PDA

View Full Version : Detroit Releases Carlos Pena



Jpup
03-26-2006, 01:29 PM
http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060326&content_id=1362988&vkey=spt2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=det


TAMPA, Fla. -- The Tigers unconditionally released first baseman Carlos Pena on Sunday morning, closing the chapter on the former top prospect's mercurial four-year tenure in Detroit.

The 27-year-old Pena, acquired midway through the 2002 season in the Jeff Weaver trade that also brought Jeremy Bonderman to Detroit, lost his starting job last June. He was sent to Triple-A Toledo with a .181 batting average. Chris Shelton took his place and soon supplanted him as the first baseman of the present and future.

Pena's future might've been over at the end of the last season, but a mighty six-week stint salvaged his roster spot and gave the team hope it could get something in return for him. He batted .286 with 15 home runs and 30 RBIs in 38 games after his recall from Triple-A Toledo. He finished the year with a .235 average, 18 homers and 44 RBIs in 79 games.

Detroit tendered Pena a contract in December and avoided arbitration with a one-year, $2.8 million deal. Prior to that deal, the Tigers had tried to deal him throughout the offseason and that effort had continued this spring, but there had been little interest on the part of other teams.

Manager Jim Leyland had said he could keep Pena, Shelton and Dmitri Young all on his roster, using Young as a utility infielder and Pena as a left-handed bat off the bench. Even so, having both Pena and Shelton presented roster problems and wouldn't have allowed Leyland to keep more than one utility infielder.

By releasing Pena before Wednesday, the Tigers owe him 45 days' termination pay, equaling $688,525. Had they released him before March 15, they would have owed him 30 days' pay, or $500,000.

Carlos Pena Career .243/.330/.459/.789
Carlos Pena 2005 .235/.325/.477/.802

RedlegNation
03-26-2006, 01:52 PM
Krivsky, where are you?

traderumor
03-26-2006, 02:19 PM
Never mind, I didn't read the whole story. So he is basically a free agent and could be signed for anything?

Jpup
03-26-2006, 02:22 PM
Never mind, I didn't read the whole story. So he is basically a free agent and could be signed for anything?

yup.

redsandrails
03-26-2006, 02:47 PM
He has always hit better at home, throughout his career average wise but last year he had power too at home. Needless to say at the GAB I could see him hitting .250-.260 with 30-35 HR and maybe 90 RBI. He would be a decent pickup I think and worth holding onto as he gets hot as the season goes on.

Jpup
03-26-2006, 02:55 PM
Needless to say at the GAB I could see him hitting .250-.260 with 30-35 HR and maybe 90 RBI.

calm down. ;)

KronoRed
03-26-2006, 02:56 PM
Unless some other team backs up a lot of cash I'd get him and see what happens.

Spitball
03-26-2006, 03:28 PM
I understand he is a really personable kid. He was really struggling last year, was sent to the minors, came back up in mid August and hit 15 homeruns the rest of the way. He might be better off in the National League.

flyer85
03-26-2006, 03:32 PM
I understand he is a really personable kid. He was really struggling last year, was sent to the minors, came back up in mid August and hit 15 homeruns the rest of the way. He might be better off in the National League.and 15 is highest number of HRs that Hatteberg has hit in any complete season. Hatteberg is Casey minus the batting average and with considerably less power.

I am completely baffled by the Reds fascination with Hatteberg(poor D no power, low BA and OBP) he brings absolutely other than "knowing how to play the game" and "scrappiness".

Jpup
03-26-2006, 03:49 PM
and 15 is highest number of HRs that Hatteberg has hit in any complete season. Hatteberg is Casey minus the batting average and with considerably less power.

I am completely baffled by the Reds fascination with Hatteberg(poor D no power, low BA and OBP) he brings absolutely other than "knowing how to play the game" and "scrappiness".

"veteran leadership", don't forget that.

KronoRed
03-26-2006, 04:46 PM
Knows how to win too right?

Crosley68
03-26-2006, 04:59 PM
We could save some money by letting him wear Willy Mo's jerseys!!! ;-)

Spitball
03-26-2006, 05:18 PM
We could save some money by letting him wear Willy Mo's jerseys!!! ;-)


Might be a bit baggy, though.

By the way, Pena has been a pretty crappy fielder.

Ravenlord
03-26-2006, 06:58 PM
By the way, Pena has been a pretty crappy fielder.
are you sure? i've always read he was overrated with the glove but was still above average.

cincinnati chili
03-26-2006, 10:57 PM
What could the Tigers possibly know about him from a handful of spring training at-bats that they didn't know back in December when they tendered him a contract? Asleep at the switch.

Unless there's a major undisclosed injury here, this is another example of Dombrowski's decline in Detroit.

If anybody knows Mr. Dombrowski, ask if he can lend me $600K.

flyer85
03-26-2006, 11:26 PM
What could the Tigers possibly know about him from a handful of spring training at-bats that they didn't know back in December when they tendered him a contract? Asleep at the switch.
It's not like they didn't know the jobs were going to go to Shelton and Da Meat Hook.

Ravenlord
03-27-2006, 01:02 AM
overall OPS of four firstbasemen who could/can been had for nothing or near nothing:
790, 786, 851, 807

and the L/R split
Vs L/R
736/811, 579/808, 966/808, 765/814

and they're all under 30.

KronoRed
03-27-2006, 03:45 AM
and they're all under 30.
Thus why we can't go after them.

Spitball
03-27-2006, 02:30 PM
are you sure? i've always read he was overrated with the glove but was still above average.

I understand his defense, punctuated by unacceptable mental errors, was not appreciated in Detroit. I believe this guy was overhyped in all areas.

Rojo
03-27-2006, 03:32 PM
Another BP poster child hits the dust. Why are they always lefty-hitting first-basemen?

westofyou
03-27-2006, 03:42 PM
Another BP poster child hits the dust. Why are they always lefty-hitting first-basemen?http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4908


March 27, 2006
Prospectus Today
Struck Out

by Joe Sheehan


On Sunday, the Detroit Tigers released first baseman Carlos Pena, putting the one-time can’t-miss prospect onto the market just a few weeks short of his 28th birthday. I was surprised by the decision, not least because I’ve had something of a psychic investment in Pena since seeing him play in spring training four years ago and being very impressed with his glovework. I thought the A’s had made a great move in acquiring him from the Rangers that January; he’s turned out to be the best player in the six-man deal (only Gerald Laird may yet top him), which I guess is a lesson in getting too worked up over trades that include a bunch of young players.

Pena simply hasn’t been a very good major leaguer. He has a career line of .243/.330/.459 in 1887 plate appearances across five seasons. His inability to make contact--492 strikeouts in 1652 at-bats, one every 3.4 ABs--and the middling power he generates when he does hit the ball have prevented him from putting up the kind of numbers you need from a first baseman. He’s been remarkably consistent at a level just a bit below what you need to get from a first sacker: EQAs ranging from .270 to .286 in his four full seasons. His defense, at least according to Clay Davenport’s system, has been underwhelming, below average in every season.

I think it’s fair to say that when a player fails to meet expectations, the first thing people like me do--no, let me put that on me alone--the first thing I do is blame the player. Pena didn’t develop the way he should have, so he’s the disappointment. What’s just as likely, perhaps more likely, is that I misread his performance record, I missed something that I should have seen which would have given me a more realistic view of his potential.

