|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 25, 2013 12:36:52 GMT -5
The MLB Network has revealed players 41-100 of its top 100 players. These rating are done differently than the ratings for the top 10 players at each position were performed.
We now have a pretty good idea where the Giants' players are rated.
First came Sergio Romo at #99. Just as I was surprised that he was ranked #2 among the top 10 relievers, I felt #99 was too low among all players.
I think the difference is that when he was ranked #2, it was based on performance, with little or no closer bias. Being ranked #99 -- and behind some good but not great closer -- probably shows the closer bias.
Madison Bumgarner was ranked #71. Sounds about right for the pitcher who has consistently been very good and may break out soon to become even better.
Matt Cain was ranked #45, telling me he may still be a tiny bit underrated. Which brings up an intriguing point. On the show, both Harold Reynolds and Al Leiter keep saying about many of the players that they should be rated higher.
And as is the case with Matt, one could certainly make an argument that way. But what is surprising is that they rarely say a player is OVERrated. If some players move up, others must move down. The players can't ALL be underated.
#44 was Pablo Sandoval. I had a hard time ranking Pablo higher than Matt, but the ratings included the postseason, and Pablo was a postseason hero. In addition, while injuries have limited Pablo's effectiveness in recent years, his career offensive stats are proceeding at a Hall of Fame rate. (Whether they will continue to do so for a long enough time is, of course, highly debatable.)
The only other Giants who will make this list is clearly Buster Posey. I don't know where he will rank, but I will be surprised if it isn't in the top 5.]
I suspect Miguel Cabrera will be ranked #1, and if pressed, I would guess Justin Verlander will be #2, with Buster #3.
Not that I would rank him at #1 yet, but I think the guy playing today who when all is said and done will rank highest is Mike Trout. One day he might rank among the very best to have played the game.
When we discussed in recent years that there weren't the great stars that we saw in our youths, I mentioned that some of the great stars were so early in their careers that we might not yet recognize them for the stars they will become.
Examples might be Trout, Clayton Kershaw, Bryce Harper, Justin Verlander, Miguel Cabrera, Albert Pujols, Buster Posey, Stephen Strasburg and Joe Mauer.
As they say, time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 25, 2013 14:30:07 GMT -5
Rog- First came Sergio Romo at #99. Just as I was surprised that he was ranked #2 among the top 10 relievers, I felt #99 was too low among all players.
I think the difference is that when he was ranked #2, it was based on performance, with little or no closer bias. Being ranked #99 -- and behind some good but not great closer -- probably shows the closer bias.
Boagie- It was hard to tell if #99 was too low for Romo, until I saw Aroldis Chapman ahead of him. Romo has arguably been the best reliever over the last 3 years, Chapman has had one very good season, opposed to Romo's 3 very good seasons and post season success. Advantage, Romo.
Rog- I suspect Miguel Cabrera will be ranked #1, and if pressed, I would guess Justin Verlander will be #2, with Buster #3.
Boagie- I would be surprised to not see Ryan Braun in the top 5. Perhaps ahead of Posey and Verlander, MAYBE even #1 overall. Braun is a hard one to predict on some of these lists because of the recent steriod allegations.
Rog- Not that I would rank him at #1 yet, but I think the guy playing today who when all is said and done will rank highest is Mike Trout. One day he might rank among the very best to have played the game.
Boagie- I'm surprised you don't mention his BB/K ratio, that's usually one of your biggest tools in rating hitters. I know Brian Kenny loves him, so it doesn't shock me that you do too. But it seems like you two are leaving out the negatives when it's convenient to do so, as often stat geeks do.
