User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
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. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5438 seconds
64 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.
You know, "Brian Jordan, Odalis Perez and That Other Guy." Adam Baker is "that other guy" in relation to Tim Spooneybarger, of all people. I'd be shocked if he ever suited up in an MLB game.
Wait, no, this is a team being Loria-ed. Ryan Baker may very well start for them at some point.
s/
Lazy European slackasses.
s/
I do not know if Hampton will adjust well to Mazzone theory. Hampton simply has not thrown strikes and does not work quickly. If he does start throwing the ball in the strike zone more often, he should be good for at least 13 wins and 200 innings per season. Even at his reduced price, I do not think that is a good buy.
Jim, I read that they saved about $15 mil. That's pretty good and they get a nice reliever and an decent CF (I still think Pierre can have some value). I think they did the right thing.
I am not a major league pitcher, so I guess I can't walk in these guys' shoes. However, if I were a pitcher of any stature, there is no way I would take the money and go to Coors Field. I can't think of a pitcher who has prospered there for more than a year or two.
Well, as driven as these guys are, it's not surprising that they want to take on the biggest challenge. Imagine if you were THE guy who could tame Coors? You'd have to go down as one of the all-time greats.
First Darryl Kile and now Mike Hampton have crashed and burned in Denver. Kile was able to make a pertial comeback in St. Louis. It will be interesting to see how well Hampton pitches away from the thin air.
Kile did more than make a partial comeback. He was as good or better after Coors than he was before it. I'd expect Hampton to get back near where he was, at least.
I think in those respects he is in fact Mazzone-compatible. That is, check out some of Tom Glavine's seasonal walk numbers. He's hit as high as 97 walks allowed in a season, and is consistently in that 70+ range. Not quite as up there as Hampton, but not far below.
In Atlanta it's called "not giving in to the hitter", and is seen as a Good Thing. As a fan, it's one of the things that drives me nuts about Glavine. Sometimes I just yell at the TV, "Throw a strike, dammit!"
and expecting it to reappear might be like Waiting for Godot. And by that I mean a bit confusing and not terribly fun to watch. ;)
Damned snooty academics!
The first set of $ numbers, when Atlanta was paying everything up front but nothing on the back end, did insinuate that. But the revised numbers, where Atlanta pays $2 mil in 2003, $2 mil in 2004 and $1.5 mil in 2005 but everything in the final three years suggests the exact opposite.
$2 mil is *half* of what they paid for Albie Lopez last year. It's only a half mil more than they (or their insurance) paid Dave Martinez last year. It's only a mil more than they paid Keith Lockhart.
The new numbers suggest, rather strongly I think, that the Braves plan on going out and getting at least one of the big FA pitchers, be it Glavine or Maddux. Regardless, the money they're paying Hampton over the next three years is already recouped by not paying Albie Lopez and Dave Martinez. They have every dollar they had last week to persue Glavine and Maddux.
That's because he isn't one. He spent most of this season in high-A ball at Myrtle Beach as a setup reliever (he did get a few innings at AA Greenville). He was old for the level, and posted a 3.72 ERA in one of the most pitcher-friendly environments in the minor leagues.
-- MWE
Relievers are far less valuable than starters and all but couldn't the Braves have given up someone in AA or AAA. I mean, why would Loria give a damn? Spoonybarger showed some nasty, NASTY stuff at times.
What was the point of this for the Brewers? And for that matter, what is the point of the Brewers themselves?
"Larry Doby is black?"
Isn't King's rep (besides his pitching) that of being a fat guy?
1) Over the last 3 years, McGriff has hit 4 HRs in 37 ABs at Turner Field, with a .622 SLG and a .979 OPS. There are obviously sample size issues, but overall I'd have to disagree with your observations about his power.
2) PLEASE don't call Turner Field "the TED". It's a pathetic and embarrasing ripoff of the nickname of Bank One Ballpark coined by some of the less bright members of the media in Atlanta. Please don't humor them.
