Jump to content

Taking a Flyer on Jason Botts?


StunninSteve

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 329
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Honestly, how do you know this? I would love to read something about it. I've always looked at the other way. Offense can never guarantee a win, but pitching and defense can guarantee a tie.

No it can't. A "perfect" pitch can still be hit, and the best fielders in the world couldn't get to everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SG, senses are a source of knowledge, too, and though there is no good statistical measurement for defense by position, and there are good measurements for offense, it doesn't follow that a player evaluator doesn't know a defender's worth - he does, just not in terms that you are comfortable with. Also, just because evaluators may know more about a player's offensive production or future likely production in stats, if the player can't play in the field, the manager isn't going to put him out there - which can be known by what the evaluators see. In baseball, assessing a player's defensive ability is more like scouting players in other sports where statistics have less meaning. Nevertheless, stats don't replace the eyes - they enhance memory and analytic skills (but only for those who are willing).

The problem is, not everyone sees the same thing with those eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't this the case because you can't fully measure what defense does?

For example....Let's say the Orioles botch a DP and because of that, the other team scores 3 runs before we get what would have already been the third out...There is no way of really measuring this because of so many factors.

Oh well, you are right though but I guess I have always looked at what you said in a different way.

No is my answer to your question. Offense and defense are roughly equal in importance, but the defensive contribution is split(not evenly) between pitching and fielding, thus offense is much more important than just the fielding part of defense.

I guess you are saying it's easier to determine who is good/bad offensively compared to say who is good/bad defensively, thus it makes more sense to go after the more known element. That's a valid point, but doesn't make offense anymore important than defense, at least not more than it natural advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SG, senses are a source of knowledge, too, and though there is no good statistical measurement for defense by position, and there are good measurements for offense, it doesn't follow that a player evaluator doesn't know a defender's worth - he does, just not in terms that you are comfortable with. Also, just because evaluators may know more about a player's offensive production or future likely production in stats, if the player can't play in the field, the manager isn't going to put him out there - which can be known by what the evaluators see. In baseball, assessing a player's defensive ability is more like scouting players in other sports where statistics have less meaning. Nevertheless, stats don't replace the eyes - they enhance memory and analytic skills (but only for those who are willing).

Manny Ramirez in the outfield.

Johnny Damon (and Bernie Williams before him) in the outfield.

Derek Jeter at shortstop.

Why are those managers playing sub-par defenders at those position?

And you can't say because of others at DH, since you don't want to talk about Botts there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No is my answer to your question. Offense and defense are roughly equal in importance, but the defensive contribution is split(not evenly) between pitching and fielding, thus offense is much more important than just the fielding part of defense.

I guess you are saying it's easier to determine who is good/bad offensively compared to say who is good/bad defensively, thus it makes more sense to go after the more known element. That's a valid point, but doesn't make offense anymore important than defense, at least not more than it natural advantage.

Fielders don't pitch, and pitchers don't hit (in the AL). So, the offense takes up a much higher percentage of value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that is exactly what i meant! :rolleyes:

My point is that a DH can still be part of a winning team even if he doesn't play int he field.

THat's what you got out of what I said? Wow!

No point in discussing this if you want to pick and choose things and put words into my mouth. Huff was never even mentioned.

Hey, this is turning into a gang-up-on-SG thread. Kind of like OUR version of a 3-way (getting you back, my friend, for all your 3-way trade proposals). :)

Yes, you're right in pointing out that a DH CAN be a part of a winning team if he doesn't play the field. But we're at a stage in the rebuilding now where we can try to do things in the optimal way rather than in a possible way. It's simply not an optimal strategy to PLAN for inflexibility unless a guy has such phenomenal talent, in whatever area of the game it is in which he excels, that you're willing to countenance such inflexibility. From what I have read about Botts (I claim no first-hand scouting knowledge), it appears that he not only lacks rudimentary defensive skills, but also that his offensive skill set falls considerably short of phenomenal. Therefore, he does not appear to be an enticing long-term option for a team that we hope and expect will consistently be playoff-caliber. So the long-term argument for him goes away -- and it becomes instead a short-term argument about Botts vs. Millar.