I'm sure Trout will go on to have a nice career, but things I notice about him is his swing isn't that pretty, it's based all on his strength. I think over the years that will break down his swing. Also the pitchers havent had a chance to adjust to him yet, I think after this season we'll get a much better idea of where Mike Trout's career will go. Off the top of my head, i'd say Bryce Harper will likely become the better hitter of the two. Trout the better all around player.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 26, 2013 1:35:37 GMT -5
Boagie- I would be surprised to not see Ryan Braun in the top 5. Perhaps ahead of Posey and Verlander, MAYBE even #1 overall. Rog -- I do expect Braun to be in the top 5. But I doubt he will finish ahead of either Cabrera or Verlander. It will be intriguing to see how much Albert Pujols drops. It shouldn't be precipitous, but it should be clearly visible. Look for a strong showing by Joey Votto. Clayton Kershaw will likely be top 5. Felix Hernandez will be right up there. Robinson Cano. I'm DVR-ing the show when it comes out, which could be as soon as today (which would probably mean it is already over). I'm going to guess the top 8 as Cabrera, Verlander, Cano, Braun, Posey, Kershaw, Hernandez and Votto. Just guesses, but I'll go with Pujols and Trout at #9 and #10. To me, those guys are wild cards. Quite possibly when all is said and done, the top two players playing today. One is proven and apparently past his prime, while the other is a flash that could be pure lightning -- or simply in the pan. I strongly favor the latter prediction. Strongly. I also predict that a year from now, both Stephen Strasburg and Bryce Harper will be in the top 10 or 12. Among the Giants, I expect Madison Bumgarner and Pablo Sandoval to move up. Tim Lincecum could well regain a spot in the top 100, and Brandon Belt could join the list for the first time. Sergio Romo both improves his change up and stays healthy, or he drops off the list. Matt Cain falls back 10 spots. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1575&page=1#9164#ixzz2Lz2cVuli
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 26, 2013 2:07:20 GMT -5
Rog- Not that I would rank him at #1 yet, but I think the guy playing today who when all is said and done will rank highest is Mike Trout. One day he might rank among the very best to have played the game. Boagie- I'm surprised you don't mention his BB/K ratio, that's usually one of your biggest tools in rating hitters. I know Brian Kenny loves him, so it doesn't shock me that you do too. But it seems like you two are leaving out the negatives when it's convenient to do so, as often stat geeks do. Rog -- Come on, Boagie. That's a really unfair shot (as those who don't understand "stats geeks" often do. Mike Trout's K/BB ratio in the minors was good. Like Buster Posey, it has fallen off a bit in the majors. Trout's minor league numbers were put up at a very low age. Small sample, but he was batting .403 in AAA when he was called up by the Angels. I expect Trout's K/BB ration in the major leagues to improve. I think both the K's and the BB's will improve. Trout might well fall back a bit this season. He fell off some at the end of 2012, perhaps in part because he played a lot more games than in previous seasons. But he was right up there with Mickey Mantle as a 20-year-old, and well ahead of Willie Mays. Trout appears to be in those guy's class as a five-tool player. The LA Times reported last week that he stands 6-foot-1, 240 despite having only 9% body fat. Despite not playing a full season, Trout became a 30/30 guy. He came within one steal of a being a 30/50 guy, which might even have been the first time anyone accomplished that. He not only stole 49 bases -- he did so at better than a 90% success rate. Mike thus far has been among the most powerful of hitters. He has been one of the best hitters. He is one of the best base runners. He was considered one of the top outfielders in the game. It doesn't appear his arm is particularly good, but it is far from horrible. If you want to see how good Mike may be, look at how few pitches outside the strike zone he swung at. Both he and Marco Scutaro swung at just under one out of four pitches outside the zone. Mike's contact rate wasn't nearly as high as Marco's -- but then he had a LOT more power. I do think Trout's power will fall off, at least for a while. His home runs per fly ball were at 21.6%, which is more than twice the major league average. I doubt that will continue. He can't continue