PDA

View Full Version : Jung-Ho Kang a .280 BA, 25 homer guy?



Protoss
02-12-2015, 02:47 AM
Just an excellent article from Fangraphs+ (free), with a lot of GIFs. In here, the author is comparing Kang's hitting mechanics to Miggy's.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/breaking-down-jung-ho-kang/


Taking the detestable jump into the predictive, with how hard he hits the ball and assuming only average contact and strikeout rates, I could easily see him hitting .280 with 25 homers, and that might be conservative.

Playing time will not be an issue once he outplays the rest of the Pirates infield — they’ll find room for his bat. For logistical reasons, give him a break at the start for the culture change and settling into the grind of big league baseball, but he has all the makings of being an absolute monster. He’ll easily be worth the contract the Pirates sign him to, and he’ll be worth any price you pay on draft day.

JFYI, the author is said to have predicted a breakout season for JD Martinez as well as Jose Abreu last year.

JoshBresser
02-12-2015, 02:58 AM
Too bad the Reds don't need SS offense! With this guy making a whopping 4 million a year, I can see why the Reds passed.

RedTeamGo!
02-12-2015, 09:34 AM
Too bad the Reds don't need SS offense! With this guy making a whopping 4 million a year, I can see why the Reds passed.

Maybe he passed on the Reds.

RedlegJake
02-12-2015, 10:10 AM
The Reds don't compete for players in the Asian countries with posting fees. Not sure if that is a hard line or just coincidence but they haven't been linked to a single Asian player direct from Japan or Korea since the posting process was formalized by those countries. If it helps, they have been active in those baseball hotbeds Australia and Italy.

sarcasm alert.

Protoss
02-12-2015, 10:59 AM
The Reds don't compete for players in the Asian countries with posting fees.
I think they need to... just for the sake of cost-effectiveness.


Over the last two years (13~14)


IP ERA FIP WAR
Yu Darvish 354.0 2.92 3.10 9.1
Hisashi Iwakuma 398.2 3.05 3.36 7.2
Hyun-Jin Ryu 344.0 3.17 2.97 6.6
Homer Bailey 354.2 3.58 3.56 5.0



Yu Darvish: 6 yrs/$56M ($51.7M posting fee)
Hisashi Iwakuma: 3 yrs/$20M
Hyun-Jin Ryu: 6 yrs/$36M ($25.7M posting fee)
Homer Bailey: 6 yrs/$105M

RedlegJake
02-12-2015, 11:26 AM
I don't think the Reds FO or owner see it that way, although I agree with your view.

JoshBresser
02-12-2015, 12:34 PM
Maybe he passed on the Reds.

Yeah, I'm sure he would much rather go to Pittsburgh and their hitter friendly park as opposed to Cincinnati and their pitcher's paradise.

dougdirt
02-12-2015, 12:41 PM
I recall the biggest issue with Kang being that no one really seemed to think he could play shortstop at the big league level.

Ben Badler of Baseball America described him, from what he heard from most scouts as "an offensive oriented utility guy"
http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/bas-ben-badler-kang-yoan-lopez-signings/

Protoss
02-12-2015, 12:55 PM
As far as I know, the Reds did not place a bid on Kang, the Cardinals did.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/cardinal-beat/cards-lose-out-to-pirates-in-bidding-for-korean-shortstop/article_19522880-7f31-5662-9706-16a4cc39e05f.html

Protoss
02-12-2015, 01:33 PM
I recall the biggest issue with Kang being that no one really seemed to think he could play shortstop at the big league level.

Ben Badler of Baseball America described him, from what he heard from most scouts as "an offensive oriented utility guy"
http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/bas-ben-badler-kang-yoan-lopez-signings/
IIRC, when Ryu was posted from Korea back in 2012, there were plenty of scouts who saw him as more of a back-end starter because of his fastball velocity.

Tom Servo
02-12-2015, 02:14 PM
n/m

Tom Servo
02-12-2015, 02:16 PM
lol let's bash the Reds for being dumb stupid cheap idiots before Kang even sees one pitch by a major league pitcher

Article is interesting Protoss, thanks for posting it.

JoshBresser
02-12-2015, 02:17 PM
lol let's bash the Reds for being dumb stupid cheap idiots before Kang even sees one pitch by a major league pitcher

Very solid point. We need to do all we can to keep Cozart's .221/.268 in the lineup.

Tom Servo
02-12-2015, 02:44 PM
Very solid point. We need to do all we can to keep Cozart's .221/.268 in the lineup.
Cozart sucking doesn't automatically make Kang a sure-thing superstar.

JoshBresser
02-12-2015, 04:31 PM
Cozart sucking doesn't automatically make Kang a sure-thing superstar.

No, but at 4 million a year it's definitely a worthwhile investment. Minimal risk.

dougdirt
02-12-2015, 04:39 PM
No, but at 4 million a year it's definitely a worthwhile investment. Minimal risk.

And it's also the most risk anyone in baseball was willing to take, which says a lot about how baseball feels about his usefulness. Maybe they are all wrong, it wouldn't be the first time it's happened. But when two Cuban guys are about to be cost $60-80M in the next two months (each), that this guy is only getting $4M a year says a lot.

Sure, maybe not a ton of risk involved, but how often do you pay bench guys $4M a year? Not too often.

JoshBresser
02-12-2015, 04:52 PM
And it's also the most risk anyone in baseball was willing to take, which says a lot about how baseball feels about his usefulness. Maybe they are all wrong, it wouldn't be the first time it's happened. But when two Cuban guys are about to be cost $60-80M in the next two months (each), that this guy is only getting $4M a year says a lot.

Sure, maybe not a ton of risk involved, but how often do you pay bench guys $4M a year? Not too often.

I don't really care what the "most risk anyone in baseball was willing to take" was. That's not an argument.

How many of those teams had their starting SS post a 56 wRC+ last year? Oh. Just the Reds.

NebraskaRed
02-12-2015, 05:05 PM
I don't really care what the "most risk anyone in baseball was willing to take" was. That's not an argument.

How many of those teams had their starting SS post a 56 wRC+ last year? Oh. Just the Reds.

But Doug's argument is indeed an argument. If no other team was willing to go over 4 million, then that says something about what they think he's capable of. And like Doug said, maybe they're wrong.

Also, it's not like the Reds haven't done anything to improve here. Suarez just might be a legitimate upgrade over Cozart.

JoshBresser
02-12-2015, 05:20 PM
But Doug's argument is indeed an argument. If no other team was willing to go over 4 million, then that says something about what they think he's capable of. And like Doug said, maybe they're wrong.

Also, it's not like the Reds haven't done anything to improve here. Suarez just might be a legitimate upgrade over Cozart.

Do I care what teams think of Kang?

Answer- no.

I don't consider appeals to authority as arguments. Sorry.

NebraskaRed
02-12-2015, 05:29 PM
If we want to get into a discussion of logical fallacies, I guess we could continue this conversation over in LogicalFallaciesZone, but Doug wasn't using an appeal to authority. He only would have been had he argued that those other teams are definitely correct in their estimation of Kang. He merely said that they could be correct.

dougdirt
02-12-2015, 05:41 PM
I don't really care what the "most risk anyone in baseball was willing to take" was. That's not an argument.

How many of those teams had their starting SS post a 56 wRC+ last year? Oh. Just the Reds.

Because baseball is flooded with shortstops right now, right?

Come on, man. There are 10 teams in baseball who would turn their nose at a shortstop who could hit, if that. A large majority of the game would flock to sign a shortstop that could hit. No one did that with this guy. There's a reason for it.

Could he help the Reds? Maybe. But let's not sit here and pretend like other teams saw something here. They didn't. If they did he'd be getting paid more than a solid relief pitcher.

JoshBresser
02-12-2015, 06:07 PM
Because baseball is flooded with shortstops right now, right?

Come on, man. There are 10 teams in baseball who would turn their nose at a shortstop who could hit, if that. A large majority of the game would flock to sign a shortstop that could hit. No one did that with this guy. There's a reason for it.

Could he help the Reds? Maybe. But let's not sit here and pretend like other teams saw something here. They didn't. If they did he'd be getting paid more than a solid relief pitcher.

"Because baseball is flooded with shortstops right now, right?" - my point exactly.

And, there's a reason? Okay, what is it? Make an argument. That isn't an argument.

- - - Updated - - -


If we want to get into a discussion of logical fallacies, I guess we could continue this conversation over in LogicalFallaciesZone, but Doug wasn't using an appeal to authority. He only would have been had he argued that those other teams are definitely correct in their estimation of Kang. He merely said that they could be correct.


Ok

dougdirt
02-12-2015, 06:51 PM
My point is that baseball needs shortstops and this guy signed for the price of a solid reliever. If anyone thought he was an answer at shortstop, they would have lined up to pay him like one. They didn't. No one believes he is an answer at shortstop. That's the argument.

Old school 1983
02-12-2015, 06:52 PM
Bresser. Wouldn't your assertion that Kang would be a definite offensive upgrade be an an appeal to an authority in the projection systems because he has no big league track record. Also saying 4 million is a minimal risk to the Reds looks pretty offbased as well. The Reds had to shuffle a bunch of money and find a team willing to eat salary just to add 4 million for a starting LF. Spending 4 million on a guy who could be only a bench bat wouldn't seem like the best investment considering those constraints. Looking at Kang, scouting reports say he may not stick at SS in the bigs. For the sake of argument, let's say the Reds saw him as a SS. If he reaches the proposed batting line here, he might not be an upgrade over Cozart considering defense as well, especially if you think Cozart can hit more like the back of his baseball card this season. Further considering Suarez in the system, the Reds might have figured they were covered at SS and wanted to invest the money into other areas of need. Even if he's not a SS, you aren't going to start him over Frazier and like it or lump it, BP isn't going anywhere. So maybe the Refs felt like they couldn't spend 4 million on a potential bench piece.

NebraskaRed
02-12-2015, 08:40 PM
"Because baseball is flooded with shortstops right now, right?" - my point exactly.

And, there's a reason? Okay, what is it? Make an argument. That isn't an argument

It is an argument, you just don't agree with it.

JoshBresser
02-12-2015, 09:58 PM
Bresser. Wouldn't your assertion that Kang would be a definite offensive upgrade be an an appeal to an authority in the projection systems because he has no big league track record. Also saying 4 million is a minimal risk to the Reds looks pretty offbased as well. The Reds had to shuffle a bunch of money and find a team willing to eat salary just to add 4 million for a starting LF. Spending 4 million on a guy who could be only a bench bat wouldn't seem like the best investment considering those constraints. Looking at Kang, scouting reports say he may not stick at SS in the bigs. For the sake of argument, let's say the Reds saw him as a SS. If he reaches the proposed batting line here, he might not be an upgrade over Cozart considering defense as well, especially if you think Cozart can hit more like the back of his baseball card this season. Further considering Suarez in the system, the Reds might have figured they were covered at SS and wanted to invest the money into other areas of need. Even if he's not a SS, you aren't going to start him over Frazier and like it or lump it, BP isn't going anywhere. So maybe the Refs felt like they couldn't spend 4 million on a potential bench piece.

I don't care about defense with this team. We have enough defense. Our problem is that we can't hit.

And if Kang becomes a bench piece? Cool. He helps the worst bench in baseball get better.

RedTeamGo!
02-12-2015, 10:22 PM
Suarez is likely better than Kang.

Tom Servo
02-12-2015, 10:38 PM
You know, we could wait to see if Kang even makes the Pirates out of spring training. The A's probably figured that worst case scenario Hiroyuki Nakajima (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/hiroyuki-nakajima-in-context/) could be a bench piece. Only he never made a single major league appearance.

JoshBresser
02-12-2015, 11:30 PM
My point is that baseball needs shortstops and this guy signed for the price of a solid reliever. If anyone thought he was an answer at shortstop, they would have lined up to pay him like one. They didn't. No one believes he is an answer at shortstop. That's the argument.

That's not an argument though. That's an appeal.

- - - Updated - - -


You know, we could wait to see if Kang even makes the Pirates out of spring training. The A's probably figured that worst case scenario Hiroyuki Nakajima (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/hiroyuki-nakajima-in-context/) could be a bench piece. Only he never made a single major league appearance.

Good point. Cozart is so good we shouldn't take any risks whatsoever in trying to upgrade from him.

dougdirt
02-12-2015, 11:34 PM
No, it's an argument, it's just not one that fits your thinking so you dismiss it.

RedTeamGo!
02-12-2015, 11:39 PM
Good point. Cozart is so good we shouldn't take any risks whatsoever in trying to upgrade from him.

They did take a risk in trying to upgrade Cozart. His name is Suarez. Walt traded Simon for him. You continue to ignore him.

JoshBresser
02-12-2015, 11:40 PM
No, it's an argument, it's just not one that fits your thinking so you dismiss it.

No. Appeals to authority aren't arguments.

- - - Updated - - -


They did take a risk in trying to upgrade Cozart. His name is Suarez. Walt traded Simon for him. You continue to ignore him.

Suarez won't hit .280 with 25 homers.

Protoss
02-12-2015, 11:47 PM
You know, we could wait to see if Kang even makes the Pirates out of spring training. The A's probably figured that worst case scenario Hiroyuki Nakajima (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/hiroyuki-nakajima-in-context/) could be a bench piece. Only he never made a single major league appearance.
http://m.pirates.mlb.com/news/article/106592314/pirates-jung-ho-kang-make-it-official-with-4-year-11m-deal


Huntington confirmed that he has "zero intent to send [Kang] to the Minor Leagues."

