|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 2, 2015 11:03:31 GMT -5
First of all, I want to make it clear that I'm not recommending Mike Leake as the Giants' top rotation signing this off season. My personal choice is David Price -- in part because he shares one trait with Leake.
So what are some of the considerations regarding Leake, as brought up by MLB Trade Rumors' Steve Adams and perhaps one or two from me?
. Adams predicts a 5/$80 contract for Leake, which would be quite affordable, although not cheap in terms of years or dollars for a pitcher of his caliber. By my calculation, that would allow the Giants to sign both him and Price or Greinke, as long as they are penurious with regard to any other positions.
. Leake is attractive because of his age (27) and his having the least mileage on his arm (1100 innings).
. Leake is also attractive because he has thrown three straight seasons of sub-3.75 ERA and 190 or more innings.
. Leake may be the best starter available without his acquiring team's having to give up a draft choice. Because Leake was traded during the season, he isn't eligible for a qualifying offer.
. Hard to imagine what Leake shares with Price, but both pitchers saw their fastball speed increase last season. The difference was that Prices' increased to 95, mph while Leake's improved to 91. Leake has one feature even Price doesn't enjoy. Mike's fastball has gradually increased in speed over each of his major league seasons, moving up from 89.
. Leake throws five pitches, but his change up is considered to be below-average. His fastball, cutter, slider and curve ball were each rated as plus pitches in 2015.
. Leake provides the added value of being one of the best fielding and best hitting pitchers in the game. He sports a .212 career average, which compares favorably with Madison Bumgarner's .183. Bumgarner has batted .258 and .247 the past two seasons, and is considered to be baseball's most power hitter on the mound. Leake himself has homered in each of the past four seasons and has bopped 6 in his career.
. Leake has been dynamite against right-handed hitters the past two seasons, but has been touched by lefties for a disappointing .274/.324/.444/.778 line that Adams says compares with Evan Longoria's 2015 line.
. Leake has been nearly injury-free over his major league career. He was placed on the DL in 2010 with shoulder fatigue, but avoided the DL until his hamstring injury with the Giants. His forearm tightness at the end of the season isn't considered to amount to much.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 2, 2015 12:05:04 GMT -5
I agree with your interest in resigning Mike Leake. However, only if he comes at a middle of the rotation price. If the Giants get Price or Greinke, Leake would figure to be a #3, maybe even a #4 if Matt Cain can have a bounce back season, which I think is a strong possibility. $12-$14 mil a year seems reasonable. Any more than that and I believe Lincecum, Heston or Blackburn is a more cost effective option.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 2, 2015 16:19:55 GMT -5
I'm with Boagie, here, and I've said so many times.
Leake is not a top of the rotation kind of pitcher.
he's a middle of the rotation guy.
I want him at middle of the rotation dollars.
But if he's foolish enough to ask for 120 million plus, let him walk.
Now Greinke and Price and WOULD pay for, and they are going to be expensive.
But it was NOT fun watching the World Series this year because WE weren't in it.
We darned well better FIND A FRICKIN' way to GET there next year, and that way STARTS with starting pitching.
