Jump to content

The Biggest Fallacy: We Need a 1B or DH


Anonymous

Recommended Posts

I'd rather spend big dollars spread over a lot of years on a position player than a pitcher in general. When this is combined with the fact that we have a pretty good amount of pitching in the MiLs, it's a no-brainer that, unless we can scout a bargain on the FA market (and AJB taking a hometown discount to come here might be that kind of bargain), we should focus, going forward, on sniping positional talent.

FA pitchers are, at times, a necessary evil. But AM knows that it's a high-cost, high-risk, and deeply inefficient way to stockpile arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply
With regards to Anonymous' specific reference to 2009 I would like to note that Huff stands a very good chance of being better than what most teams have. Again, the thread author is exclusively questioning the need to add to this position NEXT year.

This is the issue though...when determining whether to sign a guy for an 8-10 year contract...you can't JUST look at the next season...you have to look at the whole framework. (see Alfonso Soriano & Carlos Lee, but backwards)

The odds are that Huff won't come close to last years numbers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another fallacy....

2009 is what we need to focus on.

This thread basically does that. It is completely wrong to say we don't need a long term answer at first...We may not need to spend a bunch of money to do it but we certainly need it.

There is no doubt about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 is far from old. In fact it is more like one of most player's prime playing years.

Actually that's not true at all...

27 is the median age of peak playing performance throughout the history of the game (there has been a lot of research and effort done in determining this). And I'm not one to start ragging on a 28 year old saying he's done....but to be on the other side of 30, I will say your more likely to go downhill...than up.

As always there is an exception to the rule (see Huff in 08')...but the chances of him defying age and history for a 2nd year in a row...or repeatedly down the line....not good at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather spend big dollars spread over a lot of years on a position player than a pitcher in general. When this is combined with the fact that we have a pretty good amount of pitching in the MiLs, it's a no-brainer that, unless we can scout a bargain on the FA market (and AJB taking a hometown discount to come here might be that kind of bargain), we should focus, going forward, on sniping positional talent.

FA pitchers are, at times, a necessary evil. But AM knows that it's a high-cost, high-risk, and deeply inefficient way to stockpile arms.

I agree, but there has been a major problem in producing quality starting pitching from within over a high number of years. I cannot envision that problem suddenly rectifying itself. I believe Mazzone was astonished at how poorly the Orioles minor leagues have been at developing a finished product. I have zero faith in anything of much value being provided from within. Ergo, the money the team has available should be used to aquire it from other teams who do a better job of developing and producing it. This just seems logical to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another fallacy....

2009 is what we need to focus on.

This thread basically does that. It is completely wrong to say we don't need a long term answer at first...We may not need to spend a bunch of money to do it but we certainly need it.

There is no doubt about that.

Exactly. I'm not huge on the Teix wagon, but I'm definitely not on the "let's prioritize starting pitching" one either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually that's not true at all...

27 is the median age of peak playing performance throughout the history of the game (there has been a lot of research and effort done in determining this). And I'm not one to start ragging on a 28 year old saying he's done....but to be on the other side of 30, I will say your more likely to go downhill...than up.

As always there is an exception to the rule (see Huff in 08')...but the chances of him defying age and history for a 2nd year in a row...or repeatedly down the line....not good at all.

Oh, so once players like Frank Robinson, Hank Aaron, and AROD hit 30 just stick a fork in them? :rolleyestf: I think you need to revisit history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually that's not true at all...

27 is the median age of peak playing performance throughout the history of the game (there has been a lot of research and effort done in determining this). And I'm not one to start ragging on a 28 year old saying he's done....but to be on the other side of 30, I will say your more likely to go downhill...than up.

As always there is an exception to the rule (see Huff in 08')...but the chances of him defying age and history for a 2nd year in a row...or repeatedly down the line....not good at all.

Actually, he could be even better. Everyone here as I recall though Mike Lowell was done as he was in his thirties when the Red Sox took a chance on him. I think they and he have fared pretty well. You are too quick to box everything into a lock to happen. Baseball if full of counter examples to your theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so once players like Frank Robinson, Hank Aaron, and AROD hit 30 just stick a fork in them? :rolleyestf: I think you need to revisit history.

I said evidence shows the MEDIAN age of peak performance is 27...based on back tracking throughout the history of the game.

Players with the caliber of an ARod are much more likely to continue to play well through their later years...because they are GOOD/Great players.

An average player such as Aubrey Huff, who even at 25,26,27 wasn't anything special...is going to age as gracefully, cause their skills diminish that much faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so once players like Frank Robinson, Hank Aaron, and AROD hit 30 just stick a fork in them? :rolleyestf: I think you need to revisit history.

No, you think people need to revisit selective history. The overall trend is decline after thirty. It would be imprudent not to go on a case-by-case basis, looking at individual indications. But it would be more imprudent to base our expectations going forward on the post-30 performance of three of the greatest hitters in ML history.

No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I'm not huge on the Teix wagon, but I'm definitely not on the "let's prioritize starting pitching" one either.

So you don't think it logical to exert the most resources and effort in trying to improve the area that is the worst or most problematic on the team?:scratchchinhmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, he could be even better. Everyone here as I recall though Mike Lowell was done as he was in his thirties when the Red Sox took a chance on him. I think they and he have fared pretty well. You are too quick to box everything into a lock to happen. Baseball if full of counter examples to your theory.

When Lowell's 2007 BABIP of .342 regressed to the norm (.290) his OPS declined to sub-.800.

So, yeah, Lowell's a good comp. For those arguing that we shouldn't bank on Huff repeating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you think people need to revisit selective history. The overall trend is decline after thirty. It would be imprudent not to go on a case-by-case basis, looking at individual indications. But it would be more imprudent to base our expectations going forward on the post-30 performance of three of the greatest hitters in ML history.

No?

Okay, how about Mike Lowell then? I mean there are probably hundreds of examples of players who don't drastically decline once they age past 28. The point is anyone who thinks Huff is going to suffer a terrible decline next year has no objective reason to espouse that. Unless something terrible happens to him physically over the off season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't think it logical to exert the most resources and effort in trying to improve the area that is the worst or most problematic on the team?:scratchchinhmm:

Only if you suffer from hyperbolic discounting to such a point that you can't see that 2010+ is more far more important than 2009.

But then, hyperbolic discounting is, by definition, irrational.

So, no. I don't think it's logical to focus on pitching for 2009 when the organizational blueprint is designed to acquire pitching through avenues other than FA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Lowell's 2007 BABIP of .342 regressed to the norm (.290) his OPS declined to sub-.800.

So, yeah, Lowell's a good comp. For those arguing that we shouldn't bank on Huff repeating.

I am referrencing his improvement from looking virtually done in the NL to having a great season after getting traded to the Red Sox. You are acting ridiculously in focusing only on what you are focusing. Lowell looked to be about done and had almost an MVP like season after the trade. He was a major factor in the Sox beating the Yankees and winning the WS! Ergo, he was not done because of his AGE! He conclusively proved otherwise. I think Huff is of the same ilk. Like a fine wine, he betters with age!:clap3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...