"He will be in [Spring Training] camp as a complementary player. He will give [Hurdle] a lot of [in-game] flexibility," Huntington said. "He's a nice all-around player who will have a successful Major League career as a regular. We just don't know when that will happen.

"There will be a significant transitional period, and our immediate focus is to help with the cultural transition."

Old school 1983
02-12-2015, 11:51 PM
I don't care about defense with this team. We have enough defense. Our problem is that we can't hit.

And if Kang becomes a bench piece? Cool. He helps the worst bench in baseball get better.

I'm sure you don't care about defense. But the pitching staff obviously does. With at least one new to full time MLB member likely to be in the staff, the team will need the defense. That wins games too. And 4 million for a bench player with the Reds salary crunch is wasteful spending.

dougdirt
02-12-2015, 11:56 PM
No. Appeals to authority aren't arguments.

- - - Updated - - -



Suarez won't hit .280 with 25 homers.

So your argument is that some guy writing for free on the internet is better at determining who will be able to do something in the Major Leagues than every front office in the big leagues is? That sounds like an appeal to authority argument to me. So, try again and make your argument an actual argument.

Two can play that game, Josh. It's a dumb game though. You say one guy says something and it's ok. I say 60+ guys say the exact opposite (I'm guessing the GM and at least one scout per team) and that's not ok. It's an incredibly strange stance to take.

Old school 1983
02-12-2015, 11:56 PM
No. Appeals to authority aren't arguments.

- - - Updated - - -



Suarez won't hit .280 with 25 homers.

Will Kang? he might. Then again he might not. Cozart might hit .260 with 12 to 15 while playing defense Kang couldn't in his dreams and make up the difference that way....but you're far too cool to care about that.

At that point you have 4 million riding wood and taking up salary that could have been used to elsewhere. And really the bench could easily not suck this year. They were asked to be starters last year and in doing so showed why they were bench players.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 12:03 AM
So your argument is that some guy writing for free on the internet is better at determining who will be able to do something in the Major Leagues than every front office in the big leagues is? That sounds like an appeal to authority argument to me. So, try again and make your argument an actual argument.

Two can play that game, Josh. It's a dumb game though. You say one guy says something and it's ok. I say 60+ guys say the exact opposite (I'm guessing the GM and at least one scout per team) and that's not ok. It's an incredibly strange stance to take.

Again. I do. not. care. what. those. people. think.

I. make. my. own. opinions. I. do. not. appeal. to. authority.

Some of these front office guys heavily value RBIs as an offensive stat. That doesn't change my opinion one iota about RBIs. Same with Kang here. Got it?

And my argument isn't based off of the article. It's based off his numbers and his potential. 4 million is nothing in today's MLB. There is no risk. None. Zero. Nada. No risk. Because if he doesn't pan out as a starter? Great. Then he's a good bench player with power. This bench is arguably one of the worst of all time. The power off of the bench is absolutely laughable. I mean, it's actually hilarious how pathetic it is.

Then you have this guy who hit, what, .340 with nearly 50 homers last year? Obviously, he won't hit that in the bigs, but it's pretty obvious he'll be better than Cozart- the absolute worse hitting starting player in baseball. And even if he doesn't play good enough defense (oooooh, defense, sooo important) to stick? Then he's a premium bench piece on a historically bad bench.

Where's the risk? Especially at 4 million. Zach Duke got 5 million per year this offseason after having an ERA over 8 in the first half of 2013 and getting released. Brandon McCarthy got 10 million a year after a near 5 ERA over the last 2 years. Where. is. the. risk?

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 12:06 AM
Will Kang? he might. Then again he might not. Cozart might hit .260 with 12 to 15 while playing defense Kang couldn't in his dreams and make up the difference that way....but you're far too cool to care about that.

At that point you have 4 million riding wood and taking up salary that could have been used to elsewhere. And really the bench could easily not suck this year. They were asked to be starters last year and in doing so showed why they were bench players.

The fact that there's even a realistic chance that he will makes him worth a measly 4 million- especially when he's a virtual lock to hit better than the worst hitting starter in baseball.

"And really the bench could easily not suck this year. " - No. Absolutely not. There is no chance this bench is good. None. Zip. Especially since Suarez will probably start in the minors. NOBODY on this bench looks like they'll provide positive value.

This is incredibly ignorant. Where could we better spend 4 million on this current team? The TWO things that needs an upgrade is either A) a new SS or B) the bench. The other starters are generally passable (though Byrd isn't great.) The rotation is decent. I think the bullpen will turn it around big time especially with Badenhop. Kang could easily be A- or, worst case scenario, he's B. Where would 4 million be better spent? I can't WAIT to hear this one.

Tom Servo
02-13-2015, 12:20 AM
Then you have this guy who hit, what, .340 with nearly 50 homers last year? Obviously, he won't hit that in the bigs, but it's pretty obvious he'll be better than Cozart- the absolute worse hitting starting player in baseball. And even if he doesn't play good enough defense (oooooh, defense, sooo important) to stick? Then he's a premium bench piece on a historically bad bench.

Where's the risk? Especially at 4 million. Zach Duke got 5 million per year this offseason after having an ERA over 8 in the first half of 2013 and getting released. Brandon McCarthy got 10 million a year after a near 5 ERA over the last 2 years. Where. is. the. risk?
The risk is that he's a complete Korean mirage and can't hit major league pitching like a number of players who made the jump to MLB before him, and can't play the field to boot. And you're paying him millions for it. That's the risk.

dougdirt
02-13-2015, 12:21 AM
Hitting isn't the only thing that someone has to do. He's got to play defense and it's not going to happen at shortstop, so who cares that he can outhit Cozart? If they aren't playing the same position, it doesn't matter. On the Reds he would play where? He's not starting over Frazier. Fairly or unfairly he's not starting over Phillips. That leaves the bench.

Would I take Kang on the bench? Absolutely. But. I'm. also. not. going. to. throw. a. fit. about. them. not. spending. $16M. on. a. bench. player.

And for someone who doesn't care what others think and make their own opinions, you sure seem to hold the EXACT opinion of the Fangraphs author in post #32 of this very thread.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 12:23 AM
Hitting isn't the only thing that someone has to do. He's got to play defense and it's not going to happen at shortstop, so who cares that he can outhit Cozart? If they aren't playing the same position, it doesn't matter. On the Reds he would play where? He's not starting over Frazier. Fairly or unfairly he's not starting over Phillips. That leaves the bench.

Would I take Kang on the bench? Absolutely. But. I'm. also. not. going. to. throw. a. fit. about. them. not. spending. $16M. on. a. bench. player.

And for someone who doesn't care what others think and make their own opinions, you sure seem to hold the EXACT opinion of the Fangraphs author in post #32 of this very thread.

His deal is actually only 12 million guaranteed over 4 years and a buyout. So that's 3 million a year.

Not that my argument needed strengthening. But there you go.

And where would he start? Shortstop. Easy. I don't care about defense on this team right now.

dougdirt
02-13-2015, 12:24 AM
His deal is actually only 12 million guaranteed over 4 years and a buyout. So that's 3 million a year.

Not that my argument needed strengthening. But there you go.

And where would he start? Shortstop. Easy. I don't care about defense on this team right now.

Well you can play fake GM all you want, but no one is playing that dude at shortstop in the Majors on a daily basis. But if we are playing in fantasy land, I've got to hit the road and pick up my fiance Anna Kendrick for our Valentines Day getaway.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 12:24 AM
The risk is that he's a complete Korean mirage and can't hit major league pitching like a number of players who made the jump to MLB before him, and can't play the field to boot. And you're paying him millions for it. That's the risk.

In that case, he's a sunk cost of a whopping 3 million per year over 4 years.

That's 3 million less over the life of the deal than the Nationals will pay in one of the last 7 years of the Scherzer deal (when he's not even pitching for him.)

Zero risk. Especially when he's a possible upgrade over your number 1 problem and a likely upgrade of your number 2 problem.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 12:26 AM
Well you can play fake GM all you want, but no one is playing that dude at shortstop in the Majors on a daily basis. But if we are playing in fantasy land, I've got to hit the road and pick up my fiance Anna Kendrick for our Valentines Day getaway.

I. Do. Not. Care. About. Defense. On. This. Team.

The team's defense is fine. Great, actually. It's the offense where they struggle. Starting with the absolutely pathetic Zack Cozart.

The fact that you'd rather start Cozart every day over Kang makes me laugh out loud. Seriously. I'm bellowing here because it's just so DUMB. HAHAHAHA.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 12:31 AM
Let's do some absolutely arbitrary- but still insightful- math here.

Let's breakdown Kang's potential into 3 segments:

1. He's a legit offensive threat starting shortstop. Call it 4 WAR/yr : 15%.

- I'm being generous to your guys' arguments here. I think it's more like 30 or 40% on this one.

2. He's a solid bench player. Call it 2 WAR/yr: 50%.
- The likely outcome.

3. He's a bust. Call it 0 WAR: 35%
- Also being generous.


.15 * 4= 0.6
.50 * 2= 1
.35 * 0= 0

== 1.6 WAR/yr expected.

Market value == 7 million per win.

1.6 wins a year * 4 years = 6.4 wins.

Free agent value of 6.4 wins = 45 million.

45 million expected worth vs. 12 million expected cost.


Even being overly generous, there's still no way this is a risky move.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 12:36 AM
I'll be even more generous. Say he's SO bad in 2015 that he's released or sent to wallow in the minors forevermore. So bad that he's worse than Skip Schumaker. - 2 wins in 2015, one of the lowest totals in the game.

Change 0 to -2 WAR. -2 WAR over 4 years is -.5 WAR per year.

1.1 wins a year * 4 years = 4.4 wins.

Free agent value of 4.4 wins = $30 million

30 million expected value vs. 12 million cost.

This is riskier for the Pirates than the Reds. Mercer is actually almost average. Cozart isn't even close to almost almost average.

dougdirt
02-13-2015, 12:55 AM
I. Do. Not. Care. About. Defense. On. This. Team.

The team's defense is fine. Great, actually. It's the offense where they struggle. Starting with the absolutely pathetic Zack Cozart.

The fact that you'd rather start Cozart every day over Kang makes me laugh out loud. Seriously. I'm bellowing here because it's just so DUMB. HAHAHAHA.

Don't confuse what I want with what I know to be a reality. I'd start Suarez on day 1 and not look back. But the reality is that no team in baseball is going to start Kang every day at shortstop. Maybe you know better than they do, but I doubt it given that I'm betting you have never actually watched him play defense in your life.

And for the record, Cozart was worth 1.2 wins last year in fWAR and 2.4 wins in bWAR. Take the average of the two and he's almost exactly average. But I get it, it doesn't fit what you want, so let's just not talk about it.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 12:56 AM
Don't confuse what I want with what I know to be a reality. I'd start Suarez on day 1 and not look back. But the reality is that no team in baseball is going to start Kang every day at shortstop. Maybe you know better than they do, but I doubt it given that I'm betting you have never actually watched him play defense in your life.

What part about this are you not processing? Caps this time, since I already said it spaced out by periods.

I. DO. NOT. CARE. ABOUT. DEFENSE. ON. THIS. TEAM. AS. CURRENTLY. CONSTRUCTED. WE. HAVE. ENOUGH. OF. THAT.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 12:58 AM
Don't confuse what I want with what I know to be a reality. I'd start Suarez on day 1 and not look back. But the reality is that no team in baseball is going to start Kang every day at shortstop. Maybe you know better than they do, but I doubt it given that I'm betting you have never actually watched him play defense in your life.

But the reality is that no team in baseball is going to start Kang every day at shortstop.

Man. That's worse than an appeal. That's an appeal based on a complete hypothetical.

Yikes. :eek:

dougdirt
02-13-2015, 01:01 AM
If anyone believed he was a starting shorstop, his contract would have been much larger. That's not an appeal to anything but common sense. Starting shortstops that hit better than Zack Cozart get PAID. Kang isn't getting paid. Those are all FACTS. But whatever, I'm done. Off to my sweet lady love Anna Kendrick (we are still chatting as if this were a fantasy world, right?)

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 01:03 AM
If anyone believed he was a starting shorstop, his contract would have been much larger. That's not an appeal to anything but common sense. Starting shortstops that hit better than Zack Cozart get PAID. Kang isn't getting paid. Those are all FACTS. But whatever, I'm done. Off to my sweet lady love Anna Kendrick (we are still chatting as if this were a fantasy world, right?)

Appeal.

Also, starting shortstops that hit better than Zack Cozart are literally the other 29 shortstops in baseball.

And what about this is fantasy, again? I'm stating an opinion. That doesn't mean I'm living in a fantasy world where I'm a GM any more than you stating your opinion on the Reds prospects on your website makes you live in a fantasy world where you're an MLB scout.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 01:07 AM
If anyone believed he was a starting shorstop, his contract would have been much larger. That's not an appeal to anything but common sense. Starting shortstops that hit better than Zack Cozart get PAID. Kang isn't getting paid. Those are all FACTS. But whatever, I'm done. Off to my sweet lady love Anna Kendrick (we are still chatting as if this were a fantasy world, right?)

Not many teams have shortstops hitting to the tune of a sub 60 wRC+ AND have one of the most pathetic benches in MLB history. The Reds are unique there!

Kang is less risky for the Reds than probably 95% of teams out there. That's my point. Well, one of them anyway.