I'm holding my breath.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 2, 2015 23:57:15 GMT -5
$12-$14 mil a year seems reasonable. Any more than that and I believe Lincecum, Heston or Blackburn is a more cost effective option. Rog -- You're right in that few high-priced free agents are cost-effective. But what they do is allow teams to acquire players without having to trade something for them (with the sometimes exception of a draft pick). If a team trades for one need, it can open up another or hurt its future. Signing a free agent doesn't usually do that. But it is usually quite expensive. The Giants seem unlikely to acquire Mike Leake for $12-$14 million per season unless they offer something like an 8- or 10-year contract. Leake is attractive because he's provided dependable above-average pitching and at just 27 years of age should be able to do so for quite a few seasons to come. I would easily go 7/$200 for Price, probably higher. I'd probably go 6/$175 for Greinke. I actually like those deals better than Leake at 5/$80. But obviously there is far more risk with Price or Greinke. I like signing them though because they could truly improve the team. We're talking about guys who might average four or five extra wins a season over the course of their contracts. That is highly unlikely from a guy like Leake. Leake is an improvement. Price or Greinke could be difference-makers. I believe that the Giants have enough money to sign both say Price and Leake. The competition will be fierce, especially for Price, so prices could get really out of hand. But I would be prepared to pay quite a bit. I think the Giants' window over the next five seasons is a promising one. That would be my focus. If things work out longer than that, so much the better. With regard to starting pitching, I think this is the year. I do like that the Giants have some trading pieces now, more so than a year ago. That is another direction they could go. But almost any significant trade would involve giving up at least one piece of the future. Price and Leake, I'd take a long peak. Leake and Price, now that would be nice. I wouldn't be cranky if they got Greinke. And no question the price would be less steep if they dig down deep. The depth to pick from is there, but I don't care. Regardless of the words they have spun, Price and Leake should be the ones. The last six years the Giants have won thrice. Let's continue the trend with Leake and Price. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3111/considerations-regarding-mike-leake#ixzz3qOmEMLeh |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 3, 2015 0:23:10 GMT -5
It ain't quite rain, Sain and Warren Spahnie,
but what would you think of Bum, Cain and Cueto, Johnny?
I'd be a huge Bobby Evans fan,
if he then added Jordan Zimmermann.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 3, 2015 6:12:12 GMT -5
I agree with your interest in resigning Mike Leake. However, only if he comes at a middle of the rotation price. If the Giants get Price or Greinke, Leake would figure to be a #3, maybe even a #4 if Matt Cain can have a bounce back season, which I think is a strong possibility. $12-$14 mil a year seems reasonable. Any more than that and I believe Lincecum, Heston or Blackburn is a more cost effective option. Rog -- This is an intriguing, counter-trend thought -- and one that in the long run might turn out to be wise. Little question that the return on investment on 1st- and even 2nd-tier free agents usually isn't high. Right now the cost of a win is around $8 million dollars on the free agent market. I believe though that this is the time of opportunity for a team clearly in need of starting pitching. The only top-notch pitcher who could be available in next year's free agent class is Stephen Strasburg, and Stephen has had a heck of a time staying healthy. The next-best starter I see on the list of potential 2017 free agent pitchers is Edinson Volquez, who will be five years older and no better than the level of Mike Leake. (Over his career, Volquez has led the league in four different categories in four different seasons -- earned runs, walks, hit by pitch and wild pitches.) In terms of signing free agent pitchers, it's almost now or never. I wonder if that will be reflected in the price of this year's free agent starters. If it is, salaries might range even higher than I originally thought. Or perhaps they'll simply catch up to the levels I expected. The numbers I'm seeing now are generally a little lower than I expected. There may actually be some relative bargains out there. I have mentioned Johnny Cueto, rumored at just 5/$80. I think that would be a huge steal, and surely he'll go for a lot more. If he is available at that cost though, I'd snap him up unless there are character or health issues. At that price, the Giants could afford both David Price and Cueto. Wouldn't that be mind-boggling? But I can't imagine Cueto's going that low. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3111/considerations-regarding-mike-leake?page=1#ixzz3qQPkG2cg |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 3, 2015 12:50:19 GMT -5
I would love getting Price and Cueto. I don't agree with Boly's take on Cueto. I think Boly dislikes him mainly because Cueto's hair reminds him of Manny Ramirez, whom Boly can't stand.
But in my opinion Cueto is a bonafide front line starter and has been for a number of years.
If the Giants had Bumgarner, Cueto and Price, they would easily have the best top three starters not just in today's game, but arguably the best in history, and I'd be out of my mind to not be all for that.