In Pena’s case, I think I should have taken his contact issues more seriously. In three full seasons in the Rangers’ system, Pena struck out 368 times in 1457 at-bats, just shy of once every four at-bats. That’s less than his MLB rate, and while still fairly high for a top prospect whose power was good, it's still below the Ryan Howard/Prince Fielder level. Pena looked impressive because he was a complete player: good defensive reputation, 23-for-26 stealing bases in 2000 and 2001, points for being a good human being. At the plate, though, he was a 23-year-old with the skill set of a 31-year-old. When he got to the major leagues, he lost the requisite batting average points and his strikeout rate jumped, and he didn’t have anything to compensate with. The deep counts he worked to draw 80 walks a year in the minors didn’t materialize, and he spent seemingly his entire MLB career down 1-2.

I’m pretty sure it’s Clay Davenport who’s pointed out that a high strikeout rate, while not a major negative in evaluating the value of a player’s performance, is a problem developmentally. Taking that point out for a walk, I wonder if mature stat lines in a prospect are actually a negative indicator, a sign that the player may already be as good as he’s ever going to be. Pena was never an impressive physical specimen, a brute who was going to accidentally hit 40 homers, so the better pitching at the major-league level took enough off of his game to render him a below-average player. Rather than falling in love with his walks and his defense, I should have done a better job of reading his entire performance record. I don’t see this as a stats vs. scouting error; this is a bad job of reading the stats.

Does this mean anything for a Jeremy Hermida, who while possessing some markers Pena didn’t have, also has high walk and strikeout rates and has posted overall lines that look a bit like Brian Giles’? We’ve got Hermida as the game’s #2 overall prospect, and I can’t say I objected to that in any way. Am I making the same mistake here? Should Daric Barton be re-evaluated?

I’m meandering a bit, a function of too much travel and not enough sleep. My main point is that we need to take strikeout rate in young prospects seriously, especially when those prospects have good walk rates that “excuse” the strikeout rate (I often hand-wave it by talking about “deep counts”), mature stat lines and no overriding skill that will translate in the majors (Howard’s power, Chris Young’s speed and defense). My secondary point is that the failure of a prospect to meet expectations is cause to examine both the prospect and the expectations, not just one.

I still think Pena can have a career. He’s 28 years old and coming off of two season of .280+ EQAs, and he did close last year with a strong second half. In fact, having written this column, I expect he’ll latch on with the Astros or something and hit .295/.380/.540 with 37 home runs, winning Comeback Player of the Year honors. And a Nobel Prize. And a People’s Choice Award.

Cooper
03-27-2006, 06:25 PM
He translates to a .340/.485 in a "normal" park. I betcha if he played full time in GABP that might translate to a .360/.510 OPS. That's probably better than Scott H. will do. That translation/projection might be on the low side.

Heath
03-27-2006, 09:43 PM
The crafty lefthander just said that the Reds are looking to upgrade 1b.

Hi, I'm Carlos Pena - I'm cheap and I'm available.

flyer85
03-27-2006, 10:06 PM
From BP trannie analysis


So, the real question here is who's going to pick Pena up? The Reds would be a pretty sweet fit, assuming they can get over their mancrush on Scott Hatteberg

cincinnati chili
03-27-2006, 10:09 PM
He translates to a .340/.485 in a "normal" park. I betcha if he played full time in GABP that might translate to a .360/.510 OPS.

Coop,

You're turning Cincy into a hitter's park, which it's not. A "normal" .340/.485 hitter would see a drop in his OBP to accompany his increase in SLG. Let's say, .330/.495, just for yucks.

Regardless, for the right price, the Reds should roll the dice on him.

cincinnati chili
03-27-2006, 10:10 PM
BP trannie analysis

Christina Kahrl is offended by this.

flyer85
03-29-2006, 04:35 PM
Pena has cleared waivers and is officially a free agent.

Chip R
03-29-2006, 04:36 PM
The crafty lefthander just said that the Reds are looking to upgrade 1b.


Why? We have Hatteberg and Aurilia. :rolleyes:

Caveat Emperor
03-29-2006, 04:52 PM
Pena has cleared waivers and is officially a free agent.

There is, seriously, no reason for the Reds not to make this move right now.

Pena and Aurillia can platoon at 1B with Hatteberg taking Jacob Cruz's former role as a left handed bat off the bench. Put Ryan Freel in as the everyday 2nd basemen, and suddenly you've got yourself a lineup.

Plus, Pena can be signed to a cheap deal -- let him post some offensive numbers in the GABP and then flip him at the deadline for a few prospects if he's successful.

I don't see how this can be anything other than a win (or at least a risk worth taking)...

max venable
03-29-2006, 04:57 PM
There is, seriously, no reason for the Reds not to make this move right now.

Pena and Aurillia can platoon at 1B with Hatteberg taking Jacob Cruz's former role as a left handed bat off the bench. Put Ryan Freel in as the everyday 2nd basemen, and suddenly you've got yourself a lineup.

Plus, Pena can be signed to a cheap deal -- let him post some offensive numbers in the GABP and then flip him at the deadline for a few prospects if he's successful.

I don't see how this can be anything other than a win (or at least a risk worth taking)...
:beerme:

flyer85
03-29-2006, 04:57 PM
There is, seriously, no reason for the Reds not to make this move right now.

Pena and Aurillia can platoon at 1B with Hatteberg taking Jacob Cruz's former role as a left handed bat off the bench. Put Ryan Freel in as the everyday 2nd basemen, and suddenly you've got yourself a lineup.

Plus, Pena can be signed to a cheap deal -- let him post some offensive numbers in the GABP and then flip him at the deadline for a few prospects if he's successful.

I don't see how this can be anything other than a win (or at least a risk worth taking)...Honestly it makes too much sense and I don't even mind if they split time between Hatteberg/Pena until they get things sorted out and see which solution is the best(although I have a pretty good idea). There is no way his acquisition doesn't make the team better(sorry jacob) and the Reds can offer him a prospect of potential PT that he is unlikely to find anywhere else.

Sabo Fan
03-29-2006, 06:41 PM
Honestly it makes too much sense and I don't even mind if they split time between Hatteberg/Pena until they get things sorted out and see which solution is the best(although I have a pretty good idea). There is no way his acquisition doesn't make the team better(sorry jacob) and the Reds can offer him a prospect of potential PT that he is unlikely to find anywhere else.

I have the "makes too much sense" fear as well. Were DanO still around there would be no hope at all, but I'm optimistic based on the rumors floating around about looking at 1st basemen that Krivsky and company understand that this is a huge need and that Pena is worth the miniscule risk he brings along. I have to think Cincinnati is an attractive place for Pena, what with the likely full-time gig he'd get and the cozy lineup spot he'd occupy.

However, if there were a way to swindle the Rockies into parting with Shealy then I'd be all for that, especially if you could finagle J.D. Closser into the deal. Shealy, to me, is about as high an upside guy as you'll find available this time of year when you weigh the price you'd have to pay. The Rockies still need outfielders and a package centered around Denorfia and Matt Belisle might just pique there interest in a deal for Shealy and Closser, especially since Kim went down with a hamstring injury and they seem to be looking for a starter. Heck, maybe Dave Williams tickles their fancy, who knows. Worth a shot.

Jpup
04-15-2006, 11:08 AM
Carlos Pena is still available.:)

westofyou
04-15-2006, 11:11 AM
Carlos Pena is still available.:)
Yankees are going to get him... they have "defensive" problems at first.

flyer85
04-15-2006, 12:06 PM
Yankees are going to get him... they have "defensive" problems at first.good thing the Reds don't.

westofyou
04-15-2006, 12:10 PM
good thing the Reds don't.
Left side of the defensive spectrum, least of my worries.

Plus, currently my belief is the Reds want less to do with another high K ratio player in the current lineup than most of the fans. That plus cost will make them care less for Pena than most of the posters on this board.

flyer85
04-15-2006, 12:13 PM
Left side of the defensive spectrum, least of my worries.

