User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.7973 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Thursday, June 05, 2014
If teams were comprised of only players they drafted
fun project by one of the authors at brewcrewball. thought folks might be interested. if you are just going to nitpick how the lists were constructed go (anatomically impossible act).
Harveys Wallbangers
Posted: June 05, 2014 at 02:38 PM | 79 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: draft, mlb, scouting
Tags: draft, mlb, scouting
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: OT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1034 - 3:12am, Jul 31)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim
Newsblog: Cubs Acquire Felix Doubront
(48 - 2:57am, Jul 31)
Last: Norcan
Newsblog: Eric Chavez Retires
(31 - 2:49am, Jul 31)
Last: Wahoo Sam
Newsblog: VICE: Baseball Erotica #1: John Smoltz and Tom Glavine
(11 - 2:19am, Jul 31)
Last: Petunia inquires about ponies
Newsblog: SOE: Minor League Manhood - A first-hand account of masculine sports culture run amok.
(159 - 2:08am, Jul 31)
Last: Petunia inquires about ponies
Newsblog: JULY 31 2014 OMNICHATTER/TRADE DEADLINE CHATTER
(2 - 2:05am, Jul 31)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!
Newsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(530 - 2:03am, Jul 31)
Last: Swedish Chef
Newsblog: OMNICHATTER 7-30-2014
(45 - 1:30am, Jul 31)
Last: CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck
Newsblog: Red Sox trade rumors: 'Very good chance' John Lackey and Jon Lester are traded - Over the Monster
(59 - 1:10am, Jul 31)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable
Newsblog: Posnanski: Hey, Rube: Phillies pay dearly for Amaro’s misguided loyalty
(23 - 1:04am, Jul 31)
Last: Ray (RDP)
Hall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1957 Discussion
(15 - 12:19am, Jul 31)
Last: MrC
Newsblog: Posnanski: Four theories about Hall of Fame voting changes
(28 - 11:50pm, Jul 30)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)
Hall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1956 Ballot
(9 - 11:17pm, Jul 30)
Last: lieiam
Newsblog: Cameron: Why a July 31 trade deadline just doesn’t make sense anymore
(14 - 11:06pm, Jul 30)
Last: cardsfanboy
Newsblog: OTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3797 - 10:47pm, Jul 30)
Last: zonk
(1034 - 3:12am, Jul 31)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim
Newsblog: Cubs Acquire Felix Doubront
(48 - 2:57am, Jul 31)
Last: Norcan
Newsblog: Eric Chavez Retires
(31 - 2:49am, Jul 31)
Last: Wahoo Sam
Newsblog: VICE: Baseball Erotica #1: John Smoltz and Tom Glavine
(11 - 2:19am, Jul 31)
Last: Petunia inquires about ponies
Newsblog: SOE: Minor League Manhood - A first-hand account of masculine sports culture run amok.
(159 - 2:08am, Jul 31)
Last: Petunia inquires about ponies
Newsblog: JULY 31 2014 OMNICHATTER/TRADE DEADLINE CHATTER
(2 - 2:05am, Jul 31)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!
Newsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(530 - 2:03am, Jul 31)
Last: Swedish Chef
Newsblog: OMNICHATTER 7-30-2014
(45 - 1:30am, Jul 31)
Last: CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck
Newsblog: Red Sox trade rumors: 'Very good chance' John Lackey and Jon Lester are traded - Over the Monster
(59 - 1:10am, Jul 31)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable
Newsblog: Posnanski: Hey, Rube: Phillies pay dearly for Amaro’s misguided loyalty
(23 - 1:04am, Jul 31)
Last: Ray (RDP)
Hall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1957 Discussion
(15 - 12:19am, Jul 31)
Last: MrC
Newsblog: Posnanski: Four theories about Hall of Fame voting changes
(28 - 11:50pm, Jul 30)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)
Hall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1956 Ballot
(9 - 11:17pm, Jul 30)
Last: lieiam
Newsblog: Cameron: Why a July 31 trade deadline just doesn’t make sense anymore
(14 - 11:06pm, Jul 30)
Last: cardsfanboy
Newsblog: OTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3797 - 10:47pm, Jul 30)
Last: zonk
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2014 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
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. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 08:55 AM (#4720239)Intended link
Lincecum is #2 in career rWAR among Indians draftees, but he was a draft-and-follow who didn't sign. If you don't give them credit for Timmeh, the leader in career rWAR among Tribe draftees (non-Sabathia division) is Jeremy Guthrie.
To recap: The second-most productive active player the Indians have drafted with the intention to sign is a league-average starting pitcher who has (at various times) led his league in hits allowed, home runs allowed, and losses, and who has a career FIP of 4.77.