But, I just don't see that happening. Heston had a good season, and the Giants higher ups have been touting Blackburn too hard to not assume they're already trying to plant the idea in the minds of Giants fans of Blackburn or Heston being the #5 guy. I'm fine with that, as long as they get a top free agent to slap in the #2 slot. And just so I'm clear, Zimmermann and Leake don't fit that mold. It has to be Greinke, Price or Cueto, or perhaps a trade. I would still be interested in the Giants trading for Chapman, signing him to a long term closer contract, then converting him into a starter.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 3, 2015 14:03:28 GMT -5
Interestingly Henry Schulman reported yesterday that the Giants have had no contract talks with Leake, even though they now have their exclusive five day negotiating window. Looks like they want to see what he gets offered so they don't overpay. This is smart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 4, 2015 12:40:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 4, 2015 12:45:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 4, 2015 12:53:34 GMT -5
Interestingly Henry Schulman reported yesterday that the Giants have had no contract talks with Leake, even though they now have their exclusive five day negotiating window. Looks like they want to see what he gets offered so they don't overpay. This is smart. Rog -- Bobby Evans said from the get go that we shouldn't expect to see them sign Leake early. So what can we deduce from that? . Both sides have expressed interest, so it isn't a case of the Giants saying they're not interested. . Last season they told several of their own free agents the same thing, which indicates Leake isn't the Giants' top priority. . That may indicate that if the Giants get their man, then unlike my expectation, they won't sign a 2nd-tier starter to complement him. . The Giants have a plan and contingency plans. This would indicate Leake is in the plan only if the Giants get their man at a price that also allows them to sign Leake (which I think is possible). If most of those things are the case, there is no point in negotiating with Leake at this time. I suspect they have made their position clear. They may lie to us, but they don't seem to lie to their players. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3111/considerations-regarding-mike-leake?page=1#ixzz3qXueOsnZ |
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Nov 4, 2015 13:07:05 GMT -5
I would still be interested in the Giants trading for Chapman, signing him to a long term closer contract, then converting him into a starter. Rog -- That's a fine idea. His value should be higher as a starter. The only issue is that if he's a starter and does well, his value on the free agent market would sky. I know you said to sign him first, but I don't see why he would sign before testing the free agent market, where he would likely command starter money. Unless he bombs this season, Chapman will make a LOT of money next winter. The free agent starter crop is very weak, which should mean he'll have no problem being signed for starters' money. One risk with making Chapman a starter is that he no doubt gets away with location mistakes as a reliever that would be more problematic when his fastball slowed a bit in his new role. But I agree with that I would go that direction. Starting pitchers are just a lot more valuable than even closers. The only way I would keep Chapman in relief would be to make him a Super Reliever. And while I suspect his arm is capable of that, I'm not sure. Being able to use him as a closer or as the Giants used Madison Bumgarner in the final game of the World Series would have significant value. The reason pitchers are so much more valuable if they can start is because value is more or less a product of effectiveness times innings. Because they are used in more high-leverage situations, closers expand that value. But when you pitch only a third or a fourth as many innings, it's tough to be as valuable. That just might be why starters make more than relievers. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3111/considerations-regarding-mike-leake?page=1#ixzz3qXwrpyWg |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 4, 2015 13:18:07 GMT -5
Regarding Mike Leake at 5/$80, at today's cost per win added, he would need to add only about 9 wins to make that a good signing. By both Baseball-Reference's evaluation and Fan Graphs', he's done more than that in his six-year career. Given that he's in the early part of his prime, accomplishing that seems likely.
Leake also has value as a hitter and fielder.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 7, 2015 8:26:26 GMT -5
Considering the amount and Leake's age, that's a deal everyone can live with for sure. As Evans' comments on Thursday indicate, the Giants are nervous about long term deals for older pitchers, and they should be. You can make the case that Johnny Cueto is showing signs of slippage already, and last year's big starter Jon Lester as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 7, 2015 10:45:41 GMT -5
One thing that I have appreciated about Bobby Evans... so far... is that he's 'talking;' He's not keeping fans totally in the dark like Sabean did.