One, what good does moving Castilla to first do them, he was fine defensively. It's his bat that was the problem
Two, sad to see Helms go. It looks to be a good trade, and Helms needs some regular at bats to develop...But i've always liked for some reason. He's from my home state, always appeared to be a good kid and all.
It's all up to Maddux and Boras now as to whether Maddux accepts arbitration. Boras may well look at the rest of the rotation and presume that he won't be able to leverage arbitration into a longer term deal, though.
I think the upshot to this signing is that Kevin Millwood will find a new home in the next week. Maddux could come in at 20 million, and they'd be way over budget - they'll need cheap alternatives like Marquis.
I'd say it's more than a possibility that Glavine won't return to the Braves. At least, I bet the Mets think so.
But he could play second or third is Giles is traded, he seems quick enough.
His hitting #s last year: .344/.354/.516
Blah, that should say IF
...IF Giles is traded....
I wouldn't mind Ortiz or Marquis going if they get good under-30ish value in return though...
As a side note, is there any chance Castilla can be dumped?
Aside from the rules against trading Byrd, I don't really see the logic in moving Giles/Pitcher for Hill/Karros if the money's a wash. If you're not dumping salary (i.e. Millwood for Nick Johnson, which I would do in a heartbeat) then just stick with the rotation as is, stick Marquis in long relief/RH setup and find Matt Franco's number again.
Or just sign Fred McGriff to something not-too-stupid and be done with it.
ESPN link
JOHNNY F-ing ESTRADA!?!???
From espn.com---
JOHNNY F-ing ESTRADA!?!???
From espn.com---
JOHNNY F-ing ESTRADA!?!???
From espn.com---
oh well...
oh well...
As for the all-star musing, just remember it wasn't that long ago when Ron Coomer was the Twins representative.
My thoughts, exactly (not to mention taking on Byrd and a part of Hampton).
These next two things are off topic but since this is the most recent post, I figured I could get an answer
One, any word on how bad the injury the Mets' Reyes suffered?
Also from ESPN.com
These next two things are off topic but since this is the most recent post, I figured I could get an answer
One, any word on how bad the injury the Mets' Reyes suffered?
Also from ESPN.com
The report I saw said Reyes was day-to-day.
Is this confirmation of what has rumored for many years? :)
Why is that? If Smoltz can handle starting, I'd take 200 innings from Smoltz over 80 in nominally high-leverage situations. The Braves bullpen is made up of a few situational lefties and a bunch of 'them guys', and I see no reason why Hernandez would be a better or worse choice for closer than anybody else, except maybe Darren Holmes.
Don't forget that Cabrera posted a 153 ERA+ in 2001 with Atlanta. He's worth a shot for the Twins.
I agree wholeheartedly on #1. I promised myself, after the Holmes/Hammond miracle, that I would never question the acquisition of reasonably priced bullpen arms, no matter who they were. Question the offensive moves? Yes, certainly. All the time. But when it comes to the pen, In Leo We Trust.
As for #2, I see the logic quite clearly, and I understand the "if Smoltz has to start then that's a problem" argument. But isn't it just as likely that Smoltz is Jason Marquis insurance? Fifth starter workload for Smoltz' arm? Marquis to the bullpen where (if he falters again in 2003) his two pitch repitiore and "fastball fastball fastball" mentality might be more successful?
And doesn't the fact that we can all easily put together these contingency plans suggest that the Braves' staff, top to bottom, is once again strong via replaceability? Smoltz goes down? Hernandez and Holmes are there. Problems with the rotation? Give the ball to the former CYA winner every fifth day. Ray King getting crap for being a former Brewer? "Hey, the 40 year old was a Royal!"
For $600,000 and with the St. Leo Experience behind him, this is not a bad signing.
And here is another question: Many of you are speculating about Smoltz returning to the rotation - is there any other case, in MLB history, of a successful starter moving to the bullpen, being extremely successful there, and then being moved back to the rotation (and succeeding?)?
Lots of pitchers have moved from rotation to bullpen (Eck, for one) and been very successful in both places, and I imagine a few have moved from bullpen to rotation (Lowe) and been successful in both places, but has anyone ever made two moves and been successful in all three places?