Protoss
02-13-2015, 01:39 AM
But the reality is that no team in baseball is going to start Kang every day at shortstop.
Don't worry about it, he can play everywhere.

http://m.pirates.mlb.com/news/article/106592314/pirates-jung-ho-kang-make-it-official-with-4-year-11m-deal


The intrigue starts with the financial commitment to a player who does not have a place to play. Third baseman Josh Harrison, shortstop Jordy Mercer and second baseman Neil Walker have dibs on the positions Kang has played in Korea. Kang has the arm to also play the outfield, but that's locked up even tighter with Starling Marte, Andrew McCutchen and Gregory Polanco.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/gifs-jung-ho-kang-playing-every-infield-position/

http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kang-Catcher.gif

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 01:51 AM
Don't worry about it, he can play everywhere.

http://m.pirates.mlb.com/news/article/106592314/pirates-jung-ho-kang-make-it-official-with-4-year-11m-deal



http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/gifs-jung-ho-kang-playing-every-infield-position/

http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kang-Catcher.gif

But hey, Doug has hypothetical sources that say no team in baseball (Even the team with baseball's worst offensive shortstop) would start him at short. Isn't that enough?

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:03 AM
Man, what a horrendous defender.

http://i.imgur.com/GtUKlTO.gif

http://i.imgur.com/nwUKFSZ.gif

Oof. So bad!

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:08 AM
Seriously, the fact that it's even debatable that this guy is a better investment at 3 million a year than Cozart is at 2.5M + whatever raises he gets in arb (which will definitely push him well over 3M, if he isn't released by next year) is a joke.

Protoss
02-13-2015, 03:52 AM
And for the record, Cozart was worth 1.2 wins last year in fWAR and 2.4 wins in bWAR. Take the average of the two and he's almost exactly average. But I get it, it doesn't fit what you want, so let's just not talk about it.
Doug, when did you change your mind about Cozart and why?



I am sure Walt will somehow acquire someone for AAA who can actually play shortstop. But will he be able to acquire someone who can actually play shortstop at the MLB level if Cozart continues to OBP .290?


I can't believe the amount of people who don't find concern in a 27 year old with a career .290 OBP being a starter. Yes, he has things he brings to the table that are certainly good.


I'd rather have the other guy, but that isn't the point. The point is that Cozart probably isn't going to get better and may get worse, and if he does get worse, there is literally no one to replace him. Or if he gets hurt.

WAR says Cozart was an above-average shortstop last year. Not sure I fully buy into that. Was he average? Yeah, I could buy into that. Not sure I buy into anything more than that.

I am basically hinging on this, if Cozart takes even a slight step backwards in his game, I don't see him as "starting material", but the Reds don't have a single option behind him to replace him. I am not saying he will. I am saying he could. And if he does, the Reds have no options but to play him. It is like Stubbs all over again. You must play a crappy option because you don't have another one. Except that with how it looks right now, if that step backward does come this year, you may be stuck with that for years. It is a concern for me.


I could easily see Choo being 20-30 runs worse than Stubbs defensively (actual runs, not UZR runs) if he plays in CF for 150 games.

And that part of the equation is still missing the fact that the Reds have their starting shortstop returning at age 27 with a career .290 OBP and literally not another single true defensive shortstop in the organization with full season baseball experience.

The Reds are taking huge risks with this move.


You don't see a ton of risk in not having someone who likely rates out as even a slightly below-average center fielder and the only shortstop in the organization with full season experience is a 27 year old with a .290 OBP for his MLB career


No one is arguing Gregorius is a better option today. But what about July? 2014? 2015? Right now, Cozart is literally the only option for any of those questions within the organization.


People keep tossing around "first season" or "rookie" with Cozart as if he were 23 years old and is very likely to improve. He is a 27 year old player. He is older than Jay Bruce, Homer Bailey, Johnny Cueto, Mat Latos, Todd Frazier, JJ Hoover, Mike Leake, Aroldis Chapman.... At his age, rookie or not, he isn't really likely to show big improvements.

The overall picture paints him as being solid. And he is. Unless he goes the Drew Stubbs route and declines every year after his first. Then what? We don't have any other options at all if he does. Or heck, even if he goes out and has a bad collision at second base again and has to miss 4 months. Or if his range begins to decline like most guys do after age 25.

Odds are, Zack Cozart is nearly peaked as a player right now and there is no one behind him for years to come and he, thus far, has been a pretty poor offensive player. Drew Stubbs career as a hitter is better than Cozart.

I guess you guys can not be concerned by that. I am.


I think Gregorius has the potential to have both a better bat and better defense than Cozart. My issue isn't so much that we don't have Gregorius and do have Cozart, it is that we have every egg in the basket with Cozart's name on it and I truly don't think he is all that good or a safe bet moving forward. We could do worse of course. But every egg we have is in his basket for several years to come and he is a 27 year old with a pretty crappy bat.

- Source -
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?99597-Reds-acquire-Shin-Soo-Choo-and-Jason-Donald-for-Drew-Stubbs-and-Didi-Gregorious/page53

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?99597-Reds-acquire-Shin-Soo-Choo-and-Jason-Donald-for-Drew-Stubbs-and-Didi-Gregorious/page54

By the way, this thread is pretty epic.

NebraskaRed
02-13-2015, 08:42 AM
Doug, when did you change your mind about Cozart and why?


















- Source -
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?99597-Reds-acquire-Shin-Soo-Choo-and-Jason-Donald-for-Drew-Stubbs-and-Didi-Gregorious/page53

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?99597-Reds-acquire-Shin-Soo-Choo-and-Jason-Donald-for-Drew-Stubbs-and-Didi-Gregorious/page54

By the way, this thread is pretty epic.

I don't want to speak for Doug, but I fail to see what those quotes have to do with this discussion. Doug was saying that if the choice is between Suarez and Cozart (which it is), he'd start Suarez.

And I guess it's "pretty epic" if you define that as a thread where someone throws a temper tantrum and resorts to using all caps while staunchly refusing to even consider what anyone else is saying, merely replying with "I don't care"

Tom Servo
02-13-2015, 09:24 AM
Man, what a horrendous defender.

http://i.imgur.com/GtUKlTO.gif

http://i.imgur.com/nwUKFSZ.gif

Oof. So bad!
Oh man, he posted 2 gifs. Our argument is completely destroyed!

Protoss
02-13-2015, 09:57 AM
I don't want to speak for Doug, but I fail to see what those quotes have to do with this discussion. Doug was saying that if the choice is between Suarez and Cozart (which it is), he'd start Suarez.

And for the record, Cozart was worth 1.2 wins last year in fWAR and 2.4 wins in bWAR. Take the average of the two and he's almost exactly average. But I get it, it doesn't fit what you want, so let's just not talk about it.


WAR says Cozart was an above-average shortstop last year. Not sure I fully buy into that. Was he average? Yeah, I could buy into that. Not sure I buy into anything more than that.

And he's even using bWAR, which is not very popular compared with fWAR. Why? It's because the fWAR for Cozart is too low to fit what he wants.



And I guess it's "pretty epic" if you define that as a thread where someone throws a temper tantrum and resorts to using all caps while staunchly refusing to even consider what anyone else is saying, merely replying with "I don't care"

I meant the "Reds acquire Shin-Soo Choo and Jason Donald for Drew Stubbs and Didi Gregorious" thread
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?99597-Reds-acquire-Shin-Soo-Choo-and-Jason-Donald-for-Drew-Stubbs-and-Didi-Gregorious/page72

NebraskaRed
02-13-2015, 10:17 AM
Oh man, he posted 2 gifs. Our argument is completely destroyed!

I.Do.Not.Accept.GIFS.As.An.Argument.

RedTeamGo!
02-13-2015, 10:30 AM
Suarez won't hit .280 with 25 homers.

And you know Kang will at the major league level?

You.Cannot.Say.That.For.Certain.

Suarez has actually played at the major league level and succeeded. Kang has played at a glorified low minor league level.

RedlegJake
02-13-2015, 11:10 AM
Looking at Suarez minor league numbers he certainly could put up a .280/.360/.450 line while providing defense almost at Cozart's level. That's best case certainly but .260/.340/.400 is not a stretch. I'd say he has better history to predict that than Kang has to come close to .280 25 HRs. The Korean League is about A level, or lower minors. I'd love to have had Kang just for the utility aspect - a bat off the bench to fill any infield spot but I wouldn't want him as my starting SS. Suarez will have Cozart's job by July 1st if not sooner. Like Doug, I'd put him there opening day but then, I'd have traded Zack somewhere for whatever I could have gotten as soon as Suarez was obtained.

All caps, gifs and periods after every word don't make your argument stronger, though, no matter what you're espousing. They generally just tell me you don't have enough ammo for a full on debate, so you yell, keyboard style.

dubc47834
02-13-2015, 11:12 AM
His deal is actually only 12 million guaranteed over 4 years and a buyout. So that's 3 million a year.

Not that my argument needed strengthening. But there you go.

And where would he start? Shortstop. Easy. I don't care about defense on this team right now.


You don't care about much huh? You have made that statement enough in this thread alone. We are suppose to ignore most of MLB who thinks this guy isn't much of an upgrade(if at all) to the SS they already have, over a guy who has little to no experience in evaluating MLB talent...mkaes perfect sense. Like others have said, the Reds have made an attemp to upgrade the SS position, Suarez. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it wasn't a good move.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 11:47 AM
Oh man, he posted 2 gifs. Our argument is completely destroyed!

You haven't made an argument. There's nothing to destroy.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 11:50 AM
And you know Kang will at the major league level?

You.Cannot.Say.That.For.Certain.

Suarez has actually played at the major league level and succeeded. Kang has played at a glorified low minor league level.

Yeah, and if we had a shortstop who hit .350 with almost 50 homers at AA, we'd all be calling for him to come up and replace Cozart.

So, that brings us to the 3 million. Below league average salary. This is for a potential offensive threat shortstop or a good bench piece. Both are needs we have.

- - - Updated - - -


Looking at Suarez minor league numbers he certainly could put up a .280/.360/.450 line while providing defense almost at Cozart's level. That's best case certainly but .260/.340/.400 is not a stretch. I'd say he has better history to predict that than Kang has to come close to .280 25 HRs. The Korean League is about A level, or lower minors. I'd love to have had Kang just for the utility aspect - a bat off the bench to fill any infield spot but I wouldn't want him as my starting SS. Suarez will have Cozart's job by July 1st if not sooner. Like Doug, I'd put him there opening day but then, I'd have traded Zack somewhere for whatever I could have gotten as soon as Suarez was obtained.

All caps, gifs and periods after every word don't make your argument stronger, though, no matter what you're espousing. They generally just tell me you don't have enough ammo for a full on debate, so you yell, keyboard style.

ok. And the fact that you haven't actually debated any of my points generally tells me that you don't even know what I'm saying and therefore have no idea how to refute it.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 11:51 AM
You don't care about much huh? You have made that statement enough in this thread alone. We are suppose to ignore most of MLB who thinks this guy isn't much of an upgrade(if at all) to the SS they already have, over a guy who has little to no experience in evaluating MLB talent...mkaes perfect sense. Like others have said, the Reds have made an attemp to upgrade the SS position, Suarez. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it wasn't a good move.

Did Suarez ever hit .340 with close to 50 homers in the minors?

Oh, okay. No. He didn't.

Can Suarez play (literally) every position?

No. He can not.

As for the bolded portion- yes. Form your own opinion. It's possible!

Tom Servo
02-13-2015, 11:56 AM
You haven't made an argument. There's nothing to destroy.
My argument is that there is as much evidence that Kang will be the Pittsburgh everyday shortstop and be a .280 hitter with 25 HRs as there is that he will never make it to the majors. Your argument is that the money doesn't matter if he does crap out, but I say the Reds and many others teams in baseball would disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

Appearing at every position on a baseball diamond doesn't mean you can play every position, does this really even need to be spelled out further?

RedTeamGo!
02-13-2015, 11:57 AM
As Jeff Sullivan pointed out, Kang did strike out at a slightly higher than league average rate in a very offense-friendly league. That should give some pause to any optimism, for sure.


Kang did play in a league where video game scores are the norm

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 12:14 PM
Actual evidence that he can't play short?

I'm not saying he'd be good on defense. I'm not even saying he'd be average. I'm saying his defense doesn't matter.

The guy was a shortstop for a professional baseball team. It's not like he's Adam Dunn out there.

RedTeamGo!
02-13-2015, 12:16 PM
It's not like he's Adam Dunn out there.

How do you know? Adam Dunn played outfield for a professional baseball team. That is a meaningless statement.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 12:17 PM
Kris Bryant stuck out a lot too.

I guess he sucks as well.

Mike Trout lead the AL in strikeouts. I guess he's bad too. Aw shucks!

- - - Updated - - -


How do you know? Adam Dunn played outfield for a professional baseball team. That is a meaningless statement.

I meant Adam Dunn at shortstop. I'd take prime Adam Dunn in the OF for this team because of his offense.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 12:21 PM
How do you know? Adam Dunn played outfield for a professional baseball team. That is a meaningless statement.

The point is that he's played shortstop for a professional team. It wouldn't be like throwing Adam Dunn out there at short.

RedTeamGo!
02-13-2015, 12:29 PM
Kris Bryant stuck out a lot too.

I guess he sucks as well.

Mike Trout lead the AL in strikeouts. I guess he's bad too. Aw shucks!

- - - Updated - - -



I meant Adam Dunn at shortstop. I'd take prime Adam Dunn in the OF for this team because of his offense.

Mike Trout did that the Major League level.

Tell me everything you know about the Korean Baseball Organization.