Of course he's not giving anything away, but at least acknowledging what the fans have been saying as correct, is a start.
A start...
A...start...
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 7, 2015 12:49:54 GMT -5
Its never been Sabean's goal to keep the fans in the dark, I think the biggest concern when speaking to the media is tipping your hand to the rest of the teams in baseball.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 7, 2015 13:04:39 GMT -5
One thing that I have appreciated about Bobby Evans... so far... is that he's 'talking;' He's not keeping fans totally in the dark like Sabean did. Of course he's not giving anything away, but at least acknowledging what the fans have been saying as correct, is a start. Rog -- I think that even last winter Bobby has been more communicative than Brian, but wasn't it also Bobby you felt lied to the fans? I personally thought that Bobby's comment that after signing Jake Peavy the Giants could still afford to sign Big Game James Shields was the closest anyone came, and I believe Mark explained that when he posited the theory that the Giants' salary budget last winter was variable, with the ability to expand a little if they landed a top player they were targeting. My first reaction when Bobby mentioned the outfield as a high probability was to cringe at the effect on landing a couple of highly-rated starters. But after I thought about it a bit, I realized that even I had mentioned that after this upcoming season, the Giants didn't have an outfielder under contract beyond Hunter Pence. The Giants are actually being pro-active here, not waiting until the need is critical. Given their outfield health in recent years, being a bit preemptive seems a very good idea. Under the keep-the-line moving theory, I would target a 2nd-tier guy though. That should allow the Giants to still add two pretty good pitchers. Signing Cueto or Zimmermann might then leave enough money for Leake, and that would make for a nice winter for the rotation. Even signing Price along with a 2nd-tier outfielder should leave enough for one of the rotation sleepers I mentioned. Maybe Fister, for instance. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3111/considerations-regarding-mike-leake#ixzz3qpTPyJPI |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 7, 2015 16:33:09 GMT -5
Boagie:
I've softend my stance on Cueto quite a bit, based upon some of his teammates comments on both the Reds and Royals.
I worry, as Mark mentioned, about the age on that arm, and we did see more than a little slippage this past season, and also his history of health problems.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 7, 2015 20:05:57 GMT -5
This starting pitcher business isn't easy. I like David Price a lot, but the last contract estimate I saw for him was 7/$217. Given that the Giants have a window now and that we don't know how long it will last (although Posey, Bumgarner, Panik and the two Brandons certainly give us hope for more than a few years), I would go that high and that long. I would expect good value for the first five years and then see where it went from there.
Greinke is two years older, and his projection was 6/$175, which given his age is just as big a gamble. The Giants may indeed favor Cueto or Zimmermann, who are very good pitchers who won't require as long a commitment.
If we look at the free agent contracts that have hurt the Giants the most, they were pitchers -- Zito, Lincecum and Cain. Zito was seven years, but at least Lincecum was only two. Cain is something like four or five, and he still has time to at least partially redeem the contract.
So it is no wonder the Giants are leery of long contracts, especially to pitchers. But they did offer Lester six years last year at over $150. And the offered 33-year-old James Shields four seasons.
I was thinking the Giants might go long-term with one of the top guys, then stagger their commitments by going shorter-term with a 2nd-tier pitcher. I mentioned Iwakuma, whom I think they might be able to sign to as little as two years. I saw a 1/$10 projection for Doug Fister, and I would be all over that one for a second-tier pitcher, although I would probably prefer the steadiness of Leake. But Fister on a one-year contract would be very low-risk for a guy who had a wonderful ERA just a year ago.