You're also right in pointing out that you did not specifically mention Huff. But your general point seems to be that you prefer picking up a younger, cheaper player with good minor league offensive stats rather than signing an expensive aging veteran. Fair enough as a general proposition (well, not really -- ignoring defense is unfathomable to me -- but as for the rest of it, ok). But we don't have a time machine, McFly. We can't undo any of these signings to which you object, and which I am not feigning to defend. The roster is what it is. The question is how best to unwind the damage that's been done in a manner that leaves us best situated to move forward in the rebuild. That's a much more important long-term issue than having Botts on the roster for the remainder of this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, this is turning into a gang-up-on-SG thread. Kind of like OUR version of a 3-way (getting you back, my friend, for all your 3-way trade proposals). :)

Yes, you're right in pointing out that a DH CAN be a part of a winning team if he doesn't play the field. But we're at a stage in the rebuilding now where we can try to do things in the optimal way rather than in a possible way. It's simply not an optimal strategy to PLAN for inflexibility unless a guy has such phenomenal talent, in whatever area of the game it is in which he excels, that you're willing to countenance such inflexibility. From what I have read about Botts (I claim no first-hand scouting knowledge), it appears that he not only lacks rudimentary defensive skills, but also that his offensive skill set falls considerably short of phenomenal. Therefore, he does not appear to be an enticing long-term option for a team that we hope and expect will consistently be playoff-caliber. So the long-term argument for him goes away -- and it becomes instead a short-term argument about Botts vs. Millar.

You're also right in pointing out that you did not specifically mention Huff. But your general point seems to be that you prefer picking up a younger, cheaper player with good minor league offensive stats rather than signing an expensive aging veteran. Fair enough as a general proposition (well, not really -- ignoring defense is unfathomable to me -- but as for the rest of it, ok). But we don't have a time machine, McFly. We can't undo any of these signings to which you object, and which I am not feigning to defend. The roster is what it is. The question is how best to unwind the damage that's been done in a manner that leaves us best situated to move forward in the rebuild. That's a much more important long-term issue than having Botts on the roster for the remainder of this year.

See, you are missing two points:

1) The "optimal" way of building a team is to try and find guys who can do something good for you.

If Botts proves that he can hit, you will find a place for him. If not at DH, then at first, or in left field, or in some place where his offensive production will completely overshadow any defensive deficiencies.

It's the Luis Hernandez question: can one part of your game carry the rest of it to the point where it still has value? Can Hernandez's defense at shortstop carry his inability to hit? Can Botts' offense carry any defensive issues he has?

We are trying Hernandez out now, and are probably finding our answer. What is the difference between trying Botts the same way?

2) We cannot undo any of the signings, but we can do things to rid ourselves of them, whether it is accept low value in return, or pay some of the contracts. We are artificially limiting our options by not trying (assuming we aren't, which is likely proof of what happens when we assume :P) to find better players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manny Ramirez in the outfield.

Johnny Damon (and Bernie Williams before him) in the outfield.

Derek Jeter at shortstop.

Why are those managers playing sub-par defenders at those position?

And you can't say because of others at DH, since you don't want to talk about Botts there.

To answer your question, it's because their individual offensive production plays a larger role in team wins than their defense does in losses. That is not the case with every player.

As for the argument that offense is still more important, all of those players can make outs and we all know that they can. If they couldn't make outs then they would DH. The DH is just for the player who can't play defense. I never meant to say that the DH is a valuable or valid position, or that his offense isn't important, but his offense ought to be measured against the effectiveness of the pitchers he replaces. They are, in essence, one in the same in the baseball line-up.

As for Botts, I think it would be a particularly silly move to acquire him now. There's no room for him, and I know there are a lot of people who don't want Millar or Huff because of their age (though both have contributed this year), but I really don't think you every give up on a season before June. By June, fine, but it is incumbent on every team to put their best effort. That effort can be adequately measured by June. Right now, the O's are winning, and though many people think this is a wasted year, I never have. I've thought all along, that with the players we acquired this O's team would be better than last year's. I also predicted that Toronto had a good shot at finishing last because they couldn't score at all (which I acknowledge to be completely antithetical to my arguments above), and they are there now (tonight's game is a perfect example of their season). So, no, I don't think they should acquire Botts. We're already the 8th youngest team in MLB and while I believe they have a better chance of competing next year and especially in 2010, they ought not give up on this year. It would be completely detrimental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, you are missing two points:

1) The "optimal" way of building a team is to try and find guys who can do something good for you.