Plus, currently my belief is the Reds want less to do with another high K ratio player in the current lineup than most of the fans. That plus cost will make them care less for Pena than most of the posters on this board.He just isn't a scrappy veteran who knows how to play the game.

westofyou
04-15-2006, 12:20 PM
He just isn't a scrappy veteran who knows how to play the game.
Get used to it, this team will more likely platoon those types over the next few seasons, it's in the cards, plus as I said they like some contact here and there.

Plus every team has those types, look at some of the bench ballast around the leagues, look at some of the guys who end up with 200 ab's. It's not always pretty, something has to drive the mean down. This team could have a very different lineup in August, right now they seem to be comfy with the scrappy vets.

Speaking of scrappy vets who are washed up, Scott Spiezeio is sporting a red soul patch that has rooster written all over it.

LvJ
04-15-2006, 02:10 PM
So.

Chris Shelton.

He's quiitttteee goooood.

StillFunkyB
04-15-2006, 05:48 PM
So.

Chris Shelton.

He's quiitttteee goooood.

It's earrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rly. ;)

Gallen5862
04-15-2006, 07:28 PM
Espn news reported that Carlos Pena signed a minor league deal with the Yankees.

LvJ
04-15-2006, 08:03 PM
It's earrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rly. ;) Yep, but he was pretty good last year too. ;)

Marty and Joe
04-15-2006, 08:08 PM
Rotoworld agrees with some of the folks here:

"Yankees signed first baseman Carlos Pena to a minor league contract.
The Reds were crazy not to sign Pena and make him their starting first baseman immediately, and there were other teams that should have offered to bring him to the majors right away. The Yankees will assign him to Triple-A Columbus initially and could give him Andy Phillips' job in a few weeks. Since he could end up being a regular against right-handers at some point, he remains worthy of a bench spot in AL-only leagues. Apr. 15 - 7:54 pm et"

WMR
04-15-2006, 08:23 PM
Very frustrating.

flyer85
04-15-2006, 08:42 PM
Don't need him, with have "The Berg" at first.

Caveat Emperor
04-15-2006, 08:46 PM
Very frustrating.

If for no other reason than it offered an opportunity to get a major-league quality player into the Reds lineup for nothing, and opportunity to (if he put up some GABP-inflated offense) deal him to somebody else for additional talent into the farm system.

With a dearth of talent in the farm system, the Reds have to be constantly aware of these "Buy low, sell higher" opportunities. Those kinds of deals will fizzle occasionally -- but smart management can (and has) brought in guys like Aaron Harang (on Jose Guillen buy/sell) and Matt Belisle (on Kent Mercker buy/sell).

flyer85
04-15-2006, 09:24 PM
The new management has shown a like for scrappy offensive players(little power, low OBP, low K guys) and a pitchers who are around the plate(high hit, lowBB, low K guys).

I thought they should have claimed German

KronoRed
04-15-2006, 11:32 PM
Minor league deal?!? we couldn't match that??

toledodan
04-15-2006, 11:40 PM
we more than likely never offered.:bang: :angry: he would have fit here just fine.

Crash Davis
04-16-2006, 12:03 AM
Sooner or later you have to produce (Or as Billy Beane once said: "At some point we just have to take things at face value"). We're talking about a player with a lifetime .243 batting average, which is horrendous. Not only that, but he's struck out 492 times in 489 games. If he's such a good option, how come nobody else wanted him on their major league roster? Much like Hee Seop Choi, it looks like there are a lot of knowledgable baseball execs who believe his weaknesses outweigh his strengths.

Was he an intriguing option at 1B for the Reds? I don't know, maybe. But he also has a history of being a bad bet as a starting first baseman.

Pena's career numbers: .243/.330/.459 with a k/bb ratio of 492/205

Hatteberg's career numbers: .268/.356/.403 with a k/bb ratio of 420/432

Hatteberg fills a need as a player who can bat behind the big guns, command the strike zone, bleed out long at bats and simply get on base without a proclivity to strike out in key situations. You certainly can't say the same about Pena, and I think it's fairly clear that Pena does not fit this lineup as well as Hatteberg does. Pena may give you something that Hatteberg does not, but the balance and consistency of the offense would suffer under too many O-fers & K's and too few big hits & walks.

Why the outrage?

Bill
04-16-2006, 12:34 AM
More like dissapointed. Hatte is 36 and had a 677 ops last year. Pena is nearly 10 years younger and ops'ed .800.

I think Hatte's career numbers can be thrown out the window at this stage.

Crash Davis
04-16-2006, 12:37 AM
I think Hatte's career numbers can be thrown out the window at this stage.

Maybe. Or you could be dead wrong.

Every baseball season turns up a handful of players who were deemed "washed up" the year before only to turn around and play key roles down the road.

Hatteberg may be washed up. As a Reds fan, I hope he's still got some of the old magic left. From what I've seen so far, he does.

flyer85
04-16-2006, 12:42 AM
If he's such a good option, how come nobody else wanted him on their major league roster? cause nobody else has Hatteberg playing first, a guy who couldn't even get an invite until Wayne showed up.

Crash Davis
04-16-2006, 12:42 AM
More like dissapointed. Hatte is 36 and had a 677 ops last year. Pena is nearly 10 years younger and ops'ed .800.

For the whole first half of last season, Carlos Pena was more destructive to his own team than just about any player in baseball. Sure, he heated up in the 2nd half, but by then the damage was done.

Pena is like the Jamal Crawford of baseball. You don't win with Carlos Pena or Jamal Crawford. You get teased by the rare stretches of "upside" fulfillment while Scott Hatteberg and Bruce Bowen quietly and consistently accept a role to help their teams win.

Bill
04-16-2006, 12:42 AM
"It's another safety net for us," New York Manager Joe Torre said .

Seems the Reds prefer to go without a net at 1b. Perhaps Hatte does have a few hits left, but Pena would have been cheap insurance.

flyer85
04-16-2006, 12:44 AM
Hatteberg may be washed up. As a Reds fan, I hope he's still got some of the old magic left. From what I've seen so far, he does.Hatteberg never had any magic. He has always been below average with the bat(and fell off the planet in 2005 as the .660 OPS testifies) and glove for a first baseman. He is here because he is a scrappy vet who knows how to play the game, which translates to there isn't any objective data we can point out to justify his existence.

Crash Davis
04-16-2006, 12:46 AM
Hatteberg never had any magic. he was always been below average with the bat and glove for a first baseman. He is here because he is a scrappy vet who knows how to play the game, which translates to there isn't any objective data we can point out to justify his existence.

Billy Beane takes exception to those comments.

flyer85
04-16-2006, 12:47 AM
For the whole first half of last season, Carlos Pena was more destructive to his own team than just about any player in baseball. Sure, he heated up in the 2nd half, but by then the damage was done.

and Hatteberg topedoed his team in the 2nd half and especially the end.

BP stated in Prospectus 2006 that his play(or lack thereof) was probably the single most important factor in their missing the playoffs. He was more than just bad.

flyer85
04-16-2006, 12:49 AM
Billy Beane takes exception to those comments.And it was the same Beane who sent him packing after 2005. So is Beane stupid for releasing him. ANd the numbers are what they are, he stinks with the bat and at his best was barely adequate, a poor mans version of Sean Casey.

Crash Davis
04-16-2006, 12:51 AM
and Hatteberg topedoed his team in the 2nd half and especially the end.

BP stated in Prospectus 2006 that his play(or lack thereof) was probably the single most important factor in their missing the playoffs. He was more than just bad.

Touche'.

On the other hand, Hatteberg has a history of helping his teams win by filling a role. Pena has a history of poor hitting, disappointment and unfulfilled expectations.

I accept the premise that Hatteberg may, in fact, be washed up. Krivsky is betting that he's not. I'm hoping he's not, and I've seen some reasons to believe.