I would be mostly interested in pitchers who, when they were in the bullpen, were the closer (had majority of team's saves).
Cool question.
Hoyt Wilhelm, aged 35, only managed an ERA+ of 173 in a season of (mostly) full-time SP duties. No wonder they sent him back to the 'pen.
Rick Aguilera moved from decent starter, to good closer, back to one season as a league-average starter, and then back to being a pretty good closer.
Jeff Russell, though not a closer, was an effective long reliever for the Rangers in 86-87, an All-Star SP for them in 88, and Rolaids Fireman of the Year (tm) in 89.
Dave Righetti, a starter at the beginning of his career, returned to the rotation his final season and was OK. That's pushing the bounds of the question.
Al McBean made two switches (starter-closer-starter) but wasn't especially successful on his second go-round as a starter. In 1962 he won 15 games for the Pirates, in 1964 and 1965 he saved 40 games (combined), and in 1968 he returned to the rotation, winning 9 games in 28 starts. Those two starting years (1962 & 1968) were the only two years, in his career, in which he got more than 8 starts.
Bobby Shantz also made two switches (starter-closer-starter). Between 1952 and 1953 he went 42-17 as a starter; in 1956 he was the "closer" for the Kansas City As (he saved 9 games; the team had 18). In 1957 he went 11-5 in 21 starts, with a 147 ERA+. Thereafter he mostly relieved, though never as the closer.
Bob Shaw made two switches as well (starter-closer-starter). Between 1959 and 1962 he went 58-42 as a starter (with his ERA+ ranging from 93 to 139); in 1963 he saved 13 games (out of 25 team saves); in 1965 he went 16-9 with an ERA+ of 137 as a starter.
Hoyt Wilhelm makes the list as well (closer-starter-closer). In 1953 he saved 15 games for the Giants; in 1959 he won 16 games for the Orioles as a starter; this was his only year with 20 or more starts; in 1961, 1963-1965, and 1970 (at age 46!) he was his team's closer, being credited with at least 50% of his team's saves in each year.
Here are the list of (post 1949) players who were closers (had >= 50% of team saves) at least once in their careers and were also "successful" starters (>= 20 starts and >= 15 wins) at least once in their careers:
Year(s) as a closer and year(s) as a "successful" starter are given.
Dennis Eckersely (closer: 1988-1997, successful starter: 1978-1979)
If you are using a DIPS-type system, shouldn't that *improve* Hernandez's ratings? The Royals allowed a BA on BIP of .296, the Braves .270. Similarly, Hernandez' own $H of .323 was significantly worse than his own team's figure. So Hernandez benefits twice: (1) better defenders AND (2) likelihood of reverting back towards team norm.
Hernandez' DIPS ERA for 2002 is significantly lower than his real ERA. It was higher in 2001, however and almost a full run higher than his real numbers in 2000.
There's also the real issue of aging. While I've gone through enough data to know that there's really very little decline in pitching performance through the 30s, that changes when you look at 37-40 year olds. Hernandez losing some of his fastball is pretty dangerous for him; without the plus fastball, batters are going to be able to watch the splitter miss the strike zone.
Lastly, there's the problem that I did a ton of work on the spreadsheet yesterday in the middle of the night (just to make projections, there are some 50 columns) and I dropped a very important digit off of dSO which boosted Hernandez' ERA by about 3-tenths of a run.
So...the ERA you listed should be 4.35, not 4.65?
5-4, 4.13 ERA, 61 innings, 63 hits, 28 earned runs, 8 homers, 18 walks, 44 strikeouts.
One screwy number in any DIPS formula *really* throws a monkeywrench into the works.
If you're Peter Gammons. And Dan Szymborski.
As a side note, why is it "tendinitis" and not "tendonitis", since "tendon" doesn't have any I's in it?
Maybe it's just a side effect of doctors having sloppy penmanship?
"Does this" should read "Is this"
<ul> Year/ERA+
1998 102
Every time I see his line in the box score it goes something like this, 1-IP 0-H 0-BB 1-K.
Plus, I hate slashcode.
Not everyone can be as funny as me.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main