BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Dave Cameron: Trade Value #5-#1

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Dave Cameron: Trade Value #5-#1

4. (1) Evan Longoria, 3B, Tampa Bay – Signed through 2016 for $38 million.

After a long stint at the top of this list, Longoria has finally been dethroned. Injuries have essentially wiped out his age 26 season, and he’s down to just four more years left on the seemingly never-ending contract the Rays signed him to as a rookie. However, this fall in the rankings is more about the three guys in front of him than about Longoria himself. Even with the durability questions, he’s still one of the game’s elite talents, and that contract is still paying him a tiny fraction of what he’s actually worth. In a normal year, Longoria would have still been in the mix for the top spot, but this isn’t a normal year. This is a year that has seen three young outfielders all perform at incredible levels, and that trio has emerged as the future of the sport. This is no knock on Longoria. He’s just been displaced by three guys who could each carry the sport on their back for the next decade.

3. (6) Andrew McCutchen, OF, Pittsburgh – Signed through 2018 for $63 million.

McCutchen entered the year as a consistently solid hitter after posting a wRC+ of 125, 125, and 129 during his first three years in the big leagues. This year, McCutchen has exploded, turning doubles into home runs and outhitting every other player in the National League. His 187 wRC+ is second in baseball, and at age 25, he’s turned into a true superstar. He probably won’t keep hitting for power at this level, but even if some of those home runs turn back into doubles, he’s still a premier all around talent. The Pirates were extremely smart to lock up McCutchen over the off-season, buying out all of his arbitration years and getting his first three years of free agency as well. He’s worth several magnitudes more than the contract is going to pay him, and he’s almost single-handedly restored Pittsburgh’s credibility as a franchise. The Pirates have a superstar who isn’t going anywhere any time soon, and that’s good for both the city and the sport as a whole.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 09:42 AM | 65 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: angels, dave cameron, marlins, nationals, pirates, prospects, rays, trade value

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.

1. A triple short of the cycle

Posted: July 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4190764)

that contract is still paying him a tiny fraction of what he’s actually worth

He’s worth several magnitudes more than the contract

I did not RTFA but this must be hyperbole. "Several magnitudes more" means 100 or 1,000 times more. No way.

2. andrewberg Posted: July 24, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4190774)

Very disrespectful of him not to invent rankings better than 1 for Trout.

3. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4190778)

Why wouldn't McCutchen "keep hitting for power at this level"?

It's not like he's Brady Anderson - I mean - a ~180 jump in SLG is certainly a big number, but Barry Bonds took a big jump in his age 25 season, too.

Is McCutchen a 45 HR guy? Maybe not - but when I've seen him hit, there's nothing that screams to me 'career year'... He's good... really good.

4. andrewberg Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4190793)

Why wouldn't McCutchen "keep hitting for power at this level"?

He's really skinny. I know that isn't a real reason, but it does create cognitive dissonance when you see him hit the ball 400'. I suppose he'll gain some weight as he gets older.

5. PreservedFish Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4190802)

Maybe not - but when I've seen him hit, there's nothing that screams to me 'career year'... He's good... really good.

The .373 average doesn't scream career year?

6. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4190805)

McCutchen's riding a .420 BABIP vs a career number of .328. He's definitely fluking a bit.

On the other hand, he's also seeing a major power spike at age 25, which is a very normal development, especially for a five-tool athlete like McCutchen, and he'll probably retain quite a bit of that power. (Though I agree with Cameron, probably not all of it.) He's also probably going to start walking more as his babip declines.

7. Double-Spin Mechanic Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4190807)

Maybe not - but when I've seen him hit, there's nothing that screams to me 'career year'

What does a guy having a career year look like?

8. Kiko Sakata

Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:26 PM (#4190811)

He's really skinny. I know that isn't a real reason, but it does create cognitive dissonance when you see him hit the ball 400'. I suppose he'll gain some weight as he gets older.

BB-Ref lists McCutchen at 5'10", 185 lbs. The same source lists Willie Mays at 5'10", 170; Ernie Banks at 6'1", 180; and Hank Aaron at 6'0", 180.

9. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4190814)

i know what zonk is saying about career year

when ryan ludwick had his crazy season he would lunge at pitches, like he is wont to do, and instead of missing them or popping up he would serve them into right-center. he would hit home runs on ridiculous swings.

andrew is controlling the strike zone and when he connects the ball is just exploding off his bat.

it looks like a step forward versus a guy just having everything break his way

10. PreservedFish Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4190816)

it looks like a step forward versus a guy just having everything break his way

It's almost certainly both, right?