If the Giants can get a top pitcher, I think they will still have enough money to help themselves deepen the rotation and provide an outfielder. Their outfield fallback might be ... Nori Aoki. Prior to his first injury, he was considered to be on an All-Star pace.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 7, 2015 23:04:55 GMT -5
The problem with getting Zimmerman is that the Giants are on the hook for a compensation pick. At least, that's what's being reported.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 8, 2015 9:32:05 GMT -5
The problem with getting Zimmerman is that the Giants are on the hook for a compensation pick. At least, that's what's being reported. Rog -- Very good point. Price and Cueto were traded during the season and thus can't be made a qualifying offer. Incidentally, not to say that baseball players aren't making more than enough to feed their families, but the addition of the compensation pick makes some of the top "free" agents less so. At this point I would sign the best value top pitcher and not worry about the compensation pick. I would prefer not to lose it, but I wouldn't let it be a deal-breaker either. Because of the attached pick, slightly-less-than-free agents sometimes command less of a contract, at least somewhat compensating the signing team for the loss of a pick. The way baseball has set up free agency, it obviously penalizes players in their first six to eight seasons and makes players who reach free agency far more valuable than they would be in a more free system. The players make plenty of money, so that's not the point. The point is that the system isn't fair. And to me, fairness is important. Until they reach free agency, the players are a type of highly-paid slaves. Again, let's not shed tears for the players, but perhaps shed a symbolic tear for freedom and fairness. The players are pretty much rich beyond measure, so they can take the hit of unfairness. But that doesn't change the fact that the system is unfair. Because teams invest a lot in player development, there is another side to the story too. But players can be kept under team control for a dozen years or occasionally even more. That's not fair. On the other hand, it is what the players wound up bargaining for. And for the top players who make it to free agency, it's a huge financial bonanza. For players who don't make it long enough, it's far less fair. And coming back to Boly's point, almost any top free agent who wasn't traded last season will require a compensation pick. The Giants used to back off doing that, but it's more common practice to just take the hit, now that teams have evaluated the various draft choices and realized the penalty usually isn't as bad as they feared. It can be though. Imagine the Giants without Joe Panik. But the value of first round picks is also minimized by prospects such as Gary Brown. The Giants don't really miss him at all, even though he was a higher pick than Joe. For those who think first round picks are sure bets, even high ones, I will ask you what you thought of the career of Billy Rowell. Seriously. Unless you actually read the posts here, you almost certainly haven't even heard of him. There's a reason for that. Billy never made it beyond AA. So who IS Billy Rowell? He's the player who was drafted immediately ahead of Tim Lincecum. By far the best player that 2006 draft yielded was Clayton Kershaw. He was drafted #7 overall. The players from that draft who have made a significant impact are few: Kershaw (#7) at 49 WAR. Evan Longoria (#3) at 42 WAR. Max Scherzer (#11) at 32 WAR. Tim (#10) at 23 WAR. Ian Kennedy at 11 WAR is the only other player to even reach double figures. Rowell wasn't even the worst pick. Former Stanford pitcher Greg Reynolds (#2) is at MINUS 2 WAR, meaning he has pitched at less than the level of a replacement player. Take away the players I've mentioned, and we're left with about 40 WAR total for the remaining players in the first round. That's about 2 WAR per player. That's why teams are realizing that those low and even mid first round picks aren't as valuable on average as they originally thought. Randy says WAR is useless. It's one reason teams were more easily able to value the various first round (and lower) picks and now are less reluctant to lose them. That is somewhat similar to a system developed by the Cowboys in football back when they were becoming good. That system allowed the Cowboys to value the various draft picks in football, and since teams have many picks and are able to trade them, the Cowboys were able to gain a lot of value by trading down a lot, and that greatly aided their becoming for a little while, truly America's (Winning) Team. I don't think the 49ers were using such an elaborate system, but their scouting in 1986 allowed them to repeatedly trade down -- and make it work out big-time, leading to some of their Super Bowl teams. In televised draft coverage, Sports Illustrated's Paul Zimmerman (no relation to Jordan) said something to the effect of "I don't know WHAT