Did you know Eric Thames hit 37 home runs last year in the KBO? Yeah, that Eric Thames. The Eric Thames that was out of MLB by age 25. Maybe we should sign Eric Thames to play Left Field for us. He would obviously do very well since he tore the KBO apart.

REDREAD
02-13-2015, 12:32 PM
This is incredibly ignorant. Where could we better spend 4 million on this current team? The TWO things that needs an upgrade is either A) a new SS or B) the bench. The other starters are generally passable (though Byrd isn't great.) The rotation is decent. I think the bullpen will turn it around big time especially with Badenhop. Kang could easily be A- or, worst case scenario, he's B. Where would 4 million be better spent? I can't WAIT to hear this one.

We spent it on Inglesis, Byrd and Badenhop, and raises for current players.

Looking it up. looks like the Pirates paid over a little bit over 5 million just to get the rights to get him.
Then he contract is worth 16 million over 4 year. Another source said only 11 million is guaranteed.
So on the low end, the Pirates paid 11 million + 5 million posting = 16 million dollar gamble.
If he can become a decent starting player at SS/2b/3b, then I Agree with you, not a bad price.
But there's always a risk. The guys the Reds chose to spend money on are lower risk gambles, and more likely to contribute this year, IMO.

And in your other post about WAR.. Well, Cozart had a 2.4 WAR last year. So using your own numbers, only a 15% chance Kang is significantly better than Cozart. (Not that I believe in WAR).

Edit: I used baseball reference WAR because their site is much easier to use than fangraphs.. but I see someone else already averaged the two in another post, to make a simliar point.

REDREAD
02-13-2015, 12:35 PM
I. Do. Not. Care. About. Defense. On. This. Team.


You need to watch some old games where Mark Lewis and Keppinger attempted to play SS.
Not using stat evidence, but it sure seemed like they gave up a lot more runs with their glove than they added with their hitting.

Old school 1983
02-13-2015, 12:36 PM
The fact that there's even a realistic chance that he will makes him worth a measly 4 million- especially when he's a virtual lock to hit better than the worst hitting starter in baseball.

"And really the bench could easily not suck this year. " - No. Absolutely not. There is no chance this bench is good. None. Zip. Especially since Suarez will probably start in the minors. NOBODY on this bench looks like they'll provide positive value.

This is incredibly ignorant. Where could we better spend 4 million on this current team? The TWO things that needs an upgrade is either A) a new SS or B) the bench. The other starters are generally passable (though Byrd isn't great.) The rotation is decent. I think the bullpen will turn it around big time especially with Badenhop. Kang could easily be A- or, worst case scenario, he's B. Where would 4 million be better spent? I can't WAIT to hear this one.

You can't just judge a player who is not a DH just on his hitting! Especially at the most defensively demanding position on the diamond. You have to consider the defensive implications of running him out there every day. Sure the guy is likely to hit better than Cozart but that doesn't make him a lock to be an all around better player. Just because you don't care about defense doesn't make it no longer a consideration in an analysis of a player.

Considering the the bench. If you look at the bench last year, most of the regular bench guys were starting due to injuries, and the guys coming off the bench were guys who had no business being in the bigs. Guys like Soto and probably Lutz have hardly s prayer of making this team let alone seeing significant time. I'm sure you'll knock skip, but he was battling injury last year and usually obps around 330 which is great off the bench. Pena was over played and exposed last year. As he proved when given appropriate time with the right match ups he's a solid bench piece. Suarez is near a starter level SS. Guys like Boesch and Satin have MLB experience with good numbers previously. Especially in boeschs case. The bench will be improved.

The team did get Suarez. An upgrade at SS offensively who can actually legitimately field the position. The have NRI guys that improve the bench and guys that will improve it without having to be pressed into starting service. What is actually incredibly ignorant is making an assessment of a player and not taking the entire game or Reds roster into consideration. Idc how much you don't care about defense. It's still an important consideration in any real analysis of a player regardless of how many all caps words you use or sarcastic comments you make. And yes the money was better spent on the pen or giving big league contracts to guys like Boecsh or Satin or any of the NRI pitchers that could make the team out of the spring.

dubc47834
02-13-2015, 12:59 PM
Mike Trout did that the Major League level.

Tell me everything you know about the Korean Baseball Organization.

Did you know Eric Thames hit 37 home runs last year in the KBO? Yeah, that Eric Thames. The Eric Thames that was out of MLB by age 25. Maybe we should sign Eric Thames to play Left Field for us. He would obviously do very well since he tore the KBO apart.

I hate it when facts get in the way of a perfectly good thread!!!

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 01:23 PM
We spent it on Inglesis, Byrd and Badenhop, and raises for current players.

Looking it up. looks like the Pirates paid over a little bit over 5 million just to get the rights to get him.
Then he contract is worth 16 million over 4 year. Another source said only 11 million is guaranteed.
So on the low end, the Pirates paid 11 million + 5 million posting = 16 million dollar gamble.
If he can become a decent starting player at SS/2b/3b, then I Agree with you, not a bad price.
But there's always a risk. The guys the Reds chose to spend money on are lower risk gambles, and more likely to contribute this year, IMO.

And in your other post about WAR.. Well, Cozart had a 2.4 WAR last year. So using your own numbers, only a 15% chance Kang is significantly better than Cozart. (Not that I believe in WAR).

Edit: I used baseball reference WAR because their site is much easier to use than fangraphs.. but I see someone else already averaged the two in another post, to make a simliar point.

Right. I'm not a WARshipper either. But I just used it because I didn't feel like computing free agent market dollar value for wRC+.

But, I circumvent that by saying that Kang's WAR would be mostly offensive, whereas all of Cozart's WAR is defensive. This team needs offense ATM- not defense. I will sacrifice D to get O.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 01:28 PM
You can't just judge a player who is not a DH just on his hitting! Especially at the most defensively demanding position on the diamond. You have to consider the defensive implications of running him out there every day. Sure the guy is likely to hit better than Cozart but that doesn't make him a lock to be an all around better player. Just because you don't care about defense doesn't make it no longer a consideration in an analysis of a player.

Considering the the bench. If you look at the bench last year, most of the regular bench guys were starting due to injuries, and the guys coming off the bench were guys who had no business being in the bigs. Guys like Soto and probably Lutz have hardly s prayer of making this team let alone seeing significant time. I'm sure you'll knock skip, but he was battling injury last year and usually obps around 330 which is great off the bench. Pena was over played and exposed last year. As he proved when given appropriate time with the right match ups he's a solid bench piece. Suarez is near a starter level SS. Guys like Boesch and Satin have MLB experience with good numbers previously. Especially in boeschs case. The bench will be improved.

The team did get Suarez. An upgrade at SS offensively who can actually legitimately field the position. The have NRI guys that improve the bench and guys that will improve it without having to be pressed into starting service. What is actually incredibly ignorant is making an assessment of a player and not taking the entire game or Reds roster into consideration. Idc how much you don't care about defense. It's still an important consideration in any real analysis of a player regardless of how many all caps words you use or sarcastic comments you make. And yes the money was better spent on the pen or giving big league contracts to guys like Boecsh or Satin or any of the NRI pitchers that could make the team out of the spring.

He was also worth -1.4 wins in his last "healthy season." (2013.) So, no. Skip isn't good.

I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest. It's clearly not worth it if you think Skip Schumaker is anything other than awful. Absolutely no point.

- - - Updated - - -


I hate it when facts get in the way of a perfectly good thread!!!

So, Eric Thames had a good year in the KBO so that means Kang sucks?

I don't buy that as an argument.

- - - Updated - - -


You need to watch some old games where Mark Lewis and Keppinger attempted to play SS.
Not using stat evidence, but it sure seemed like they gave up a lot more runs with their glove than they added with their hitting.

And if he hits like Keppinger did with the Reds in 08, he wouldn't start.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 01:30 PM
Yeah, let's spend that money on Boesch (.187/.203/.293 last year) and Satin (.086/.256/.143 last year) instead of someone who actually has the potential to be good. Woooooooooo! Solid plan!

Man, you guys are hilarious. Keep it coming, please.

To be fair, I actually like Satin. But Boesch is awful.

And if I had to choose between a decent 3B/1B and a potentially star level SS? I'm taking the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 01:35 PM
I'll offer you guys a challenge. I don't know if it's possible or not, I haven't bothered to check.

Find me a bench player outside of the 4 established non-Skip bench guys (Suarez, Pena, Negron, Satin) that projects for over 1 WAR that could be had for less than 3 million bucks.

Can be either already in the org or not.

Bonus points and an extra gold star if they play short.

RedlegJake
02-13-2015, 01:50 PM
ok. And the fact that you haven't actually debated any of my points generally tells me that you don't even know what I'm saying and therefore have no idea how to refute it.

You are so anxious to argue you don't even realize when someone generally agrees with your pov. We differ only in small degrees - I am not convinced Kang will put up anything like .280 25 homers but he's worth the gamble, imo. Second, I don't see him as the starter at short like you do. He;d be a perfect gamble as utility guy who can hit and in that role he;d probably get 400-500 plate appearances, while filling about any injury or regulars day of rest, and offering a bat for situations. That's worth the dollars, which in today's game, aren't that much. So I didn't debate because I generally agree with you. Kang is no sure thing but at the price, worth the gamble, and the dollars would largely be offset by simply trading Zack (even if it meant only taking a D level prospect back), giving the starting job to Suarez, and filling the all around utility guy with Kang at pretty much the same price.

PadsFS
02-13-2015, 02:01 PM
I'll offer you guys a challenge. I don't know if it's possible or not, I haven't bothered to check.

Find me a bench player outside of the 4 established non-Skip bench guys (Suarez, Pena, Negron, Satin) that projects for over 1 WAR that could be had for less than 3 million bucks.

Can be either already in the org or not.

Bonus points and an extra gold star if they play short.


Everth Cabrera

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:06 PM
You are so anxious to argue you don't even realize when someone generally agrees with your pov. We differ only in small degrees - I am not convinced Kang will put up anything like .280 25 homers but he's worth the gamble, imo. Second, I don't see him as the starter at short like you do. He;d be a perfect gamble as utility guy who can hit and in that role he;d probably get 400-500 plate appearances, while filling about any injury or regulars day of rest, and offering a bat for situations. That's worth the dollars, which in today's game, aren't that much. So I didn't debate because I generally agree with you. Kang is no sure thing but at the price, worth the gamble, and the dollars would largely be offset by simply trading Zack (even if it meant only taking a D level prospect back), giving the starting job to Suarez, and filling the all around utility guy with Kang at pretty much the same price.

Alright, it sounds like our points are pretty much the same, outside of me thinking Kang should get a shot at SS. I agree, I like him as a super UT guy too.

Sorry.

- - - Updated - - -


Everth Cabrera

Isn't there a chance he's going to prison?

But if he doesn't, I agree that with his speed he'd be a solid combo with Billy! Having one 60 SB guy and one potential 30 SB guy would be sweet. Especially if they could bat 1/2 (though Cabrera's OBP wasn't good enough for that last year. He's been decent in that regard in the past though.)

RedTeamGo!
02-13-2015, 02:11 PM
I think the Reds should give $20 mil to Eric Thames to play left field. He crushed KBO pitching as well.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:18 PM
I think the Reds should give $20 mil to Eric Thames to play left field. He crushed KBO pitching as well.

You already tried this one. It didn't work.

Shot down.
Swing and a miss.
Try again!

And if Eric Thames was 27 with a great swing and could play every position on the diamond? Sure. I'd give him 2-3M a year. His career OPS (.727) is better than anybody on our bench will end up being. And he had a pretty solid year at the plate at 25 in 2011 before struggling in 2012 and being abandoned. If we could get 2011 Thames for 2-3M a year? For 24 doubles, 12 homers, and a .769 OPS off of the bench? Hell yeah give me that. His fielding is atrocious, sure, but I care about LF defense on this team even less than I care about SS defense.

REDREAD
02-13-2015, 02:23 PM
Right. I'm not a WARshipper either. But I just used it because I didn't feel like computing free agent market dollar value for wRC+.

But, I circumvent that by saying that Kang's WAR would be mostly offensive, whereas all of Cozart's WAR is defensive. This team needs offense ATM- not defense. I will sacrifice D to get O.

I kind of disagree with sacrificing defense at SS. The Reds formula of good pitching made great by defense and a pretty good offense has worked pretty good the last 6 years or so.
Guys like Leake and the young pitchers will benefit a lot by a strong defensive SS.
Honestly, if Kang was a slam dunk to hit 280 with 25 HRs, the Reds could've signed him for LF at that price (instead of getting Byrd).
But, IMO. that production is a longshot. Even Pitt plans to use him as a utility guy and they hope eventually he can be a starter.

I don't know a whole lot about Kang's glove, but IMO, over the course of a season, I can see how Cozart easily saves 2 games/year with his defense compared to a bad defensive SS (Again, I don't know how good Kang is, just making a general argument). A simliar argument can be made for Billy H. That guy's defense clearly changed the outcome of some games last year. (Probably in a more extreme manner than Cozart).

I don't want to weaken this team's best strength (defense).. It's what potentially sets us apart from other teams, and it's sure going to be nice since the #4 and #5 guys in the rotation are question marks.

PadsFS
02-13-2015, 02:25 PM
Isn't there a chance he's going to prison?

People don't go to prison for their first DUI conviction.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:26 PM
People don't go to prison for their first DUI conviction.

They do for resisting arrest though.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11832817/everth-cabrera-san-diego-padres-charged-resisting-arrest

Old school 1983
02-13-2015, 02:29 PM
He was also worth -1.4 wins in his last "healthy season." (2013.) So, no. Skip isn't good.

