Jump to content

Frobby

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    55,390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    454

Posts posted by Frobby


  1. PLEASE DON'T USE THIS THREAD TO DEBATE WHETHER WE SHOULD KEEP DCAB, TRADE HIM OR PUT HIM IN THE BULLPEN.

    Simple question: is there any other pitcher we have ever had who frustrated you more?

    My answer is no. Ponson and Dennis Martinez were enigmas, but not as much as DCab.


  2. Why not? Smoltz has had a great career, both regular season and postseason.

    His career WARP3 is almost as good as Eckersley and Smoltz(2 guys who started and closed) isn't done yet.

    I don't see an argument against Smoltz.

    BTW, if Mussina had the same exact career with us as he has had with the Yankees(ie never went to NY), i bet 98% of the hangouters would think he is a HOFer...SOur grapes IMO.

    Both your points are valid. I guess I just put the other 5 guys (Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, Martinez) on a higher plane than Smoltz and so I expected he'd get fewer votes than them. He's a clear HOF'er in my mind, but I thought some of the tough graders might exclude him. BTW, I can't believe someone voted against Pedro.


  3. So far, these results have pretty much followed what I expected, with the following exceptions:

    1. I hadn't expected such unanimous support for Smoltz, even though I voted for him.

    2. I hadn't expected such uniform non-support for Wells, even though I didn't vote for him.

    I have to say that if fewer than 50% of Hangouters believe Mussina belongs in the Hall of Fame, then he is going to have a very uphill battle convincing 75% of the sportswriters who vote.


  4. Of that group I would rate these ahead of Mussina, Wells, Schilling, Pedro, Smotz, and possibly Petitite. I would rate these below, Moyer, Rogers, amd Wakefield.

    Have you voted in the poll I set up? See here: http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1971

    You are in a small minority in thinking Wells is better than Mussina, per the poll results so far. Schilling and Mussina are running neck and neck. I didn't include Pettitte in the poll because I had to limit it to 10 candidates and he has fewer wins than the others I included.


  5. I did a little research on this for this same debate on another board. I don't know stats as well as a lot of you guys, but I understand basic milestones for pitchers, and I decided to see how Mussina's career stacks up to every other pitcher (besides Negro Leaguers) in the Hall of Fame right now....

    Every single starting pitcher in the Hall of Fame has a 20-win season. And all except Sutton have two, and Sutton also compiled 300 victories. Eckersley, who spent a good amount of time as a starter, also has one 20-win season.

    In other words, I know these are basic statistics and not the SABR stuff a lot of you guys are great at analyzing, but Mike Mussina fails to live up to these basic pitching benchmarks on all counts. And every single starting pitcher in the Hall of Fame does not fail.

    You make a very strong point, one that I expect the HOF voters will weigh when they consider Mussina. However, the way starting pitchers are used has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. The pitchers who will be retiring about now are really the first ones who played their entire career in the era of the 5-man rotation, and very heavy use of relief pitchers.

    Look at it this way: in a four man rotation a pitcher will start 40 times a year. If he wins half the games he starts, he wins 20 games. Nowadays, in a five man rotation, starters get only 32-34 starts a year. If they win half, that's 16-17 wins.

    Then there is the complete game phenomenon. It used to be common for really good starters to rack up 20 complete games or more, all of which resulted in a decision for the starter, one way or the other. But now, even great starters often have 5 or fewer complete games, and as a result, a lower percentage of their starts result in decisions one way or the other. Fewer decisions = fewer wins.

    Hence, last year there wasn't a single 20-game winner in MLB, and the National League had no pitcher who won more than 16 games!

    In fact, assuming Mussina achieves 250 wins, he may be the last pitcher to do that for a very, very long time. The players behind him are either probably too old to reach 250 or are so far away from that figure that it would take 7-10 years to reach that plateau, if they ever do:

    6. David Wells* (44) 235

    7. Jamie Moyer* (44) 225

    8. Curt Schilling (40) 213

    9. Kenny Rogers* (42) 210

    10. Pedro Martinez (35) 206

    11. John Smoltz (40) 203

    12. Andy Pettitte* (35) 193

    13. Tim Wakefield (40) 164

    (nobody else is over 150)

    So, eventually the 20-win criterion is going to go the way of the dinosaur, and 250 wins will be viewed in much the way that 300 wins is looked at today. I doubt Mussina gets in on the first ballot, but eventually his candidacy is going to look very good.

    • Upvote 1

  6. Yeah, but as a reliever you don't always have the same opportunity for a win as a starter. For example how many of those relief innings by Martinez were in long relief (four or more innings) where normally the starter got knocked out and the chances of the long man picking up a win are logically not going to be all that good?