I'll take that package over whatever Carlos Pena brings to the team...which has never been much.

Crash Davis
04-16-2006, 12:53 AM
And it was the same Beane who sent him packing after 2005. So is Beane stupid for releasing him. ANd the numbers are what they are, he stinks with the bat and at his best was barely adequate, a poor mans version of Sean Casey.

At his best, he controlled the strike zone as well as anybody in baseball. There's always a place for that kind of hitter on winning baseball teams.

SteelSD
04-16-2006, 12:53 AM
Sooner or later you have to produce. We're talking about a player with a lifetime .243 batting average, which is horrendous. Not only that, but he's struck out 492 times in 489 games. If he's such a good option, how come nobody else wanted him on their major league roster? Much like Hee Seop Choi, it looks like there are a lot of knowledgable baseball execs who believe his weaknesses outweigh his strengths.

Was he an intriguing option at 1B for the Reds? I don't know, maybe. But he also has a history of being a bad bet as a starting first baseman.

Pena's career numbers: .243/.330/.459 with a k/bb ratio of 492/205

Hatteberg's career numbers: .268/.356/.403 with a k/bb ratio of 420/432

Hatteberg fills a need as a player who can bat behind the big guns, command the strike zone, bleed out long at bats and simply get on base without a proclivity to strike out in key situations. You certainly can't say the same about Pena, and I think it's fairly clear that Pena does not fit this lineup as well as Hatteberg does. Pena may give you something that Hatteberg does not, but the balance and consistency of the offense would suffer under too many O-fers & K's and too few big hits & walks.

Why the outrage?

Because Carlos Pena- at age 27- if far more likely to produce a .800 OPS number that Hatteberg hasn't touched since 2002.

And make no mistake- there isn't a lineup in MLB that Hatteberg currently "fits". Both Choi and Carlos Pena saw more pitches per PA in 2005 than did Hatteberg and his current rate (3.55 P/PA) is pedestrian. That rate is alarming considering the number of BB Hatteberg has acquired. But, alas, that happens when the bat slows down considerably and one can't make anything resembling effective contact anymore.

When more productive players are available on the waiver wire, you can expect folks to be a little grumpy that we're sitting with the worst regular 1B in the Show.

SteelSD
04-16-2006, 12:55 AM
At his best, he controlled the strike zone as well as anybody in baseball. There's always a place for that kind of hitter on winning baseball teams.

"At his best" is a long time ago on a team far far away.

He's not that player anymore. Age does that.

flyer85
04-16-2006, 12:56 AM
On the other hand, Hatteberg has a history of helping his teams win by filling a role. Pena has a history of poor hitting, disappointment and unfulfilled expectations.
Hatteberg helped his team lose in 2005 by being an out machine with no power. You can spin it all you want but at the end of the day that .660 OPS is what it is ... awful beyond comprehension for a first baseman.

Crash Davis
04-16-2006, 01:06 AM
I'm going to bed.

To quote Yukon Cornelius:

"You eat what you want, I'll eat what I want."

I'll take a Hatteberg/Aurilia platoon in THIS lineup if the alternatives are perennial disappointments like Carlos Pena or Hee Seop Choi. As the case stands right now, I'll get to see that scenario this season. For better or for worse.

Sure, I wish we had Ryan Shealy...or that the Reds felt comfortable enough with Dunn's defense at 1B to play him there so Denorfia could play LF...or that Griffey would accept LF so Denorfia could play CF.

Those are scenarios I can envision helping the Reds now and in the future. I just don't see Pena helping this Reds team more than Hatteberg/Aurilia.

flyer85
04-16-2006, 01:09 AM
I will give you Hatteberg is not a perennial disappointment because in his case he has never had enough talent to justify any expectations of above average play.

flyer85
04-16-2006, 01:16 AM
Sure, I wish we had Ryan Shealy.interesting to bring up Shealy.

Interesting you bring him up. His minor league numbers are not much different than Pena and the edge would go to Pena when age is factored in.

Pena put up very similar numbers to Shealy in AA and AAA while three years younger and yet he has struggled in the majors. Why is there this assurance that Shealy would be a success?

Pena
AA age 22 .947 OPS
AAA age 23 .958 OPS

Shealy
AA age 25 .995 OPS
AAA age 26 .994 OPS in a serious hitters environment in Colorado Springs

Shealy is only 1 year younger than Pena

alexad
04-16-2006, 01:28 AM
Pena will be a Pirate by Tuesday. Casey goes down, they need another stick to back up Wilson.

Caveat Emperor
04-16-2006, 02:15 AM
Why the outrage?

Because signing Pena after he cleared waivers was an almost zero-risk move that would've likely immediately improved the ballclub the minute he put the uniform on.

Because the possibility exists that you spin him into fools gold and rip someone off at the deadline for him.

Because the odds of him underperforming whoevers roster spot he took were next to negligble.

WMR
04-16-2006, 02:28 AM
Saying the Pirates "need another stick" is like saying the Reds "need another pitcher" ... it doesn't begin to address the extent of the problem.

toledodan
04-16-2006, 02:35 AM
would anyone be surprised to see pena hit 20 homeruns as a yankee before the season is out?

Nugget
04-16-2006, 02:52 AM
There has got to be something more than the REDS not offerring. Pena was oiut there for a while and there are 28 other clubs besides the Yankees who would have needed another 1B. Either Pena was really picky or there was something that he wanted that made the deal not seem as low risk as everyone seems.

KronoRed
04-16-2006, 03:57 AM
would anyone be surprised to see pena hit 20 homeruns as a yankee before the season is out?
Yes, only because I doubt that vet heavy squad gives him the at bats.

It would have been a low risk signing, Hatteberg/Aurilia?

pedro
04-16-2006, 04:07 AM
There has got to be something more than the REDS not offerring. Pena was oiut there for a while and there are 28 other clubs besides the Yankees who would have needed another 1B. Either Pena was really picky or there was something that he wanted that made the deal not seem as low risk as everyone seems.

Pena has 5 years of service time so he has leverage when it comes to things such as arbitration and FA, so in the event that he did turn his career around he'd likely price himself out of cincinnati really quick. Considering the lifetime OPS of .790 I just don't think the Reds felt it was necessary considering the fact that Pena probably wouldn't have been a long term solution for them anyway. If the Reds have indeed given up on Dunn at 1B in the long term, I expect them to trade for a young first baseman sometime this year. Pena just wasn't that guy, at least in the Reds eyes.

Nugget
04-16-2006, 08:00 AM
On that point how far away is Votto. I notice he is on the AA roster. If he had a good year would the REDS be looking for a inexpensive filler next year as well or are they going to let him bypass AAA.

max venable
04-16-2006, 10:43 AM
Has anybody read of or heard of any of journalists or Reds beat writers actually asking Kriv about Pena? And why the Reds have not shown interest? Has he had to answer for that yet?

Falls City Beer
04-16-2006, 10:59 AM
I would in no way advocate wasting resources to acquire Pena, but it seems that the Reds could have had him for absolutely no risk. That's ill-advised.

flyer85
04-16-2006, 12:51 PM
The only caveat to all the Pena talk is Boras is a wildcard. He is all about maximizing potential dollars, even to the detriment of the players future.

Crash Davis
04-16-2006, 02:31 PM
Interesting you bring him up. His minor league numbers are not much different than Pena and the edge would go to Pena when age is factored in.

Pena put up very similar numbers to Shealy in AA and AAA while three years younger and yet he has struggled in the majors. Why is there this assurance that Shealy would be a success?