I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest. It's clearly not worth it if you think Skip Schumaker is anything other than awful. Absolutely no point.

- - - Updated - - -



So, Eric Thames had a good year in the KBO so that means Kang sucks?

I don't buy that as an argument.

- - - Updated - - -



And if he hits like Keppinger did with the Reds in 08, he wouldn't start.

Actually you're not responding to the rest because you can't back up your argument. So you picked out something (Skip) that is obliquely tied to what I said, but not central to my argument. Since you want to be the argumentation police, that isn't a very strong way to rebut someone. Saying you don't care isn't a valid way to dimiss a legitimate counterargument either. Finally your analysis points directly to an appeal to authority who guesses at what Kamg's output may be based on zero major or American minor league experience. Finally you make the faulty assumption that the Pirates budgetary constraints that allowed for Kang are similar to the Reds. That's a lot of argumentative flaws for someone posing as the argument police on the thread.

You might be better off saying that defense is important, but giving reasons to why Kang might outperform Cozart or Susrez anyway while considering defense and not end up an overpriced for the Reds bench piece. I think Kang has potential, and he may hit great. But it's not a lock for .280 or 25 hr. And it's not obvious that he fit into the Reds plans and budget.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:30 PM
I kind of disagree with sacrificing defense at SS. The Reds formula of good pitching made great by defense and a pretty good offense has worked pretty good the last 6 years or so.
Guys like Leake and the young pitchers will benefit a lot by a strong defensive SS.
Honestly, if Kang was a slam dunk to hit 280 with 25 HRs, the Reds could've signed him for LF at that price (instead of getting Byrd).
But, IMO. that production is a longshot. Even Pitt plans to use him as a utility guy and they hope eventually he can be a starter.

I don't know a whole lot about Kang's glove, but IMO, over the course of a season, I can see how Cozart easily saves 2 games/year with his defense compared to a bad defensive SS (Again, I don't know how good Kang is, just making a general argument). A simliar argument can be made for Billy H. That guy's defense clearly changed the outcome of some games last year. (Probably in a more extreme manner than Cozart).

I don't want to weaken this team's best strength (defense).. It's what potentially sets us apart from other teams, and it's sure going to be nice since the #4 and #5 guys in the rotation are question marks.

This is a fair point. But, removing one component of the defense isn't going to weaken it entirely. Even if Kang was an atrocious fielder, let's say Derek Jeter(Yankees did okay with him though) level bad, we still have Frazier, Phillips, Hamilton, and Bruce who profile as good fielders when healthy. Votto is decent at 1B too, and Byrd is about average in left.

One thing this team doesn't do, though, is get on base. Either start Kang and hope he can continue to do that, or use Suarez as the starter and Kang as a Super Utility guy. Even if Kang is just bench depth, we need bench depth! Badly!

REDREAD
02-13-2015, 02:30 PM
I'll offer you guys a challenge. I don't know if it's possible or not, I haven't bothered to check.

Find me a bench player outside of the 4 established non-Skip bench guys (Suarez, Pena, Negron, Satin) that projects for over 1 WAR that could be had for less than 3 million bucks.

Can be either already in the org or not.

Bonus points and an extra gold star if they play short.

That's easy. My first guess hit.
Heiey has had over 1 WAR (Fangraphs) every year of his career.
Baseball reference has him a little different, but his worst year was 0.7 WAR (0.9 last year)
Another reason why WAR doesn't make sense. Heisey is considered more valuable than most relief pitchers.

Old school 1983
02-13-2015, 02:31 PM
Yeah, let's spend that money on Boesch (.187/.203/.293 last year) and Satin (.086/.256/.143 last year) instead of someone who actually has the potential to be good. Woooooooooo! Solid plan!

Man, you guys are hilarious. Keep it coming, please.

To be fair, I actually like Satin. But Boesch is awful.

And if I had to choose between a decent 3B/1B and a potentially star level SS? I'm taking the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday.


Why don't you take their better years and minor league record as a whole into consideration rather than cherry picking their worst performance. Makes you assessment look dishonest.

Protoss
02-13-2015, 02:32 PM
The end of the story.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/redsblog/2015/01/23/no-japanese-players-on-the-reds/22228593/


The Reds don't have a scout in Japan, Reds general manager Walt Jocketty said in November after he'd expressed interest in free agent outfielder Nori Aoki, who later signed with the Giants.

"We do have some people who do cross checking, we don't have a scout in Japan," Jocketty said. "It's too costly."

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:32 PM
Actually you're not responding to the rest because you can't back up your argument. So you picked out something (Skip) that is obliquely tied to what I said, but not central to my argument. Since you want to be the argumentation police, that isn't a very strong way to rebut someone. Saying you don't care isn't a valid way to dimiss a legitimate counterargument either. Finally your analysis points directly to an appeal to authority who guesses at what Kamg's output may be based on zero major or American minor league experience. Finally you make the faulty assumption that the Pirates budgetary constraints that allowed for Kang are similar to the Reds. That's a lot of argumentative flaws for someone posing as the argument police on the thread.

You might be better off saying that defense is important, but giving reasons to why Kang might outperform Cozart or Susrez anyway while considering defense and not end up an overpriced for the Reds bench piece. I think Kang has potential, and he may hit great. But it's not a lock for .280 or 25 hr. And it's not obvious that he fit into the Reds plans and budget.

But I don't think Defense is important for this team right now. So I wouldn't say that.

Trade Cozart, and save the 2.5M he makes this year (and whatever he'd make in the future in arb - def over 3M though.) That's the budget constraint right there!

Give Kang the shot at SS. If he doesn't do as well as expected, make him a super bench guy and have Suarez start for the league minimum.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:33 PM
That's easy. My first guess hit.
Heiey has had over 1 WAR (Fangraphs) every year of his career.
Baseball reference has him a little different, but his worst year was 0.7 WAR (0.9 last year)
Another reason why WAR doesn't make sense. Heisey is considered more valuable than most relief pitchers.

I do agree to an extent. WAR overrates good defense.

But, Heisey isn't with the org. Nor can he be acquired in Free Agency. So he doesn't fit the bill.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:35 PM
Why don't you take their better years and minor league record as a whole into consideration rather than cherry picking their worst performance. Makes you assessment look dishonest.

They each have one good season at the Major League Level. One.

That's more concerning for Boesch than it is for Satin. Boesch has failed in every single year of his career outside of his fluke 2011, which he has never come close to repeating.

As for Satin? I like him. Throw him on the bench for league minimum.

Oh, and the fact that you'll laud Boesch's minor league numbers but not even take into consideration Kang hitting .350 with 50 homers in Korea's highest level of baseball is FUNNY!

REDREAD
02-13-2015, 02:36 PM
This is a fair point. But, removing one component of the defense isn't going to weaken it entirely. Even if Kang was an atrocious fielder, let's say Derek Jeter(Yankees did okay with him though) level bad, we still have Frazier, Phillips, Hamilton, and Bruce who profile as good fielders when healthy. Votto is decent at 1B too, and Byrd is about average in left.

One thing this team doesn't do, though, is get on base. Either start Kang and hope he can continue to do that, or use Suarez as the starter and Kang as a Super Utility guy. Even if Kang is just bench depth, we need bench depth! Badly!

It's not a bad idea in a vacuum (let's assume Kang is a good hitter for the sake of argument)
Problem is, there probably wasn't 5 million in the budget to win the posting bid, plus the approximately 3-4 million he was due this year.

Look at what they have added to the budget this year.. Byrd at 4 million (Philly ate 4 million) Badenhop only getting 1.5 million and the rest pushed into the option/buyout.
Would you take Kang over Byrd and Badenhop?
Trading Cozart might let you keep Badenhop, I guess, but still we'd have no LF.

RedTeamGo!
02-13-2015, 02:36 PM
The end of the story.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/redsblog/2015/01/23/no-japanese-players-on-the-reds/22228593/

Kang is a Korean that played in the Korean league.

Not all Asian players are Japanese.

Tom Servo
02-13-2015, 02:37 PM
The end of the story.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/redsblog/2015/01/23/no-japanese-players-on-the-reds/22228593/
Well not quite, considering Japan isn't Korea. It is probably fair to assume the Reds also don't scout much in Korea, but the quote about Japan doesn't confirm that.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:37 PM
It's not a bad idea in a vacuum (let's assume Kang is a good hitter for the sake of argument)
Problem is, there probably wasn't 5 million in the budget to win the posting bid, plus the approximately 3-4 million he was due this year.

Look at what they have added to the budget this year.. Byrd at 4 million (Philly at 4 million) Badenhop only getting 1.5 million and the rest pushed into the option/buyout.
Would you take Kang over Byrd and Badenhop?
Trading Cozart might let you keep Badenhop, I guess, but still we'd have no LF.

Backload Kang's deal. Simple.

REDREAD
02-13-2015, 02:37 PM
I do agree to an extent. WAR overrates good defense.

But, Heisey isn't with the org. Nor can he be acquired in Free Agency. So he doesn't fit the bill.

They could've just kept him, instead of basically giving him away for a marginal prospect, so IMO, he fits the criteria for the Reds.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:38 PM
Well not quite, considering Japan isn't Korea. It is probably fair to assume the Reds also don't scout much in Korea, but the quote about Japan doesn't confirm that.

Yeah, I'm sure they have one in Korea if they don't have one in Japan.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m451fqpNox1r6zkjm.gif

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:40 PM
They could've just kept him, instead of basically giving him away for a marginal prospect, so IMO, he fits the criteria for the Reds.

I agree with this. I would have kept Heisey. He was our best bench piece.

I don't want him anywhere near starting in LF though. Which is why I was happy they traded him at the time (since you know Walt would be tempted to sit on his hands and leave LF to Heisey if he was still around) but I do like Heisey as a bench player.

Man- Heisey, Kang, Satin, Suarez, and Pena would make a bench that is actually pretty good.

NebraskaRed
02-13-2015, 02:40 PM
They each have one good season at the Major League Level. One.

That's more concerning for Boesch than it is for Satin. Boesch has failed in every single year of his career outside of his fluke 2011, which he has never come close to repeating.

As for Satin? I like him. Throw him on the bench for league minimum.

Oh, and the fact that you'll laud Boesch's minor league numbers but not even take into consideration Kang hitting .350 with 50 homers in Korea's highest level of baseball is FUNNY!

How many years, good or bad, does Kang have at the Major League level?

REDREAD
02-13-2015, 02:41 PM
Backload Kang's deal. Simple.

You can't backload the posting fee. ( 5 million)

Plus can you imagine if Walt did nothing all winter, hoping to win the bid for Kang?
Doesn't seem like a prudent plan of attack when the team has known weakness.

I can accept that this year's budget was hurt due to backloading Frazier and Hannahan's deals. We were going for it, and it seemed a good idea at the time, even
though injuries derailed both players. But we had to pay the piper this year. Didn't really have much money to play with, and had to dump salary.

But I don't want to open the season with no LF just for a guy (Kang) that is basically a huge crapshoot.
The Reds have really limited financial resources now. I'm glad they are spending their money on safer bets, like Inglesis last summer.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:42 PM
How many years, good or bad, does Kang have at the Major League level?

None, which is why he'd cost 3 million a year instead of the 30 he'd get if he put those numbers up at the big league level.

But, if I'm deciding between a proven bad player and an unproven potentially good player, I'll take the unproven potentially good player any day.

RedTeamGo!
02-13-2015, 02:43 PM
You already tried this one. It didn't work.

Shot down.
Swing and a miss.
Try again!

And if Eric Thames was 27 with a great swing and could play every position on the diamond? Sure. I'd give him 2-3M a year. His career OPS (.727) is better than anybody on our bench will end up being. And he had a pretty solid year at the plate at 25 in 2011 before struggling in 2012 and being abandoned. If we could get 2011 Thames for 2-3M a year? For 24 doubles, 12 homers, and a .769 OPS off of the bench? Hell yeah give me that. His fielding is atrocious, sure, but I care about LF defense on this team even less than I care about SS defense.

Thames was also bad in 2013.

The point is that the KBO is a notorious hitters league. So much so, that Eric Thames and Felix Pie were two of the best hitters in the league.

There are much better pitchers in American college baseball than the KBO. Cozart would likely rip the KBO apart. Cozart sucks and I don't want him starting ss on the Reds, but I'm not going to throw a tantrum because the Reds didn't sign some Korean SS that had a great year in the KBO.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:43 PM
How many years, good or bad, does Kang have at the Major League level?

Remember what happened when we built our bench off of PROVEN TALENT major league guys? We gave ridiculously idiotic contracts to Hannahan and Schumaker, that's what.

Tom Servo
02-13-2015, 02:43 PM
Yeah, I'm sure they have one in Korea if they don't have one in Japan.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m451fqpNox1r6zkjm.gif
Well they did have one as recently as 2009.


International Scouting
Tony Arias ................ Director, Latin America Scouting
Miguel Machado ....Asst. Dir., Latin America Scouting
Jim Stoeckel............Director, International Operations
Richard Jimenez....Dominican Republic Scouting Coord.
Nathan Davison .................................. Scout, Australia
Jason Hewitt ....................................... Scout, Australia
Luke Prokopec .................................... Scout, Australia
Geronimo Blanco............................... Scout, Columbia
Carlos Batista ...................Scout, Dominican Republic
Cesar Castro.....................Scout, Dominican Republic
Camilo Pina.......................Scout, Dominican Republic
Miguel Victor Pol...............Scout, Dominican Republic
Bob Lindsey ........................................Scout, Germany
Randy Yamashiro.........................Scout, Hawaii/Japan
Sal Varriale .................................................S cout, Italy
Ben Park .................................................. Scout, Korea

NebraskaRed
02-13-2015, 02:43 PM
None, which is why he'd cost 3 million a year instead of the 30 he'd get if he put those numbers up at the big league level.