the 49ers are doing." What they were doing was drafting Charles Haley in the 4th round and John Taylor in the 3rd. Larry Roberts in the 2nd. Tom Rathman and Tim McKyer in the 3rd. Steve Wallace and Kevin Fagan in the 4th. And Don Griffin in the 6th. Zimmerman didn't know what the Niners were doing, but they certainly did. And that one draft did a lot to help them continue to win Super Bowls. To the best of my knowledge, the 49ers did it through scouting. The Cowboys combined scouting and some at that time very original analytics to make even greater use of the draft. Randy says WAR is useless. I wonder how he feels about the Cowboys' analytics of more than two decades ago. Unless he's a Cowboys' fan, he likely doesn't think too much of them either -- but for a much different and more accurate reason. Some here say they value their own ratings of players' defense over those of professionals seeing every play by every player. I say that Randy is ignorant (in the area of analytics) and the others are vain. Doesn't mean I don't like you, guys, but being vain may be even worse than being ignorant. Then again, based on the results here, apparently being ignorant is even worse than being vain. Criticize analytics and the improving attempts to measure a very difficult subject matter in defense all you want, but at least those are objective. And are based on far more facts, as well. Again, I like you guys. I just wish you were more open-minded. Randy, you just keep on supporting Gary Brown and Pablo Sandoval. The two of them cost only about $100 million and a first round draft pick. Why in the world would one want to use analytics to avoid such menial costs? Incidentally, Randy, the primary reason I got Brown much more right than you was only in part analytics. The main reason I was less impressed was that I had read the scouting reports. Even major league teams are realizing that the combination of scouting and analytics is better than either alone. Got that? Hey, I'm a technology dinosaur. But at least I haven't allowed analytics to leave me behind. Well, except that they are now going FAR beyond my meager efforts and understanding. As an example, who thought they would ever be able to evaluate pitch framing? I don't think anyone can say they are 100% accurate, but since they're based on facts, they likely have a pretty good degree of reliability. Remember, even batting average isn't a perfect valuation of how a player has hit. It doesn't tell us if he hit in good or bad luck (although things like BABIP, GB/FB ratio and soft/medium/hard hit ratio can help). How do we tell the difference between a .300 hitter and a .275 hitter? The difference is only about a hit per week. We do it because we measure it. It's not perfect, but it surely helps us evaluate hitters. ERA isn't perfect either, but it surely helps in evaluating pitchers. Just because a stat isn't perfect doesn't mean it's useless. If that were the case, just about ALL baseball stats would be useless. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3111/considerations-regarding-mike-leake#ixzz3quID7hY2 |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 8, 2015 10:46:26 GMT -5
No stat is perfect, as you say, rog, but IMHO you give too much credibility to stats in lieu of using your eyes to verify what the stats say.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 8, 2015 13:19:03 GMT -5
No stat is perfect, as you say, rog, but IMHO you give too much credibility to stats in lieu of using your eyes to verify what the stats say. Rog -- Here's the thing, Boly. Usually the stats and my eyes agree. If they don't, I study to see why. That way I can feel more confident in my final evaluation. If my eyes and the stats agree, I'm pretty comfortable with the opinion. If they disagree, I at least work hard to settle the dispute and emerge with an opinion I can have as much confidence in as my feeble powers will allow. It's kind of the same thing on the board. If something is posted that I disagree with, I study that point as much as I reasonably can. Usually my original thought turns out to be supported by my study, but not always. And when it isn't, I almost always change my opinion. I sometimes get the feeling that if the eyes of some others here don't agree with the stats, they mostly disregard the stats as being worthless or not important. With regard to the defensive comparison of Crawford and Simmons, I have known for a long time that Simmons was considered easily the better of the two. I think most would agree that Crawford closed the gap a lot this season. I agree with Boly that the stats don't mean much in this instance. Not the raw stats, at least. The evaluative stats I find more meaningful, since they are based on all the plays -- or far more than we make our own evaluations on. I like the evaluations used for the Fielding Bible Awards because they involve a lot of well-considered opinions, including in one case, the fans. I like the fan poll -- although I wish a lot more participated in it to give it more meaningful