Pena
AA age 22 .947 OPS
AAA age 23 .958 OPS

Shealy
AA age 25 .995 OPS
AAA age 26 .994 OPS in a serious hitters environment in Colorado Springs

Shealy is only 1 year younger than Pena

Except Shealy doesn't strike out at the ludicrous rate that Pena does. More importantly, in Shealy's limited MLB action, he has mashed. Pena has failed. Utterly.

What I find interesting is that Hatteberg is seen by a large portion of redszone as "washed up" because he had a disappointing season in his mid-30's last season. However, a day later we have a thread wishing we could explore a trade for a player in his mid 30's (Tony Clark) who was seen the league over as washed up for a couple of seasons before his resurgance last season. Not only was Clark a terrible player for 3 straight seasons in 2002-04, he has also had major injury concerns.

If Tony Clark can have a comeback season at age 33 with the following factors weighing against him, then Hatteberg surely has a shot to bounce back as well.

- Major injury concerns with his back
- Clark's 3 previous seasons: .207/.265/.291, .232/.300/.472, .221/.297/.458
- Nobody wanted him and most thought his career was over going into 2005
- He embarrassed himself with his play for the Yankees in the 2004 playoffs

A player's stats from the previous season do not automatically transfer over to the next season (and you can win a lot of rotisserie leagues by letting everyone else continue assume they do). In which case, I'm interested to see if Hatteberg can bounce back like Tony Clark did and play a key role in the Reds lineup this season.

I realize Hatteberg is not going to have a career season at age 35. But I also realize last year's stats can't tell you the whole story on Hatteberg's season this year.

flyer85
04-16-2006, 03:25 PM
What I find interesting is that Hatteberg is seen by a large portion of redszone as "washed up" because he had a disappointing season in his mid-30's last season. 2005 was just "disappointing" it was truly atrocious. I hold no joy over having the worst player in the majors at a position and that is what Hatteberg is as a first baseman. At age 36 his best days are far behind him, the A's realized that and were willing to get rid of him and gamble on an aging and injured Frank Thomas instead.

KronoRed
04-16-2006, 03:49 PM
On that point how far away is Votto. I notice he is on the AA roster. If he had a good year would the REDS be looking for a inexpensive filler next year as well or are they going to let him bypass AAA.
His year last year makes me think they should take it real slow with him, he seems to go up and down.

Crash Davis
04-16-2006, 05:02 PM
2005 was just "disappointing" it was truly atrocious. I hold no joy over having the worst player in the majors at a position and that is what Hatteberg is as a first baseman. At age 36 his best days are far behind him, the A's realized that and were willing to get rid of him and gamble on an aging and injured Frank Thomas instead.

Frank Thomas was a very good gamble. Again, too many people inside baseball and following baseball get caught up in last year's stats. When you can hit like Frank Thomas, a roll of the dice can bring a few nice treats.

A final note on Hatteberg: I can't even convince myself that I think he'll be a good option to man 1B against all right-handers this season. I do like him on the team. I think he fills a key role for the Reds. I'd rather the Reds were in a position to use him more optimally...as in pinch-hitting and spot starts. Even so, I still think a Hatteberg/Aurilia platoon is better suited to this team than a tease like Carlos Pena who brings too many negative and not enough positive skills.

And now I'm done with the Hatteberg debate. I can't believe I wasted that much time and thought defending a guy who shouldn't get more than 300 at bats. Carlos Pena will do that to a guy.

flyer85
04-16-2006, 06:02 PM
Frank Thomas was a very good gamble. .only in comparison to Hatteberg. His recent injury history says he isn't likely to be around too long this season and he still runs with a serious limp

Crash Davis
09-17-2006, 11:51 PM
This whole thread needs to be added to the know-it-all index. Posts upon posts worth reading over and over again.

Scott Hatteberg 2006: Close to a career year, vital cog in the Reds lineup all year. Better year in the majors than Carlos Pena or Hee Seop Choi had at AAA.

Frank Thomas 2006: Top 10 AL MVP candidate.

Next time somebody insinuates that your opinion is worthless based upon their interpretation of last year's stats, please bump this thread.

Thank you.

harangatang
09-18-2006, 01:07 AM
I love how people were so infuriated about the Reds passing on Hee Seop Choi before it turns out he was hurt. It was then brutally silent and this is the first thing I've seen on this board about it since. So anyway I hate Hatteberg, he sucks and I have the pre-2006 stats to prove it. :D

SteelSD
09-18-2006, 01:54 AM
Scott Hatteberg 2006: Hits RHP...at the GAB at least. 70% of his HR at home. Overall rate stats propped up due to only 17.9% of his seasonal AB versus his worst matchup (LHP) versus 3-year split of 39.2%. In the midst of his usual second-half powder. The Joe Randa of 2006.

Super acquisition if one believes that dart throwing and hindsight analysis is an excellent way to put together a winning ballclub. Otherwise, not so much.

Heath
09-18-2006, 07:01 AM
So.

Chris Shelton.

He's quiitttteee goooood.


It's earrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrly. ;)

I thought this was the best prediction of the thread.

Good work FunkyB.

osuceltic
09-18-2006, 09:03 AM
Super acquisition if one believes that dart throwing and hindsight analysis is an excellent way to put together a winning ballclub. Otherwise, not so much.

In other words: "If I didn't predict it, it doesn't count. If it defies statistical prediction, it doesn't count. If I was wro ... er, wron ... wronerrkkk ... um ... never mind."

Maybe -- just maybe -- Wayne Krivsky looked at Hatteberg as a guy who would fit nicely at least as a bat off the bench and potentially as a first baseman who could hit right-handers AND provide some veteran leadership. Did Hatteberg exceed expectations? Sure. Doesn't discount Krivsky's wisdom in signing him when no one else in baseball was interested.

There are other ways of evaluating players, Steel. Your arrogance is astonishing.

Ltlabner
09-18-2006, 09:15 AM
Scott Hatteberg 2006: Hits RHP...at the GAB at least. 70% of his HR at home. Overall rate stats propped up due to only 17.9% of his seasonal AB versus his worst matchup (LHP) versus 3-year split of 39.2%.

I'm not ready to put Hatte in the HOF, but how does 70% of his HR being at home dimish the fact that he's hit them? Even if they are "helped out" by being hit in GABP, the fact remains they have been hit. Most people recognize that the stadium "helps" him get more homers but that doesn't change the fact that they've been hit nor does it mean we haven't realized the value of them being hit.

And "propping" up his numbers by limiting his number of AB's versus his problem areas? How is that a bad thing?

Seems to me this is a good utilization of a player that when combined with his other intanigables makes him a wise pickup.

PuffyPig
09-18-2006, 09:24 AM
People who were in favour of hatteberg/Aurilia suggested that having Hatteberg hitting vs. RH pitching and Aurilia hitting vs. LH pitching would help both their stats.

Limiting Hatteberg's AB's vs. LH pitching doesn't skew his stats, unless you are being intellectually dishonest. Limiting his AB's vs. LH pitching is good management, and is a way to get better production from an imperfect player.

Crash Davis
09-18-2006, 09:32 AM
Scott Hatteberg 2006: Hits RHP...at the GAB at least. 70% of his HR at home. Overall rate stats propped up due to only 17.9% of his seasonal AB versus his worst matchup (LHP) versus 3-year split of 39.2%. In the midst of his usual second-half powder. The Joe Randa of 2006.

Super acquisition if one believes that dart throwing and hindsight analysis is an excellent way to put together a winning ballclub. Otherwise, not so much.

I think this is beneath you.

Either way, more fodder for the know-it-all index.

GAC
09-18-2006, 10:22 AM
and 15 is highest number of HRs that Hatteberg has hit in any complete season. Hatteberg is Casey minus the batting average and with considerably less power.

Casey will be lucky to hit 10 Hrs/yr for the rest of his career. Hat is 6 yrs older and hit 13 this year.

