Jump to content

Frobby

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    54,735
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    440

Everything posted by Frobby

  1. I almost never drink at home. Maybe one beer or glass of wine a month. If I'm at someone's house for dinner, or at a restaurant, I'll have one drink, maybe two on a very rare occasion. Maybe once a year I'll drink enough to get midly drunk at some party, when I'm not driving. Sometime in the last 10-15 years, I got to the point where even 2-3 drinks would have me feeling pretty lousy in the morning, so I pretty much just stopped doing it.
  2. It is interesting that Jones' arm ranks well, because he seemed very erratic in his throws. When he overcomes that, he's really going to put up some numbers. Payton graded very well defensively both years he played for us, but I never thought he was anything better than a little above average at most with his range, and his arm was just awful. It's a case where I can't make sense of his numbers. Maybe he's very good at positioning.
  3. Fair enough -- did you get to quite a few of his games? I really wanted to see him but didn't.
  4. This is why I love Arrieta: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/schmuck/2009/02/arrieta_no_regrets.html
  5. But there is an element of playing the odds too. You can have differences of judgment as to how good a player might become, or how likely it is that he will become that player. But there's also the element of knowing when it is worthwhile to take a big risk, and when it isn't, from a strategic point of view. And that part is very similar to playing the odds.
  6. Well, stripping away any issues regarding insults or tone of message, there is a kernel in that exchange worth exploring. If you see a baseball trade as analogous to blackjack, then a trade is either good or bad based on playing the odds correctly. Therefore, even if the trade turns out badly, you made the right decision. But in baseball, you really don't know the odds, you only have your own opinion of the odds. As I said in my first post in this thread, one GM might think a player has a >50% chance of success, while another thinks he has a <50% chance of success. And the guy who is better at assessing the real odds more often is going to be the better GM in the long run. I think that is what rshack was trying to say.
  7. 1. Cal's 2131 2. Mark Belanger walk-off HR that landed just over the fence and inside the foul pole. 3. Albert Belle walk-off against us that broke my son's heart.
  8. Nope, because Bedard would have been a free agent at the end of this season, and we'll still have many years of service from Jones and the other players we acquired.
  9. Hah, best post in this whole thread. Thanks for reminding us what is important here.
  10. I am not in the mood to get into this argument with you. If anyone else is in the mood, they can be my guest.
  11. I concede this point. But it's also a fact that the GM's have way more information than we do. Therefore, if a trade that you thought was a bad one turns out much better than you expected, it may just be the case that your initial judgment that the trade was bad was wrong. Actually, the Glenn Davis trade is a pretty good example. I was happy with that trade at the time, but that's because I was judging the future potential of Schilling, Finley and Harnisch was based on what I had seen of them and their stats to that point. I would have said "good trade" at the time. But with hindsight, I'd say it was a bad trade from the moment the ink was dry, and that a good organization would have reocgnized that there was too much potential there to give up for one player of Davis' caliber. I just didn't know enough to see it at the time, but the Orioes should have.
  12. I think you're trying to provoke an argument based on semantics. You are defining "good trade" to mean "a trade that turned out well." SG is defining "good trade" to mean "a trade that made good sense at the time, based on the available information." Either definition is valid.
  13. I don't want to be the guy who defends the trade, which was horrible. But I can't say that at the time, it appeared that Schilling, Harnisch and Finley were the equivalent of Tillman, Arrieta and Jones. Schilling at the time was about the equivalent of Matt Albers. Harnisch was kind of like the 2nd-year version of Sidney Ponson. Finley was about like Felix Pie is now.
  14. The Davis trade was bad, primarily because the O's didn't appreciate what they potentially had in Schilling, Finley and Harnisch. It turned out even worse because Davis couldn't stay healthy. But Davis was a very good player at the time and shouldn't be sold short.
  15. I basically agree with the part of your post that deals with the Davis trade, but I think the idea that Davis wasn't that great a player because he had "one year of OPS over .850" is a misleading point. He was playing in the Astrodome, where it was very hard to hit HR's, and he was playing at a time when offensive numbers weren't as strong today. He had OPS+ of 127, 132, 104, 138, 142 and 143 in the six years before we traded for him. Those last three seasons would have put him well over .900 OPS in today's environment at OPACY.
  16. I was just poking a little fun. It's actually a good question and a good thread. But I'm disappointed that you didn't respond to the actual points I made in my post.