But, if I'm deciding between a proven bad player and an unproven potentially good player, I'll take the unproven potentially good player any day.

You know 3 million isn't the total cost, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating that.

Old school 1983
02-13-2015, 02:44 PM
And really Id have stayed out of this because I think there's a shot Kang becomes a solid player. That's a fine opinion. But when someone challenged you you didn't legitimately challenge them back. You said you didn't care, threw a hissy fit and said their argumentative techniques were flawed when yours were likely worse.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:44 PM
Thames was also bad in 2013.

The point is that the KBO is a notorious hitters league. So much so, that Eric Thames and Felix Pie were two of the best hitters in the league.

There are much better pitchers in American college baseball than the KBO. Cozart would likely rip the KBO apart. Cozart sucks and I don't want him starting ss on the Reds, but I'm not going to throw a tantrum because the Reds didn't sign some Korean SS that had a great year in the KBO.

Right. That's why I'm not expecting Kang to hit .350 with 50 homers like he did in the KBO. I never said that.

Even .260/.330 with 15-20 homers is a MASSIVE upgrade over Cozart- or the Utility role. And for only 3 million!

NebraskaRed
02-13-2015, 02:44 PM
Remember what happened when we built our bench off of PROVEN TALENT major league guys? We gave ridiculously idiotic contracts to Hannahan and Schumaker, that's what.

So, the Reds should only sign potentially good players who have zero experience in the majors?

Old school 1983
02-13-2015, 02:45 PM
None, which is why he'd cost 3 million a year instead of the 30 he'd get if he put those numbers up at the big league level.

But, if I'm deciding between a proven bad player and an unproven potentially good player, I'll take the unproven potentially good player any day.


Sure the two guys didn't play well....but they were also seriously injured.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:46 PM
Well they did have one as recently as 2009.

Wow, that's only 6 years ago.

- - - Updated - - -


Sure the two guys didn't play well....but they were also seriously injured.

So Boesch has been injured every year of his career except for his obviously fluky 2011?

Aw, how sad.

Tom Servo
02-13-2015, 02:47 PM
Right. That's why I'm not expecting Kang to hit .350 with 50 homers like he did in the KBO. I never said that.

Even .260/.330 with 15-20 homers is a MASSIVE upgrade over Cozart- or the Utility role. And for only 3 million!
Again, don't you think if any other teams thought this dude could hit 15-20 home runs that they would have bid on him?

NebraskaRed
02-13-2015, 02:47 PM
Wow, that's only 6 years ago.

- - - Updated - - -



So Boesch has been injured every year of his career except for his obviously fluky 2011?

Aw, how sad.

Seriously, what is with the sarcasm, aggression, and condescension?

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:47 PM
So, the Reds should only sign potentially good players who have zero experience in the majors?

When did I say ONLY sign?

Would I rather give 3M a year to Kang than 2+M a year to Jack Hannahan or Skip? Yeah. Anyone should.

Tom Servo
02-13-2015, 02:48 PM
Wow, that's only 6 years ago.

I don't even get your argument about my point here, which is that Korea is not Japan.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:49 PM
Seriously, what is with the sarcasm, aggression, and condescension?

That's how I debate. If you don't like it, you have 3 options.

A) Ignore me. Either by blocking me (if possible) or just being a big boy and not responding.
B) Appeal to a mod to ban me- even though I haven't done anything wrong.
C) Deal with it!

- - - Updated - - -


I don't even get your argument about my point here, which is that Korea is not Japan.

Wait, Korea isn't Japan?

WOAH

- - - Updated - - -


Again, don't you think if any other teams thought this dude could hit 15-20 home runs that they would have bid on him?

I don't care what the other teams think. Haven't we been over this point before a few times?

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:50 PM
And really Id have stayed out of this because I think there's a shot Kang becomes a solid player. That's a fine opinion. But when someone challenged you you didn't legitimately challenge them back. You said you didn't care, threw a hissy fit and said their argumentative techniques were flawed when yours were likely worse.

I only did that to you. When you said Skip was good. I had a hearty laugh and couldn't even type properly because I was bellowing too much with laughter. That's no state to debate in. Sorry!

Tom Servo
02-13-2015, 02:52 PM
Yes, we have established that you read one article about Kang that proposed he might play at an All-Star level and that you have closed your eyes and ears to any other arguments, even when other posters say that they agree that Kang probably would have been a worthwhile risk.

Me, I have no strong feelings one way or the other, I was kind of hoping the Reds would be the 'mystery team' when the Kang bid was announced but I didn't feel it was some huge lost opportunity either. I just find amajority your points ridiculous and your posting style and attitude completely obnoxious.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:54 PM
Yes, we have established that you read one article about Kang that proposed he might play at an All-Star level and that you have closed your eyes and ears to any other arguments, even when other posters say that they agree that Kang probably would have been a worthwhile risk.

Me, I have no strong feelings one way or the other, I was kind of hoping the Reds would be the 'mystery team' when the Kang bid was announced but I didn't feel it was some huge lost opportunity either. I just find amajority your points ridiculous and your posting style and attitude completely obnoxious.

K.

NebraskaRed
02-13-2015, 02:55 PM
That's how I debate. If you don't like it, you have 3 options.

A) Ignore me. Either by blocking me (if possible) or just being a big boy and not responding.
B) Appeal to a mod to ban me- even though I haven't done anything wrong.
C) Deal with it!

I have zero desire to block or ban you. What I do have is a desire for intelligent, reasonable discussion about the Reds/baseball in general with people who are mature adults. I even enjoy reading things I don't agree with most because it makes me think, and consider what that person is saying. I change my mind on topics quite often after reading someone's intelligent, reasonable, mature arguments.

Oh sorry, is that not one of your 3 options?

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 02:58 PM
I have zero desire to block or ban you. What I do have is a desire for intelligent, reasonable discussion about the Reds/baseball in general with people who are mature adults. I even enjoy reading things I don't agree with most because it makes me think, and consider what that person is saying. I change my mind on topics quite often after reading someone's intelligent, reasonable, mature arguments.

Oh sorry, is that not one of your 3 options?

That would file under option C- Deal with it.

I don't care if you change your mind or not. That's not my concern. You're free to be wrong all you want.

Just like you- or anyone else on here- won't change my mind.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 03:04 PM
While I'm open to having my mind changed, there isn't one point that I can even imagine would make me think that starting Cozart at 2.5M (plus arbitration raises) is better than starting Kang (OR having him as a super utility bench guy with Suarez as the starter) for 3 million a year.

Mike Honcho
02-13-2015, 03:51 PM
Josh Bresser, you should take your enlightened view of baseball over to the ORG.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 04:41 PM
Josh Bresser, you should take your enlightened view of baseball over to the ORG.

Haven't been here for 40 days.

Old school 1983
02-13-2015, 06:26 PM
They each have one good season at the Major League Level. One.

That's more concerning for Boesch than it is for Satin. Boesch has failed in every single year of his career outside of his fluke 2011, which he has never come close to repeating.

As for Satin? I like him. Throw him on the bench for league minimum.

Oh, and the fact that you'll laud Boesch's minor league numbers but not even take into consideration Kang hitting .350 with 50 homers in Korea's highest level of baseball is FUNNY!

First off. I said I could see Kang being successful. I haven't written off his numbers but as in any minor league player or foreign player coming to the Majors, any projected numbers aren't a for sure proposition. So no. It's not really funny. It's makes sense. If you want to move on from Cozart to save money for Kang, then that makes more sense. In GABP Id lean more towards defense. Extra base runners can become runs because of a cheaply homer awfully quick.

And for the record your baseball knowledge seems pretty solid. Just try to discuss without telling people that their arguments are funny or laughable or whatever. If yours is really that good, it will speak for itself and make the other persons look laughable without you throwing it out there as a jab.

JoshBresser
02-13-2015, 06:39 PM
First off. I said I could see Kang being successful. I haven't written off his numbers but as in any minor league player or foreign player coming to the Majors, any projected numbers aren't a for sure proposition. So no. It's not really funny. It's makes sense. If you want to move on from Cozart to save money for Kang, then that makes more sense. In GABP Id lean more towards defense. Extra base runners can become runs because of a cheaply homer awfully quick.

And for the record your baseball knowledge seems pretty solid. Just try to discuss without telling people that their arguments are funny or laughable or whatever. If yours is really that good, it will speak for itself and make the other persons look laughable without you throwing it out there as a jab.

All good man. Sorry about that- if it sounds like I'm trying to insult anyone, I'm not. Everyone here I've encountered so far really knows their stuff when it comes to baseball. I'm NOT trying to insult anyone's intelligence- just the point. Sorry if it came off that way!

Old school 1983
02-13-2015, 06:45 PM
All good man. Sorry about that- if it sounds like I'm trying to insult anyone, I'm not. Everyone here I've encountered so far really knows their stuff when it comes to baseball. I'm NOT trying to insult anyone's intelligence- just the point. Sorry if it came off that way!

It's good. There's not many times where anything beyond stating your point is needed unless someone is being a real horses behind. At that point most people recognize it anyway.

dubc47834
02-13-2015, 06:46 PM
Haven't been here for 40 days.

Might not make it either!!!

Protoss
02-14-2015, 01:58 AM
Here is a video of Jung-Ho Kang taking batting practice at Pirate City.

http://www.piratesprospects.com/2015/02/jung-ho-kang-taking-batting-practice-at-pirate-city.html

I must say, his swing looks really, really good. Short, compact, quick. I bet this guy will end up being another steal for the Pirates.

Old school 1983
02-14-2015, 11:53 AM
Here is a video of Jung-Ho Kang taking batting practice at Pirate City.

http://www.piratesprospects.com/2015/02/jung-ho-kang-taking-batting-practice-at-pirate-city.html

I must say, his swing looks really, really good. Short, compact, quick. I bet this guy will end up being another steal for the Pirates.

Id like to see him swinging at some low and anyway breaking balls or some MLB caliber fastballs on the lower outside corner. Maybe it was just because it was BP and the pitches were kind of high, but that big leg kick looks like it drives him up a lot and out a little bit.

CaptainRon
02-15-2015, 09:56 AM
Cozart rocks

Wonderful Monds
02-17-2015, 03:27 AM
The end of the story.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/redsblog/2015/01/23/no-japanese-players-on-the-reds/22228593/

Wow, that is 2000s Reds level embarrassing. Holy hell.

Marge? John Allen? Have one of you possessed Bob? Please release him.

Wonderful Monds
02-17-2015, 03:31 AM
When did I say ONLY sign?

Would I rather give 3M a year to Kang than 2+M a year to Jack Hannahan or Skip? Yeah. Anyone should.

I would agree with this. I would rather take the shot on a potential high ceiling player for the money than blow millions on known mehs like Schumaker and Hannahan. That was one thing Wayne Krivsky understood very well that Walt seems to be, if I'm honest, kind of inept at.

Billy Budd
02-18-2015, 11:52 AM
No, it's an argument, it's just not one that fits your thinking so you dismiss it.
LOL if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is!

Billy Budd
02-18-2015, 11:55 AM
And for the record your baseball knowledge seems pretty solid. Just try to discuss without telling people that their arguments are funny or laughable or whatever. If yours is really that good, it will speak for itself and make the other persons look laughable without you throwing it out there as a jab.

I am laughing at this one Old School. This kid has little knowledge of the game, and then attacks people that do.

dougdirt
02-18-2015, 12:08 PM
LOL if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is!

Billy, it's clearly Doug calling the kettle black.

And let's be fair. I accept that other people have made an argument. I will tell them they are wrong, but I won't tell them that what they've said isn't an argument, just that it's a bad one.

Billy Budd
02-18-2015, 12:16 PM
Billy, it's clearly Doug calling the kettle black.

And let's be fair. I accept that other people have made an argument. I will tell them they are wrong, but I won't tell them that what they've said isn't an argument, just that it's a bad one.

I have read this and ORG for a number of years, and just started posting here in October. You constantly remind people that they are wrong when they disagree with you, when in fact there are times you have no idea what you are talking about. It is what it is.

dougdirt
02-18-2015, 12:17 PM
I have read this and ORG for a number of years, and just started posting here in October. You constantly remind people that they are wrong when they disagree with you, when in fact there are times you have no idea what you are talking about. It is what it is.

I'd love to see once where I had no idea what I was talking about, especially since October.

But you missed the point. I tell people that I believe they are wrong, and why I believe that. I don't tell them that they aren't making an argument.

Billy Budd
02-18-2015, 12:20 PM
I'd love to see once where I had no idea what I was talking about, especially since October.

But you missed the point. I tell people that I believe they are wrong, and why I believe that. I don't tell them that they aren't making an argument.

Your whole argument about defensive shifts and how to approach an inside fastball--well, yeah... sorry. Not to be mean, but you have no idea what you are talking about there.

dougdirt
02-18-2015, 12:52 PM
Your whole argument about defensive shifts and how to approach an inside fastball--well, yeah... sorry. Not to be mean, but you have no idea what you are talking about there.

