PDA

View Full Version : Most tradable 3b prospect



SilverAndBlue
03-21-2009, 10:58 PM
According to the Braves website, Wren is looking to acquire some "organizational" depth at 3b. That means to me, they're looking to find some minor league depth at 3b, not a player to put on the major league roster. So that leads me to the topic of this thread, what 3B prospect is the most tradeable out there? According to Baseball America, here are some the 3B prospects out there from the top 100:

12. Pedro Alvarez- Pittsburgh Pirates
13. Mike Moustakas- Kansas City Royals
34. Mat Gamel- Milwaukee Brewers
40. Brett Wallace- St. Louis Cardinals
51. Josh Vitters- Chicago Cubs
60. Todd Frazier- Cincinnati Reds
61. Dayan Viciedo- Chicago White Sox
64. Matt Dominguez- Florida Marlins
76. Chris Carter- Oakland Athletics
81. Brett Lawrie- Milwaukee Brewers

A_Brave_Pack
03-21-2009, 11:53 PM
According to the Braves website, Wren is looking to acquire some "organizational" depth at 3b. That means to me, they're looking to find some minor league depth at 3b, not a player to put on the major league roster. So that leads me to the topic of this thread, what 3B prospect is the most tradeable out there? According to Baseball America, here are some the 3B prospects out there from the top 100:

12. Pedro Alvarez- Pittsburgh Pirates
13. Mike Moustakas- Kansas City Royals
34. Mat Gamel- Milwaukee Brewers
40. Brett Wallace- St. Louis Cardinals
51. Josh Vitters- Chicago Cubs
60. Todd Frazier- Cincinnati Reds
61. Dayan Viciedo- Chicago White Sox
64. Matt Dominguez- Florida Marlins
76. Chris Carter- Oakland Athletics
81. Brett Lawrie- Milwaukee Brewers


The way I see it (and I may probably be way wrong), Alvarez, Moustakas, and Gamel are pretty much unavailable due to who the Braves would be willing/able to trade (ie. Bennett, Carlyle, Acosta, Campillo, etc.).

According to Baseball America, Wallace (SS), Carter (1B), and Lawrie (C) all have other primary positions than 3B.

Of the other guys 'on the board', I'll throw my hat in for 19-yr old Matt Dominguez (6'2'' 180lbs, R/R). He is currently listed as the Marlins 6th ranked prospect.

'08 A: 88G, .296/.354/.499, .853OPS, 102H, 16Doubles, 18HR, 70RBI, 28BB, 68SO

'08 Defense: .948FPCT, 65PO, 152A, 12E, 229TC

This was written in '07 by Project Prospects:


Dominguez is one of the best defensive third basemen that the draft has seen in a while, and his bat carries some pop, too, although he did struggle in his pro debut (.158/.183/.246 in just 57 short-season at-bats). But once he’s seeing professional at-bats on a regular basis next season, there’s little debate that Matt Dominguez will become known as far more than the second-best player on his high school ball club. (They were talking about Royals prospect Mike Moustakas)

The Baseball Cube Scouting Report:



Scouting Report
Power: 88
Speed: 1
Contact: 38
Patience: 23


Awesome power... certainly will not be stealing any bases...


Now, is it possible that we could obtain Dominguez for a package that included Manny Acosta and a minor prospect?

njbravefan
03-22-2009, 12:39 AM
none of those guys listed are available for what we're likely to be offering. You don't get teams' top prospects for middle relief/#5 starter types

A_Brave_Pack
03-22-2009, 01:40 AM
^^^Good call. But of the guys listed I like Dominguez.

Probably would take Acosta/B. Jones/prospect package at the very least.

SilverAndBlue
03-22-2009, 07:35 AM
you can name another player other than the ones i listed. On Dominguez, I find it very unlikely the Braves Would trade with a div. opponent

Jon93405
03-22-2009, 01:24 PM
The Angels have surplus at IF depth. They don't really have room for Brandon Wood who hit 31 HR's in AAA last season. He would be too costly, but they have a bunch of other guys who don't even get talked about.

Freddy Sandoval - .335 15 HRs in AAA (.904 OPS)
Matt Brown - .320 21 HR's in AAA (.953 OPS)
Sean Rodriguez - .306 21 HR's in AAA 248 AB's!! (1.042 OPS)


Sandoval and Brown are 26 years old, so option years might be a concern but should also make them cheaper. Rodriguez is about to turn 24. The Angels have no need for Josh Anderson or Prado since they have a surplus of position players, but everyone needs pitching. They're going to have Dustin Mosely, Shan Loux or Nick Adenhart start the season as their 5th starter. They might want a guy like Campillo in their pen who has the ability to start if their young guys don't cut it.

Just a thought.

jmtapia
03-22-2009, 03:30 PM
^^^good piece of research but i think the Braves need to look for a 19-20 year old to work on...CHipper will most likely be here for another 3-4 years at least....

Thibs34
03-22-2009, 04:14 PM
Heres a couple of guys to look at in the draft:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/draft/y2009/reports.jsp?content=borchering
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/draft/y2009/reports.jsp?content=davidson

Both need work defensively but I like the power they both carry. I like Borchering, a guy that can hit from both sides with power. A Chipper Jones Clone would be nice.

cardinals1226
03-22-2009, 05:10 PM
According to the Braves website, Wren is looking to acquire some "organizational" depth at 3b. That means to me, they're looking to find some minor league depth at 3b, not a player to put on the major league roster. So that leads me to the topic of this thread, what 3B prospect is the most tradeable out there? According to Baseball America, here are some the 3B prospects out there from the top 100:

12. Pedro Alvarez- Pittsburgh Pirates
13. Mike Moustakas- Kansas City Royals
34. Mat Gamel- Milwaukee Brewers
40. Brett Wallace- St. Louis Cardinals
51. Josh Vitters- Chicago Cubs
60. Todd Frazier- Cincinnati Reds
61. Dayan Viciedo- Chicago White Sox
64. Matt Dominguez- Florida Marlins
76. Chris Carter- Oakland Athletics
81. Brett Lawrie- Milwaukee Brewers

You can cross Wallace off your list because there is no way he is being traded. The Cardinals do have a lot of depth at 3B so it's possible other prospects become available. David Freese and Allen Craig are two under the radar prospects that have good defense and pop.

Jon93405
03-22-2009, 06:11 PM
^^^good piece of research but i think the Braves need to look for a 19-20 year old to work on...CHipper will most likely be here for another 3-4 years at least....

Yeah, these guys are more for injury depth. They play multiple positions and have more pop than guys like Prado or Infante have. We're not going to get too great of a 19 or 20 year old guy for a guy like Jeff Bennett.

It just depends who we trade.

rtgthree
03-22-2009, 06:28 PM
Let's just be careful not to get delusions of grandeur. Certainly we won't be able to get a top-100 prospect for any combination of our spare relief pitchers. Maybe somebody decent, but not a surefire Chipper Jones replacement. Rather than getting some C-level prospect, I'd rather keep the pitching depth and try to draft a true elite talent to groom for the hot corner in 2012.

jmtapia
03-22-2009, 06:31 PM
Heres a couple of guys to look at in the draft:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/draft/y2009/reports.jsp?content=borchering
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/draft/y2009/reports.jsp?content=davidson

Both need work defensively but I like the power they both carry. I like Borchering, a guy that can hit from both sides with power. A Chipper Jones Clone would be nice.

Borchering would be good but not for 3B. The guy is 6'4'' and 200lbs 18 years old and doesnt look comfortable at 3B now imagine in 3-4 years. HE will most likely go to 1B or some OF spot. If we want a 3B we need to find a shortstop to draft that might be to big to stick and thus could play 3B.

Davidson is kinda the same case as Borchering...they might not stick at 3B and might have to move to 1B. Offensively he is fine at 3B but not if he moves to 1B. Like above if we draft for 3B we need to get a SS or 2B in HS that might over grow himself to one of the corners where his bat is better suited.

With that said i think we draft the best college arm available. We have a ton of power coming through the minors. We have a solid young core at the Big Club level. We have a great minor league system. We have a solid young rotation anchors in Hanson and Jurjjens. Giving us a core of: BMac/Heyward/Esco/KJ/Freeman/Frenchy/Schafer and a rotation core of Lowe/Hanson/Jurjjens. All we need is one more arm that has Top of the Rotation written all over him. That brings us to this year. Braves have the highest draft position and i have to admit im on the draft talent first and not need BUT the Braves would do themselves a bigger favor if the shore up Rotation by adding a college arm that could help us in a year or two when everyone is going through their prime.

That being said here is whom i would select if i had the power to pick the Braves 2009 #7 overall pick: Kyle Gibson of Missouri.

Positives:

Physical Description - Perfect pitcher’s body. Ultra projectable, long legs. Thin as a rail, plenty of room to grow and bulk up. Square shoulders, looks like a coat hanger. Not yet physically mature. Built like a younger Mark Prior.

Fastball - Sits at 88-90, touches 91. There is plenty more to come. Huge projection, looks like he’s throwing much harder. Throws a heavy ball with good, late life. Easy mechanics makes the ball appear to be jumping out of his hand. Has command east to west but need to work down in the zone. Should soon be sitting 92-93 plus life, could dominate with fastballs down in the zone.