1 ) 276.8 | Los Angeles Dodgers
2 ) 269.2 | St. Louis Cardinals
3 ) 264.4 | Kansas City Royals
4 ) 247.7 | Los Angeles Angels
5 ) 246.4 | Philadelphia Phillies
26 ) 123.8 | San Diego Padres
27 ) 122.6 | Houston Astros
28 ) 119.2 | Seattle Mariners
29 ) 115.4 | Toronto Blue Jays
30 ) 111.3 | Chicago White Sox
The White Sox really aren't that low, as he left off their best, Buehrle (57.6) WAR. I'd comment about the exclusion there rather than nitpick here, but I don't want to go through the hassle of registering (or re-registering, as the case might be) simply to let him know about his mistake.
In most of this period, when there was no cap on bonuses, there was a clear trade-off between spending money on the draft, or internationally..
The Jays' starting SS, Tyler Pastornicky, has -1.8 WAR (worst of any starting position player), but that's in only 262 career PA. I'd love to see what he could do given a full season!
EDIT: My biggest nitpick is Joe Mauer as the 44.7 WAR first baseman for the Twins. Either he's a 44.7 WAR player, or he's a first baseman (with ~30-35 WAR). No way he's both, unless we want to go with a lot of speculative counterfactuals regarding health and playing time and so on. It might make sense for the Twins in the Pretend Draftee League to play Mauer at 1B, but that goes against the spirit of the thing. If you do that you need to move a bunch of other guys around (starting with the Braves' Jordan Schaefer to the bench, Heyward to CF, and Gattis or Kelly Johnson to starting OF).
as fo rteh link no idea what happened. cut and pasted the url directly. done that plenty for other articles. i presume something got cropped?
as for the spelling typing with one hand bit me. i should have checked more closely.
It's just a look at the draft. It doesn't seem to be meant as anything more than "this is how they drafted." It's more fun than analytical. We can pick and choose all sorts of issues but I find it fun to kind of look at who teams drafted. As I noted above that's why I also like the inclusion of unsigned guys.
that site is churning out a lot of good content. and the really negative tone of the comments section has abated not just because the team is more successful but some of the prolific/very negative posters have moved on to other things.
it;s one of the rare sb nation success stories by my view. most of those team blog sites are rubbish coupled with drivel with a side of coddwollop
If you buy into the thinking behind the replacement-level concept, don't you have to keep Pastornicky off the team? Because the Jays would have to have drafted a theoretical replacement shortstop at some point along the line.
Please look up the definition of "comprise." That is all.
not a fan of folks being cryptic. what's your point?
if you are trying to be funny please help me understand the humor
The Cubs aren't really that high - 133.2 total WAR, but 23 comes from Lincecum (whom they never signed). I guess the article gives teams credit for identifying good players, even if they were subsequently unable to ink them to deals.
I imagine for popular ballclubs those sites are full of nightmare userbases.
However, I think this is a lost cause now. The word "comprise" is now an exact synonym for a similar-sounding word, like "reticent".
Sorry, wasn't meaning to frustrate you. Yes, as Crispix indicates, "comprise" is a constantly misused word. I've even seen it misused in Supreme Court opinions. Drives me up a wall, as a former journalism major. We're also losing the battle for "literally," which is even worse.
to be made up of (something) : to include or consist of
ok, willing to be educated. what's your point again?
not defending anything. somewhat confused
- it means "consist of, be made up of" - according to the dictionary. a team is comprised of 25 players. a team is comprised of drafted players.
"composed of" is listed as a synonym, and the sentence given as an example is a duplicate.
what, exactly, is the problem? how is it that people think that comprised is the opposite of ?consist of, be made up of"?
also
i notice i do not see any of the usual posters who are always complaining about the endless number of jeter/MSM posts, and want good baseball stuff. WELL, HERE IT IS!!!
and this was a great article. i swear i remember schilling talking like this the first time i ever heard him on tv, but, sigh, i guess then he went too far
and folks think i am outdated. ha, ha
why prefer "composed"?
please explain, and give some kind of backup from dictionaries. I have been looking and am not able to find any evidence that "comprised" was used incorecctly in that sentence
how is it used to mean something else?
am not understanding the literal meaning of your complaint
People use it to mean "figuratively."
That literally made my head explode.
Irregardless, I could care less about the matter. :-)
Correct: "Senatorial candidate Truby literally screwed the pooch by getting caught up in that bestiality scandal."
(Checks Merriam-Webster)
Dammit! We lost that one too. Apparently Merriam-Webster's new philosophy is "if people misuse it, the definition must have been wrong." This reminds me of this girl I used to know who, for reasons unknown, always used "subsequently" in the same way people now misuse "literally."* It was pretty funny at the time, but now I'm thinking it'll probably be accepted usage in 2024. Subsequently.
*Yes, of course she was attractive enough to get away with it.
But it IS annoying that people now use "reticent" to mean "reluctant". THAT happened recently.
Correcter: "Senatorial candidate Truby literally proves how much he loves animals on a regular basis" (according to members of his party).
The one I like is "scan"
1. to glance at or over or read hastily: to scan a page.
2. to examine the particulars or points of minutely; scrutinize.
Hey, English language, way to be unambiguous!
This has always been their philosophy. They are the bible of the linguistic descriptivists and should be treated with the scorn they deserve.
In that case, I break wind in their general direction.