11. MM1f Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:46 PM (#4190827)

It can be both a career year and not-a-fluke, you know.

There is a difference between flukey career years, where mediocrities go nuts (Ryan Ludwick), and stars having years that are exceptional even by their standards.

If you think this isn't a career year for McCutchen you're expecting him to a Hall of Famer, he is leading the league in average, slugging, OPS, and OPS+. He probably won't do that on a consistent basis. But that doesn't mean this kind of performance is far out of the norm for a toolsy 25 year old with a good track record. He is basically having a Matt Kemp-esque jump from excellence to stardom.

12. Kiko Sakata

Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4190832)

It's almost certainly both, right?

The focus on the home runs as being the thing unlikely to be "real", though, seems backwards. There's basically no chance that Andrew McCutchen will bat .370 for the next five seasons. Seeing McCutchen hit 35-40 home runs a year from here on out seems much more likely.

13. bunyon Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4190839)

BB-Ref lists McCutchen at 5'10", 185 lbs. The same source lists Willie Mays at 5'10", 170; Ernie Banks at 6'1", 180; and Hank Aaron at 6'0", 180.

I think the silly-ball era has really distorted what we think of when we think power hitter. However they got so big, we got used to seeing sluggers who looked like cartoon characters. Looking at the history of baseball, that clearly isn't necessary.

I'll defer to you guys on McCutchen. Unfortunately, I've only seen him play a handful of times. He looks excellent but it isn't much of a sample size. Hopefully, they'll start showing the Pirates more.

14. MM1f Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4190847)

As for McCutchen's size... he is pretty freakin cut. Not bulky, but pretty muscular. He has an NFL cornerback type build, lean with wiry strength. He was, IIRC, a D-I football prospect out of HS too.

15. AROM Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4190848)

BB-Ref lists McCutchen at 5'10", 185 lbs. The same source lists Willie Mays at 5'10", 170; Ernie Banks at 6'1", 180; and Hank Aaron at 6'0", 180.

I like that. It's a good counterpoint to the idea that Willie Mays would not be a big power hitter if he played today, just because all of today's big power hitters are 6'4 and 235.

Though Bonds was a good counterpoint himself before he went Baroids. He was a consistent 40 homer per year guy while weighing probably 185.

16. PreservedFish Posted: July 24, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4190849)

It can be both a career year and not-a-fluke, you know.

There is a difference between flukey career years, where mediocrities go nuts (Ryan Ludwick), and stars having years that are exceptional even by their standards.

I suspect that this is more about semantics than baseball. I think McCutchen's probably taken a major leap forward, and that his new level will be something like .310/.390/.530 ... let's suppose he does settle in at something like that over the next few years. Can't I call his 2012 a fluke? He's beating his career OPS by 250 points. He's only going to sustain some percentage of that.

17. bobm Posted: July 24, 2012 at 01:18 PM (#4190870)

Trade Value #6: Ichiro!

(Just kidding, it's Ryan Braun)

18. andrewberg Posted: July 24, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4190878)

I think the silly-ball era has really distorted what we think of when we think power hitter. However they got so big, we got used to seeing sluggers who looked like cartoon characters. Looking at the history of baseball, that clearly isn't necessary.

People, and athletes, have become larger in general. Mays and Aaron would probably weigh 20lbs more with modern diet and exercise techniques. You're right that it is possible to hit tons of homeruns without being huge, I was simply pointing out that it looks different when you see someone do it these days.

19. Gern Blanston Posted: July 24, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4190890)

He's really skinny. I know that isn't a real reason, but it does create cognitive dissonance when you see him hit the ball 400'. I suppose he'll gain some weight as he gets older.

Eric Davis was pretty skinny, and he had monster power. All about bat speed and wrist strength.

20. bunyon Posted: July 24, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4190910)

All about bat speed and wrist strength.

Timing first.

21. JRVJ Posted: July 24, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4190926)

I may have missed him, but I would have thought Yoenis Cespedes would have been on this list.

22. Srul Itza Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4190934)

Can't I call his 2012 a fluke?

Maybe. But "fluke" connotes something way out of line with what he is capable of. Truly great players have great years, year after year, with some years far more outstanding than others. I don't think of those as "flukes", so much as I think of them as being at the far edge of their abilities.

Davey Johnson hitting 42 homers feels like a fluke. Mickey Mantle winning the triple crown does not, even though he obviously did not win it every year. That is the difference for me.