I feel pretty confident that in order to hit a 95 MPH inside fastball the other way you need to be far enough away from the plate that you've got no chance to hit the 95 MPH fastball on the outside part of the plate. You can't barrel the ball the other way on the inside corner unless you are further off of the plate. With the arm length and bat dimensions it's just not something you can do while still being able to also hit the ball on the outside corner of the plate. One must be given up for the other if the plan is to hit the ball the other way. You pull balls middle and in. You go up the middle and the other way with pitches middle-away and away. Sure, when guys are throwing in the 80's you can do more, but those guys don't exist in the game of baseball anymore (at least not with much frequency).

Billy Budd
02-18-2015, 01:05 PM
If you, as a hitter, are geared up (and think) that the ONLY way you can hit 95 in is by pulling the ball, (and I am talking waist high--because dropping the bat head is a completely different concept) then, you will be a .230 hitter at best, because soft away will kill you all day long.

I am sure you have seen enough drills, whether it is soft toss, short toss, tee work, and you have seen hitters lead hands--where they are short to the ball, and long through the zone. The focus of hitting in today's game is up the middle and opposite field. If you are early and pull, it is, what we term, a mistake.

By staying inside the ball (much like Votto, much like Piazza) you can hit 95 in with authority to the opposite field gap, and you do not have to be any further from the plate than need be, as long as when your stride foot lands, you have plate coverage on the outer half.

It's not that difficult of a concept. But it takes work and practice.

Every hitter, has a hole in the zone. Where they hit .230 every day, no matter what. Williams had it down and away--why? Because he was ALL pull.
As you pointed out, hitting 95 in (as a pitcher) is EXTREMELY difficult to pull it off consistently. Why? Because a mistake by two inches over the plate is a crushed fastball, and it is in every professional hitter's arsenal.

With that logic, to stay geared up to get the bat head on the ball to pull 95 in, for a pitch that maybe MAYBE is thrown once a game to you as a hitter (for a strike) would be a HORRIFIC and just plain dumb hitting strategy, especially since 75% (or more) of pitches thrown are designed for the outer half.

Stay inside the ball. The way you describe hitting, the person's barrel would be so far out in front that, even if the hitter squared up 95 in on the corner, that hitter will be hitting that ball with a vicious hook into foul territory.

Billy Budd
02-18-2015, 01:28 PM
One must be given up for the other if the plan is to hit the ball the other way. You pull balls middle and in. You go up the middle and the other way with pitches middle-away and away. Sure, when guys are throwing in the 80's you can do more, but those guys don't exist in the game of baseball anymore (at least not with much frequency).

Not to be mean, but this is a common error in approach to hitting. It just is. Watch batting practice when you are in minor league camp, everything is taught up the middle, up the middle, up the middle. Whether if it is inside, middle, or outside corner. To say, the answer for where I hit the ball is dependent on where it is pitched, automatically, is (with the speed of the pitches) nearly impossible... As you pointed out, it can be done with a 80 mph fastball, but beyond that, not really.

Hitting philosophy has changed a lot. And that philosophy and approach is really about a pre-1960 approach. Almost akin to what Hornsby explained to Ethan Allen that, he actually strides to where the ball is pitched, which is ok for softball, but, to do that with 90+ consistently... it's physically impossible.

dougdirt
02-18-2015, 02:24 PM
If you, as a hitter, are geared up (and think) that the ONLY way you can hit 95 in is by pulling the ball, (and I am talking waist high--because dropping the bat head is a completely different concept) then, you will be a .230 hitter at best, because soft away will kill you all day long.
That's not what I said. I said the only way to hit a 95 MPH fastball on the inside part of the plate is by pulling it. Middle, middle-away and away, you don't have to pull that ball. You can not go the other way on an inside 95 MPH fastball unless you are so far off of the plate that you can get the barrel on that pitch and not pull it, unless you are so far off of the plate that you have no shot at all to hit the outside corner of the plate.



Stay inside the ball. The way you describe hitting, the person's barrel would be so far out in front that, even if the hitter squared up 95 in on the corner, that hitter will be hitting that ball with a vicious hook into foul territory.

You can not stay inside a pitch on the inside black unless you are also giving up the outer third of the plate, particularly if the pitch on the inside of the plate isn't down in the zone where you have more room to let your arms go rather than keeping them in. The higher the pitch on the inside of the plate, the shorter you need to keep your arms to still barrel the ball and keep it fair.

Billy Budd
02-18-2015, 02:28 PM
That's not what I said. I said the only way to hit a 95 MPH fastball on the inside part of the plate is by pulling it. Middle, middle-away and away, you don't have to pull that ball. You can not go the other way on an inside 95 MPH fastball unless you are so far off of the plate that you can get the barrel on that pitch and not pull it, unless you are so far off of the plate that you have no shot at all to hit the outside corner of the plate.

Yes, you certainly can, Doug. Professional and some amateur hitters do it all of the time.




You can not stay inside a pitch on the inside black unless you are also giving up the outer third of the plate, particularly if the pitch on the inside of the plate isn't down in the zone where you have more room to let your arms go rather than keeping them in. The higher the pitch on the inside of the plate, the shorter you need to keep your arms to still barrel the ball and keep it fair.

Doug, seriously? Are you being serious here? You let the ball deep,keep your hands inside, and hit the ball on the barrel. Bat Length has nothing to do with. Arm length has nothing to do with it. Go back and look at Gwynn, Piazza, watch Votto, Boggs, Pujols, Cabrera... You are WRONG on this. And big time wrong.

dougdirt
02-18-2015, 02:53 PM
Yes, you certainly can, Doug. Professional and some amateur hitters do it all of the time.




Doug, seriously? Are you being serious here? You let the ball deep,keep your hands inside, and hit the ball on the barrel. Bat Length has nothing to do with. Arm length has nothing to do with it. Go back and look at Gwynn, Piazza, watch Votto, Boggs, Pujols, Cabrera... You are WRONG on this. And big time wrong.

"OOPSIE DAISY" I made contact on basically a checked swing and hit the inside ball at my neck to the opposite field isn't exactly a swing people try for.

I'd love to actually look at the data, but no one seems to have a sortable Pitch F/X database that will include both velocity/location as well as where the hit went to. I'm sure someone could mine the data, heck, I could. But it would take hours and it's just not worth it.

JoshBresser
02-18-2015, 02:57 PM
I'm with Doug on this one- even though I can't see what BillyBudd is saying

Billy Budd
02-18-2015, 02:57 PM
"OOPSIE DAISY" I made contact on basically a checked swing and hit the inside ball at my neck to the opposite field isn't exactly a swing people try for.

I'd love to actually look at the data, but no one seems to have a sortable Pitch F/X database that will include both velocity/location as well as where the hit went to. I'm sure someone could mine the data, heck, I could. But it would take hours and it's just not worth it.

What are you talking about Doug?

If you have the contacts with professional hitters that you claim to have, then ask them. It's not a hard concept to understand.

Billy Budd
02-18-2015, 03:13 PM
Here you go... I hope this helps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0-gV5RYYbs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5io7yDQXNI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-mwnn18a5w

Billy Budd
02-19-2015, 10:01 AM
More reading for you DougDirt and Bressler...

"When I had such a hard time with Boudreau's shift, and ones like it that sprung up in 1947 and afterward, I survived by learning to hit to left field. Everybody was saying--and the Boston writers were writing--that I wasn't trying to hit to left, that I was too stubborn....The fact was, I was having a hard time learning how to hit to left."

"When I beat the shift, I did it by taking my stance a little farther from the plate, striding slightly more into the pitch--but concentrating on getting on top of the ball and pushing it. A push swing, an inside-out swing, fully extended, the hands ahead of the fat part of the bat."

"This produced contact at 90 degrees or more from the direction of the pitch, and sent the ball to left of the pitcher's box, away from the shift" (Williams 56-57).

Williams, Ted. The Science of Hitting. Pocket Books: New York. 1972.

Billy Budd
02-19-2015, 10:11 AM
"If you move your hands in closer to your body they will be pushing your swing out toward the pitch. This is what you want because it gives you accuracy with the bat. You'll find the hands leading the way to the pitch. This gives your bat the angle it needs to hit the ball to the Complete Hitting Zone. When the ball is over the outside half of the plate, your swing will push out toward the outside half. If the pitch is over the inside part of the plate, your hands will push forward in a straight line to the pitcher.

NOTE: This "push swing" can't be done with your arms locked at the elbows in the launching position. Your elbows are bent and this is what allows you to extend the bat through the strike zone" (Schmidt and Ellis 38).

Schmidt, Mike and Rob Ellis. The Mike Schmidt Study: Building a Hitting Foundation. McGriff& Bell, Inc: Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1994.

Old school 1983
02-19-2015, 11:07 AM
Staying inside the ball will definitely allow you to hit with authority the other way on an inside pitch. Votto is great at it. Where a guy like Bruce flys open and is generally a dead pull hitter when it comes to hitting for power.

Billy Budd
02-19-2015, 11:21 AM
Staying inside the ball will definitely allow you to hit with authority the other way on an inside pitch. Votto is great at it. Where a guy like Bruce flys open and is generally a dead pull hitter when it comes to hitting for power.

The sad thing... Bruce has serious serious strength and can go oppo with power, if he concentrated on it. It always kills me that he will go in one of his slumps... and then, the next thing you know, he is banging it oppo... then he gets straightened out... then bam... back to the slump.

dougdirt
02-19-2015, 12:23 PM
Here you go... I hope this helps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0-gV5RYYbs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5io7yDQXNI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-mwnn18a5w

I only watched the first video. So many issues. His clip on Cano is a pitch that is in the middle of the plate. Look at the catchers feet. His right foot is set up in the middle of the plate and his left foot is well off the plate. He is about to catch the ball above his right knee. That's not an inside pitch. Cano also pulls that ball. The guy even notes if the ball were more inside, he'd have to catch it more out front, which means PULL THE BALL. So I really have no clue what you are trying to show me here by telling me you can stay inside the ball and hit it the other way on the inside of the plate by showing me a video of a guy pulling a ball that is at worst, middle-in and the guy breaking down the video even says he'd have to be more out in front of the pitch if it were actually an inside pitch.

8660

Billy Budd
02-19-2015, 12:51 PM
I only watched the first video. So many issues. His clip on Cano is a pitch that is in the middle of the plate. Look at the catchers feet. His right foot is set up in the middle of the plate and his left foot is well off the plate. He is about to catch the ball above his right knee. That's not an inside pitch. Cano also pulls that ball. The guy even notes if the ball were more inside, he'd have to catch it more out front, which means PULL THE BALL. So I really have no clue what you are trying to show me here by telling me you can stay inside the ball and hit it the other way on the inside of the plate by showing me a video of a guy pulling a ball that is at worst, middle-in and the guy breaking down the video even says he'd have to be more out in front of the pitch if it were actually an inside pitch.





Doug, I am sorry. You can hit me with your gifs. You can mock me, if that's how you choose to play this.

You can try to pretend you know what you are talking about.

It seems that you are quite knowledgeable on reading a lot of different publications, by talking to "people in professional organizations", by plugging into fangraphs, by occasionally going to watch minor league games and such, and I really, truly commend you on such a nice passion.

But..

I question your understanding of the mechanics of the game, of actually what it takes to hit. We all have our strengths. Just do not be intimidated by someone that can bring knowledge to help you understand the game.


You have your strengths. I am quite certain you know more about the lower level ball players in this organization than I do. I am ok with that.

But, please, do NOT embarass yourself, or insult my intelligence by telling me or thinking you know more about the approach to hitting. I have done it. I was taught by the same coach that coached Larkin, Sabo, Garciaparra, Varitek. I know how to hit. I know how to teach it.

By trying to show me up with your neat little gifs, really, to me, demonstrates either a lack of understanding or just maybe the ability to admit that you do not know all there is about the game of baseball.

It's ok, Doug. We are all learning this game.

Old school 1983
02-19-2015, 01:02 PM
The sad thing... Bruce has serious serious strength and can go oppo with power, if he concentrated on it. It always kills me that he will go in one of his slumps... and then, the next thing you know, he is banging it oppo... then he gets straightened out... then bam... back to the slump.

To me, I think it comes down to his ability to identify inside pitches. Namely breaking balls and change ups inside. When he's in a slump, it's like he's never seen those before in his life. I think he's compensating too much and trying too hard to mash it. He ends up flying open more, and that makes him susceptible to low and away breaking balls or weak contact on low and away fastballs. When he's doing well, he IDs those pitches better, stays inside the ball, and does better on pitches on the outside half because he's not flying open as much.

dougdirt
02-19-2015, 01:52 PM
Doug, I am sorry. You can hit me with your gifs. You can mock me, if that's how you choose to play this.

You can try to pretend you know what you are talking about.

It seems that you are quite knowledgeable on reading a lot of different publications, by talking to "people in professional organizations", by plugging into fangraphs, by occasionally going to watch minor league games and such, and I really, truly commend you on such a nice passion.

But..

I question your understanding of the mechanics of the game, of actually what it takes to hit. We all have our strengths. Just do not be intimidated by someone that can bring knowledge to help you understand the game.


You have your strengths. I am quite certain you know more about the lower level ball players in this organization than I do. I am ok with that.

But, please, do NOT embarass yourself, or insult my intelligence by telling me or thinking you know more about the approach to hitting. I have done it. I was taught by the same coach that coached Larkin, Sabo, Garciaparra, Varitek. I know how to hit. I know how to teach it.

By trying to show me up with your neat little gifs, really, to me, demonstrates either a lack of understanding or just maybe the ability to admit that you do not know all there is about the game of baseball.

It's ok, Doug. We are all learning this game.