Casey in '06... AVG .279 | HR 6 | RBI 54 | OBP .346 | SLG .393

Hatteberg in '06.... AVG .293 | HR 13 | RBI 51 | OBP .388 | SLG .450

It has nothing to do with fascination. It's that we are getting similar production/results for approximately 8 Mil less/yr. ;)


I am completely baffled by the Reds fascination with Hatteberg(poor D no power, low BA and OBP) he brings absolutely other than "knowing how to play the game" and "scrappiness".

You're kidding right? Especially low BA and OB%??? Where do you get off making that claim?

Using your standard (and statistics) above- then what's the fascination with Dunn, who has a .236 BA, an OB% lower then Scott's (who leads the Reds by the way), and whose defense at his position is pretty putrid as far as FP/ZR/RF and errors committed? (again in comparison to Scott)

In fact, MLB last month recognized Hatteberg's 1B "D" for leading ALL ML 1Bman in 06 in consecutive games without an error at 1B, and his .997 Fielding %.

ochre
09-18-2006, 10:28 AM
Casey will be lucky to hit 10 Hrs/yr for the rest of his career. Hat is 6 yrs older and hit 13 this year.

Casey in '06... AVG .279 | HR 6 | RBI 54 | OBP .346 | SLG .393

Hatteberg in '06.... AVG .293 | HR 13 | RBI 51 | OBP .388 | SLG .450

It has nothing to do with fascination. It's that we are getting similar production/results for approximately 8 Mil less/yr. ;)



You're kidding right? Especially low BA and OB%??? Where do you get off making that claim?

Using your standard (and statistics) above- then what's the fascination with Dunn, who has a .236 BA, an OB% lower then Scott's (who leads the Reds by the way), and whose defense at his position is pretty putrid as far as FP/ZR/RF and errors committed? (again in comparison to Scott)

In fact, MLB last month recognized Hatteberg's 1B "D" for leading ALL ML 1Bman in 06 in consecutive games without an error at 1B, and his .997 Fielding %.
You do know he made that post in March, right?

GAC
09-18-2006, 11:23 AM
You do know he made that post in March, right?

Heck no ochre. Who has time to look at dates!

I was just browsing and thought it was a thread just started. :lol:

Dom Heffner
09-18-2006, 11:36 AM
but how does 70% of his HR being at home dimish the fact that he's hit them? Even if they are "helped out" by being hit in GABP, the fact remains they have been hit.

I think the point is that anybody can hit that amount at GAB. He's nothing special.

As well, it's not really swell having a guy on the road who can't help you because he's homesick.

SteelSD
09-18-2006, 11:44 AM
I'm not ready to put Hatte in the HOF, but how does 70% of his HR being at home dimish the fact that he's hit them? Even if they are "helped out" by being hit in GABP, the fact remains they have been hit. Most people recognize that the stadium "helps" him get more homers but that doesn't change the fact that they've been hit nor does it mean we haven't realized the value of them being hit.

And "propping" up his numbers by limiting his number of AB's versus his problem areas? How is that a bad thing?

Seems to me this is a good utilization of a player that when combined with his other intanigables makes him a wise pickup.

The guy is this year's version of Joe Randa. Well, actually, he's about 5/8 of Joe Randa circa 2005. And I'm not saying anything about Hatteberg I didn't also say about Randa. Go look at Randa's 2006 season. Please.

I had little issue with picking up Hatteberg as long as the Reds didn't need to count on him for a big contribution. Problem is, they have counted on him for a big contribution and will continue to do so in 2007. You're right that the Reds did a good job of minimizing his potential deficiencies, but that doesn't change the fact that he's still a volatile fractional player. Unfortunately, the Reds play on the road as well at home and the baseball season extends past July. And, yes, Hatteberg has a history of second-half tank jobs. He's in the middle of another, which makes the timing of the poorly-conceived thread bump all the more amusing.

That's the problem with players of that ilk. They're extremely age-volatile and, if you're not careful, they can fool you. Don't get me wrong- it's good that the Reds got what they did out of a player like that, regardless of projections. Problem is they're not getting it anymore and don't project to get it in 2007. Yet the Reds already re-upped him for 2007 on July 26th. Guys like Randa and Hatteberg are types you bring in, cross your fingers and hope they beat the odds and perform, and then flip once you've bled that performance dry. Such is the world of the short-term stop-gap player.

Crash Davis
09-18-2006, 12:34 PM
He's in the middle of another, which makes the timing of the poorly-conceived thread bump all the more amusing.

Tell you what, next time I'll consult your advice on the right time to bump a thread. That should give you sufficient time to come up with more creative "reasons"...

Oh, and "hindsight analysis" :laugh:

See if you can find the only person doing hindsight analyzing in this thread.

flyer85
09-18-2006, 12:50 PM
Reds got serious career years from Hatty and Ross in 2006. They both smashed well through their 90th percentile PECOTAs.

It is a new level of performance or a fluke? If the Reds are betting on a new level performance they had better be right.

WMR
09-18-2006, 04:02 PM
While some folks were upset with the Hatte acquisition, I think more were frustrated that the Reds didn't take a flyer on a guy that they could have basically had for a song.

There was absolutely no way to predict or reasonably expect the year and production from Hatte that he has ended up providing.

flyer85
09-18-2006, 04:33 PM
There was absolutely no way to predict or reasonably expect the year and production from Hatte that he has ended up providing.and at his age there is no reason to believe he will come anywhere close to it next season.

I made mention after 2005 that I thought Jrs season was a late career season and was likely never to be repeated in the future (he was in for a significant dropoff in performance).

When guys hit their mid to late thirties the level of performance(at least for those not juicing) becomes much more volatile.

SteelSD
09-18-2006, 04:41 PM
Tell you what, next time I'll consult your advice on the right time to bump a thread. That should give you sufficient time to come up with more creative "reasons"...

Oh, and "hindsight analysis" :laugh:

See if you can find the only person doing hindsight analyzing in this thread.

Ok...let's...

Crash Davis 4/15/2006: I'd like to see Denorfia in CF, Griffey happily accepting LF, Freel leading off at 2B and Dunn playing at least average defense at 1B.

On the very same day you began posting in this thead you acknowledged that you didn't even want Scott Hatteberg on the field at first base. You did it again a day later in this very thread:

Crash Davis 4/16/2006: Sure, I wish we had Ryan Shealy...or that the Reds felt comfortable enough with Dunn's defense at 1B to play him there so Denorfia could play LF...or that Griffey would accept LF so Denorfia could play CF.

Yes, quite the Scott Hatteberg supporter you were, Crash. Y'know...not wanting him to play and all? Remember, the guy you say (further up on page 5) shouldn't get more than 300 AB? The same guy you say this about on page 4...

Crash Davis 4/16/2006: I realize Hatteberg is not going to have a career season at age 35.

I see. So on 4/16/06, you didn't expect Hatteberg to have a career year, you didn't want him playing first base, and didn't expect that he'd get more than 300 AB. Yet he ended up having a career year, ended up playing a ton of first base, and got a lot more than 300 AB. Wow, swami, good thing you bumped this thread up to show everyone how "right" you were about Scott Hatteberg and how wrong everyone else was who didn't expect a career year and didn't want him playing first base.

Bumping threads to prove some point is a pointless enough practice to begin with. But this thread might just win the prize for most pointless bump of all time.

But at least you haven't referenced Moneyball yet today. That's a start.

Crash Davis
09-18-2006, 05:33 PM
Bumping threads to prove some point is a pointless enough practice to begin with. But this thread might just win the prize for most pointless bump of all time.

But at least you haven't referenced Moneyball yet today. That's a start.