to succeed 90% of the time with his steals (although Carlos Beltran did so for a LONG time). His average will fall off. He can't keep up his .383 Batting Average on Balls In Play. But as his strikeouts decline, he won't have to keep the BABIP up quite as high. And, hey, his minor league BABIP was in the same area as it was in the majors last season. I think he will remain a .300 hitter. Since Mantle, has there been a player as good as Trout at age 20? Alex Rodriguez is the only guy I can think of. It will be intriguing to see how Trout develops. If he keeps up last year's level for 15 to 20 years, he could become one of the all-time greats. There aren't many players I would take over Buster Posey. But Trout might well be among them. Both Baseball-Reference and Fan Graphs have Trout in double digits in Wins Above Replacement in 2013 -- even though he played only 139 games. Even Rodriguez's WAR has reached double digits only one season. As great as Ryan Braun is, Ryan has never come close to double digits. Buster Posey wasn't close to double digits last season. Miguel Cabrera has never come close. Trout just has a lot of REALLY good tools. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1575&page=1#ixzz2Lz6W4G8x
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 26, 2013 10:45:36 GMT -5
I'm just not really seeing it, Rog. Trout put up good numbers, but he was also playing in a bandbox. Posey's K/BB never eclipsed a 2/1 ratio, Trout already has. And like I said before, the pitchers haven't made the adjustment yet. I think Mike Trout's talent is getting a boost from the SABR analytics which are miscalculated IMO. His stats are very good, but His OPS + and WAR are the two stats that seem to point to him being better than the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 27, 2013 10:03:22 GMT -5
Mike Trout winds up #1, and Posey #21. Figures. I was thinking that not playing in 2011 might have hurt Posey's ranking, but then Trout with 1 year of experience gets ranked as #1, doesn't make much sense, but I can't say im surprised.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 27, 2013 11:33:03 GMT -5
Hard to believe a seasoned fan would take this stuff seriously. Mike Trout?! If their saying "best player five years from now", then maybe. But best player right now? He doesn't crack the top 25. I like Trout, don't get me wrong. But best in the game? Not yet. Alot of problems with this list. Cliff Lee at 19? Way too high. Posey at 21, way too low. CC at 18 is too high. I think with alot of these guys, they forgot the "right now" part of it.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 27, 2013 12:46:29 GMT -5
too bad you evidently didn't see Trout play last year.....he was by far the best position player in all aspects of the game of baseball.....5 tools plus attitude and work ethics...what more would you want of a player....Cabrera was the best hitter ...Trout the best player....
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 27, 2013 13:37:44 GMT -5
Don- too bad you evidently didn't see Trout play last year.....he was by far the best position player in all aspects of the game of baseball.....
Boagie- I did see some of Mike Trout last year. As far as being the best position player in all aspects of the game...I might be biased here, but Buster Posey played a much more involved position on the field. He caught the pitching staff and had to stop opposing teams running game. He doesn't have the speed Trout possesses, but he has the quiet leadership that Trout hasn't established. Add that he led baseball in hitting while catching and leading his team offensively to the post season, I think the best player last season is quite clear.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 27, 2013 14:50:00 GMT -5
I saw Trout alot last year. If nothing goes wrong, he will indeed be a superstar. Not yet though. Right now he's a very good player.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 27, 2013 20:49:52 GMT -5
SF bias!!
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 28, 2013 15:24:17 GMT -5