I'm not mocking you, Billy. I'm saying you told me something and tried to show it by providing a video to back up your point that does nothing at all to show what you are trying to say it shows. In fact, it shows exactly what I have been saying. The "GIF" isn't a GIF. It's a JPG and it's how I felt after watching the video that shows what I've been saying, yet you used it to try and show me the opposite of what I was saying.

JoshBresser
03-03-2015, 02:52 PM
Kang just hit a bomb. Off of major league pitching.

The more I see/hear of this guy, the more it looks like the Reds missed out BIG time.

dougdirt
03-03-2015, 03:01 PM
Kang just hit a bomb. Off of major league pitching.

The more I see/hear of this guy, the more it looks like the Reds missed out BIG time.

Josh, it's March 3rd. At least wait until May 3rd before you start thinking the Reds missed out BIG time on a guy with zero big league experience.

dougdirt
03-03-2015, 03:13 PM
*wind aided HR*

RedTeamGo!
03-03-2015, 03:26 PM
Marco Estrada is so good. I'm sold.

dubc47834
03-03-2015, 03:30 PM
Josh, it's March 3rd. At least wait until May 3rd before you start thinking the Reds missed out BIG time on a guy with zero big league experience.


But he's on pace to hit like 30 HR's in spring training...man the Reds missed out big time (In my Dusty Baker voice)

dougdirt
03-03-2015, 03:35 PM
Marco Estrada is so good. I'm sold.

HE did lead the league in HR allowed last year in just 150 innings.... so he's got that going for him.

Old school 1983
03-03-2015, 04:53 PM
Last spring Chris Heisey looked like Babe Ruth. Maybe Kang is legit. Maybe he's not. Spring training homers aren't dispositive on much of anything. Let's wait for the season to make bold assessments.

CoachBombay
03-03-2015, 04:53 PM
We also have to remember Bernadina was the best player in baseball last spring...Okay maybe not the best. but you get the jist

RedTeamGo!
03-03-2015, 05:10 PM
I am looking forward to a year of every other week when Kang hits a home run seeing an update on how terrible the Reds are.

jojo
03-03-2015, 08:13 PM
Kang is da bomb.

fipp
03-05-2015, 01:21 AM
https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/573056630754971648

Buster Olney_@Buster_ESPN

Jung Ho Kang will have his growing pains with PIT, but after watching him take BP, this is clear: Big-time power for a middle infielder.

He also says that in his ESPN insider article, Kang can vary the length and timing of his drastic leg kick so that pitchers can't pick up on its timing and then use it to throw Kang off with off-speed pitches.

dougdirt
03-05-2015, 02:31 AM
He also says that in his ESPN insider article, Kang can vary the length and timing of his drastic leg kick so that pitchers can't pick up on its timing and then use it to throw Kang off with off-speed pitches.

That's said about a lot of hitters. Most can't. Time will tell if Kang can.

fipp
03-05-2015, 11:36 AM
That's said about a lot of hitters. Most can't. Time will tell if Kang can.
From the article,

http://www.fangraphs.com/plus/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kang-MO-FB-CRC-Front.gif
http://www.fangraphs.com/plus/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kang-ML-BB-Pull-Front.gif

Tom Servo
03-05-2015, 11:44 AM
Suk-min Yoon, also of the Korea Baseball Organization like Kang, was supposed to compete for a rotation or bullpen spot after the Orioles signed him a to a 3 year deal in February 2014. He spent the year in AAA and is now returning to Korea.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/03/suk-min-yoon-will-not-report-to-orioles-camp-as-scheduled.html


But I'm preaching to the choir here, I know. All hail our new Kang overlord.

fipp
03-05-2015, 11:54 AM
Suk-min Yoon, also of the Korea Baseball Organization like Kang, was supposed to compete for a rotation or bullpen spot after the Orioles signed him a to a 3 year deal in February 2014. He spent the year in AAA and is now returning to Korea.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/03/suk-min-yoon-will-not-report-to-orioles-camp-as-scheduled.html


But I'm preaching to the choir here, I know. All hail our new Kang overlord.
What does Yoon have to do with Kang?

Tom Servo
03-05-2015, 12:00 PM
What does Yoon have to do with Kang?
"also of the Korea Baseball Organization like Kang". Sometimes you get a Hyun-jin Ryu, sometimes you get a Suk-min Yoon.

dougdirt
03-05-2015, 01:47 PM
From the article,

http://www.fangraphs.com/plus/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kang-MO-FB-CRC-Front.gif
http://www.fangraphs.com/plus/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kang-ML-BB-Pull-Front.gif

I understand that he has the ability to do it. Everyone can do that. It's entirely different to be able to do it against MLB pitching though. They throw harder. Less time to react. They throw better breaking stuff. Better offspeed stuff. Time will tell if he can adjust quick enough to make it work. Until we know, we don't really know.

RAY
03-06-2015, 08:39 AM
I understand that he has the ability to do it. Everyone can do that. It's entirely different to be able to do it against MLB pitching though. They throw harder. Less time to react. They throw better breaking stuff. Better offspeed stuff. Time will tell if he can adjust quick enough to make it work. Until we know, we don't really know.
Sometimes you just know.

http://i.imgur.com/gOVu61J.jpg
Tom Singer: MLB.com Pirates beat writer


http://i.imgur.com/Po73u6n.jpg

RAY
03-06-2015, 09:14 AM
JFYI, the pitcher was Yankees right-hander Esmil Rogers whose average fastball sits at 95 MPH.

Tom Servo
03-06-2015, 10:54 AM
Why are a bunch of newly registered users obsessed with Kang?

Old school 1983
03-06-2015, 11:35 AM
Why are a bunch of newly registered users obsessed with Kang?

Don't feed the junkhead.

JoshBresser
03-06-2015, 12:18 PM
I understand that he has the ability to do it. Everyone can do that. It's entirely different to be able to do it against MLB pitching though. They throw harder. Less time to react. They throw better breaking stuff. Better offspeed stuff. Time will tell if he can adjust quick enough to make it work. Until we know, we don't really know.

And at 3 million a year, what a risk!

Looks like he's playing SS, too...and quite capably. So wrong on that front as well.

Just another example of Walt asleep at the wheel. Nothing to see here.

dougdirt
03-06-2015, 12:24 PM
And at 3 million a year, what a risk!

Looks like he's playing SS, too...and quite capably. So wrong on that front as well.

Just another example of Walt asleep at the wheel. Nothing to see here.

Oh man, three games into spring training and I'm already wrong. Must be nice to know everything so quickly.

As for the "Walt asleep at the wheel".... please. If this guy is HALF as good as you seem to think he is, then EVERYONE was asleep at the wheel because he's worth 3 times what he's getting paid.

I'm sure you've had plenty of in person observation on his defense at shortstop this spring Josh. It's weird that you've been in Florida following the Pirates though, given that you are such a big Reds fan.

Old school 1983
03-06-2015, 12:26 PM
So three spring games equals 100% proof. Seriously. The guy could be a asset, but making for sure analysis after three spring games is jumping the gun.

REDREAD
03-10-2015, 11:03 AM
I liked the quote "he hit it so hard my radio fell off the shelf" lol

JoshBresser
03-10-2015, 12:06 PM
Oh man, three games into spring training and I'm already wrong. Must be nice to know everything so quickly.

As for the "Walt asleep at the wheel".... please. If this guy is HALF as good as you seem to think he is, then EVERYONE was asleep at the wheel because he's worth 3 times what he's getting paid.

I'm sure you've had plenty of in person observation on his defense at shortstop this spring Josh. It's weird that you've been in Florida following the Pirates though, given that you are such a big Reds fan.

"No team would play him at SS."

> Pirates playing him at SS.

Therefore, you're wrong.

I haven't seen his defense in person, but people who have say he looks solid. If I actually cared about adding defense on this Reds team, that would be encouraging. But, I don't.

I know admitting that we're wrong is hard sometimes.

- - - Updated - - -


So three spring games equals 100% proof. Seriously. The guy could be a asset, but making for sure analysis after three spring games is jumping the gun.

And at 3 million a year, what a risk! That's definitely too much risk when the Reds are dealing with replacing the worst hitting player in the game!

Old school 1983
03-10-2015, 04:23 PM
"No team would play him at SS."

> Pirates playing him at SS.

Therefore, you're wrong.

I haven't seen his defense in person, but people who have say he looks solid. If I actually cared about adding defense on this Reds team, that would be encouraging. But, I don't.

I know admitting that we're wrong is hard sometimes.

- - - Updated - - -



And at 3 million a year, what a risk! That's definitely too much risk when the Reds are dealing with replacing the worst hitting player in the game!

Spring training isn't the season. He may do great. If he does hats off. The Reds had one of the top defensive SS in baseball have his worst hitting year. They got a viable replacement too. I'm not losing too much sleep over not signing Kang.

My point was that it's too early to tell on the guy. Not that he's a bad player.

dougdirt
03-10-2015, 09:26 PM
"No team would play him at SS."

> Pirates playing him at SS.

Therefore, you're wrong.

I haven't seen his defense in person, but people who have say he looks solid. If I actually cared about adding defense on this Reds team, that would be encouraging. But, I don't.

I know admitting that we're wrong is hard sometimes.

- - - Updated - - -


The Reds have played Brennan Boesch in center field this spring. Let's see how it goes when the games count.

I'd enjoy reading where scouts have said he looked like he could handle shortstop on an every day basis. If you have links, share them. If the "people who have seen him" look solid at shortstop are writers, I don't care much about that because for every one of them that can actually tell it, there are 20 that can't.

I have no vested interest in this guy, Josh. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But right now, I'm not wrong. I may not be right either. But it's March 10th. No one is right or wrong on it. Not yet. We are still a long ways away from knowing who is or isn't wrong. I will tell you this though, if I'm right, I won't be here or anywhere else patting myself on the back about it or even talking about it.

JoshBresser
03-11-2015, 02:02 PM
The Reds have played Brennan Boesch in center field this spring. Let's see how it goes when the games count.

I'd enjoy reading where scouts have said he looked like he could handle shortstop on an every day basis. If you have links, share them. If the "people who have seen him" look solid at shortstop are writers, I don't care much about that because for every one of them that can actually tell it, there are 20 that can't.

I have no vested interest in this guy, Josh. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But right now, I'm not wrong. I may not be right either. But it's March 10th. No one is right or wrong on it. Not yet. We are still a long ways away from knowing who is or isn't wrong. I will tell you this though, if I'm right, I won't be here or anywhere else patting myself on the back about it or even talking about it.

First correct thing you've said this whole time.

/thread

Tom Servo
03-11-2015, 03:13 PM
Kang hasn't had any hits since 3/5, and no walks since 3/3. So clearly Josh I can say you were wrong about Kang.

dougdirt
03-11-2015, 04:08 PM
First correct thing you've said this whole time.

/thread

Declaring victory on a guy hitting .182 in spring training because you think you've proven he's a big league hitter.... I don't even know what to say.

JoshBresser
03-11-2015, 11:45 PM
Declaring victory on a guy hitting .182 in spring training because you think you've proven he's a big league hitter.... I don't even know what to say.

Nah. Did prove someone was willing to play him at SS, which you explicitly stated wasn't going to happen.

As for the hitting, he'll be fine.

kramer1
03-12-2015, 07:30 AM
This thread delivers.

dougdirt
03-12-2015, 04:01 PM
Nah. Did prove someone was willing to play him at SS, which you explicitly stated wasn't going to happen.

As for the hitting, he'll be fine.

Well heck, Will Ferrell is playing all nine spots today in spring training, so let's just say someone is willing to play him at shortstop too.

It's spring training. I'd also like to see where I explicitly stated no one would play him at shortstop. What I said is that no one is playing him there on a daily basis. Time will tell on that, but again, you are claiming something is proven when it's not. Kang has played 24 innings of defense this inning. They have all been at shortstop. Let's see how it goes in 2015 from April through October. If he starts 135 games at shortstop, feel free to call me out. Until then, you should probably hold off on claiming some victory on someone willing to play him at shortstop on a daily basis (keywords there, daily basis).

Don Larkin
03-21-2015, 12:12 PM
"We're seeing a very dependable infielder," Hurdle said. "We've had him at third along with short. He turned a slick double play tonight. We're going to have him at second base before we get to the weekend. We've seen some bat speed, seen the ability to leverage the ball. He just needs to get at-bats, but we like the player."

Hurdle hasn't seen any signs that Kang is in danger of digging himself a hole.

"He's a very confident player," Hurdle said. "I've tried to share to help people understand a little better that this is like [Andrew] McCutchen playing in Japan. This is the best player in that league coming over here. He's looking to make a mark, but he also knows he's accomplished some things. This is the next opportunity and test for him. I don't think he's a guy will get backed away easily."

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/113406008/phil-rogers-jung-ho-kangs-struggles-arent-a-cause-for-concern

It sounds like his manager believes in his ability to play around the infield, whether it is 2nd, SS, or 3rd.

I am rooting for this guy. His numbers last year were impressive. It's good for baseball for people to succeed from different cultures, it expands the game.

I would love for the Reds to have such a utility threat. I bet Kang is just trying so hard to impress everyone, and to convince the MLB he deserves to be here. I think once this kid relaxes, he will be an above average utility man with decent pop. I would think any team would like that.

I would honestly like him over the Reds options, such as Negron, Schumaker et al.

dougdirt
03-21-2015, 04:32 PM
I would honestly like him over the Reds options, such as Negron, Schumaker et al.

I'd also prefer him over the options on our bench. He provides some flexibility defensively and I think there's some upside in his bat.

Rijo's Ghost
03-21-2015, 07:29 PM
.130 .259 .304 .564
2 XBH
34.6% K rate

oof