    I think fewer wins could actually be meaningless under this scenario as a measure of Martinez versus Mussina, simply because he didn't have the same opportunity to garner a win as Mussina has as always pitching as a starter. Then again, perhaps I am just biased as I like Martinez better as he didn't go become a MFY!

    I'm missing your point. Forget Martinez's 130 relief appearances. Apart from that, he made 562 starts, to Mussina's 493. So, he has 69 extra starts plus 130 relief appearances, but the same number of wins.


  7. I never played pro ball but Little League, Senior League, and High School ball. Defense is defense and the positions don't change no matter what level. Did you ask Melvin?

    I don't think there is a blanket answer to the question of whether a starting infielder can make a good transition to outfield, and how long it takes. It depends on the player. No question that some have done it successfully, though. Here are a few examples:

    Brian Knoblauch: Rate of 99 in LF and 100 in CF

    Alfonso Soriano: Rates of 109 in LF and CF

    Jerry Hairston: Rates of 114 in LF, 103 in CF, 103 in RF

    Robin Yount: Rates of 95 in LF and 96 in CF 9 (a little below par, but not terrible)

    All of those guys had better foot speed than Tejada, though.


  8. Could you make the assumption that Tejada's defense in LF would mirror that of Gibbons?

    Let's do it this way: assume that Tejada could play LF defense equal to the combo of Payton/Gibbons, and that the transition would not affect his offense. I'd say those are both optimistic assumptions, but OK.

    Payton and Gibbons have created 56.1 runs in 167 games played, including partial games, pinch hitting appearances etc. So let's just call it 56.1 over a full season. That compares with the estimated 43.8 I used for Fahey/Hernandez. In that scenario, and assuming Fahey/Hernandez are roughly equal to Ozzie Smith, you'd lose 13 runs on offense but gain 17-25 runs on defense. That's a net gain of 4-12 runs, which would be worth 0-2 wins over a year.

    However, if you assume that Hernandez/Fahey are not Ozzie Smith but just somewhat above average, that Tejada will not be as good in LF as the Payton/Gibbons combo, and that Miggy's offense will suffer as he learns to playa new position,you are quickly into negative territory.


  9. Okay, your research proves me wrong. I was going by memory and did not realize that Marichal pitched in the post season. I still think he is and always will be a superior pitcher to Mike Mussina. However, regarding Martinez, I also think he may have been a long reliever early in his career whereas Mussina was always a starter (not 100% sure of this) and if so that would have a bearing on his having fewer wins and a lower winning percentage (possibly). I concede I was way wrong on his playing with lesser caliber teams than Mussina. However, I do wonder about their comparative run support. I just think those two (Martinez and Mussina) are very similar pitchers and comparable. In fact, I think Martinez may have a better shot at getting the HOF as he did pitch a perfect game, which is quite a feat.

    I think I have said enough on this topic, but to answer one question you had, Martinez did occasionally pitch in relief (562 starts vs. 130 relief appearances, including 76 with the Orioles). His last year with Atlanta he was primarily a reliever. However, Mussina has pitched fewer starts (562 to 493) and fewer innings (3999.2 to 3310.2) while racking up the same number of wins.


  10. I'm not a Miggy basher and I don't play one on TV and I think the premise of this thread is patently absurd, but Hernandez is a gifted defensive SS IMO and if you replaced Tejada with him you would upgrade the IF defense considerably. You would however be losing about 100 points in OPS at that position. If you put Tejada's' bat at DH you would be upgrading that slot by the 100 points you lost at SS. since the current occupents of that slot are hitting under .700 OPS. So you haven't lost any offense and you have improved the defense. I think if Tejada is traded you have to get at least a 100 point upgrade in offense back, regardless of what position that player/players, plays.

    This is a good, succinct argument. It hinges on two things: (1) just how "gifted" Hernandez really is at SS, and (2) whether Hernandez in extended AB could provide as much offense as our current DH crop. I suppose it also hinges on whether Miggy's offensive performance would improve, decline or stay the same if he was moved to DH. My belief is that you would lose some offense, and I doubt the defensive gain would be enough to make up for it. You are putting a lot of faith in Hernandez based on watching him play in 12 major league games. I'm a little inclined to believe more in his minor league record built over a longer period of time. He has a .625 career OPS in the minors, so that's about the max I'd expect from him in the majors over an extended period. Harder to tell about his fielding, but in the full seasons for which stats are available his fielding percentage has ranged from .958 to .977, which is fine, but nothing to suggest he's Ozzie Smith or Otto Vizquel.


  11. But shouldn't you be measuring the offensive difference between Gibbons/Peyton versus Hernandez/Fahey, because Tejada's bat is remaining in the lineup anyway, and thus his offense is not being lost? The only offense being lost is the difference between the replacement shortstops hitting and the LF combination that Tejada's bat is replacing. So this really doesn't prove anything as far as what would actually be taking place in the overall scheme of the lineup and defense.