sample -- because it has been shown that when a large group of people give their evaluations, the result is usually pretty good. I don't know exactly why that is, but I guess their prejudices and discrepancies tend to balance each other out. Perhaps the one I like the most is the one I have cited where they put the plays into various buckets based on difficulty and then measure how many plays a player had and how many plays he was successful in. I did find it intriguing that Crawford was clearly better in that category than was Simmons. But Simmons had the edge in each of the other categories. One of the reasons I like this is that it takes the official scorer's decision out of play. We all know there are discrepancies there. But in the category system, all that is looked at is whether the play is made or not. The official scorer's decision is irrelevant and thus is taken out of the equation. Here's the biggest thing in the Simmons vs. Crawford evaluation. I can't remember any system, no matter what it was, that has picked Crawford over Simmons. In fairness, with the exception of the 2015 Fielding Bible Award, everything I have seen (aside from Crawford himself with my own eyes) has been from 2014 or before. But the Fielding Bible Award was UNANIMOUS in its support of Simmons for 2015. Well, I have seen four other rating systems as well, and they have also picked Simmons with one exception. I don't know for sure if Simmons truly IS a better fielder than Crawford. What I do know though is that he is easily the consensus pick. And in consensus picks, the different ways of looking at things tend to balance out. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3111/considerations-regarding-mike-leake#ixzz3qvDRpsCJ |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 8, 2015 19:10:36 GMT -5
Than the stats bible people can pick Simmons, I'll take Crawford, and I'll have the much better player.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 9, 2015 10:26:34 GMT -5
Than the stats bible people can pick Simmons, I'll take Crawford, and I'll have the much better player. Rog -- If you're talking about as an overall player (including offense), I'm right with you. But if you're talking defense only, you're bucking the vast majority of what I've been able to find in print. If you're talking defense only, your statement is foolish IMO. At the very, very least, Simmons isn't MUCH the lesser fielder than Crawford. I don't think even Brandon's mother believes that. By the way, it isn't the Stats Bible I have discussed, but the Fielding Bible. Their Fielding Bible Awards are voted on by a panel of twelve, including former major leaguer Jerry Glanville. Other names we will likely recognize include Peter Gammons and Bill James. Another source is a fan poll which is open to both you and me. Yet another is the creator of Strat-O-Matic Baseball, Hal Richman. I thought we were big fans of Strat-O-Matic here. The point is that the panel is made up of a diverse and qualified panel, who cast their votes #1 through #10 at each position. Not a single one of the dozen voted for Crawford, who wound up second. Here we're looking at voters who if they aren't more qualified than we likely have seen a broader cross section of plays. NONE of them voted for Crawford. Not a single one. The valuation stats are almost unanimous as well. I have seen only one that chose Crawford over Simmons, and that was by a single point. To say that Crawford is MUCH the better fielder (which I'm assuming isn't what we're are doing) is straining the seams of credibility. I just don't get it when guys here simply say in their defense that they know what they saw with their own two eyes. If we're are saying our eyes are better than a panel of experts in unanimity, I'm saying we are guilty of self-righteousness. Heck, we ALL think we're right. That's human nature. But if we stubbornly stick to our judgments without testing them against those of others, we are indeed being self-righteous. Aren't we? We may say that it's OK to be self-righteous if we're right. That's probably not true, but even if it were, how do we KNOW we're right when we're simply stating a little-supported opinion without anything concrete to back it up? Are we right and the rest of the world wrong? That's certainly not impossible, but it is highly unlikely. And if it were indeed true, we likely would be able to back it with more than simply our own opinion. Like everyone else here, I think a lot of my ability to judge baseball. But if a panel of experts, most of whom have more information than I, disagrees with me, I'm going to try to find out why. What is it that I see that a dozen experts with more information than I don't see? Not a single one of them. Are we going to invalidate every single one of our Srat-O-Matic results! Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3111/considerations-regarding-mike-leake#ixzz3r0T1Nvdw |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 9, 2015 15:04:05 GMT -5
I've overstepped my bounds here. Sorry, guys.
|
|