Boagie -- Mike Trout winds up #1, and Posey #21. Figures. I was thinking that not playing in 2011 might have hurt Posey's ranking, but then Trout with 1 year of experience gets ranked as #1, doesn't make much sense, but I can't say im surprised. Rog -- I'm less surprised that Trout wound up at #l than that Buster was only #2l. Auguring against Buster were, as you point out, 20ll. Also, his 20l2 postseason, which was subpar. Remember, Pablo seemed to get a huge BOOST from the postseason in the rankings. Your comment about Trout's fairly high K/BB ratio is a good one. But it isn't high for a POWER HITTER, which he may turn out to be (and was last season). If you want to console yourself about logic that would put Trout 20 spots ahead of Buster, Trout's OPS in his 20-year-old season was .963 in the majors. Buster's OPS in his 20-year-old season was .973 -- at Florida State. Trout had 30 homers last season; at the same age, Buster had 3 -- again, in college. Trout did strike out too much -- as is the case with most players not named Scutaro. But his strikeout ratio wasn't much higher than Ryan Braun's -- and he is 8 years younger. Buster has the advantage among the trio of playing a premium position. Braun is a much more rounded player than Buster -- primarily because of speed. Trout is potentially the greatest -- and this one hurts -- five-tool player ever. Trout killed Willie's 20-year-old season at the plate, even killed it on the bases. Beat Willie on the bases, you say? Well, Trout was thrown out one more time than Willie. But he also stole 49 bases to Willie's 7. Trout was over 90%. Willie was much more selective in taking off (ll attempts to 54), yet he was successful only 64% of the time. But Willie had to be much better in taking the extra base, right? Hard to believe he wasn't -- but then again, Trout may have led the majors in that regard. I do know that early in his career (can't say for sure whether or not it was in his rookie season), Willie stepped off second base so the shortstop could "clean off the bag." You can guess the results. And Willie also cut through the pitcher's mound while attempting to get back to first after rounding second on a long fly that was caught. Hard to believe Willie wasn't better in the field, and I'm going to say he was. Still, Trout was considered as good as anyone in center last season. (He also played some left and a tiny bit of right.) Willie was considered to have a cannon, and he killed Trout with l2 assists to Mike's 2. But Willie also made 9 errors to only 2 by Trout. (Trout also made one error in left and one in right.) In short, Trout's 20-year-old season was FAR better than Willie's. Willie's K/BB ratio was only about half as high as Trout's, but the game was different back then -- a lot fewer strikeouts. In l95l, Gus Zernial led the majors with l0l strikeouts (to Willie's 60). Last season Adam Dunn had 222 strikeouts to Trout's l39. The real comparison though is to Mantle's 20-year-old season, which came in l952. Mantle led the AL in strikeouts with lll, and he walked 75 times. Mickey posted a .924 OPS. Like Trout, Mickey played mostly center field, but some at a corner. Mickey threw out l4 runners in center, but also made l0 errors. In right, he threw out one and made two more errors. So Trout played similarly to Mantle's 20-year-old season. Is it surprising that he might be projected in a similar manner? With the exception of throwing, it appears Trout could be in the Mays/Mantle class. Will he be so? It will be exciting to watch. And don't forget about Bryce Harper. Very few players have done well at age l9, but Harper was pretty good last season. His OPS exceeded .800, and very few l9-year-olds have done that. By the way, at age l9, Buster was still a college shortstop. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1575&page=1#9172#ixzz2MClDLOWh
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 28, 2013 15:27:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 28, 2013 15:30:29 GMT -5
Allen -- Isaw Trout alot last year. If nothing goes wrong, he will indeed be a superstar. Not yet though. Right now he's a very good player. Rog -- Actually at age 20 Trout WAS a superstar. The only question is whether he will remain one for a long time. If Trout plays 20 years at the level he played last season, he will likely go down as one of the l0 best ever. Like a Willie Mays, he was among the very best hitters, the very best fielders and the very best base runners. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1575&page=1#ixzz2MEB5vPNb
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 28, 2013 15:33:32 GMT -5
as I guess, the reason for this rating is strictly what these guys did in 2012 and I would rate Trout's season was best of all when you consider hitting and fielding...Posey's fielding rated him #16 among catchers and cancels some of the pluses his hitting rates...just as Cabrera lost points for his fielding....I don't think anythink Posey did in 2011 had anything to do with this poll....