    I may have lost my way because I haven't read all 396 posts in this thread. I was just dealing with replacing Tejada with Fahey/Hernandez and whether that would help or hurt the team, and trying to answer the question of how much offense it would cost. Are you proposing that we make Tejada a left fielder? If so, I'd have to know how his defense would be out there in order to measure the effects you are talking about.


  12. Let me just deal with the offensive side of the equation for a minute. According to the Runs Created formula, Miguel Tejada has created 44.3 runs in 79 games this year. Over 162 games that would be 90.2 runs.

    Since we have very small sample sizes for Hernandez and Fahey for 2007, let's just use Fahey for 2006, when he created 24.6 runs in 91 games. Over 162 games over a full season that would be 43.8 runs created, probably a bit more since Fahey's 91 games included a lot of partial games where he didn't start.

    From that, I'd conclude that the offensive difference between Tejada and his replacements is somewhere in the ballpark of 35-45 runs over a full season, or maybe .25 runs/game, plus or minus .05.

    On the defensive side, Baseball Prospectus has Tejada's Rate at 99, meaning his defense allows one extra run to score every 100 games compared to the average shortstop. The greatest defensive SS of all time, Ozzie Smith, had a career Rate of 111, and a career best of 118. So even if you assumed that Fahey/Hernandez were equal to that (and they clearly are not), over 162 games they would save you maybe 18-25 runs over Tejada, or .13 runs/game, plus or minus .03.

    Conclusion? The .25 extra runs of offense outweighs the .13 runs he loses on defense, and that's even assuming that Fahey/Hernandez = Ozzie Smith.

    • Upvote 3

  13. I saw all three of these guys pitch and Mussina and Martinez are much more comparable than Mussina and Marichal. So if Dennis Martinez makes the HOF than I would say Mussina would have a shot, but personally I don't think either one is good enough, and I disagree with you that Mussina was a far better pitcher than Martinez. Had Martinez been able to pitch with the Yankees his winning percentage most likely would have been comparable to Mussina. His ERA and everything else is virtually identical. His only problem was he played for lesser teams. So did Marichal which is what makes his stats so much better and stand out. Marichal never won a post season game most likely because he never had a chance to pitch in any.

    You are losing a lot of credibility here because you don't check your facts before shooting from the hip.

    1. ERA+, which measures a pitcher's ERA compared to the average ERA of his league and makes adjustments for what ballpark he pitched in, is a much better measure than raw ERA.

    Mussina: 123 ERA+

    Marichal: 122+

    Martinez: 106 ERA+

    2. The Oriole teams that Mussina played on were, in general, not very good, and certainly far inferior to the ones Martinez pitched for. Martinez pitched for the Orioles from 1976 to partway through the 1986 season. They won a World Series (1983), won another AL pennant (1979), had a 100-win season (1980), and had 10 winning seasons in those 10+ years. He then played for the Expos, who had 6 .500 or better seasons in the 8 years he was there. Them he played for the Indians for 3 years and they were a dominant team during his tenure, going to the 1995 world series and winning a division title the next year. He finished with a year in Seattle when they had a winning record and a year with the perennial division champion Braves. So in those 21 years Martinez played on 2 losing teams. Mussina played on losing Oriole teams in 1991, 1992, 1995, 1998, 1999 and 2000 -- most of his career with the Orioles. As to Marichal, he played with the Giants from 1960 to 1973. In that entire span they had ONE losing season (1972). He then had one year cups of coffee with the Red Sox and Dodgers when they were very good. So let's review:

    Martinez played on 2 losing teams in 21 years.

    Marichal played on 1 losing team in 15 years.

    Mussina played on 6 losing teams in 17 years.

    In that context, Mussina's .631 winning percentage is more impressive than Marichal's identical winning percentage and far, far outshines the .559 winning percentage amassed by Martinez.

    3. Needless to say, you are wrong that Marichal never pitched in the postseason. He pitched in the 1962 world series (the Giants lost) and lost a game in the 1971 playoffs. Frankly, he pitched well both times, but that is beside the point. The point was that if one of the criticisms of Mussina is that his team never won a world series, the same is true of Marichal.

    So the next time you make an argument, how about basing it on fact, not top-of-the head impressions that are just flat-out wrong?

    The thing is, I don't disagree with you at all that Marichal belongs in the Hall of Fame, and that Martinez does not. But you undercut your better arguments a lot when you just make stuff up.

    By the way, I do think there are good, fact-based arguments that Marichal should rank ahead of Mussina, though it is debatable. Those arguments would be:

    1. 9 all-star appearances for Marichal compared to 5 for Mussina.

