Jump to content

The Biggest Fallacy: We Need a 1B or DH


Anonymous

Recommended Posts

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.

See my above post. People have anomalous years (lucky or otherwise). Lowell did. And regressed. Thanks for making our point for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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.

You have no way of knowing that Huff won't out produce Texeria next season. None, nada, zilch. All you are doing is speculating. And you could very well be quite wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no way of knowing that Huff won't out produce Texeria next season. None, nada, zilch. All you are doing is speculating. And you could very well be quite wrong.

As could you. We're all speculating. Duh. Some of us are speculating based on empirical evidence. Some are speculating based on...

...wait, what are you speculating based on, again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Well, I favor trades, FA pursuit, and the least reliable method of development from within. A combination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

And there are probably tens of thousands of examples of players who do decline past age 28.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no way of knowing that Huff won't out produce Texeria next season. None, nada, zilch. All you are doing is speculating. And you could very well be quite wrong.

Yes we could be wrong, but you go off of odds and past performance. Huff came out of nowhere with the numbers he put up last year.

We have numbers, player history and trends to go off of. You have a hunch. You also had a hunch that Scott would only hit 14 homeruns last year and would be a bust.

You can't run a team on "if only this guy repeats a career year that he has never had before we might get somewhere". Huff had a great year, I hope that he puts up similar numbers again, but he is not a long-term solution, Tex is a long-term solution who you can reasonably expect to put up 08-Huff numbers or better for each of the next 5-6 years, at least.

At the risk of sounding like SG, you can not just think about 09.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my above post. People have anomalous years (lucky or otherwise). Lowell did. And regressed. Thanks for making our point for us.

We are not talking about the same thing. Lowell's career appeared virtually over when the Sox aquired him. Once with the Sox his career took a big rebound. That is what I am talking about and his age apparently was not a factor as he was still a highly productive player once again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As could you. We're all speculating. Duh. Some of us are speculating based on empirical evidence. Some are speculating based on...

...wait, what are you speculating based on, again?

So what? Just because you are speculating on "empirical evidence" doesn't mean you know what Huff will do next year any more than I do. Big deal. I say he won't dramatically fall off. I say he won't likely do better, but neither will Texeira. You want to bet on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No argument that the O's can get through 2009 with Huff at 1b and Salazar backing him up and Scott at DH with Montanez backing him up and probably get above average production at both positions.

The questions start when you look at 2010 and beyond. Huff's 3 year average production is 19 homeruns a season with a .773 OPS. If he has another good year (say 25 HRs / .800 OPS) in 2009, he'll likely command a 3 / 39 or better contract in 2010.

I for one don't mind paying 18 million a year to lock up a gold glove 1b with a career average .900+ OPS for 7 to 8 years. But I do have a problem paying a 32 year old, below average defensive 1b with a sub .800 OPS over the past 3 to 4 years 12 to 14 million a year to play on a rebuilding club.

We should be able to find 25 HR, .800 OPS production out of some younger player, who's at worst an average defensive 1b and we should be able to do it for far less than 12 to 14 million a year.

At DH, I think some combination of Luke Scott, Nolan Reimold and Lou Montanez has the O's covered for the next 4 to 5 years, so I'm not as worried about that position. But long term I see 1b as being just as critical an area of need as SS, 2b and 3b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not talking about the same thing. Lowell's career appeared virtually over when the Sox aquired him. Once with the Sox his career took a big rebound. That is what I am talking about and his age apparently was not a factor as he was still a highly productive player once again.

Right. And then he wasn't. Much like Huff. Do you count on Lowell based on his anomalous peak? Or on his lesser baseline?

You don't build a team hoping for anomalous or inexplicable surges in performance. It was great we got the year we did out of Huff. But you can't count on it going forward.

We're not talking about the same thing because you're not seeing the big picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what? Just because you are speculating on "empirical evidence" doesn't mean you know what Huff will do next year any more than I do. Big deal. I say he won't dramatically fall off. I say he won't likely do better, but neither will Texeira. You want to bet on it?

Your honor, the defense may have EVIDENCE, but so what I think my client is innocent...

Seriously, who made you the all-knowing jambi of the OH? I mean do you have one-iota of anything to support your claim or do you have a hunch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes we could be wrong, but you go off of odds and past performance. Huff came out of nowhere with the numbers he put up last year.

We have numbers, player history and trends to go off of. You have a hunch. You also had a hunch that Scott would only hit 14 homeruns last year and would be a bust.

You can't run a team on "if only this guy repeats a career year that he has never had before we might get somewhere". Huff had a great year, I hope that he puts up similar numbers again, but he is not a long-term solution, Tex is a long-term solution who you can reasonably expect to put up 08-Huff numbers or better for each of the next 5-6 years, at least.

At the risk of sounding like SG, you can not just think about 09.

And Texira could fall down, break his hip, develop arithitis like Belle and never be the same. So much for using the past to predict the future. That is why you never break the bank on any one player, especially if you are a smaller payrolled team like the Orioles. Peter Angelos learned this lesson the hard way with Albert Belle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No argument that the O's can get through 2009 with Huff at 1b and Salazar backing him up and Scott at DH with Montanez backing him up and probably get above average production at both positions.

The questions start when you look at 2010 and beyond. Huff's 3 year average production is 19 homeruns a season with a .773 OPS. If he has another good year (say 25 HRs / .800 OPS) in 2009, he'll likely command a 3 / 39 or better contract in 2010.

I for one don't mind paying 18 million a year to lock up a gold glove 1b with a career average .900+ OPS for 7 to 8 years. But I do have a problem paying a 32 year old, below average defensive 1b with a sub .800 OPS over the past 3 to 4 years 12 to 14 million a year to play on a rebuilding club.

We should be able to find 25 HR, .800 OPS production out of some younger player, who's at worst an average defensive 1b and we should be able to do it for far less than 12 to 14 million a year.

At DH, I think some combination of Luke Scott, Nolan Reimold and Lou Montanez has the O's covered for the next 4 to 5 years, so I'm not as worried about that position. But long term I see 1b as being just as critical an area of need as SS, 2b and 3b.

Thank you and very well said. You have expressed my thoughts on this precisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what? Just because you are speculating on "empirical evidence" doesn't mean you know what Huff will do next year any more than I do. Big deal. I say he won't dramatically fall off. I say he won't likely do better, but neither will Texeira. You want to bet on it?

Why would I want to bet on it? If you think gathering personal and historical information to try and determine the probability of getting a certain performance out of a player is a useless act, that's fine. Don't do it.

If you were offered a chance to win $500 if you could guess a number between 1 and 20, would you turn down the opportunity to have five of the non-winning numbers revealed to you simply because all speculation is created equal?

Or is it true that all speculation is NOT created equal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. And then he wasn't. Much like Huff. Do you count on Lowell based on his anomalous peak? Or on his lesser baseline?

You don't build a team hoping for anomalous or inexplicable surges in performance. It was great we got the year we did out of Huff. But you can't count on it going forward.

We're not talking about the same thing because you're not seeing the big picture.

He was doing okay (Lowell) until he got hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...