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 1, 2013 0:59:41 GMT -5
If it's strictly based on 2012, how do you get Cliff Lee at #19?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 1, 2013 9:35:06 GMT -5
Don -- as I guess, the reason for this rating is strictly what these guys did in 2012 and I would rate Trout's season was best of all when you consider hitting and fielding...Posey's fielding rated him #16 among catchers and cancels some of the pluses his hitting rates...just as Cabrera lost points for his fielding....I don't think anythink Posey did in 2011 had anything to do with this poll.... Rog -- There are three problems here: . If you think the ratings were based entirely on 20l2, you are incorrect. They're not. . In Trout's case, he has no major league experience other than a brief stint in 20ll and five months or so of last season. . You continually cite how Posey ranks low in fielding based on one fielding measurement, when those use such things appropriately look at as many measures as they can and try to come up with as meaningful an analysis as they can. The different metrics can give different measures, so no one in the know uses just one, as you have here with Buster. I don't remember all the criteria for ranking the top l00, but they include the last three seasons -- with a heavier weight to 20l2 --, intangibles and postseason. Let's differ in our opinions here, but let's not talk about things we don't know as if we do. Allen got thrown off by the comment that the ratings were based entirely on 20l2. Let's also not forget that the list is based on different criteria than the Top l0 (by position) Right Now. But the Right Now was based on signing a player to a one-year contract. It was essentially based on a prediction for 20l3. The best way to understand the ratings in each case -- Top l00 and Top l0 Right Now -- is to watch the show. If one hasn't seen it and doesn't know the criteria used, it is tough to argue intelligently with the results. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1575&page=1#9206#ixzz2MIXAfCMY
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 1, 2013 9:44:28 GMT -5
Allen -- If it's strictly based on 2012, how do you get Cliff Lee at #19? Rog -- As has been pointed out, it isn't based solely on 20l2. But what Cliff could control in 20l2 was pretty darn good -- 3.l6 ERA, l.ll WHIP, 2ll total innings, over 7 innings per outing. I wouldn't have him at #l9 either, but he's FAR better than his 6-9 won-loss would indicate. Cliff's biggest problem there was that he kept getting no-decisions in really well-pitched games. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1575&page=1#ixzz2MIamx5E5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 1, 2013 12:27:59 GMT -5
If you could suddenly acquire one player without it costing anything in trade, who would it be?
Mike Trout would seemingly have to be either #l or #2. He is under team control for five more seasons, and he isn't arb eligible for two more. The only guy I might take instead is Bryce Harper, who is under team control for six more years.
If healthy, Trout, Harper, Stephen Strasburg, Clayton Kershaw and Buster Posey could go down among the all-time greats.
Posey because he's a catcher who can hit with the best catchers ever and also can field. The rest of them, simply because they have shown the potential to be outstanding.
Kershaw should benefit from pitching in Dodger Stadium, and he's darn good without it. He's 3.30 on the road and 2.36 in Dodger Stadium -- 2.79 overall. And until later this month, he's still just 24.
Of course, health, continuing to perform at similar levels, and in the case of Harper, performing at an even higher level, will be required. And things often get in the way. But these guys could each be particularly special.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 1, 2013 13:16:11 GMT -5
If you could suddenly acquire one player without it costing anything in trade, who would it be?
Allen- That would be hard to say. It would depend on alot of factors. Do I need pitching or hitting? What position do I need to fill? Am I looking at this year, or perhaps down the road? What are my financial parameters? What's the dimensions of my home ballpark? I might take Verlander if I needed pitching. If I were starting with a blank slate, I would take Trout or Harper. A positional need might alter that though.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 1, 2013 13:28:06 GMT -5
If you could suddenly acquire one player without it costing anything in trade, who would it be? Allen- That would be hard to say. It would depend on alot of factors. Do I need pitching or hitting? What position do I need to fill? Rog -- Why do people try to throw a simple question off track. OBVIOUSLY what you say is, well, obvious. But we're talking about ways of looking at who the best player is. And we're talking about the long term -- or at least as much as a possible six years of team control. And we're not talking about which team or what they need. That has little to do with the VALUE of a player. I like your answer as to the blank slate. That is what the question seemingly asks for. And one can make an argument for either of your choices. That, of course, doesn't mean that six years from now we wouldn't look back and wish we would have made a choice that worked out better. But based on the knowledge that most people have at this time, one can make a good argument for either player. Probably a better argument than for any other player. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1575&page=1#9225#ixzz2MJWHHYmb