23. Srul Itza Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4190938)

Eric Davis was pretty skinny, and he had monster power. All about bat speed and wrist strength.

Remember the young Darryl Strawberry? Or the Splendid Splinter?

24. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4190942)

"Fluke", I think, typically refers to something that was almost entirely random, or lucky. Andrew McCutchen's breakout season, in which he's clearly been hitting in good luck, but also hitting in knocking the snot out of the ball, doesn't really seem like a "fluke" in that sense. I think it's useful to save the word just for the true freak events, like Esteban Loaiza competing for a Cy Young or Brady Anderson hitting 50 homers.

25. Kiko Sakata

Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:10 PM (#4190946)

Remember the young Darryl Strawberry? Or the Splendid Splinter?

As #13 suggests, I think it's something of a generational thing. I remember the young Darryl Strawberry and Eric Davis very well, and they're both excellent comps to Andrew McCutchen in terms of body type and athletic ability. There's a long and distinguished history of slim guys with super-fast bat speed and strong wrists who were elite major-league home run hitters. As noted upthread, McCutchen is also reminiscent of the young Barry Bonds. But if your memory of Barry Bonds is only to the 2001-04 model and your image of power hitters is Jim Thome, Mark McGwire, and Adam Dunn, then, yeah, McCutchen looks too "skinny" to be able to hit 40 homers a year.

26. Dan Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:12 PM (#4190948)

How does a sabermetric writer boost Trout over Harper by the performance of the last few weeks and then not mention Trout's .412 BABIP anywhere in the writeup on him? Trout is obviously a fantastic player, but no one sustains anything near a .412 BABIP. And there's nothing wrong with preferring Trout, but when it's based on literally two or three weeks of divergent performance between the two players that doesn't really strike me as very thorough analysis. Cameron literally says that if he wrote this a few weeks ago Harper is #1.

I also think any comparison of Trout and Harper is negligent if it doesn't mention Trout's age 19 performance and how big of a jump he's made this year when Harper is some 14 months younger.

27. Liver of blaspheming 'zop Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4190959)

How does a sabermetric writer boost Trout over Harper by the performance of the last few weeks and then not mention Trout's .412 BABIP anywhere in the writeup on him? Trout is obviously a fantastic player, but no one sustains anything near a .412 BABIP. And there's nothing wrong with preferring Trout, but when it's based on literally two or three weeks of divergent performance between the two players that doesn't really strike me as very thorough analysis. Cameron literally says that if he wrote this a few weeks ago Harper is #1.

Cameron is as much a sabermetric writer as I am a mallard duck. He's a writer who cites to stats when convenient and writes for a sabermetrically inclined website, but has neither the temperment nor intelligence to actually analyze and draw conclusions from data.

28. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4190963)

What's the relative contract status? If I'm reading Cot's right Trout is on a fairly traditional rookie contract while Harper is inked through his first arb year at $1 million for that 2015 season. That arb year for Harper at such a low price looks like a huge point in his favor.

29. Dan Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:25 PM (#4190964)

Harper can opt out of the contract when he hits arbitration and go to arbitration or get a new contract.

30. billyshears Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:26 PM (#4190966)

I remember the young Darryl Strawberry and Eric Davis very well, and they're both excellent comps to Andrew McCutchen in terms of body type and athletic ability.

Darryl Strawberry was 6'6". Eric Davis was 6'2". They were skinny, but neither was little. Strawberry especially was considered one of the most physically imposing players in the game at the time. I don't really see either of them as being physical comps for McCutchen.

Edit: If you want a mid-80s Met for a physical comp to McCutchen, Howard Johnson is your guy. I bring this up only because I like to take every opportunity I can to remind people of how awesome Howard Johnson was for a time.

31. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4190968)

Most contracts like Harper's include a clause allowing him to opt out of the contract and go to arbitration if he reaches arb before the end of the deal. I don't see anything about an arbitration opt-out at Cot's or after a cursory googling, but I would bet that Harper has that option.

EDIT: Coke to Dan.

32. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4190977)

Darryl Strawberry was 6'6". Eric Davis was 6'2". They were skinny, but neither was little. Strawberry especially was considered one of the most physically imposing players in the game at the time. I don't really see either of them as being physical comps for McCutchen.

I see a bit of Nomar Garciaparra in McCutchen. Not in their approach at the plate, but in the consistent line drive power they produce with their wrists. (Garciparra was about 5-11 185.)