Slider - 80-83 hard slider with 10-4 break. Near unhittable when spotted against right-handers. Has trouble spotting vs. lefties. Plus pitch when located but he needs to find more consistency. Stays on top, rarely hangs it. Can throw for strikes and bury it also. Legitimate strikeout pitch.

Changeup - 79-81 MPH changeup is rarely used. Does not trust it and shows to be essentially a two-pitch pitcher. Very straight, this pitch needs a lot of work. Alters arm speed and lacks feel. He needs this pitch to combat lefties. Big hole in his arsenal.

Mechanics - Smooth, easy arm action, shouldn’t have serious arm problems. Very little effort. Has a pause in his delivery just before his release, allows his arm to catch up. Drifts out over the rubber, weight leaks forwards, costs him a few ticks of his velocity. Doesn’t drive with his legs, relies on his fast arm. Throws over the top, creating good downward action. No windup.

Notes - Not a pitcher at this stage, more of a thrower. Projection is key. Needs to get stronger. Natural movement keeps him away from the middle of the plate. Doesn’t look like a natural athlete, awkward fielding his position. Likes to work insider. Easy delivery appears to lull hitters and makes his fastball more effective.

Adjusted Overall Future Potential: 63

Present Group: P, Future Group: A-

Projected Role: #2 starter

Draft Projection: Top Ten Picks (’09)

Overall Comparison: John Lackey (a thinner-framed version)


Gibson Named National Pitcher of the Week
Junior recorded his first career shutout on Saturday over No. 1 Texas.
Gibson has an ERA of 0.90 on the year, striking out 38 batters in 30.0 innings pitched.

These are the type of pitchers i like to see out of drafts. Braves as a system are good at teaching young pitchers to use their change ups and off speed stuff. With Gibson already manning a plus FB and plus Slider when he learned how to throw his Change up he will be lights out.

So just hypothetically speaking imagine calling up Gibson in 2011 to complete a rotation of:

Hanson
Lowe
Jurjjens
KK
Gibson

Gibson who really belongs on top of our rotation, similar to Hanson this year, will make great "#5" pitcher and definitely add enough pitching to carry us into most likely the first full season that the young duo of Heyward/Freeman will have in ATL together....

rtgthree
03-22-2009, 11:23 PM
^^^I'm a big Tyler Matzek fan myself, but it's important to remember that there's still a lot of baseball to be played between now and the draft. And especially for high school and college kids, a senior season can change draft stock drastically.

I still also think the Braves would have a tough time letting local boy Donovan Tate go by.

dbroncs-abraves
03-22-2009, 11:33 PM
^^^I'm a big Tyler Matzek fan myself, but it's important to remember that there's still a lot of baseball to be played between now and the draft. And especially for high school and college kids, a senior season can change draft stock drastically.

I still also think the Braves would have a tough time letting local boy Donovan Tate go by.

do you have a scouting report on him i have heard a lot about him thats he good but havent been able to find a scouting report

jmtapia
03-22-2009, 11:33 PM
^^^ He is committed to North Carolina...i was leaning that was to but if shifted to Gibson after hearing Tate committed to UNC made me change ways.

jmtapia
03-22-2009, 11:34 PM
do you have a scouting report on him i have heard a lot about him thats he good but havent been able to find a scouting report

Hes a toolsy CF coming out of Georgia that shows signs of above average power and speed combination. Good athlete but hes going double sport at UNC.

SilverAndBlue
03-22-2009, 11:34 PM
^^^I'm a big Tyler Matzek fan myself, but it's important to remember that there's still a lot of baseball to be played between now and the draft. And especially for high school and college kids, a senior season can change draft stock drastically.

I still also think the Braves would have a tough time letting local boy Donovan Tate go by.

The topic of this thread has kind of shifted from the possible trade of extra pitching to the draft...which is also fun to talk about by the way. I am not of the same opinion we can't secure a top 100 prospect in a trade. I think Josh Anderson and maybe even Prado could be included in a package to bring a top 3b prospect to Atlanta. And to me, Atlanta would be getting the short end of the stick on that deal. Prado is a MLB ready player. To me, he's better than kelly Johnson. Anderson has the tools to start for a lot of teams right now as well. So essentially, Atlanta would trade away 3 MLB ready players for a top prospect. In my estimations, that's more than fair.

jmtapia
03-22-2009, 11:36 PM
^^^^haha Prado better then KJ...please KJ is proven for a full season Prado isnt. Its not as easy as you think to get top prospects... You cant expect another team to give you gold for our leftovers.

rtgthree
03-22-2009, 11:47 PM
do you have a scouting report on him i have heard a lot about him thats he good but havent been able to find a scouting report


If you’re reading about the draft this early, you like tools, and if you want a suggestion for a new James Bond villain, let me suggest Donavan Tate as Tools Galore. He compares favorably to the 14th overall pick in the 2008 draft, the Twins’ Aaron Hicks, as a centerfielder, both for his pros and cons.

Tate is the son of former NFL running back Lars Tate and is a top football recruit, with Rivals.com ranking him as the 86th best recruit in the nation. To get an idea of his athleticism, Rivals lists Tate as an “athlete” for football purposes (no set projected college position, generally the most athletic guys on the field) and among the “athletes,” (again, the most athletic football players in the country), Tate was named the most athletic.

Tate uses his plus-plus arm (hit 95 from the outfield—that’s with no mound involved) and true 80 speed (6.3 to 6.4 in the 60-yard) to quarterback his high school team, and uses his 6′3, 200 frame to deliver big hits as a safety. Michigan and Georgia want him as a QB, while USC and Florida like him as a safety. So, he’s got a little bit of talent.

As far as baseball-specific skills, his speed and arm obviously play in center where he’s a developing defender that should be plus or more as a center fielder in time. Tate shows plus raw power and squares pitches up consistently when he makes contact.

The problem, as with the aforementioned Hicks, is if he will make enough contact, as Tate has rough plate discipline. In showcases, Tate produces, but not without some cause for concern. To put some numbers behind this general scouting consensus, BA’s Matt Blood reports that Tate slugged two HRs, a triple, and two doubles in 19 at-bats at the Tournament of Stars, but struck out six times with only one walk. Blood adds that one day, Tate made contact on seven of ten swings, while the next day he whiffed on six of seven swings.

That performance makes for an impressive line of .316/.350/.842, considering Tate is a high school junior using wood bats against top pitching; but almost any toolshed first-round bust has put up that kind of performance, so what did we really learn? Tate’s hitability will be a situation to monitor throughout the spring, but it will be something you can only learn about after talking to multiple scouts or after multiple viewings, and even then it will likely be heavily debated within each organization. Let the debate begin.

http://www.saberscouting.com/2008/07/16/hshot30top5/
^^^Really good website, by the way.


^^^ He is committed to North Carolina...i was leaning that was to but if shifted to Gibson after hearing Tate committed to UNC made me change ways.

Yeah, but all the good high school prospects commit to college. Brett DeVall and Zeke Spruill had committed to Georgia, Tyler Stovall to Auburn, and they were our first three picks last June. All signed, as you know. Will it take a few million dollar bonus to get Tate to forgo UNC? Sure, but if the Braves aren't prepared to spend perhaps $4-5 million on that #7 pick anyway, we fans are in for a real disappointment.


I am not of the same opinion we can't secure a top 100 prospect in a trade. I think Josh Anderson and maybe even Prado could be included in a package to bring a top 3b prospect to Atlanta. And to me, Atlanta would be getting the short end of the stick on that deal. Prado is a MLB ready player. To me, he's better than kelly Johnson. Anderson has the tools to start for a lot of teams right now as well. So essentially, Atlanta would trade away 3 MLB ready players for a top prospect. In my estimations, that's more than fair.

First, when was the last time we saw a top-100 prospect dealt during spring training? I've never heard of it happening. March is almost always a time to swap your spare part for someone else's, not to make deals involving touted youngsters. Second, you're vastly overrating Josh Anderson and Martin Prado. The whole reason we'd be trading them is because we have better options; both are bench players at best.

The biggest problem I have here is a lack of precedent. I have never heard of a team trading three bench players for a single top prospect, and definitely I've never heard of that happening in late March.

jmtapia
03-22-2009, 11:56 PM
lets see what happens i would also be disappointed if we could get someone signed... ill trust the Braves as of late they seem to get it right more often the wrong...

SilverAndBlue
03-23-2009, 01:29 AM
First, when was the last time we saw a top-100 prospect dealt during spring training? I've never heard of it happening. March is almost always a time to swap your spare part for someone else's, not to make deals involving touted youngsters. Second, you're vastly overrating Josh Anderson and Martin Prado. The whole reason we'd be trading them is because we have better options; both are bench players at best.