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Mar 1, 2013 13:33:48 GMT -5
Don -- as I guess, the reason for this rating is strictly what these guys did in 2012 and I would rate Trout's season was best of all when you consider hitting and fielding...Posey's fielding rated him #16 among catchers and cancels some of the pluses his hitting rates...just as Cabrera lost points for his fielding....I don't think anythink Posey did in 2011 had anything to do with this poll.... Rog -- There are three problems here: . If you think the ratings were based entirely on 20l2, you are incorrect. They're not. dk...why would they call the program indicating the greatest players right now if that means 3 years... . In Trout's case, he has no major league experience other than a brief stint in 20ll and five months or so of last season. dk..if the ratings are based on the last 3 years, why is Trout eveb considered??? . You continually cite how Posey ranks low in fielding based on one fielding measurement, when those use such things appropriately look at as many measures as they can and try to come up with as meaningful an analysis as they can. The different metrics can give different measures, so no one in the know uses just one, as you have here with Buster. dk..I rate the fielding of Posey based on the Fielding Bible which you seem to think to be the know it all book on fielding....the 2 things they rate catcher's fielding on...Posey didn't get named in the top 9 of one and he was named 16th in the other...why don't you try telling the truth just once? ? I don't remember all the criteria for ranking the top l00, but they include the last three seasons -- with a heavier weight to 20l2 --, intangibles and postseason. dk...with the heavy weight of 2012, a .300 season in 2010 and an injury shortened season in 2011, why wouldn't you acknowledge that his rating had to be lowered because of his fielding? ?? Let's differ in our opinions here, but let's not talk about things we don't know as if we do. Allen got thrown off by the comment that the ratings were based entirely on 20l2. Let's also not forget that the list is based on different criteria than the Top l0 (by position) Right Now. But the Right Now was based on signing a player to a one-year contract. It was essentially based on a prediction for 20l3. The best way to understand the ratings in each case -- Top l00 and Top l0 Right Now -- is to watch the show. If one hasn't seen it and doesn't know the criteria used, it is tough to argue intelligently with the results. dk..must be tough, but you sure as crap can't argue the results even after seeing the show...besides, I think I am as qualified as you are to rate players...and I don't have to see some show to shape my opinion.... Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1575&page=1#9206#ixzz2MIXAfCMY
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 1, 2013 15:54:32 GMT -5
If you could suddenly acquire one player without it costing anything in trade, who would it be? Allen- That would be hard to say. It would depend on alot of factors. Do I need pitching or hitting? What position do I need to fill? Rog -- Why do people try to throw a simple question off track. OBVIOUSLY what you say is, well, obvious. But we're talking about ways of looking at who the best player is. And we're talking about the long term -- or at least as much as a possible six years of team control. Allen- Then you're question should have been: "Who is the best player?". You might think of the question you asked as simple, but it really isn't. And we're not talking about which team or what they need. That has little to do with the VALUE of a player. Allen- Again, you didn't ask about the value of a player. You asked about acquiring a player without cost, and that would depend on the factors I named. The value of a player would depend on those other factors. If I were the Giants, would Yadier Molina be more valuable to me than he is to the Cards? Probably not, because I already have Posey. Would Prince Fielder be more valuable to me or the Yankees? With our respective ballparks, probably the Yankees. I like your answer as to the blank slate. That is what the question seemingly asks for. And one can make an argument for either of your choices. Allen- You like that answer, because that's the answer you wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 2, 2013 2:53:07 GMT -5
Rog- If you could suddenly acquire one player without it costing anything in trade, who would it be?
Mike Trout would seemingly have to be either #l or #2. He is under team control for five more seasons, and he isn't arb eligible for two more. The only guy I might take instead is Bryce Harper, who is under team control for six more years.
If healthy, Trout, Harper, Stephen Strasburg, Clayton Kershaw and Buster Posey could go down among the all-time greats.
Posey because he's a catcher who can hit with the best catchers ever and also can field. The rest of them, simply because they have shown the potential to be outstanding.
Kershaw should benefit from pitching in Dodger Stadium, and he's darn good without it. He's 3.30 on the road and 2.36 in Dodger Stadium -- 2.79 overall. And until later this month, he's still just 24.
Boagie- If I had to go all in on potential, I'd probably take Harper over Trout. But, right now if I were the GM of an expansion team and I had my pick, Posey would be my first choice.
If I wanted to go with a pitcher, Kershaw. I wouldn't roll the dice on Strasburg long term, I think he'll be ok, but he's already had arm troubles. I might be biased again, but I think I might put Bumgarner higher on the list than Strasburg.