I guess you wouldn't get the point of the bump, would you? Since I've gotten plenty of positive feedback for the bump (and yours is the only negative), I'll assume many people haven't been bothered by the timing or the point of it.

And if you still can't figure it out, the point wasn't to say, "hey, look who was wrong about Hatteberg." Check out the tone of the whole thread. The point isn't that smart people were dead wrong. What's noteworthy is the absolute condescencion shown throughout the thread, and it pretty much sums up what has infested redszone over the past few years. It's always about right or wrong with you, isn't it? Is it ever time for reflection, or is it always reloading?

And I'm not sure I understand the Moneyball dig. When I have ever referenced Moneyball except to say that it's a hell of a book? Do you have me confused with somebody else who has drawn your ire in the past?

Falls City Beer
09-18-2006, 06:12 PM
I guess you wouldn't get the point of the bump, would you? Since I've gotten plenty of positive feedback for the bump (and yours is the only negative), I'll assume many people haven't been bothered by the timing or the point of it.
?

Argument ad populum. The last ditch of a failed argument. Next comes argument ad hominem.

Yep, there's the personal attack in the next paragraph. Bravo. You're following the script perfectly.

Crash Davis
09-18-2006, 08:22 PM
Argument ad populum. The last ditch of a failed argument. Next comes argument ad hominem.

Yep, there's the personal attack in the next paragraph. Bravo. You're following the script perfectly.

The cavalry has arrived...

Falls City Beer
09-18-2006, 08:24 PM
The cavalry has arrived...

Callin' it as I see it. I think you know that about me. I've had just as many heated disagreements with Steel as I've had with you. Don't attempt to portray me as some card-carrier. I'm not, and you know it.

SteelSD
09-18-2006, 09:25 PM
And if you still can't figure it out, the point wasn't to say, "hey, look who was wrong about Hatteberg." Check out the tone of the whole thread. The point isn't that smart people were dead wrong. What's noteworthy is the absolute condescencion shown throughout the thread, and it pretty much sums up what has infested redszone over the past few years.

Oh, I know your thread bump had nothing to do with baseball and everything to do with you throwing rocks at others while standing on the front porch of your own glass house. Your admission was entirely unnecessary.

savafan
09-18-2006, 09:37 PM
wow...amazing how this degenerated...:confused:

Team Clark
09-18-2006, 09:40 PM
Oh, I know your thread bump had nothing to do with baseball and everything to do with you throwing rocks at others while standing on the front porch of your own glass house. Your admission was entirely unnecessary.

Not choosing sides here because I have not read the whole thread... The reason I am replying is because you gave me a great idea. (And I thank you) A smiley that throws rocks at a glass window. How cool would that be? :eek:

Team Clark
09-18-2006, 09:41 PM
wow...amazing how this degenerated...:confused:

It's the end of the season. Happens every year. :( I fall victim to it just like everyone else. Like a family arguing over a will.

Heath
09-18-2006, 10:01 PM
Like a family arguing over a will.
...with Confederate Money.

harangatang
09-19-2006, 12:03 AM
With all the bickering aside I think this thread has some meaningful discussion in regards to baseball. I think it's proof that there is no perfect way to predict the future performance of a player from any method whatsoever. While some people try to make an illusion that they know everything, this is proof that we're all just human. We're all imperfect no matter which approach we take to the game. The future is something people have tried to predict again and again in many different fields and aspects of life, yet I can't recall one that has 100% accuracy.

Patrick Bateman
09-19-2006, 12:23 AM
With all the bickering aside I think this thread has some meaningful discussion in regards to baseball. I think it's proof that there is no perfect way to predict the future performance of a player from any method whatsoever. While some people try to make an illusion that they know everything, this is proof that we're all just human. We're all imperfect no matter which approach we take to the game. The future is something people have tried to predict again and again in many different fields and aspects of life, yet I can't recall one that has 100% accuracy.

Steel never has and never would never suggest he knows everything (at least not publically).

From his posts it's clear that the methods he uses is to play the percentages. Hatteberg may have had a good year, but it was against the odds. You want to put yourself in the best position to succeed. No one will ever be right every time, but based on research, past performance, etc. you can put yourself in a position where you are right as often as possible.

Ga_Red
09-19-2006, 12:42 AM
an excellent candidate for Redszone hyperbole of the year:


Your arrogance is astonishing.

Crash Davis
09-19-2006, 01:20 AM
Oh, I know your thread bump had nothing to do with baseball and everything to do with you throwing rocks at others while standing on the front porch of your own glass house. Your admission was entirely unnecessary.

Reload.

Did you figure out what you meant by the Moneyball comment yet?

Ron Madden
09-19-2006, 01:28 AM
Steel never has and never would never suggest he knows everything (at least not publically).

From his posts it's clear that the methods he uses is to play the percentages. Hatteberg may have had a good year, but it was against the odds. You want to put yourself in the best position to succeed. No one will ever be right every time, but based on research, past performance, etc. you can put yourself in a position where you are right as often as possible.

Very well said, I agree 100%. :thumbup:

SteelSD
09-19-2006, 10:15 AM
Reload.

Did you figure out what you meant by the Moneyball comment yet?

Crash Davis 4/07/2005: A certain segment of Reds fans, mostly of the dogmatic Moneyball variety, have slammed the Randa signing all offseason...

"Dogmatic Moneyball variety" has now been replaced with "know-it-all index". Different year, same personal agenda. You've been working that slant for as long as I can remember. Move on.

GAC
09-19-2006, 11:07 AM
and at his age there is no reason to believe he will come anywhere close to it next season.

Are we still talking Hatte or Aurilia? Because they very same thing was said last year about Rich. ;)

IslandRed
09-19-2006, 12:19 PM
From his posts it's clear that the methods he uses is to play the percentages. Hatteberg may have had a good year, but it was against the odds. You want to put yourself in the best position to succeed. No one will ever be right every time, but based on research, past performance, etc. you can put yourself in a position where you are right as often as possible.

True that.

But it's also important to recognize the limits of analysis. I have my BP subscription and lap up the stat analysis and the PECOTA projections too, but for any given guy, there are hundreds of reasons why statistically-based projections might be high or low. That's why PECOTA is given as ranges rather than as an absolute. A good GM (leaving out for the moment whether Krivsky is or isn't one) should know the numbers but also should be able to see beyond them. It's like a poker player -- knowing the percentages is the starting point to being a good player, not the ending point.

Now, you'd like to think that if a GM goes against the percentages, he at least understands that he is and knows specifically why.

Cooper
09-19-2006, 12:42 PM
I think a good GM can also analyze the deficits of a player and lay those out AHEAD of time. It's clear that Hatte cannot hit tough lefthanders....in the future why don't we go beyond "he'll have a good year" or "no he won't", and try to say WHY or what kind of parameters allow him to have or have not a good year. It's relatively easy to do that after they year is over, but it's much more difficult to say how Randa could have a good year...in what kind of context can he accomplish positive things. Basically to say what the limits of his success are ahead of time.....maybe that's asking for too many variables to read ahead of time--but i think a good gm could define those.

Rojo
09-19-2006, 02:01 PM
True that.

But it's also important to recognize the limits of analysis. I have my BP subscription and lap up the stat analysis and the PECOTA projections too, but for any given guy, there are hundreds of reasons why statistically-based projections might be high or low. That's why PECOTA is given as ranges rather than as an absolute. A good GM (leaving out for the moment whether Krivsky is or isn't one) should know the numbers but also should be able to see beyond them. It's like a poker player -- knowing the percentages is the starting point to being a good player, not the ending point.

Now, you'd like to think that if a GM goes against the percentages, he at least understands that he is and knows specifically why.

Damn, I wish I'd written that. The poker analogy is perfect.

