know?
editedit: I'm concerned about your pessimism wrt to the fifth starter position, Russlan. Nonetheless, Odalis is the likelier of the two to throw some respectable innings, isn't he?
Someone who attended Duke University.
To get this back to baseball, the Mets have to sign Odalis Perez or Pedro don't they? I have been an Omar-supporter, or at least less critical of him than some around here, but with Pedro and Odalis freely available, I'll be beside myself if Livan is the fifth starter.
I can see the case for Odalis, but I remain totally opposed to Pedro Redux. I think there is next to no chance he can do anything but what he's done: start the season, break down, rehab, try to come back, break down, rehab, repeat cycle. The Mets need to break that cycle.
I say be patient with Redding. A first start is totally meaningless, esp'y when you are behind the hitters as he is.
I'm happy to be patient with Redding, too. It's his sore shoulder that concerns me, and the idea that he'll probably be ready to pitch by mid-March, which will give him time, probably, to get ready by April 11th. What's Odalis's agent's phone number, again?
Four words: You're a Phillies fan.
In other words, no.
Bigot. :-)
thehell.FTFY
Let the record show that Sam M. is not perfect. There is no such thing as a likeable Phillies fan. Let me repeat: *There is no such thing as a likeable Phillies fan.*
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main