All the talk last year was how great Strasburg was, and he was very good. But his ERA was about the same as Bumgarner's career ERA. Bumgarner has championships under his belt and has pitched two gems in the World Series. Why do you think Strasburg gets more exposure than Madison?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 2, 2013 10:42:18 GMT -5
Boagie- If I had to go all in on potential, I'd probably take Harper over Trout. But, right now if I were the GM of an expansion team and I had my pick, Posey would be my first choice. If I wanted to go with a pitcher, Kershaw. I wouldn't roll the dice on Strasburg long term, I think he'll be ok, but he's already had arm troubles. I might be biased again, but I think I might put Bumgarner higher on the list than Strasburg. All the talk last year was how great Strasburg was, and he was very good. But his ERA was about the same as Bumgarner's career ERA. Bumgarner has championships under his belt and has pitched two gems in the World Series. Why do you think Strasburg gets more exposure than Madison? Rog -- You know I love Mad Bum -- enough that I watched his first start at San Jose. So let me explain why I think Strasburg gets more exposure than Mad Bum: . Strasburg's ll.2 K rate is higher than Tim Lincecum has put up in a single season. . His l.09 career WHIP is exceptional for any pitcher -- let alone one who has suffered significant arm trouble. . He's a power pitcher who walks just 2.4 batters per nine. . He came to the majors as arguably the most heralded pitcher ever, after averaging 5.4 hits per nine even after jumping immediately into AA and quickly into AAA right out of college. Even Tim Lincecum didn't touch AA in his first season out of college. . The MLB Network was impressed enough with Strasburg that it televised some of his MINOR league starts. . For icing on the cake, he was awarded the silver slugger for pitchers this past season, hitting .277 with a .759 OPS. Because of his arm injury, there is a lot of risk with Strasburg, but he has the potential to become the best pitcher in the game today and one of the best of all time. Anything else I could add? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1575&page=1#9229#ixzz2MOfpHiwY
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 2, 2013 13:32:11 GMT -5
Rog -- You know I love Mad Bum -- enough that I watched his first start at San Jose. So let me explain why I think Strasburg gets more exposure than Mad Bum:
. Strasburg's ll.2 K rate is higher than Tim Lincecum has put up in a single season.
. His l.09 career WHIP is exceptional for any pitcher -- let alone one who has suffered significant arm trouble.
. He's a power pitcher who walks just 2.4 batters per nine.
. He came to the majors as arguably the most heralded pitcher ever, after averaging 5.4 hits per nine even after jumping immediately into AA and quickly into AAA right out of college. Even Tim Lincecum didn't touch AA in his first season out of college.
. The MLB Network was impressed enough with Strasburg that it televised some of his MINOR league starts.
. For icing on the cake, he was awarded the silver slugger for pitchers this past season, hitting .277 with a .759 OPS.
Because of his arm injury, there is a lot of risk with Strasburg, but he has the potential to become the best pitcher in the game today and one of the best of all time.
Anything else I could add?
Boagie- I think you covered it fairly well here.
But I still wouldn't pick him long term if I was building a team. I think in that situation the young players who have proven themselves in multiple seasons would be my first pick.
Like I said I would pick Posey over Trout or Harper..I would likely pick Mike Stanton over them too. If it wasn't for injury issues I'd definitely pick Tulowitzki over them.
On the pitching side, after Kershaw I think I'd likely pick a handful of guys before Strasburg. A year from now Zach Wheeler might look better than Strasburg, long term. That one's going to really hurt.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 2, 2013 13:48:00 GMT -5
. Strasburg's ll.2 K rate is higher than Tim Lincecum has put up in a single season.
. His l.09 career WHIP is exceptional for any pitcher -- let alone one who has suffered significant arm trouble.
. He's a power pitcher who walks just 2.4 batters per nine.
. He came to the majors as arguably the most heralded pitcher ever, after averaging 5.4 hits per nine even after jumping immediately into AA and quickly into AAA right out of college. Even Tim Lincecum didn't touch AA in his first season out of college.
. The MLB Network was impressed enough with Strasburg that it televised some of his MINOR league starts.
. For icing on the cake, he was awarded the silver slugger for pitchers this past season, hitting .277 with a .759 OPS.
Because of his arm injury, there is a lot of risk with Strasburg, but he has the potential to become the best pitcher in the game today and one of the best of all time.
Anything else I could add?