    2. 3 seasons of 25+ wins (led the league in 2 of those years), which even after adjusting for 4-man vs. 5-man rotation, were arguably more impressive than any single season Mussina had. (Mussina led the league with 19 wins in 1995, a year in which teams played only a 144 game schedule due to the strike.)

    3. Won the ERA title in 1969; Mussina never won one.

    Arguments in Moose's favor:

    1. 6 gold glove awards (none for Marichal).

    2. Will end his career with more wins, perhaps significantly more depending on how his career finishes out.

    3. Very memorable performance in the 1997 playoffs in which he beat Randy Johnson twice, struck out 41 batters in 29 innings and pitched 8 innings of 1-hit shutout ball in the deciding game, which the O's lost in extra innings.


  14. I really didn't want to extend this thread- but I'm sorry- after 4 hours of work I come back and see a new 5 pages!! I just completely disagree with the assertion that moving Tejada from SS is gonna cause the "offense to score potentially 1 run less a game?" Tejada was out for more than a month- and while I'm not a numbers cruncher- I'm pretty sure our offense was NO WORSE with him on the bench. I surely don't think we are a run worse a game without him. Now THAT'S being extremely kind and overly respectful of Tejada.

    That's because (1) his replacements hit almost .300 for the month Tejada was out, and (2) players at other positions, notably Corey Patterson and Nick Markakis, got hot. That was fortunate, but frankly, fluky. Look at Gomez, Fahey and Hernandez's track record and you'll see that you'd be very lucky to get a .650 OPS out of the three of them over an extended period of time.

    However, I have to agree with you on one point -- Tejada is not worth a run per game compared to a replacement, that is a gross exaggeration.


  15. Precisely. Our record in one-run games is atrocious. Better defense at shortstop would definitely help and it is available.

    I don't agree with this argument. I know of no evidence at all to suggest that record in one-run games is correlated to defense. In fact, the O's have the best fielding percentage in the AL, and the best defensive efficiency rating, yet the worst record in one-run games. The two teams with the best record in one- and two- run games are Cleveland and Seattle, both of which are poor fielding, good hitting teams with poor-fielding shortstops. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/teams/

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=7&season=2007&seasonType=2&split=82&sortColumn=errors

    What the Orioles need are a couple of guys who can hit home runs and turn those one-run losses into one-run victories, or three run victories for that matter.


  16. Observation and their stats when they played the stretch Tejada was out in comparison to observation and stats of Tejada, although stats are not that reliable to me in particular with a player like Tejada who is so erratic where he makes a great play and then turns around with a bonehead play or mental mistake, or just as bad, a bobbled double play ball, which I personally think ought to be counted as an error but that is another argument.

    As I have said before, it's dangerous to rely on the stats generated by Hernandez/Fahey/Gomez, splitting time over one month of play. Fahey and Hernandez both made their share of errors in the minors, but in 8-12 starts each last month they made no errors, so they end up looking better than they might look if you saw more of them. Just as a hitter can have a few weeks where he plays over his head, so can a fielder.


  17. In general I don't see how any can state anything is a "fact" when it is a mere projection as you are suggesting. It may be a good probability but it certainly wouldn't be a fact until you tested it out with Tejada not on short, but still in the lineup. Since this has not happened all you are doing is espousing mere conjecture. You nor anyone else knows for certain, but I think opposite of you. Of course I can't prove it either but we are talking opinions here not facts.

    I do not agree with your opinion on the underlying issue, but I do agree that this is, at least in part, a matter of opinion. The available statistics do not support your opinion, but there are good arguments to be made that the available statistics do not do a great job of measuring defense and its impact. So, I respect your right to have the opinion you do, even though I think you are wrong.


  18. Those stats do not measure mental blunders, and bobbled or botched double play balls which Tejada (I believe) might be among the worst if they kept those sort of stats. To me those stats don't prove that Tejada is not costing the team games far much more than that, which is why I don't rely soley on stats for anything.

    Actually, some of these stats do purport to include the effects of these types of things. Whether they do so accurately is certainly open to debate.

    Please give me your estimate of how many DP balls Tejada has "botched" this year.


  19. That ball was hit pretty slow and Crisp is pretty fast. I just watched the replay and I don't think he would have turned it, though it didn't look like he was in a position to make the attempt either.

    So if he made the attempt and threw wild, he'd be criticized for having thrown it in the first place. Lose/lose.


  20. It's time to move on. You're living in the past- 3 years in the past- if you think Tejada is anything more than an average player right now.

    What an absurd remark. I am not going to sit here and tell you that Tejada is just as good now as he was in 2004 and the first half of 2005, but he is far better than average. Of 28 shortstops who qualify, Miggy is 6th in batting average, 8th in OBP, 12th in slugging, 10th in OPS, 13th in RBI (despite missing a month), and 11th in RC/27. The worst you can say is that he has slipped from elite to above average.

×
×
  • Create New...