And that's only because I once got into the stupidest fight of all time with a girlfriend because I had described myself as a "disinterested party" in the issue she was discussing, and she took that to mean I was not interested in it as a topic of conversation. I spent the first half of the argument trying to figure out what the point of contention was. Since that day I've been inclined to think it would be nice if we established a clear different between the two. Either that or treat them as synonyms 100% of the time. #### or get off the pot, I say.
Because, after all, lifetime WAR isn't really what teams are hoping to see in 2014.
"Use these with care. To comprise is 'to be made up of, to include' {the whole comprises the parts}. To compose is 'to make up, to form the substance of something' {the parts compose the whole}. The phrase comprised of, though increasingly common, is poor usage. Instead, use composed of or consisting of.
Hey, I'm on your side of the pond!
Though on any side of any pond, honour's got a U in it. That's just commoun sense.
Bingo.
Re "officially," I don't necessarily think people mean it literally (there's that word again) when they use it in that context - as in, they're using it in an exaggerated fashion to suggest that they're so emphatic as to want to convey the weight of official or authoritative action. But they don't actually think that's the definition. I could be wrong about that though.
My mistake. There's a Greg(U)K around here, though, right?
I'm trying to come up with words made up by Canadians that aren't "eh" or just overly literal pronunciations ("been," "against"). I got nothin'. Canadians probably consider it presumptuous and ostentatious to try to make up words of their own.
My understanding is that Greg K is the repatriated version of Greg (U)K, now home from graduate school.
hoser
It's correct enough but not concise enough.
comprises = is made up of
A team is comprised of 25 players = A team is is made up of of 25 players
A team comprises 25 players = A team is made up of 25 players.
In a way, it's like saying "ATM machine", given that the M in ATM already stands for machine. It conveys the same meaning, but with needless words.
I'm surprised to see the White Sox ranking so poorly overall. Nearly every time I've looked into it, the White Sox generally do very well in regards to developing pitchers. (mind you my standard was first team to play for at the major league level, so maybe they just do a good job of trading for pitchers) (Exact same thing can be said about the Blue Jays)
Yeah that about sums it up. I temporarily added the (U) while I was living in the UK. This is unrelated to the added "U"s in words which I still use as a Canadian.
Though annoyingly I just submitted an article to a historical journal, which is based in Canada, that made me change all my "honours" and "favours" to the American spelling. Go figure.
I don't actually know if they are Canadian words or not. I've only ever spent time in America a week at a time at most, so I've never been able to soak up American culture to the extent that I'd know if a word is used there or not. Actually I did spend two weeks in Florida this winter, but it was at my parent's condo where 85% of the population is Canadian.
So are any of these words in standard American parlance?
Toque
Chesterfield
Garburator
Double Double
Consulting a list on wiki it appears serviette, two-four (as in a case of 24 beer), pencil crayon, washroom (really?), and eaves trough are also Canadian words.
EDIT: There are also distinct western Canadian words that are pretty foreign to my eastern ears, not sure how they sound to Americans...for instance, gitch, bunnyhug, and for some reason they call date squares "matrimonial cake".
Also in Saskatchewan they call parties, especially something organized through school or a club, "cabarets" or "socials".
Glad I dislocated his arm and reading this thread wish I could relive that moment several times over
Sounds like a good plan. Pedantic dillweeds need to be put in their place.
(but I'm under the impression that his son-in-law is a pedantic dillweed, and that in a different situation he dislocated his shoulder, based upon other stories told)
for all intensive purposes, there's not a chinchilla of evidence that you've been misusing it.
I sympathize with both sides of this issue. On one hand, I get annoyed when people [whom I think are] stupider than me misuse a word like "nonplussed" or mispronounce "short-lived" or write "dominate" as an adjective, and then Webster comes along years later and says, "This usage has become an acceptable alternative."
But on the other hand, English has been constantly changing over the past 1000 years, probably even more than most languages. One might even say that's what makes English great. Today, we use words differently than Mark Twain did. Twain was different from James Fenimore Cooper, Cooper was different from William Shakespeare, Shakespeare was different from Geoffrey Chaucer, and Chaucer was different from Murray Chass.
So if you want the dictionary to be strictly prescriptivist, then where do you want English frozen in time? When was English perfect and correct? In 1616, upon Shakespeare's death? 1828, with Webster's first American dictionary? 1900, the conventional dividing line between old-time baseball and modern baseball? 19XX, the year you had a particularly impactful English teacher?
Linguistic descriptivists, on the other hand, do not think that have words have meaning beyond their conventional use, which is tantamount to not thinking that words have any meaning at all. They, and their wicked brothers in analytical philosophy, are the nominalist barbarians at the gate. They actively and willingly dim the colour of the world with their anti-intellectual, indeed, anti-human and vicious, dogma.
Finally, impactful is a ####### abomination.
no he wasn't
I went to the ATM machine today, but I forgot my PIN number.
Why do you hate humans???
That's because it wasn't a histourical journal.
Edit: And props for not saying "an historical."
At least it's not a historical jornal.
Why sanction such usage?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main