Allen- I would agree. Strasburg is more spectacular, even if he's not appreciably better.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 3, 2013 13:28:27 GMT -5
Boagie -- I still wouldn't pick him long term if I was building a team. I think in that situation the young players who have proven themselves in multiple seasons would be my first pick. Like I said I would pick Posey over Trout or Harper..I would likely pick Mike Stanton over them too. If it wasn't for injury issues I'd definitely pick Tulowitzki over them. On the pitching side, after Kershaw I think I'd likely pick a handful of guys before Strasburg. A year from now Zach Wheeler might look better than Strasburg, long term. That one's going to really hurt. Rog -- I'm glad you and I disagreed with the Beltran trade, not that they Giants asked our opinions. As for which player to build a franchise around, the rules have changed a bit. Generally speaking, I agree with your idea of building around proven players who are still young. The rub comes in that players who are proven have already used up some of their inexpensive time. Players qualify for arbitration after three full seasons and in the case of top players, often after two-plus years. Players qualify for free agency after six full seasons. If one builds around Buster Posey, he immediately pays Buster $8 million as a first-year arbitration eligible. After the 2016 season he risks losing him to free agency. In other words, it is possible that the franchise would pay Buster something like $60 million over the next four seasons and then lose him to free agency. Harper is the one in the best situation here, not being eligible for arbitration until after the 2014 season and not being eligible for free agency until after 2018. If we start our franchise with Harper, we would need to pay him $2 million or so for the next two seasons combined and then pay him from 2015-2018 something like the $60 million the Giants are likely to pay Buster the next four seasons. Would you rather have four seasons of Buster for $60 million or six seasons of Harper for $62 million? Another consideration is that Harper and Trout are now going to be corner outfielders, which are a lot easier to find than catchers. Both players were center fielders last season, and Trout could likely play very well there for many seasons to come. That would increase Trout's value. Stanton is intriguing because he could just become a monster. On the other hand, he strikes out a TON, so his batting average could become highly dependent on balls falling in -- especially if he doesn't hit as many homers. Tulowitzky could be the most valuable player in the game if he is able to remain healthy (which thus far hasn't been the case). And he's already well into arbitration and nearing free agency. If we ignore financial considerations, our result may be different if we consider them. As Allen pointed out, in the case of specific teams, positional need may play a part. So would the cost of acquiring the player in terms of players and prospects. I think it was Allen who said he might lean toward Bryce Harper over Mike Trout. Given the expectations for Harper, the fact that he played so well at age 19, and that he would be under team control for six more seasons (to Trout's five and Posey's four) had me thinking more in Harper's direction last night. The bottom line, of course, is that teams would give a LOT for any of these players. It is much to the Giants' advantage that they already have one of them. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1575&page=1#9275#ixzz2MUtFDOVJ
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 3, 2013 14:05:46 GMT -5
Two other things about Trout. He came to camp a bit overweight this year, and now his agent (Craig Landis, who I believe was a minor leaguer with the Giants years ago) is making a stink about his contract. Both are probably minor items, but they don't bode well.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 3, 2013 20:09:12 GMT -5
dk...why would they call the program indicating the greatest players right now if that means 3 years... Rog -- They don't. I believe you're confusing the Top 10 Players (by position) Right Now with the Top 100. Here are the criteria used for the top 100 IIRC. . The past three seasons. . Projection for 2013. . Honors. . Positional value. . Intangibles (including injuries) Where Buster would struggle most would be in the 2010 through 2012 ratings, since he essentially played the equivalent of two major league seasons over three years. And of course the injury intangible would hurt him a lot. It is possible the defensive metric that placed Buster #16 among catcher was used, although I would certainly think a more balanced approach was taken. IIRC Troy Tulowitzky dropped many, many spots after his injury-plagued 2012 season. A couple of comments we like, made by Harold Reynolds and Al Leiter. Reynolds -- If Posey puts up another season like this one, he'll be rated in the top 5. Leiter -- If Posey has another season like 2012, the Giants will win it. If you want to comment on these shows, watch them. If you want to express your own opinion, got right ahead. But why comment on their choices when you don't know the methodology. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1575&page=1#ixzz2MWpMPdKV
|
|