If Botts proves that he can hit, you will find a place for him. If not at DH, then at first, or in left field, or in some place where his offensive production will completely overshadow any defensive deficiencies.

It's the Luis Hernandez question: can one part of your game carry the rest of it to the point where it still has value? Can Hernandez's defense at shortstop carry his inability to hit? Can Botts' offense carry any defensive issues he has?

We are trying Hernandez out now, and are probably finding our answer. What is the difference between trying Botts the same way?

2) We cannot undo any of the signings, but we can do things to rid ourselves of them, whether it is accept low value in return, or pay some of the contracts. We are artificially limiting our options by not trying (assuming we aren't, which is likely proof of what happens when we assume :P) to find better players.

I really don't think I'm "missing" these points, BTerp. But I'd be glad to respond.

I would not advocate as part of the long-term plan that we seek to acquire players who are highly limited on EITHER offense or defense. If our objective in acquiring Botts is that we'll get the mirror image of Luis Hernandez, that's not a real strong argument on his behalf.

I agree with the bolded portion of your argument in # 2. I assume that AM is interested in moving Huff and would pull the trigger if he gets an offer that he likes. His recent track record supports the hypothesis that he moves slowly, but gets excellent value. I'm comfortable with that approach. The key thing for me, though, is that the effort to trade Huff should proceed at whatever pace makes sense on its own terms, and not be artificially accelerated simply to accommodate such trivial moves as adding a Jason Botts. I am hoping that Huff can be traded soon, by this year's trading deadline at the latest -- not because I have an unbearable craving for Jason Botts, but rather because the sooner you move Huff, the more dollars you can potentially recover from his excessive contract, which can then be rolled over to more useful purposes in the rebuild. Ultimately, taking such an approach will give us the best set of options to find and acquire and develop better players. Finally, bear in mind that if we DO succeed in moving Huff at the deadline, that may be a perfect time to recall Scott Moore, who will hopefully get his game recharged by that point. Adding a Jason Botts may foreclose that option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your question, it's because their individual offensive production plays a larger role in team wins than their defense does in losses. That is not the case with every player.

As for the argument that offense is still more important, all of those players can make outs and we all know that they can. If they couldn't make outs then they would DH. The DH is just for the player who can't play defense. I never meant to say that the DH is a valuable or valid position, or that his offense isn't important, but his offense ought to be measured against the effectiveness of the pitchers he replaces. They are, in essence, one in the same in the baseball line-up.

As for Botts, I think it would be a particularly silly move to acquire him now. There's no room for him, and I know there are a lot of people who don't want Millar or Huff because of their age (though both have contributed this year), but I really don't think you every give up on a season before June. By June, fine, but it is incumbent on every team to put their best effort. That effort can be adequately measured by June. Right now, the O's are winning, and though many people think this is a wasted year, I never have. I've thought all along, that with the players we acquired this O's team would be better than last year's. I also predicted that Toronto had a good shot at finishing last because they couldn't score at all (which I acknowledge to be completely antithetical to my arguments above), and they are there now (tonight's game is a perfect example of their season). So, no, I don't think they should acquire Botts. We're already the 8th youngest team in MLB and while I believe they have a better chance of competing next year and especially in 2010, they ought not give up on this year. It would be completely detrimental.

We are rebuilding so to say there is no room for a bat with potential of Botts' is wrong. And going after Botts isn't giving up on this year. Botts would be an improvement over Millar right now. I think it was Stark that mentioned everybody is on the table regardless of our record...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are rebuilding so to say there is no room for a bat with potential of Botts' is wrong. And going after Botts isn't giving up on this year. Botts would be an improvement over Millar right now. I think it was Stark that mentioned everybody is on the table regardless of our record...

No he wouldn't. Botts was hitting a robust .158 at the time of getting cut- by THE TEXAS RANGERS.

But don't let facts get in the way of your Millar-bashing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...