  17. Well, you have reported several times that, according to your source, many in the organization thought that Arrieta could make the club out of spring training. So, that suggests that the folks you are in contact with are very high on Arrieta. Is there another basis for your prediction? I have to say, I'm very high on the guy also, but that's mainly because I was so impressed with how he marched into the Arizona Fall League and just dominated in his first taste against professional competition. I just think that shows the kind of competitor Arrieta is, and that's not always something you can judge with a radar gun or by knowing how many plus pitches a guy has.
  18. Then why did you bother asking the question? I think you have to judge it both ways. There are two separate interrelated aspects to a trade: (1) what is your judgment about the future performance of the players involved, and the degree of risk in that judgment, and (2) based on that judgment, does it make strategic sense to make the trade? The "strategic" factor can largely be judged when the trade is made, but whether that strategy was based on good judgment sometimes can only be determined in hindsight. Let me explain. Let's say Andy MacPhail and Jim Hendry both believe that there's a 50/50 chance that Felix Pie will develop into an above-average everyday OF, and that there is a 50/50 chance that Garrett Olson will develop into a no. 3-4 starter. Let's also say that Andy MacPhail believes that he doesn't have any other player in his organization who has more than a 20% chance of becoming an above average OF, but he's got 10 guys whose chances of becoming a no. 3-4 starter or better are more than 60%. Well, in that case, I think it's a good trade strategically, judged at the time, and the fact that Olson turns out well and Pie flops is just bad luck for MacPhail. But now let's change the facts. Let's assume Andy MacPhail believes Olson is just never going to be a regular member of a big league rotation, and he believes Pie is almost certain to be an average or above LF with a chance of being all-star quality. But Hendry believes that Olson is highly likely to become a solid middle of the rotation starter, and thinks Pie is just never going to hit well enough to be an everyday OF. At the time the trade is made, the trade makes strategic sense from MacPhail's point of view. But when it turns out that Olson is a very solid starting pitcher and Pie is a no-stick defensive OF who is not nearly as good as Reimold, then it is fair to say this trade was made based on MacPhail's poor judgment about these players. So, you judge it both ways. I think it's a little easier to have consistently sound strategy in trades, than it is to have consistently sound judgment about players' chances of success. But there's little doubt in my mind that some organizations are flat-out better than others in evaluating talent, even if their GM's are both equally gifted strategically. By the way, so far I think MacPhail has shown he's good at both aspects of this.
  19. It seems logical to me that you may not lose 100% of what you gained by using steroids. But why does that make things worse than they already were?
  20. Personally, I think we should be very clear in distinguishing between a "#1 pitcher" and a pitcher with "#1 stuff." I think your definition is a scout's definition of who has "#1 stuff," and it is designed to project who will become a "#1 pitcher." But there are "#1 pitchers" who do not have "#1 stuff," and there are pitchers who have "#1 stuff" who never become "#1 pitchers." I define a "#1 pitcher" by consistenly obtained results, not by what stuff he throws. Show me a guy who finishes in the top 10 in ERA and IP year after year, and he's a "#1 pitcher" so far as I'm concerned, even if he doesn't have all the attributes you described.
  21. If Greg Maddux is not a no. 1, the term has no relevant meaning in this world. I could care less if a pitcher has a blazing fastball. If you get the results Maddux got year in and year out, you are the dictionary definition of a no. 1. A no. 1 pitcher is not defined by whether scouts drooled over him in high school. What are you telling us, David Clyde is a no. 1 and Greg Maddux isn't?
  22. If Patton's healthy -- and so far all the reports have been very positive -- then all he needs is maybe 2 months in the minors to shake off the rust and he'll be better than a couple of guys who start the year in the rotation. I realize there is no way we can know if he's really fully recovered from surgery, but all of the feedback, dating back as far as last season, has been good.
  23. That is ridiculous. What would be fair to A-Rod would be for the Justice Department to investigate and determine who leaked the information about the test, and prosecute that person for violating the rules relating to confidentiality of information obtained pursuant to a criminal subpoena. Violating that rule as to the other 103 persons only compounds a wrongful act.
  24. Frobby

    Dunn to the Nats

    It certainly helps to have some interesting players. The year Soriano played for Washington the fans were definitely into him. And at least the Dunn signing signals that the team is trying to do something. The stadium is very nice and I think their attendance can be decent if people feel there is something interesting to go see, even if they aren't a winning team. Last year, if they had been playing in RFK, they would have seen a real plummet because the team was not only awful, but it had nothing interesting going on. That said, with the economy the way it is, I'm sure their attendance will drop significantly in 2009.
×
×
  • Create New...