Crash Davis
09-19-2006, 06:39 PM
Crash Davis 4/07/2005: A certain segment of Reds fans, mostly of the dogmatic Moneyball variety, have slammed the Randa signing all offseason...

"Dogmatic Moneyball variety" has now been replaced with "know-it-all index". Different year, same personal agenda. You've been working that slant for as long as I can remember. Move on.

Wow, you must have put some effort into your search if you weeded through my posts lauding the book itsef only to find a post from over a year ago talking about saber followers and not the actual book.

As I'm sure just about all but Joe Morgan realize, Michael Lewis wrote the book. He did a hell of job with it too. It's an outstanding book, and again, I'll ask you where I've ever indicated I believe otherwise.

I'm not blaming the book for spawning apologists anymore or less than I would blame the Koran or the Bible for spawning apologists. The roots of fundamentalism lie much deeper than ink on paper.

Rojo
09-19-2006, 08:19 PM
My least favorite kind of match.

SteelSD
09-20-2006, 01:16 AM
Wow, you must have put some effort into your search if you weeded through my posts lauding the book itsef only to find a post from over a year ago talking about saber followers and not the actual book.

Yeah. It was very taxing typing "Moneyball" and "Crash Davis" into the search engine. I think one of my neurons had to rest for all of three picoseconds.

And it's not like I didn't remember your anti-"stathead" manifesto disguised as a defense of the Joe Randa signing.

But I do think your "from over a year ago" reference is really neat. As if your bumping a thread from five months ago in order to, by your own admission, position a blantant attack at folks somehow falls within some phantom statute of limitations yet my earlier example of your consistent personal agenda doesn't.

We were "dogmatic Moneyball" folks back then. "Know-it-alls" now. The title changes, but the song and dance stay the same.


As I'm sure just about all but Joe Morgan realize, Michael Lewis wrote the book. He did a hell of job with it too. It's an outstanding book, and again, I'll ask you where I've ever indicated I believe otherwise.

And I'll ask you to identify the exact spot in this thread where I indicated you believed otherwise. You have, in fact, in the past called it a "seminal" book. You don't dislike the book- just the "dogmatic Moneyball variety" fans it apparently spawned. Where those folks are, I dunno, but they're not here. The phrase "dogmatic Moneyball variety" will continue to amuse me considering that the book is about exploiting market inefficiencies rather than a how-to book on statistical analysis.

But then, it was a great book you read so you'd understand the real topic; which would exclude you from calling anyone a "dogmatic Moneyball" anything, right?


I'm not blaming the book for spawning apologists anymore or less than I would blame the Koran or the Bible for spawning apologists. The roots of fundamentalism lie much deeper than ink on paper.

Moneyball was, apparently, a great book you read so why exactly would it spawn apologists? If the work doesn't need defending, then why would there be a need for anyone to apologize for it? Rhetorical questions, I know, but the only real response in the face of an extended moot point.

The root of fundamentalism is why you haven't moved an inch for well over a year. If it's foreign, progressive, or nigh-incomprehensible, it must- by default- be conveniently boxed and attacked. You bumped a thread in a blatant effort to attack (and you admitted as much) those who've been some of the most progressive, forward-thinking posters on this board who believe in exactly one common ideal- "Question everything". They've also been more accurate in their projections than anyone else but we'll just ignore that because your thread bumping had nothing to do with projections and had everything to do with attacking posters (again, by your own admission).

You attacked over a year ago, kept attacking, and you're still attacking.

The grand irony, and something you can't spin, is that every one of the posters in your pre-defined "dogmatic Moneyball" or "know-it-all" group have consistently disagreed with each other over time- sometimes vehemently. And yet, with each disagreement- regardless of how heated- we have all learned. We have adapted. We have reflected. We have re-adjusted how we see the game based on the information and insight provided during those debates. Sans Moneyball. Sans Bill James. Sans anything but our own wits and willingness to accept progressive possibility that there's something else rather than "how the game should be played" or "Well, anything can happen". The former is anything but fundamentalism.

So if all these guys allegedly believe in the same thing why do they disagree so often? Yeah, rhetorical question. Reflect on it for about 0.5 seconds and you'll have the answer.

The common thread about the probability mongers is that if someone provides probability instead of absolutes, they get attacked. And pretty consistently, I might add. If they don't provide absolutes, they get people screaming at them because they can't provide absolutes (a wonderful recurring intellectually inconsistent strawman). If you want evidence, take a look at the offering of two of our own Redszone posters from 2003:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11888&highlight=Freak+Show

You made reference earlier in this thread to something that's been "infesting" the board for the past few seasons. Well, I can tell you what that is but you won't at all like it.

savafan
09-20-2006, 02:08 AM
Was this an attack or an appreciation of unexpected outcomes from Hatteberg? I think you're making this into more than it actually is Steel...

Heath
09-20-2006, 07:41 AM
My least favorite kind of match.

Here's mine

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/disciullo/twiggy/Reilly-Twiggy.jpg

osuceltic
09-20-2006, 11:08 AM
Was this an attack or an appreciation of unexpected outcomes from Hatteberg? I think you're making this into more than it actually is Steel...

No kidding. It's kind of weird.

The funny thing is no other poster takes such delight in trying to make other posters look dumb (by throwing numbers in the face of an argument), yet when it's pointed out, benignly, that a guy has defied statistical projections, Steel takes personal offense and goes postal.

Falls City Beer
09-20-2006, 11:18 AM
This whole thread needs to be added to the know-it-all index. Posts upon posts worth reading over and over again.

Scott Hatteberg 2006: Close to a career year, vital cog in the Reds lineup all year. Better year in the majors than Carlos Pena or Hee Seop Choi had at AAA.

Frank Thomas 2006: Top 10 AL MVP candidate.

Next time somebody insinuates that your opinion is worthless based upon their interpretation of last year's stats, please bump this thread.

Thank you.

Above is the post that started it all.

Sounds like a jab to me. However indirect a jab it was. It was a passive-aggressive jab.

SteelSD
09-20-2006, 11:24 AM
No kidding. It's kind of weird.

The funny thing is no other poster takes such delight in trying to make other posters look dumb (by throwing numbers in the face of an argument), yet when it's pointed out, benignly, that a guy has defied statistical projections, Steel takes personal offense and goes postal.

"Pointed out benignly". What a hoot.

Crash Davis 9/18/2006: The point isn't that smart people were dead wrong. What's noteworthy is the absolute condescencion shown throughout the thread, and it pretty much sums up what has infested redszone over the past few years.

The guy admitted, in no uncertain terms, that his sole purpose of the thread bump was to attack "know-it-all" posters to further his personal agenda and you call the behavior "benign".

But don't let things like facts stop you from continuing your own personal attacks.

Falls City Beer
09-20-2006, 11:30 AM
"Pointed out benignly". What a hoot.

Crash Davis 9/18/2006: The point isn't that smart people were dead wrong. What's noteworthy is the absolute condescencion shown throughout the thread, and it pretty much sums up what has infested redszone over the past few years.

The guy admitted, in no uncertain terms, that his sole purpose of the thread bump was to attack "know-it-all" posters to further his personal agenda and you call the behavior "benign".

But don't let things like facts stop you from continuing your own personal attacks.


What's genuinely hilarious about these archive sleuthings that we're getting of late around here is that in an attempt to discredit others' positions, the researchers are also falling into traps of hypocrisy and flawed opinions. Proceed with caution when turning over stones.

flyer85
09-20-2006, 11:32 AM
In the end the contributions of Hatty and others were only so much flatulence in the wind as the Reds miss the playoffs once again.

RANDY IN INDY
09-20-2006, 11:44 AM
So who wins this ********** match?:D

ochre
09-20-2006, 11:47 AM
me.