The biggest problem I have here is a lack of precedent. I have never heard of a team trading three bench players for a single top prospect, and definitely I've never heard of that happening in late March.
Reply With Quote

They are bench players for the Braves, that doesn't necessarily mean they would be bench players for another team. Atlanta is considering letting Anderson start CF for us right? Don't you think another team would do the same? Prado is a better player than Johnson, I don't care about the other guys' infatuation. Maybe he doesn't have as many ABs to form a good argument with, but Prado had half the plate appearances as Kelly Johnson did last year which was 228 and he outperformed Johnson in OBP, AVG., and SLG. Johnson strikes out way too much. He had 113 strikeouts. That may be okay for a power hitter, but Johnson only had 12 homers last year. Sorry, I'd rather have Prado. At any rate, Prado is a MLB ready player. Wren has basically already said it, they are looking to trade for organizational depth at 3rd but they wouldn't just trade players away because teams have interest. That team will have to give up someone decent.

jmtapia
03-23-2009, 03:12 PM
Prado is a better player than Johnson, I don't care about the other guys' infatuation. Maybe he doesn't have as many ABs to form a good argument with, but Prado had half the plate appearances as Kelly Johnson did last year which was 228 and he outperformed Johnson in OBP, AVG., and SLG.

Funny thing here is that you pick stats that have nothing to do with the difference in ABs between both players. I would agree with you if Prado was elite with the Defensively but he isnt. Also if you think Prado is a .850 OPS, you have some great disappointments coming to you.

Kelly Johnson, who hasnt gone through his prime, is already one of the best offensive 2B in the league. If you think about it 2007 was his first full season so a sophomore slump in 2008 wasnt out of the question. After two season look for his 3rd season to be a good one. Even Bill James believes KJ will rebounds nicely to post a vital line of: .364/.459/.823 OPS and ISO: .175. I for one think KJ could bat a solid .375/.475/.850 OPS. On the other hand Bill James sees Prado having the following line: .356/.402/.758 OPS and .101 ISO. If you could notice those power numbers are way down from 2008. Prado had an unbelievable moth of August that inflated his 2008 stats.

SilverAndBlue
03-23-2009, 04:37 PM
Funny thing here is that you pick stats that have nothing to do with the difference in ABs between both players. I would agree with you if Prado was elite with the Defensively but he isnt. Also if you think Prado is a .850 OPS, you have some great disappointments coming to you.

Kelly Johnson, who hasnt gone through his prime, is already one of the best offensive 2B in the league. If you think about it 2007 was his first full season so a sophomore slump in 2008 wasnt out of the question. After two season look for his 3rd season to be a good one. Even Bill James believes KJ will rebounds nicely to post a vital line of: .364/.459/.823 OPS and ISO: .175. I for one think KJ could bat a solid .375/.475/.850 OPS. On the other hand Bill James sees Prado having the following line: .356/.402/.758 OPS and .101 ISO. If you could notice those power numbers are way down from 2008. Prado had an unbelievable moth of August that inflated his 2008 stats.

Who cares what Bill James thinks? Not me. I mean it's utterly impossible to predict what a player will do in a season. Who ever thought Francouer would have had the season he had last year? I bet Bill James didn't. Please give me a break. On the fielding topic, Johnson isn't a bad fielder, but I don't think Prado is either and he can play multiple positions. Also, you mentioned Johnson not going through his prime...you do realize Prado is 2 years younger than Johnson right??? Or did you forget to do a little research? On KJ being one of the best 2B in the league....now that's laughable. Of the top 16 2nd basemen (in terms of BA), Johnson was the 4th worse in terms of strikeouts, he was 9th in terms of OBP, 8th in SLG, 7th in OPS, 8th in BA, 13th in SBs...and so on. I guess it depends on what you call...one of the best 2nd basemen to be but to me...a top 2B would at least have to register in the top 5 in SOME category. Kelly Johnson is a average hitter who strikes out A LOT with avg. to below avg. power. I did further research and his 2007 stats are pretty much on par with his 2008 stats so that argument for you is also inaccurate. The only big difference I saw was that he had several more walks in 2007 but he also struck out a few more times. Don't stretch KJ out to be more than he is.

rtgthree
03-23-2009, 07:42 PM
Who cares what Bill James thinks? Not me. I mean it's utterly impossible to predict what a player will do in a season.

Bill James isn't great at projecting, but if projection systems are so worthless, how is it that they consistently post correlation rates near 70%. It's utterly impossible to guess EXACTLY what a player will do in a season, but it's actually eminently possible to guess ABOUT what a player will do.


They are bench players for the Braves, that doesn't necessarily mean they would be bench players for another team. Atlanta is considering letting Anderson start CF for us right? Don't you think another team would do the same?

Talent-wise, they are bench players. For bad teams, maybe they start, but for good teams, they come off the bench. It would not be in the best interest of a contending team (Braves included) to give either of those guys a starting job for any extended stretch of time.


Prado is a better player than Johnson, I don't care about the other guys' infatuation. Maybe he doesn't have as many ABs to form a good argument with, but Prado had half the plate appearances as Kelly Johnson did last year which was 228 and he outperformed Johnson in OBP, AVG., and SLG. Johnson strikes out way too much. He had 113 strikeouts. That may be okay for a power hitter, but Johnson only had 12 homers last year. Sorry, I'd rather have Prado. At any rate, Prado is a MLB ready player.

That's a really narrow argument; you're looking at one season where Martin Prado's sample size was incredibly small, and where his BABIP was incredibly high. If you want to do some real analysis, you need to expand your horizons and realize that Prado's career minor-league OPS is .745. You don't honestly think that somehow he added nearly 100 points to his OPS just by being promoted to the majors, do you?

Kelly Johnson, on the other hand, has an .828 career minor-league OPS, and his major-league sample (.796 OPS) is actually significant, unlike Prado's. It's extremely likely that Prado's 2008 season was a fluke, and while he will remain quite valuable, he's due for a BIG return to earth in '09. Johnson is by FAR the superior player, and it's not even a contest.

THE_FLASH_21
03-23-2009, 08:46 PM
The Angels have surplus at IF depth. They don't really have room for Brandon Wood who hit 31 HR's in AAA last season. He would be too costly, but they have a bunch of other guys who don't even get talked about.

Freddy Sandoval - .335 15 HRs in AAA (.904 OPS)
Matt Brown - .320 21 HR's in AAA (.953 OPS)
Sean Rodriguez - .306 21 HR's in AAA 248 AB's!! (1.042 OPS)


Sandoval and Brown are 26 years old, so option years might be a concern but should also make them cheaper. Rodriguez is about to turn 24. The Angels have no need for Josh Anderson or Prado since they have a surplus of position players, but everyone needs pitching. They're going to have Dustin Mosely, Shan Loux or Nick Adenhart start the season as their 5th starter. They might want a guy like Campillo in their pen who has the ability to start if their young guys don't cut it.

Just a thought.

I would love Brandon Wood but the Angels would not give him away..:drool:
Sean Rod is a beast as well..... Would love any of them..

jmtapia
03-23-2009, 08:55 PM
Who cares what Bill James thinks? Not me. I mean it's utterly impossible to predict what a player will do in a season. Who ever thought Francouer would have had the season he had last year? I bet Bill James didn't. Please give me a break. On the fielding topic, Johnson isn't a bad fielder, but I don't think Prado is either and he can play multiple positions. Also, you mentioned Johnson not going through his prime...you do realize Prado is 2 years younger than Johnson right??? Or did you forget to do a little research? On KJ being one of the best 2B in the league....now that's laughable. Of the top 16 2nd basemen (in terms of BA), Johnson was the 4th worse in terms of strikeouts, he was 9th in terms of OBP, 8th in SLG, 7th in OPS, 8th in BA, 13th in SBs...and so on. I guess it depends on what you call...one of the best 2nd basemen to be but to me...a top 2B would at least have to register in the top 5 in SOME category. Kelly Johnson is a average hitter who strikes out A LOT with avg. to below avg. power. I did further research and his 2007 stats are pretty much on par with his 2008 stats so that argument for you is also inaccurate. The only big difference I saw was that he had several more walks in 2007 but he also struck out a few more times. Don't stretch KJ out to be more than he is.

I would suggest you dont stretch Prado's one good month and thus season to be more then it is as well... Talent wise its obvious KJ is better. Even as a KJ fan ill agree that he needs to do a better job with the Glove. Check out Fangraph and see what his below average does to his overall player worth...

SilverAndBlue
03-23-2009, 09:06 PM
Bill James isn't great at projecting, but if projection systems are so worthless, how is it that they consistently post correlation rates near 70%. It's utterly impossible to guess EXACTLY what a player will do in a season, but it's actually eminently possible to guess ABOUT what a player will do.


blah...a prediction is a prediction. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.


Talent-wise, they are bench players. For bad teams, maybe they start, but for good teams, they come off the bench. It would not be in the best interest of a contending team (Braves included) to give either of those guys a starting job for any extended stretch of time.

Hmmm...I wonder then why Atlanta is allowing Josh Anderson to even compete for the starting position in centerfield since he's not really worthy of that starting position. You know, the guy was actually brought to Atlanta to be our centerfielder until they also brought in Kotsay. Could Anderson improve in some areas? Most definitely. But so could the other CF contenders we currently have. If Anderson is good enough to start on our roster..which hopefully will be a playoff caliber roster, I think he's capable of starting on other rosters as well where teams need CF or OF help. I guess since he might start for us, you're saying we're a bad team with your above argument?


That's a really narrow argument; you're looking at one season where Martin Prado's sample size was incredibly small, and where his BABIP was incredibly high. If you want to do some real analysis, you need to expand your horizons and realize that Prado's career minor-league OPS is .745. You don't honestly think that somehow he added nearly 100 points to his OPS just by being promoted to the majors, do you?

Kelly Johnson, on the other hand, has an .828 career minor-league OPS, and his major-league sample (.796 OPS) is actually significant, unlike Prado's. It's extremely likely that Prado's 2008 season was a fluke, and while he will remain quite valuable, he's due for a BIG return to earth in '09. Johnson is by FAR the superior player, and it's not even a contest.

If my argument is narrow, your argument is atrocious. You leave out one thing, the fact that Prado's statistics have improved every year...including last. His plate discipline has also improved and therefore seen his OBP, OPS and AVG go up. For instance, in 2006 his OBP was .314, OPS .679, and AVG. .282. In 2007, his OBP was .374, OPS .794 and AVG .316. In 2008, OBP was .375, OPS was .807, and his AVG was .318.

Fact is, he's steadily improved over the past few years, yet you forgot to mention that. On the other hand, Kelly Johnson's plate discipline has regressed and he's now a 100+ strikeout below avg. power hitter. For the numbers, I'll still take Prado over Kelly Johnson, thank you.

SilverAndBlue
03-23-2009, 09:33 PM
I would suggest you dont stretch Prado's one good month and thus season to be more then it is as well... Talent wise its obvious KJ is better. Even as a KJ fan ill agree that he needs to do a better job with the Glove. Check out Fangraph and see what his below average does to his overall player worth...

talent wise it's obvious he's better...to who you? Not to me. I'm not impressed at all with Kelly Johnson and I maintain my belief that Prado is better. I have more of a beef with Johnson's strikeout to walk numbers over his glove

rtgthree
03-23-2009, 09:44 PM
blah...a prediction is a prediction. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.

This is the world's biggest cop-out, and hypocritical as well. Right now, you're PREDICTING that Martin Prado will be better than Kelly Johnson in the future. So let me reverse this on you: your prediction is just a prediction, which means sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong. Hey, look...I successfully rebutted your argument. Uh, NOT.

Oh, but I forgot, of course your prediction is better than Bill James'. He doesn't work for the Red Sox or anything.



Hmmm...I wonder then why Atlanta is allowing Josh Anderson to even compete for the starting position in centerfield since he's not really worthy of that starting position.

I find myself wondering the very same thing. It really doesn't make much if any sense.


You know, the guy was actually brought to Atlanta to be our centerfielder until they also brought in Kotsay.

OK, and that says...what? Just because he was the best we could do doesn't mean that he's actually good. The Pirates brought Matt Morris to Pittsburgh to be their #4 starter; that isn't an argument that he's a good fourth starter.


Could Anderson improve in some areas? Most definitely.

This means nothing. Every player "could improve in some areas."


I guess since he might start for us, you're saying we're a bad team with your above argument?

Every team is allowed its weaknesses, but, yes, I'd say that as long as he starts (and especially if he leads off), the Braves will have trouble winning baseball games.


If my argument is narrow, your argument is atrocious. You leave out one thing, the fact that Prado's statistics have improved every year...including last. His plate discipline has also improved and therefore seen his OBP, OPS and AVG go up. For instance, in 2006 his OBP was .314, OPS .679, and AVG. .282. In 2007, his OBP was .374, OPS .794 and AVG .316. In 2008, OBP was .375, OPS was .807, and his AVG was .318.

Fact is, he's steadily improved over the past few years, yet you forgot to mention that. On the other hand, Kelly Johnson's plate discipline has regressed and he's now a 100+ strikeout below avg. power hitter. For the numbers, I'll still take Prado over Kelly Johnson, thank you.

He got better in 2008 (in the majors) because his BABIP was high. Drop all his slash stats by 30 points (which is a conservative estimate), and you have a FAR more pedestrian player. He has improved...I acknowledge that, but he's still highly unlikely to ever slug .460 again. There are ways to add 40 points of slugging jumping from the International League to the majors, but those methods are generally illegal.

jmtapia
03-23-2009, 10:30 PM
talent wise it's obvious he's better...to who you? Not to me. I'm not impressed at all with Kelly Johnson and I maintain my belief that Prado is better. I have more of a beef with Johnson's strikeout to walk numbers over his glove

fair enough.... everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

SilverAndBlue
03-23-2009, 11:30 PM
I didn't predict Martin Prado would be better, I said I think Prado is better. Sure I may have a small sample size with Prado but I have a large sample size with Johnson and i'm just not impressed with the guy. You're attempting to manipulate my post to validate your argument, which I feel the need to call you on.

On Josh Anderson starting: I'm sorry. I didn't know YOU knew so much more than Bobby Cox. How could Bobby Cox even consider starting Josh Anderson...what a moron. He should have talked to you and got some advice huh. Maybe you should send some e-mails to the Braves since you are so sure Anderson isn't worthy of the position. I never said Anderson was an allstar. I think the guy desperately needs to improve his OBP by practicing better plate discipline...the guy doesn't walk enough. However, he's only 26 and still has time to improve. With all that said, I still think he is ready for the next level and apparently the Braves agree by giving him a legitimate shot at the starting job.

On Prado, you can argue all day about this stat or that stat or whatever it is you are trying to do, but the fact remains that he has improved every year in nearly every category. Will he maintain the same avg. etc. he put up last year? Who knows? But he's been a pretty consistent and disciplined hitter dating all the way back to 2005.

To conclude this whole thing, we obviously have different opinions on these two players. We probably have different opinions on a lot of players if we really get into it...I dont know. I would like to respectfully leave it at that because I don't see this going anywhere. I do appreciate all of your responses though because there's nothing better than a good debate!!!

megrimlock11
03-24-2009, 01:42 AM
omar infante and martin prado, enough said...

jmtapia
03-24-2009, 05:20 PM
I think the guy desperately needs to improve his OBP by practicing better plate discipline...the guy doesn't walk enough. However, he's only 26 and still has time to improve. With all that said, I still think he is ready for the next level and apparently the Braves agree by giving him a legitimate shot at the starting job.

until he does turn that around he wont be anything more then a 4th OF which is what he should be with the Braves. Maybe he could start the first two weeks and then give way to Schafer...

rtgthree
03-25-2009, 08:33 AM
I didn't predict Martin Prado would be better, I said I think Prado is better. Sure I may have a small sample size with Prado but I have a large sample size with Johnson and i'm just not impressed with the guy. You're attempting to manipulate my post to validate your argument, which I feel the need to call you on.

I'm not manipulating your argument at all. If you say that Prado IS better, it's implicit in your argument that Prado will perform better going forward. Unless you're saying that Prado is better RIGHT NOW, but won't necessarily perform better in the future...that would be a pretty strange thing to argue. Part of what you're doing is extrapolating Prado's performance into the future and comparing that to your impression of Johnson's coming years. When trying to judge who "is better," you are including the future in your consideration. So your notion that Prado is better remains no different from Bill James' notion that Johnson is better. Both are predictions, even if they are both grounded in what happened in the past.


On Josh Anderson starting: I'm sorry. I didn't know YOU knew so much more than Bobby Cox. How could Bobby Cox even consider starting Josh Anderson...what a moron. He should have talked to you and got some advice huh. Maybe you should send some e-mails to the Braves since you are so sure Anderson isn't worthy of the position.

On Kelly Johnson starting: I'm sorry. I didn't know YOU knew so much more than Bobby Cox. How could Bobby Cox even consider starting Kelly Johnson...what a moron. He should have talked to you and got some advice huh. Maybe you should send some e-mails to the Braves since you are so sure Johnson isn't as good as Martin Prado.


I never said Anderson was an allstar. I think the guy desperately needs to improve his OBP by practicing better plate discipline...the guy doesn't walk enough. However, he's only 26 and still has time to improve. With all that said, I still think he is ready for the next level and apparently the Braves agree by giving him a legitimate shot at the starting job.

You don't just improve your OBP like magic, and he is a giant sinkhole in the lineup if he posts a .320-.330 OBP. There's little reason to believe he'll suddenly jump up to .350 when you consider his lack of power and his propensity to strike out. I didn't come to this conclusion myself; I've read scouting reports that pretty much put his ceiling at fourth or fifth outfielder. The Braves don't agree with you yet...they haven't given him any job yet, and there was an article on Braves.com that Cox isn't exactly ecstatic about Anderson's .306 spring OBP.


On Prado, you can argue all day about this stat or that stat or whatever it is you are trying to do, but the fact remains that he has improved every year in nearly every category. Will he maintain the same avg. etc. he put up last year? Who knows? But he's been a pretty consistent and disciplined hitter dating all the way back to 2005.

He hasn't improved every year, really. He definitely took a step back from 2005 to 2006, losing about 70 points of OPS. Then there was the 2007 breakout, which was for real but which certainly doesn't portend an ability to slug .460 in the majors. In 2008, his stats were superficially good, but again, they were heavily influenced by a large dose of good luck. When that luck reverts to normal, he loses (optimistically) about 60 points of OPS, assuming zero regression in his skills. He's definitely been a consistent hitter, but he's never been consistently this good. Again, this is a case where stats and scouting reports pretty much agree; Prado is a very good reserve but not really an everyday player.

SilverAndBlue
04-22-2009, 08:09 AM
I was just wondering if you Kelly Johnson lovers are sticking to your guns and still prefer Johnson over Prado. Just to compare statistics at this point in the season:

Kelly Johnson vs. Martin Prado (http://atlanta.braves.mlb.com/stats/sortable_player_stats.jsp?c_id=atl&section1=1&section2=1&section3=1&statSet1=1&statSet2=null&statSet3=null&statType=1&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=2009&baseballScope=null&prevPage1=1&readBoxes=true&subScope=teamCode&teamPosCode=atl&compare.x=24&compare.y=3&box3=XXXX430637atl4&box11=XXXX445988atl5)

flea
04-22-2009, 11:08 AM
Dude we're barely into the ****ing season - nobody outside of people like you who are fooled by sample sizes is going to say Prado can outperform Kelly over 150 games. Again, why turn a good bench player into a subpar everyday player?

ecyrb912
04-22-2009, 02:39 PM
agree with you all the way flea, too early to be making drastic decisions like this. im sure the coaches know the players better than we do, and if they think kelly should start then maybe he should.

then again i wouldnt be opposed to putting kelly in left and prado getting some spot starts at second. or better yet at first, because kotchman has been unimpressive to me so far.

Jon93405
04-22-2009, 09:06 PM
agree with you all the way flea, too early to be making drastic decisions like this. im sure the coaches know the players better than we do, and if they think kelly should start then maybe he should.

then again i wouldnt be opposed to putting kelly in left and prado getting some spot starts at second. or better yet at first, because kotchman has been unimpressive to me so far.

Kotchman is hitting .300 and is on pace for 65 doubles. He hasn't hit a home run yet, but if he starts putting some of those doubles over the fence, we could see him turn out to be a pretty nice player.

jmtapia
04-22-2009, 10:10 PM
Kotchman is hitting .300 and is on pace for 65 doubles. He hasn't hit a home run yet, but if he starts putting some of those doubles over the fence, we could see him turn out to be a pretty nice player.

if he could hit 65 2B he will be far more then just a pretty nice player...

rtgthree
04-22-2009, 10:18 PM
I was just wondering if you Kelly Johnson lovers are sticking to your guns and still prefer Johnson over Prado. Just to compare statistics at this point in the season:

Yeah, anybody who is trying to compare statistics at this point in the season doesn't know a whole lot about analysis. You do know that Kelly Johnson has had 57 plate appearances, right? You do know that if Prado goes 0-for-4 tomorrow, his batting average will drop about 70 points? Give me a break.

SilverAndBlue
04-22-2009, 10:36 PM
well it's just that Kelly has picked up right where he left off last season...a below average hitter. I saw KJ in an interview right before the season started and he was talking about his increased strikeouts. He said it was due to being more aggressive. He also said he would continue to be aggressive and therefore, his plate discipline won't improve and he'll continue to be a high strikeout guy with marginal power. Prado also picked up where he left off last year being a good contact hitter with good plate discipline. You can argue about sample size all you want but the fact is that Prado is still hitting better than KJ. I guess when Prado gets to 57 plate appearances I'll re-compare the stats for you....or should I wait until the offseason and compare them again like this year??? Or will you then argue that KJ just had a bad season and Prado had ANOTHER fluke year. YOU give me a break.

rtgthree
04-22-2009, 11:13 PM
^^^First, he's not a below-average hitter. Wasn't last year, isn't now. Getting an .800 OPS from your second baseman is decidedly NOT below-average; in fact, it's quite above average.

Second, there is nothing wrong with his plate discipline; when you've got a career K/BB ratio of 1.77 and you get on base at the rate he does, you're doing just fine.

Third, you need to learn to understand sample size before you start trying to mock me about it. You don't get to judge ANYBODY on 57 PAs. Not Johnson, not Prado, not Joe Superstar, not Dick Suck. So no, don't bother re-comparing at that stage...call me back in July, when both have significant samples. Come the end of the season, I will argue that Prado had a fluke year IF HE HAS A FLUKE YEAR and I will argue that KJ had a bad season IF HE HAS A BAD SEASON. If Johnson repeats his 2008, he will not have had a bad season, and if Prado's BABIP stays in the .350 range (where it is right now for 2009), he will have had a fluke season. Frankly, there's no argument about that; those are just facts. There is literally no reason to replace a player with Johnson's solid track record and excellent upside with a player who doesn't have nearly the same level of past performance and who is limited by most scouting reports to supersub duty.

You seem to think this is somehow my opinion; it's really not. It is a demonstrable fact that Johnson has a better performance record than Prado (if you can see through the statistical noise and take into account years other than 2008, which do matter whether you think so or not). My point is also based on the opinions of experts, who I figure are smarter than me.

SilverAndBlue
04-22-2009, 11:40 PM
it's funny that you ask me to see through the statistical noise yet your entire argument was based on statistics. Hell I don't even know what half the statistics you are naming off are. That was truly hilarious and I did need that laugh. It is most DEFINITELY your opinion that Kelly Johnson has a better performance record than Prado. All you have to do is watch the game to see that Prado is a more CONSISTENT hitter than Johnson. He may never have the power potential as Johnson but give me a career 32BB/43 SO hitter over 176 BB/312 SO and only 40 career homers in 1407 ABs. KJ is a stretchy hitter who can be GOOD when he's on but when he's off....he's GARBAGE. I realize slumps happen but I would like a little more consistancy from a non-power hitting player.

rtgthree
04-22-2009, 11:52 PM
^^^Classic. Absolutely classic. You have no idea what "statistical noise" is, do you? Alas, not knowing half the stats I use automatically invalidates your point. OPS, K/BB ratio and BABIP are actually quite basic and their comprehension is required for any substantial baseball analysis.

Furthermore you clearly don't know the meaning of performance record, since it has little to do with "watching the game" on a day-to-day basis. A performance record involves years of data and observation--way more than you get from watching a game every now and again, and more even than you could hope to remember even if you did watch every inning of every game, including minors. Johnson's track record, both in scouting and in stats, is unequivocally stronger than Prado's. Not really even close, frankly.

SilverAndBlue
04-22-2009, 11:54 PM
or for the non statistical geek, you could just watch the game and comprehend what is going on rather than manipulating a certain statistic in an effort to help validate your argument...which by the way was a complete failure. The truth is you skirt around the fact that KJ is just not that good. You can talk about BABIP or OPS but why do you leave out his AVG, his OBP, his K/BB ratio. Let's talk about this statistic if you want to use stats to manipulate arguments....how about the fact that only 1 other 2B in the league with as many SO as KJ accumulated had less homers than KJ. Or better than that, of every single player in the league with as many SOs as KJ, only 5 had fewer homeruns. That is why BABIP is a ridiculous statistic. Who cares about it. It essentially neglects SOs, which is probably the most damaging statistic there is to a hitter.

rtgthree
04-23-2009, 12:03 AM
I made a substantial addition to my post above, for starters. Then, in order to accuse me of manipulating stats (and failing at it), wouldn't you have to know the right way to interpret those stats? Please, feel free to explain how a second baseman with an .800 OPS is below average and how a .360 BABIP is not luck induced and how sample size is irrelevant. Watching a few games is helpful but not nearly sufficient to conduct real analysis, especially when you are trying to prove a point and can't come up with any objective evidence.

SilverAndBlue
04-23-2009, 01:44 AM
well let me start once again by saying BABIP is worthless. If a guy has 400 ABs and strikes out 399 times and gets a single, he's got one helluva BABIP huh!!!! Players who do not strike out much will often be penalized more with BABIP than do high strikeout hitters. So please, let's drop the BABIP argument. It's just stupid. On the OPS, the fact that KJ can often be a gap hitter when he's on helps him but still, he's only ranking in the average range in OPS. Last year he was 7th out of 17 out of all 2B and 80th out of 147 overall. So he's middle of the pack in only 2b and out of all players as well. But hey, in Prado's career, he's got a .809 OPS compared to KJ .795.

There's no way I could ever win the argument on sample size because Prado just hasn't been afforded the opportunity to get the playing time KJ is given. I could take Prado's career 348 ABs and compare them to KJ's first 348 ABs and tell you the numbers on that but that would be unfair to both players, comparatively speaking. So to say it again, you're just simply stating an opinion just like myself. You can allege you speak facts but the truth is that you are just spewing useless statistics in an attempt to boost your argument.

Jon93405
04-23-2009, 02:00 AM
So.... Eric Campbell is hitting .324 in AA.....

SilverAndBlue
04-23-2009, 02:42 AM
yep and cody johnson already has 6 dingers in Myrtle Beach after 26 in 08. Future Adam Dunn?....minus the OBP lol

rtgthree
04-23-2009, 10:46 PM
The truth is you skirt around the fact that KJ is just not that good.

And the evidence for this is...where?


You can talk about BABIP or OPS but why do you leave out his AVG, his OBP, his K/BB ratio.

Let's break this down real quick. First, I never mentioned Johnson's BABIP, because it's not really relevant...it's in a normal range so there's no flag for fluky luck. I leave out batting average because it's a pretty poor statistic; it relies far too heavily on a hitter's luck (hence the importance of BABIP). What matters is if you can get on base. I haven't left out his OBP, as I mention his ability to get on base, besides the fact that OBP is half of the OPS calculation (On-base Plus Slugging). And I definitely DID mention his K/BB ratio.


Let's talk about this statistic if you want to use stats to manipulate arguments....how about the fact that only 1 other 2B in the league with as many SO as KJ accumulated had less homers than KJ. Or better than that, of every single player in the league with as many SOs as KJ, only 5 had fewer homeruns.

And this matters...why? Strikeouts are just the same as any other out, and hitting home runs is hardly the only way to be productive. Use a real metric, like a linear-weight formula that weights every event according to its ACTUAL VALUE (so a strikeout gets weighted the same as any other out, and batters get credit for other offensive things like walks and doubles).


That is why BABIP is a ridiculous statistic. Who cares about it. It essentially neglects SOs, which is probably the most damaging statistic there is to a hitter.

This is getting ridiculous, dude. Do you know anything about baseball? First, you have to know what BABIP is to say it's worthless, and clearly you have no idea what it means. It's an indicator of good luck, not production (guys who have high BABIPs are getting lucky). The fact that it doesn't take strikeouts into account says nothing about its worth. And to say that strikeouts are the most damaging thing for a hitter...puh-leeze. A strikeout has the same effect on run expectancy as ANY OTHER TYPE of out.


well let me start once again by saying BABIP is worthless. If a guy has 400 ABs and strikes out 399 times and gets a single, he's got one helluva BABIP huh!!!! Players who do not strike out much will often be penalized more with BABIP than do high strikeout hitters. So please, let's drop the BABIP argument. It's just stupid.

Trust me, if anyone's stupid here, it isn't the statisticians that devised BABIP. Again, you're just making it painfully obvious that you have no idea what it means: basically all it says is that a hitter can't control the rate at which his balls in play become hits. It's an indicator of luck; if you're doing better than league-average in the BABIP category, you're only doing so because you're getting lucky (except in very special cases).

So if a guy has 400 ABs, strikes out 399 times and gets one hit, his BABIP is 1.000. And the conclusion is that he was LUCKY. If 100% of your BIP become hits, you're lucky. That's all it means. A high BABIP is not a justification for saying a guy is hitting well...a guy (like Prado) with a high BABIP is just getting lucky.


On the OPS, the fact that KJ can often be a gap hitter when he's on helps him but still, he's only ranking in the average range in OPS. Last year he was 7th out of 17 out of all 2B and 80th out of 147 overall. So he's middle of the pack in only 2b and out of all players as well. But hey, in Prado's career, he's got a .809 OPS compared to KJ .795.

I'm not sure where you pull all those rankings from, but either way, the league-average OPS for a second baseman was .747. Johnson's was .787. I'll make the leap to assume you can do the math for yourself.


There's no way I could ever win the argument on sample size because Prado just hasn't been afforded the opportunity to get the playing time KJ is given.

That's true, but that doesn't change the fact that Prado's major-league sample size is small and not that significant statistically. By the time you factor in that his major-league performance rides on the back of an unsustainable BABIP, and really doesn't match up well with his minor-league performance, you've got a recipe for a big red flag.


So to say it again, you're just simply stating an opinion just like myself.

Opinion: Kelly Johnson is a better baseball player than Martin Prado. Fact: Kelly Johnson's performance record is superior to Martin Prado's.


You can allege you speak facts but the truth is that you are just spewing useless statistics in an attempt to boost your argument.

You can't say something is "useless" just because YOU don't know how to use it. I have no idea how to use a blowtorch, but in the hands of someone who DOES know how to use it, it can actually be quite useful.

SilverAndBlue
04-23-2009, 11:03 PM
I know you probably put a lot of effort into the post but I stopped where you said a strikeout is just like any other out. Are you serious? Start watching baseball dude. There's several ways to be productive when you don't strikeout. For istance, moving runners over, sacrifice flies, etc. If you strikeout, none of that happens. Get a clue before you start arguing anymore ******** statistics.

rtgthree
04-23-2009, 11:55 PM
I know you probably put a lot of effort into the post but I stopped where you said a strikeout is just like any other out. Are you serious? Start watching baseball dude. There's several ways to be productive when you don't strikeout. For istance, moving runners over, sacrifice flies, etc. If you strikeout, none of that happens. Get a clue before you start arguing anymore ******** statistics.

Post took about 8 minutes to write...hardly a lot of effort. A strikeout, factually speaking, costs the same as any other out. I watch a ton of baseball, and here the data speak for themselves. I see runners get moved over, I see sacrifice flies, but at the end of the day, it all averages out to the same cost in run expectancy. Again, sorry to hit you with facts, but they are true. In fact, ground balls are the worst types of outs because they often turn into double plays. Flyballs are the "best" (about -.27 runs) and strikeouts are in between (-.32 runs). That 0.05 run difference is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

If you take all the innings played in every game all year, those are the values you get. Unbiased, factual, not up for discussion. Outs are outs, pure and simple. It's preferable (barely) to fly out as opposed to strike out, but effectively they all count the same. Can you bring anything objective to refute that?

SilverAndBlue
04-24-2009, 12:01 AM
You are utterly insane if you actually believe that. I'll bet you really hate Yunel Escobar since he hit more ground balls than any other hitter last year. I don't need a statistic to back my argument up that strikeouts are the worst out you can make. I think pretty much worldwide it's already common knowledge...maybe you didn't get that memo. It's hard for me to even believe you're being serious about that. Put your calculator up and start watching some baseball for a change.

rtgthree
04-24-2009, 12:28 AM
You are utterly insane if you actually believe that. I'll bet you really hate Yunel Escobar since he hit more ground balls than any other hitter last year. I don't need a statistic to back my argument up that strikeouts are the worst out you can make. I think pretty much worldwide it's already common knowledge...maybe you didn't get that memo. It's hard for me to even believe you're being serious about that. Put your calculator up and start watching some baseball for a change.

I have to say there is little insanity in believing fact. It is unequivocally true that the average run expectancy of a strikeout is only negligibly different from that of other outs. That is literally true. If you average all the innings played last year (something like 24,000 in total), all the outs cost you the same number of runs. It is statistical FACT, NOT my opinion. You don't need a statstic to back you up but you do have to explain specifically why my argument is false. Common knowledge is not a justification; to borrow the cliché, it was once "common knowledge" that the Earth was flat and located at the center of the universe. Degrade my calculator all you like but rest assured that I leave the nitty gritty math to people way smarter than me, and realize that the calculator has a perfect memory and watches way more games than you do.

And why would I hate Yunel Escobar for grounding out a lot...did I not just finish saying than all outs are effectively exactly the same? I don't care how you make outs. I only care how OFTEN.

SilverAndBlue
04-24-2009, 12:48 AM
what your little statistic doesn't show is where games were won simply by playing small ball, get them on , get them over, get them in. Sure the runs in all innings may average out to the same so you say....but it doesn't account for when playing small ball pays off. That's when strikeouts kill you. That's what your calculator can't show. You can win a game by hitting a fly ball or a ground out. When exactly was the last time a game was won when a player struck out?....I guess maybe there was an instance of a passed ball sometime or another but I'm sure that's extremely rare.

rtgthree
04-24-2009, 01:15 AM
what your little statistic doesn't show is where games were won simply by playing small ball, get them on , get them over, get them in. Sure the runs in all innings may average out to the same so you say....but it doesn't account for when playing small ball pays off. That's when strikeouts kill you. That's what your calculator can't show. You can win a game by hitting a fly ball or a ground out. When exactly was the last time a game was won when a player struck out?....I guess maybe there was an instance of a passed ball sometime or another but I'm sure that's extremely rare.

Let me start by saying that I don't really know what you're saying here. Could well be my fault, but I'm just not following your logic here. I will do my best to respond to what I DO understand. You're right about one thing: that stat deals with RUN expectancy, not win expectancy. It's talking about the effects of an out on scoring, not on winning. What you are throwing in is leverage (i.e., small ball is better in close games where you need one run). Game to game that's great but over the course of a season the more successful offenses will be those that score the most runs (and in aggregate, you score more runs by making less outs, even those of the sacrifice variety).

I absolutely account for when small ball pays off...the calculator gives those innings just as much weight as the ones where small ball fails and the key hitter grounds into a double play and ends the inning where a strikeout would bring up the next hitter. My point is this: if you add it all up, successes and failures altogether, they are all equal. In certain situations, sure, a fly out is better. In other situations a strike out is better (avoids double play, for example). But when you total all those across a season, you get equality.

Overall, I am saying that what matters is having an offense that scores the most runs. In most situations a strikeout is, at worst, no different than a diferent type of out, and in those situations, you want the most productive hitter, regardless of what type of out he is likely to make. Much better to win by scoring by getting on base and getting extra-base hits than by ekeing out a living with sac flies.

SilverAndBlue
04-24-2009, 01:18 AM
yes but until a strikeout starts winning games, it's impossible to say that a strikeout is the same as hitting a fly ball or ground out. I don't care what statistics say. That's just obvious.

rtgthree
04-24-2009, 01:25 AM
Dude, you're not hearing me. In some situations, like the rare walk-off sacrifices you keep referencing, a strikeout is worse. In other situations, the strikeout is better. Remember, winning a game in the fourth inning counts the same as winning in the bottom of the ninth. So when you average it all out, they are the same. Just because you can't walk off with a K is irrelevant.

SilverAndBlue
04-24-2009, 02:15 AM
exactly and I can also argue my point for the 4th inning too. What if my "rare" walk-off sacrificed just happened in the 4th and the pitching held up....same result. 1 run win because small ball prevailed. I'm hearing you it just doesn't make sense no matter which way you spin it. They're not the same and it's most CERTAINLY relevant. When you go to talking about a strikeout costing you the game, it's relevant.

flea
04-24-2009, 02:48 AM
Are you guys Nate Silver and Dusty Baker in disguise on PSD?

A_Brave_Pack
04-24-2009, 07:50 AM
yes but until a strikeout starts winning games, it's impossible to say that a strikeout is the same as hitting a fly ball or ground out. I don't care what statistics say. That's just obvious.

Here is a scenario where a team can theoretically win because/despite of the 'strikeout'...

"Runner on 3rd, bottom of the 9th. Two outs. Two strikes. Tie ballgame. Here comes the pitch, the batter swings and miss, Strikeout. What's this, the ball gets away from the catcher, the batter is running to 1st, the catcher runs and attempts to throw the batter at 1st, neglecting the runner at 3rd. As the ball is thrown, the speedy runner at 3rd breaks for home, the runner at 1st is safe on a close play, the 1st baseman turns and fires home...NOT IN TIME! The runner from 3rd scores!"

Baseball is a funny game. Anything is possible (regardless of how fantastical).

nps6724
04-24-2009, 09:32 AM
It's been shown that, statistically, small ball LOWERS a team's run expectancy because you intentionally sacrifice potential hits for outs. For example, if you have a runner on 1st and no outs, you have a higher run expectancy than if you have a runner on 2nd and 1 out. Bunting a guy to 2nd hurts your chances of scoring a run. The problem is you still need an additional hit to score the run so unless the 2nd batter isn't very good, it's best to let them try to get a hit.

The days of the tried-and-true Dodger MO (single, stolen base, sac bunt, sac fly, win 1-0) is long gone. It'll work occasionally, but no one can win these days by doing that alone. There's too many good hitters and not enough good pitchers. It's good to mix it in with your normal gameplan, but you can't rely on it in today's game.

SilverAndBlue
04-24-2009, 11:43 AM
haha...that's a negative

SilverAndBlue
04-24-2009, 11:46 AM
Here is a scenario where a team can theoretically win because/despite of the 'strikeout'...

"Runner on 3rd, bottom of the 9th. Two outs. Two strikes. Tie ballgame. Here comes the pitch, the batter swings and miss, Strikeout. What's this, the ball gets away from the catcher, the batter is running to 1st, the catcher runs and attempts to throw the batter at 1st, neglecting the runner at 3rd. As the ball is thrown, the speedy runner at 3rd breaks for home, the runner at 1st is safe on a close play, the 1st baseman turns and fires home...NOT IN TIME! The runner from 3rd scores!"

Baseball is a funny game. Anything is possible (regardless of how fantastical).

yes brave pack I did mention that being the only way a player could score from 3rd on a strikeout. Now, let's count how many times that's happened and compare it to how many times a ground ball or flyout has won a game and see what you get.

SilverAndBlue
04-24-2009, 11:51 AM
It's been shown that, statistically, small ball LOWERS a team's run expectancy because you intentionally sacrifice potential hits for outs. For example, if you have a runner on 1st and no outs, you have a higher run expectancy than if you have a runner on 2nd and 1 out. Bunting a guy to 2nd hurts your chances of scoring a run. The problem is you still need an additional hit to score the run so unless the 2nd batter isn't very good, it's best to let them try to get a hit.

The days of the tried-and-true Dodger MO (single, stolen base, sac bunt, sac fly, win 1-0) is long gone. It'll work occasionally, but no one can win these days by doing that alone. There's too many good hitters and not enough good pitchers. It's good to mix it in with your normal gameplan, but you can't rely on it in today's game.

Ok, well tell me the statistics on this. Tell me how many runners score when the leadoff man gets on, and the next 3 hitters strikeout. The argument is that a strikeout is a worse out than a popout or ground ball. You're not going to get runs in if your team is striking out. You have a much better chance of getting a guy on, bunting him over then going for the hit. I'm not saying this is what you do everytime you get a player on. That's stupid because it would take away from a potentially big inning. But I can come up with a hundred difference scenarios where a strikeout could just about kill a inning when a leadoff guy gets on.

nps6724
04-24-2009, 12:18 PM
Ok, well tell me the statistics on this. Tell me how many runners score when the leadoff man gets on, and the next 3 hitters strikeout. The argument is that a strikeout is a worse out than a popout or ground ball. You're not going to get runs in if your team is striking out. You have a much better chance of getting a guy on, bunting him over then going for the hit. I'm not saying this is what you do everytime you get a player on. That's stupid because it would take away from a potentially big inning. But I can come up with a hundred difference scenarios where a strikeout could just about kill a inning when a leadoff guy gets on.

No matter what, if the next 3 hitters after a runner gets to 1st all get out, no run can score. Whether it's a sac bunt, a grounder to 2nd, and a flyout to right or 3 strikeouts, no run can score.

Every scenario you could come up with where a K kills an inning where a leadoff man gets on is also killed for every type of out besides a sac bunt. Runner on 1st with 1 out isn't better because the out was a popout or a groundout. The situation is the same. The ONLY out that isn't completely horrible is one that moves a runner, and even then it's not "good". If no runner can move up on an out, then it doesn't matter what type of out.

as for the stats on it, just go to any ESPN.com Gamecast of any baseball game. They will list the probabilities of a team scoring 1 run in different situations (it is dependent on the batting team to get into that situation first). So with a runner on 1st and no outs, it will say the probability of scoring a run in that situation. With a runner on 2nd and 1 out, that probability goes down.

SilverAndBlue
04-24-2009, 01:17 PM
The ONLY out that isn't completely horrible is one that moves a runner, and even then it's not "good". If no runner can move up on an out, then it doesn't matter what type of out.

well explain exactly how a runner moves up on a strikeout....unless in the case of a passed ball? Strikeouts kill innings...it's common knowledge. I think some of you need to get off your computers and looking at numbers and start paying attention to baseball.

You get a leadoff double. You get a fly to right, runner moves to 3rd. You can then score on either a ground ball or fly out. If the hitter strikes out here, then now it takes a basehit so the strikeout has just potentially killed the inning.

On a leadoff single. Bunt the guy to 2nd. Ground ball or fly to right side, runner moves to 3rd. Now he can score on a passed ball, strikeout kills the inning if it happens instead of the ground or fly ball to right side. +

Have any of you played baseball before???? I'm starting to think not. I had previously thought that many of you were very knowledgeable but if you can honestly sit here and argue that you would rather have a player striking out rather than making contact, than I pretty much have to consider you baseball illiterate. You don't get runs in by striking out. It doesn't happen. You can take any statistic out there and play with it but when you actually use your mind and think for a second, how do you get a RBI by striking out? Please, use your brains. I know you guys have them....you're Braves fans.

nps6724
04-24-2009, 01:34 PM
well explain exactly how a runner moves up on a strikeout....unless in the case of a passed ball?

I never said they did, now did I?


Strikeouts kill innings...it's common knowledge. I think some of you need to get off your computers and looking at numbers and start paying attention to baseball.

OUTS kill innings. Period. A wise man once said "The most precious commodity in baseball is outs because you only get 27 of them."


You get a leadoff double. You get a fly to right, runner moves to 3rd. You can then score on either a ground ball or fly out. If the hitter strikes out here, then now it takes a basehit so the strikeout has just potentially killed the inning.

Again, you're talking about a situation I wasn't. We're not discussing the same point.


On a leadoff single. Bunt the guy to 2nd. Ground ball or fly to right side, runner moves to 3rd. Now he can score on a passed ball, strikeout kills the inning if it happens instead of the ground or fly ball to right side.

You're picking and choosing situations. OVERALL (keyword here), small balls hurts more than it helps. What if the guy who bunts would've hit a double? I can't count the number of times a player failed 2 attempts at a sac bunt only to get a hit. Prado did it in Pittsburgh this past weekend.

What you're doing is replacing every instance of successful small ball with a strikeout. What if the bunt is popped up? What if it's too hard and they force the runner at 2nd? What if it's popped up, allowed to drop, and a DP is turned? All 3 of these have happened to us in the past week.



Have any of you played baseball before???? I'm starting to think not. I had previously thought that many of you were very knowledgeable but if you can honestly sit here and argue that you would rather have a player striking out rather than making contact, than I pretty much have to consider you baseball illiterate. You don't get runs in by striking out. It doesn't happen. You can take any statistic out there and play with it but when you actually use your mind and think for a second, how do you get a RBI by striking out? Please, use your brains. I know you guys have them....you're Braves fans.

You don't get runs by making outs. Manufacturing 1 run can be negated by one swing of the bat at ANY TIME. That's why teams don't do it anymore. To manufacture a run, you usually waste 2 outs to get 1 run. If you let the batters try for hits, you have a much better success rate.

In your mind, apparently every out is a productive one. But they aren't. MOST outs are your run-of-the-mill outs that move no one. You're taking the minority of successful productive outs and speaking as if they are the majority.

There are only 3 situations in which playing for 1 run makes any sense: 1) tie game and late, 2) down by run and late, 3) facing a dominant pitcher. Anytime else, it's dumb and a waste of outs. The numbers prove it.

nps6724
04-24-2009, 01:45 PM
SilverandBlue, since you like scenarios so much, I'll give you one.

2 teams, 1 plays for the HR, one plays small ball. The small ball team gets a leadoff double, a groundout to 2nd, and a flyout to deep right every inning. The HR team hits a solo HR every inning while everyone else strikes out the entire game.

Each side recorded 27 outs with 0 productive outs for the HR team and 18 for the small ball team. Score? 9-9.

I've seen so many games where the winning team strikes out more than the losing team that it's not even funny. Strikeouts are not good by any stretch of the imagination and no one is saying it is. ALL outs are bad, even productive ones. They're just less bad than others. If an out = an F grade, then a productive out = a D grade.

If you really think making contact is ALWAYS better than a K, then look no further than Jeff Francoeur in 2008. He had the most ABs on the team with the bases loaded and last year he was a DP machine. If he had struck out all the times he hit into a DP, that's one extra chance to score a run. Sometimes a K is better than contact. But ALL outs are bad.

rtgthree
04-24-2009, 03:11 PM
Silver, enough with the scenarios, OK? You can imagine all the "scenarios" you want...I'm done wasting my time with imagination. I care about reality. When calculating run expectancy data, Tom Tango took all the innings played from 1974-1990. He looked at all the things that ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

You need to understand a little bit of how this calculation works:

To begin with, it's very easy to calculate the probability that a team will score a run given a certain game state (where the baserunners are and how many outs). By looking at how often teams in the PAST have scored runs with a man on second and one out (for instance), you can figure out how likely it is that in the FUTURE teams will score runs from that same situation. So with a runner on second and one out, there is X chance that the team scores. After the next batter, the probability of scoring has changed, because either the batter is now a baserunner, or there is one more out in the inning. Then you take the change in probability, and attribute it to the event that happened in the plate appearance. So if you had a 60% chance to score, then your batter struck out and your chance is now 40%, you just lost 20% of your chance to score. Make sense?

From there, we add up ALL the times any hitter ever did any given thing (single, strike out, walk, whatever). So you can say that on average, a single increases your run expectancy by a certain amount. An out decreases your run expectancy by a certain amount. So the RE values reflect the reality of game situations--how often situations occur, and how much a given event ACTUALLY affects the chance to score a run. Not hypothetical, not theoretical...actual.

And this makes intuitive sense if you think about it: in most situations, there is absolutely ZERO difference between a K and a different types of out. With no one on base, all outs are literally the same--no runners to go anywhere. In 2008, the Braves had 6367 plate appearances, and 3322 of those happened with no one on base. That's 52% of the time, literally no difference. So we're off to a pretty obvious start for equality. Then, there are situations where a strikeout hurts your chances of scoring more than other outs (man on third with one out, for example). But then there are situations where a strikeout hurts your chances less (man on first, less than two outs, for example...since about 50% of groundballs in those situations become twin killings). And when you average all of those out, in proportion to the frequency in which they ACTUALLY occur (remember that obviously you'd have a man on first with less than two outs way more often than a runner on third with less than two outs)...voila, there is only a very tiny difference left between a K and any other sort of out.

It's not that I wear my pocket protector around and don't watch games. I wouldn't buy into all this stats stuff if it didn't jive with what I see every night on TV. But if you think about it, it makes intuitive sense. I see situations where strikeouts hurt more, I see times when they hurt less, I see times when they hurt the same...and is it really then a surprise that when you combine all those situations, you get a big fat zero?

SilverAndBlue
04-24-2009, 03:23 PM
and enough with your ridiculous statistics rtg. Statistics will NEVER present the whole story. I don't care how many you throw you there. I learned enough about you when you started advocating strikeouts. I think we should just agree to disagree because this is definitely one area we'll never see eye to eye.

nps6724
04-24-2009, 03:32 PM
and enough with your ridiculous statistics rtg. Statistics will NEVER present the whole story. I don't care how many you throw you there. I learned enough about you when you started advocating strikeouts. I think we should just agree to disagree because this is definitely one area we'll never see eye to eye.

When did he advocate strikeouts? All he said was strikeouts are USUALLY equal to any other out and sometimes preferable. Sounds like you need reading comprehension again.

rtgthree
04-24-2009, 03:36 PM
and enough with your ridiculous statistics rtg. Statistics will NEVER present the whole story. I don't care how many you throw you there. I learned enough about you when you started advocating strikeouts. I think we should just agree to disagree because this is definitely one area we'll never see eye to eye.

If you are going to call my statistics (which is really a misnomer because I didn't come up with them) "ridiculous" then you have to explain why, specifically. Lose the attacks on me...I am not relevant here; what is relevant is my argument. Whatever you may think you know about ME personally has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of my logic, and you aren't going to make me angry. So don't waste your keystrokes insulting me.

I am absolutely not "advocating" strikeouts. I have said and continue to say that all outs are bad.

Finally, I couldn't care less about seeing eye to eye. What I care about is why I am wrong. I care that you show me the error of my ways so I don't make the same mistakes twice. But in order to make mr see why I am wrong, you are going to have to employ the same rigorous logic that I do...so far most of what I have gotten boils down to "strikeouts can't win games," "just watch the games and quit analyzing them" and "you're an idiot." And none of that really contains any specific critique of my methodology, and this does nothing to make me see where I got it so horribly wrong.

SilverAndBlue
04-24-2009, 06:06 PM
rtg- I never intended for a personal attack on you. I have far better things to do than to come on the internet and insult other people. I do think you are BAD wrong by only using statistics to prove your point. I guess it's just my opinion as I see a posse has formed in your defense. Statistics can only prove so much and it NEVER tells the whole story. The reason I said to agree to disagree is because i respect your opinion just like everyone else's on here. It's obvious I'm not swaying you to my belief and you're not swaying my opinion either. I figured, why continue this? I haven't gone back to look at my previous posts but if I did call you an idiot, I do apologize but I certainly don't remember that....I do remember saying something about a statistical geek but even that wasn't meant as an insult. I feel like we had a nice little debate and I hold no grudge or ill will against you. I hope you feel the same.

flea
04-25-2009, 02:50 AM
Finally, I couldn't care less about seeing eye to eye. What I care about is why I am wrong. I care that you show me the error of my ways so I don't make the same mistakes twice.
Probably one of the best justifications for trolling I've ever read.

rtgthree
04-25-2009, 12:33 PM
I do think you are BAD wrong by only using statistics to prove your point.

I'm not using only statistics, dude. As I've mentioned several times, I can find nothing in my own subjective observations to make me disagree with the statistics in this instance. If you CAN find something that makes you disagree, you've yet to articulate it very clearly. Again, the inability to win games with strikeouts takes into account only a very small percentage of real-life situations (even if they take place in the 4th inning instead of the 9th).


Statistics can only prove so much and it NEVER tells the whole story.

Statistics never tell the whole story, but that doesn't mean they have no story to tell. You have to make a distinction between levels of interpretation as well. For instance, if I say that a .300 average makes you a good hitter, that's my own interpretation. If I say that a .300 average means you get three hits out of every 10 at-bats, I'm just stating fact.

In the case of this run expectancy data, all I'm doing is stating fact: on average, the change in run expectancy caused by a strikeout is only negligibly different from the change in run expectancy caused by other types of outs. I'm just telling you exactly what the statistic says; I'm not making any other interpretation.

But if you've been reading, I also mention the scouting experts that have always valued Kelly Johnson above Martin Prado. I trust scouts...you can't run a baseball team with just an analytics department. Thing is, here you have a case where the stats and the scouts agree. And that's a damned powerful coalition.


I feel like we had a nice little debate and I hold no grudge or ill will against you. I hope you feel the same.

I do. I hold no grudges and always enjoy debating.


Probably one of the best justifications for trolling I've ever read.

Not sure what this means, but if you think I justify trolling, you are dead wrong. I don't care about seeing eye to eye. I really don't. We don't all have to agree around here...that's not the point. I care about the discussion because while I might not change my mind, someone else's opinion might bring me to a deeper understanding of my own opinion. Especially in the highly open-source statistical community, that's how methodology gets refined--through disagreement and discussion. And I'm merely saying that my methodology might need refinement. But if someone can't tell me precisely what's WRONG with my thinking, then I can't know how to fix it.