33. Esoteric throws a 'hard slider' Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4190978)

Cameron is as much a sabermetric writer as I am a mallard duck. He's a writer who cites to stats when convenient and writes for a sabermetrically inclined website, but has neither the temperment nor intelligence to actually analyze and draw conclusions from data.

This is too harsh. Cameron, like many writers, has had a trajectory over time. He's gotten lazier with his analysis and conclusions in recent years. Then again, knowing what we now know about his life-threatening personal health struggles, I'm inclined to be a little lenient. Such things have a tendency to affect one's focus.

34. Liver of blaspheming 'zop Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4190981)

35. Esoteric throws a 'hard slider' Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4190982)

I didn't think it needed a translation, and the one you provided certainly doesn't match what I meant to say.

36. PreservedFish Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4190984)

I think it's useful to save the word just for the true freak events, like Esteban Loaiza competing for a Cy Young or Brady Anderson hitting 50 homers.

You might be right. It's just that the annoying stats dork in me wants language to reflect mathematics, and if Loaiza's and Mantle's seasons are equally improbable (based on their "true talent" expectations, or what have you) I want to be able to use the same word to describe them.

37. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4190987)

He's gotten lazier with his analysis and conclusions in recent years.

This is true, but it does not in any way imply that his analyses and conclusions weren't lazy years ago - just that they're even worse now.

38. Randy Jones

Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4190989)

zop's complaints about Cameron apply to his writing from long before he had any health issues. The guy is a poor analyst and a mediocre writer. It sucks that he has cancer, but it doesn't change any of that.

39. Infinite Joost (Voxter)

Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4191005)

The guy is a poor analyst and a mediocre writer.

And an insufferable #######, too.

40. Tippecanoe Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4191012)

McCutcheon is not skinny, that's not a good description. But if he's really a 35-40 home run guy, he's the smallest in a generation. He's like Bagwell minus 20 lbs.

41. Tippecanoe Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4191036)

All about bat speed and wrist strength

I'm not sure about your definition of "bat speed", but if what is meant is the linear velocity of the head of the bat, then taller players with a longer torque arm have an advantage.

Also, it is well-known that the mass of the bat is a factor in hitting for power. In addition, I'm pretty sure that if you do the Lagrangian for this you would also find that the mass of the hitters arms is non-negligible. (Lagrangian mechanics is a mathematical technique used to deal with, among other things, multi-hinged systems like this.) Mark McGwire really did have the optimum physique to hit for distance.

42. Walt Davis Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4191112)

Somebody upthread had it: McCutchen's BA is a fluke (esp the BABIP), the power is probably for real (at least partly). But still -- if you whack 60 points off the BA (which still puts him 15 points above his career BA, 35 points above 2009-11) ... and that's going to take something like 90-100 points off the SLG ... and the guy's down about 160 points in OPS. His walk rate this year is low so he probably gains 20 of that back. Somebody suggested 310/390/530 which looks about right and puts him around a 155 OPS+ based on this season's league averages. Whether you want to consider 194 a fluke (assuming he maintains it) for a true 155 hitter is up to you.

43. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4191133)

The stuff about expecting McCutchen's power to decline is just not true. He has the quickest bat in the major leagues. I've said it before and will keep saying it, he's the closest thing to Hank Aaron's toolbox since Hank Aaron.

44. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4191167)

zeth

no. gary sheffield.

you can argue but you are wrong.

45. puck Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4191169)

The same source lists Willie Mays at 5'10", 170;

Mays at age 23; it doesn't seem like he weighed 170.

46. PreservedFish Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4191172)

In my mind's eye McCutchen is a line drive hitter, and not the sort of guy that should be expected to hit 30+ homeruns. But jeeze, he hits the ball hard. And that impression is mostly from the last few years. This homerun is impressive.

47. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4191180)

pf

he is generating more backspin. he hit one at miller park that cleared 430 feet

48. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:29 PM (#4191181)

Harveys: Touché. That's pretty good. I think Sheffield was a little bit bigger than those guys, though, even when he was young. You're right, though, it's the same skillset.

I like the Sheffield comp though; I can say "McCutchen's a lot like Gary Sheffield" and not be laughed at quite so loudly as if I compare him to Hank Aaron.

49. Danny Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4191182)

Josh Reddick is rail thin and is basically hitting for the same power as McCutchen this year.

50. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:37 PM (#4191189)

I think the misperception that it requires being built like the Incredible Hunk to hit home runs is kind of a steroid era relic. Babe Ruth was huge but before the 1990s he was more exception than rule. Mel Ott was muscular but nowhere near at a Jimmie Foxx/Mark McGwire level. Frank Robinson wasn't huge, Willie Mays wasn't big, Ken Griffey Jr. didn't remind anyone of a pro wrestler, Barry Bonds was a great home run hitter before he juiced way up and he was skinnyish. Upper body strength is only one of a list of elements of generating bat speed.

51. Srul Itza Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4191195)

Whether you want to consider 194 a fluke (assuming he maintains it) for a true 155 hitter is up to you.

How many standard deviations from "true talent" to be considered a fluke?

52. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:56 PM (#4191208)

McCutch is turning 24.7% of his flyballs into HR this year after the past three seasons of 12.2, 8.7 and 8.8.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=9847&position=OF

53. JRVJ Posted: July 24, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4191220)

FWIW, I enjoy Dave Cameron's monday appearances on Fangraphs' Podcasts.

54. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4191228)

Barry's (#52): Yes, but that doesn't tell us anything we don't know already. We know McCutchen is hitting home runs significantly more frequently than he used to. What we don't know is if it's a fluke or not; 24.7% isn't out of line for elite home run hitters.

55. Squash Posted: July 24, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4191238)

McCutchen is awesome. One sort of worries about injury risk though, it seems like a lot of these "small", wiry, wristy guys who generate a ton of whippy bat speed get ligament wear and tear injuries and then it's suddenly over. I hope McCutchen avoids.

56. PreservedFish Posted: July 24, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4191242)

I remember the "Hank Aaron wrists" thing was said about Soriano a lot.

57. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:02 PM (#4191252)

He definitely had the wrists. Just not the faintest clue of where the strike zone was.

58. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:29 PM (#4191284)

Josh Reddick is rail thin and is basically hitting for the same power as McCutchen this year.

Reddick's power reminds me more of Ken Griffey Jr's. He doesn't have that crazy wrist action to generate power, instead it comes from his lower body and a perfect weight shift.

Trying to come up with a comp for Reddick's power and swing who isn't a no-doubter Hall of Famer... um... ah, screw it. Josh Reddick is exactly the same player, hell, exactly the same person down to the cellular level, as Ken Griffey Jr.

59. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:43 PM (#4191301)

Mays at age 23; it doesn't seem like he weighed 170.

Looks about right to me.

60. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:05 PM (#4191333)

Trying to come up with a comp for Reddick's power and swing who isn't a no-doubter Hall of Famer

A less-violent David Justice?

61. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:09 PM (#4191343)

And there's nothing wrong with preferring Trout, but when it's based on literally two or three weeks of divergent performance between the two players that doesn't really strike me as very thorough analysis.

62. NJ in NY Posted: July 24, 2012 at 10:39 PM (#4191506)

Three weeks ago, Trout was hitting .339/.395/.592, while Harper was hitting .274/.348/.471, with Trout also having big edges in speed and defense. Yes, Harper is a year younger, but three weeks ago, Trout was obviously the better player.

Not sure if you RTFA, but I believe the poster was referring to the author's claim that 2 weeks ago the author had Harper ahead of Trout on this list.

63. MM1f Posted: July 24, 2012 at 10:46 PM (#4191511)

Maybe. But "fluke" connotes something way out of line with what he is capable of. Truly great players have great years, year after year, with some years far more outstanding than others. I don't think of those as "flukes", so much as I think of them as being at the far edge of their abilities.

Davey Johnson hitting 42 homers feels like a fluke. Mickey Mantle winning the triple crown does not, even though he obviously did not win it every year. That is the difference for me.

What he said.

64. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: July 25, 2012 at 12:51 AM (#4191563)

Jose Bautista---6'0, 190. You only require timing and/or great bat speed that us mere mortals can only dream about.

65. Infinite Joost (Voxter)

Posted: July 25, 2012 at 04:01 AM (#4191591)

Mays at age 23; it doesn't seem like he weighed 170.

I clock in at 5'9" and waver b/w about 160 and 165, and I've still got a bit of chunk to my funk. An inch taller, ten pounds heavier, not an ounce of fat? Mays is probably what that looks like.

If you wanna see a skinny slugger (well, aside from Soriano), there's always Teddy Ballgame. He was a good piece taller than these guys, but he wasn't cut like them, either, at least not when he was young. But Christ, look at those forearms. It's like he's got steel cables in there.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Dave Cameron: Trade Value #5-#1

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Sponsor

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics