PDA

View Full Version : Bowden 1 Krivsky 0



dabvu2498
07-14-2006, 09:27 AM
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/bowden-1-krivsky-0


Bowden 1, Krivsky 0
by Aaron Gleeman
July 14, 2006

Lopsided trades happen all the time. In fact, it's the very nature of trading that a large percentage of swaps involve one team getting significantly more in return than the other team. Even completely one-sided deals—the ones that cause guys like me to express amazement that such a thing could take place as a result of negotiations between two people who are paid to run major-league baseball teams—happen relatively often.

However, there's a particular subset of unbalanced trades that still occurs infrequently. These are the trades that not only look unfair from the moment they take place, but look so out of whack that it's difficult to even conceive of what one general manager was thinking during negotiations (or how the other general manager kept a straight face). These are the trades that would get vetoed in any self-respecting fantasy league in the country.

What sets this specific kind of lopsided deal apart from all the rest is that there's zero hindsight needed to know that it was a colossal mistake. There are plenty of trades that become one-sided once they've had time to play out—for instance, Joe Nathan, Francisco Liriano, and Boof Bonser for A.J. Pierzynski—but rarely can you point to a trade the moment it's made and label it a sure-fire disaster. "Disaster trades" only happen once every few years, but what's amazing is that they typically end up looking even worse than expected very quickly.

The last example of a legitimate disaster trade that I can think of was the Mets swapping 20-year-old elite pitching prospect Scott Kazmir to the Devil Rays for 28-year-old Victor Zambrano and his 4.47 career ERA. At the time of the trade, the vast majority of Mets fans had trouble even coming up with a plausible line of thinking to even approach justifying the deal, and it became an instantaneous punchline.

In analyzing the Kazmir-for-Zambrano swap immediately after it took place in mid-2004, I called it "an awful, awful trade for the Mets" and added:


The Mets just traded for a soon-to-be 29-year-old pitcher with severe control issues who has never had an ERA below 4.00 as a starter in the major leagues. And what did they give up for him? Here's where this deal gets crazy ... They gave up one of the best—and perhaps the best—pitching prospect in all of baseball, Scott Kazmir.

To show you that it met the aforementioned qualifications for being a disaster trade—clearly horrible without the need for any hindsight and impossible to make sense of from the loser's point of view—I then went on to say:


The idea that Scott Kazmir was just sent from the Mets to the Devil Rays in a trade that revolved around Victor Zambrano is enough to make you wonder whether or not you're following the same game as some of the people in charge of actually making these decisions.

And as difficult as it may be to believe after re-visiting my initial reaction, the deal became a true disaster trade by looking even worse for the Mets than expected almost immediately. Kazmir made it to the big leagues within weeks and quickly emerged as one of baseball's top young starters, while Zambrano continued to pitch like he had in Tampa Bay and then struggled with arm problems.

I bring this up because the Reds completed a disaster trade yesterday, sending Austin Kearns, Felipe Lopez, and Ryan Wagner to the Nationals for Gary Majewski, Bill Bray, Royce Clayton, Brendan Harris, and Daryl Thompson. Any trade with that many players involved is difficult to break down, but think of it this way: Cincinnati essentially sent its starting right fielder and starting shortstop—both solid young players making reasonable salaries—to Washington for two middle relievers, a 36-year-old no-hit shortstop, a potential utility man, and a Single-A pitcher who's been injured most of the year.

While "Kazmir-for-Zambrano" is the way most people remember the Mets-Devil Rays trade from 2004, New York also gave up low-level pitching prospect Joselo Diaz. Here's what I wrote at the time about his inclusion:


Honestly, if you'd have told me the Devil Rays traded Zambrano to the New York Mets for just Joselo Diaz, I would have thought that made sense. A mediocre, 28-year-old starting pitcher for a mediocre-but-intriguing 24-year-old prospect? Yeah, that seems about right.

Similarly, if you'd have told me that the Reds traded either Kearns or Lopez for those same five Nationals, it would have seemed somewhat reasonable. That they parted with both of them—along with Wagner—is difficult to comprehend. Dealing Kearns and Lopez for spare parts will never haunt the Reds like dealing Kazmir may haunt the Mets, because Kearns and Lopez are merely solid players while Kazmir has superstar potential. However, in terms of an overall exchange of talent—both short term and long term—this trade is about as lopsided as it gets.

Kearns and Lopez are both 26-year-old former first-round picks who aren't eligible for free agency until after the 2008 season. They're also both somewhat enigmatic, but for different reasons. Kearns has never played more than 112 games in a season, but he's a good defensive outfielder who came into this season as a career .266/.360/.461 hitter and has batted .274/.351/.492 this year while missing just two games. Lopez had a big year in 2005, hitting .291/.352/.486 with 23 homers, but his production has dropped off this season and he struggles defensively at shortstop.

They're far from perfect players, but Kearns and Lopez are already above-average regulars entering their peaks years. Kearns ranks fourth among NL right fielders in Value Over Replacement Position, while Lopez ranks sixth among NL shortstops even in a disappointing year (and led NL shortstops in VORP last season). Majewski and Bray are quality relievers and the Reds certainly need bullpen help, but this appears to be a case of first-year general manager Wayne Krivsky panicking and overpaying for middle-relief help.

The Reds' strength is their offense, which led the NL in scoring last season and ranks third this season. They have the outfield depth to adequately replace Kearns with Chris Denorfia or Ryan Freel, but they'll be suffering a huge drop-off at shortstop. With Lopez manning the position, the Reds ranked second and fourth among NL teams in shortstop production over the past two years. Krivsky has been on the job for about half a year, but he's already traded for two of this era's worst hitters in Clayton and Juan Castro. Now those two will split playing time in place of Lopez.

The best-case scenario for the Reds is that Majewski and Bray help stabilize what has been a brutal bullpen, the Clayton-Castro duo offsets some of the offense lost by providing better defense than Lopez, and Harris and Thompson develop into useful role players. Unfortunately, competent middle relief isn't really something to pay a premium for, there's little to suggest that Clayton and Castro are quality defenders despite what their long-expired reputations might have you believe, and Kearns and Lopez are good enough to make the deal look horrible even if everything breaks right for Cincinnati.

This is a classic example of trying to patch up one hole while opening up several others in the process, and the end result is Cincinnati trading dollar-bills for a whole bunch of loose change. Giving up players like Kearns and Lopez is one thing, but giving them up for such a pathetic return is an entirely different story. What makes this trade particularly interesting is that the general manager doing the fleecing, Jim Bowden, hasn't exactly been known for being the most shrewd decision-maker in the past.

All of which is another way that yesterday's deal is similar to the Kazmir-for-Zambrano swap, where much-maligned (and since fired) general manager Chuck Lamar shocked everyone by actually ripping someone else off for a change. Back then I wrote that the Devil Rays "shocked the hell out of me by not only making a smart trade, but actually robbing another team blind." I feel much the same way about Bowden and the Nationals today.

REDREAD
07-14-2006, 09:40 AM
Nice analysis.. Hard to argue with it.

People mention the upside to the Reds. Perhaps Bray evolves into a closer and Majewski becomes a competent middle reliever.

Look at the upside for Washington though. 2 middle of the order hitters, with one being a great defensive RF and the other one being adequate at SS (IMO, Lopez was adequate last year, so it's not a huge stretch). Plus, Wagner might bounce back with a change of scenery. I have a feeling that being buried in AAA, clearly out of favor with the Reds may have affected Wagner's pitching. If Wagner isn't injured, a change of scenery might be exactly what Wagner needs to bounce back and become a decent middle reliever. I doubt that Wagner ever becomes the closer we hoped for when we drafted him, but it's not too far out there to say that in a best case scenerio, he pitches as well as Majewski (perhaps next year). I'm not crying about losing Wagner, I'm just saying that's another wildcard that might make this deal even more lopsided down the road.

IrishDavidKY
07-14-2006, 09:53 AM
It's extremely hard for me to be optimistic about this trade even though I want to. I have a sick feeling about this move and definitely believe WK was robbed.

Krusty
07-14-2006, 09:58 AM
Let's judge this trade three years from now.

cincy09
07-14-2006, 10:11 AM
Let's judge this trade three years from now.

That could be the part that really hurts

red-in-la
07-14-2006, 10:12 AM
I am not sure this trade was about the "talent." Seems to me that if there was a line made up of Reds players who play with less than obvious intensity, Lopez would be at the very front of it and Kearns would be close behind him.

In other words, not counting the skills, these two were not the most intense players to ever put on the uniform.

If these were football players I can see a Marvin Lewis type saying something like, "we want players who play the game the way we want it played."

Team this trade with the Hancock release and the somewhat short fuse on a few other DFA's and I would say that maybe Krivsky is trying to change the overall franchise culture a little bit.

Falls City Beer
07-14-2006, 10:18 AM
I am not sure this trade was about the "talent." Seems to me that if there was a line made up of Reds players who play with less than obvious intensity, Lopez would be at the very front of it and Kearns would be close behind him.

In other words, not counting the skills, these two were not the most intense players to ever put on the uniform.

If these were football players I can see a Marvin Lewis type saying something like, "we want players who play the game the way we want it played."

Team this trade with the Hancock release and the somewhat short fuse on a few other DFA's and I would say that maybe Krivsky is trying to change the overall franchise culture a little bit.

I think this is almost certainly part of Krivsky's thinking. Though I don't think that means the two should have been given away.

osuceltic
07-14-2006, 10:19 AM
I am not sure this trade was about the "talent." Seems to me that if there was a line made up of Reds players who play with less than obvious intensity, Lopez would be at the very front of it and Kearns would be close behind him.

In other words, not counting the skills, these two were not the most intense players to ever put on the uniform.

If these were football players I can see a Marvin Lewis type saying something like, "we want players who play the game the way we want it played."

Team this trade with the Hancock release and the somewhat short fuse on a few other DFA's and I would say that maybe Krivsky is trying to change the overall franchise culture a little bit.
Bingo.

It's not about winning the trade, it's about winning games. And people continue to undervalue quality pitching. Krivsky is piecing together a staff -- starters and relievers -- that will be here a while. That's how you compete consistently.

Pitch well, play good defense, and play hard. That's what Krivsky is about. I think it's great.

lollipopcurve
07-14-2006, 10:26 AM
It's not about winning the trade, it's about winning games. And people continue to undervalue quality pitching. Krivsky is piecing together a staff -- starters and relievers -- that will be here a while. That's how you compete consistently.

Pitch well, play good defense, and play hard. That's what Krivsky is about. I think it's great.

I suspect you're right that they're thinking this way. let's see if it works...

cincy09
07-14-2006, 10:28 AM
Giving up position players for pitching doesn't seem so bad. Seems like it's a lot easier to replace position players. The more I think about the trade the more I seem at peace with it. Kriv has earned at least a little leeway with me.

CySeymour
07-14-2006, 10:29 AM
Bingo.

It's not about winning the trade, it's about winning games. And people continue to undervalue quality pitching. Krivsky is piecing together a staff -- starters and relievers -- that will be here a while. That's how you compete consistently.

Pitch well, play good defense, and play hard. That's what Krivsky is about. I think it's great.

A good point. So, how many people thought that both Pena AND Kearns would have gotten traded this season?

MartyFan
07-14-2006, 10:31 AM
I am optimistic about this trade...why?

We get the BP help we need not only for now but also for the future....the guys we picked up are better than anything we have on the roster or available to us through the farm sysytem.

Kearns has been hurt every year he has played outside of this year...also with Deno in AAA, Freel on the bench Dunn, Junior and EE looking like they would benefit from position changes and OF's being the "easiest" position players to replace...the trade makes sense.

Lopez is a good hitting, poor fielding SS...Clayton is merely a piece we had to take for the arms to come this way...big deal...he'll be gone at the end of the year...he improves our defense...maybe next year we see Phillips move to SS and Olmedo at 2B...I don't know.

Wagner was not doing anything to help his cause in AAA.

The market for pitching is DRY especially relievers...how many times have you heard on ESPN, FOXSPORTS and the like that with so many teams in the chase right now nobody wants to give up any arms at all...this is truely a sellers market...Until he proves otherwise,Krivsky and his team of scouts and advisors who went out and got Bronson Arroyo, Brandon Phillips and David Ross have my full trust.

just mho

guttle11
07-14-2006, 10:42 AM
If the Reds want to stay in contention, they needed bullpen help. How do you fix a weakness that fast? You draw from strengths.

I applaud Wayne Krivsky. The Reds are better today than they were on Sunday.

Newman4
07-14-2006, 10:44 AM
At this point, I kinda cringe when I read this because I find myself agreeing with a lot of it. Kriv got antsy and overpaid. Bray and Majewski are quality but Lopez and Kearns were a lot to give up.

acredsfan
07-14-2006, 10:48 AM
You know, the mark of a quality organization is being able to evaluate their own talent in an unbiased view. Kearns had a good rookie year, but he hasn't been the .300 hitter that we were lead to believe he could be. Whether that is because of injury problems, weight problems, or whatever, I have to believe his stock isn't as high as we want to believe. Because he is a hometown boy, he came up through the system, and he's popular with fans makes us value him from a sentimental standpoint, but in all honesty if another player was playing in right with a .275 average would we be all that sad if he was traded. I believe Denorfia will give us at least that if not more from an average standpoint. We may lose a little power, but how much more do we need? Looking at Lopez, he had a great year last year, but his year he has struggled, so which do we believe, his one great year or his mediocre year. People labelled last year as his breakout year, but mabye it was an over achieving year for him. So to sum this all up, maybe we overvalue our own players because they are our players. Give this trade time. The whole point in a trade is to trade away our surplus to fill a need, and that is what Krivsky did. Even though from a player comparison we do not know the other players as well, but the players we got in return do address the immediate need we had. Let it play out, then make your judgements, people are reacting way too quickly.

ChaseReds
07-14-2006, 10:59 AM
Refreshing isn’t it? Just look around, smell the fresh new air in Cincinnati.

Trade, yea there was trade but let me explain something beyond this trade that makes me relieved. Our new Reds Regime!

You see, although I still don’t understand the trade, I love the fact that Special K is willing to be aggressive and give Cincy a shot. Listen I understand many fans are worried- sometimes you have to just let go and enjoy the ride. Sure this trade might not make sense but we have ownership that is willing be aggressive and willing to take a shot- something the Cincy fan’s haven’t seen in a LONG time.

I am excited. I am really excited. Instead of past owners being stuck on the “They will eventually come around” mode our new owners are finally changing things up.

I seriously am excited. Say goodbye to status quo and finally be able to say, “It’s a whole new ballgame”

:KoolAid:

44Magnum
07-14-2006, 11:02 AM
I like the trade. The Reds will be better off this year and in the long run.

red-in-la
07-14-2006, 11:05 AM
Excuse me, but when you trade an OF who is hitting .275 WITH 16 HR's and 50 RBI's while batting 6th or 7th most of the year, I am more than a little upset.....and I truely doubt that Denorfia will come anywhere close to duplicating those numbers anytime soon.

Kearns was expendable for several reasons, but let's not try to minimuize or ignore his contribution to this offense.

Denorfia or (cough) Freel over Kearns in RF is an upgrade ONLY because of the statue in CF who should have been moved to DH or 1B long ago. But since this franchise has a long history of letting the team (and the fans) suffer because it cannot mess with the feelings of a superstar, the statue remains in CF.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-14-2006, 11:12 AM
I don't like the trade but at least Krivsky isn't afraid to hurt feelings.

Now, about that statue in CF. Denorfia is here now, so time to hurt more feelings, Wayne.

ChaseReds
07-14-2006, 11:15 AM
Agreed- The trade itself I still struggle with. But I love the fact we get a fresh new sense of aggressiveness in Cincy. The fans needed that, the franchise need that, the players needed that (not necessarily the trade- but aggressive owners).

I still am excited! And yes I love the fact that K isn’t afraid to hurt feelings.

HalMorrisRules
07-14-2006, 11:27 AM
At this point, I kinda cringe when I read this because I find myself agreeing with a lot of it. Kriv got antsy and overpaid. Bray and Majewski are quality but Lopez and Kearns were a lot to give up.

Overpaid? If this trade had happened in November I would say he overpaid. But in the middle of July, the price for pitching is steep. Really steep.

Antsy? Was last night's ninth inning fun? You bet it wasnt. There was no, pardon the pun, relief in sight and unless we wanted to watch meaningless baseball in August and September this needed to be done. Trades are not made in vacuums and sometimes talent is not the only factor involved.

Guacarock
07-14-2006, 11:32 AM
Krivsky got fleeced by the Big Bad Wolf. This trade isn't going to ruin the Reds because we had Denorfia waiting in the wings to man RF and defensive/offensive wizard Phillips as the likely long-range successor to Lopez at SS.

But still, as trades go, this was about as lopsided as they get. Krivsky jettisoned two of our most valuable everyday players. In return, he didn't get an everyday player back from Bowden, he didn't get a starting pitcher, he didn't land anyone from among the Nats' 3 or 4 best prospects, he didn't even get Washington's best relievers -- those being Rauch and their closer Cordero.

Bowden schooled and made a fool out of our new GM.

acredsfan
07-14-2006, 11:57 AM
Excuse me, but when you trade an OF who is hitting .275 WITH 16 HR's and 50 RBI's while batting 6th or 7th most of the year, I am more than a little upset.....and I truely doubt that Denorfia will come anywhere close to duplicating those numbers anytime soon.

Kearns was expendable for several reasons, but let's not try to minimuize or ignore his contribution to this offense.

Denorfia or (cough) Freel over Kearns in RF is an upgrade ONLY because of the statue in CF who should have been moved to DH or 1B long ago. But since this franchise has a long history of letting the team (and the fans) suffer because it cannot mess with the feelings of a superstar, the statue remains in CF.I said the average from Denorfia will be as good or better, but I did concede the power numbers won't be as good, but what do we have a surplus of? What did we need? And if its at the expense of fan favorites, so what. Nobody was this upset over the trade of Casey, and we got nothing in return for him, but yet he was hitting .300 + every year. So take a minute and ask yourself, "how is Kearns irreplaceable?" He's not irreplaceable. He doesn't bring the presence of a Dunn or Griffey in a lineup. He doesn't hit for average. I'm not saying Deno or Freel would be an upgrade in right field, I'm just saying the trade is an upgrade to the team overall. We scored 9 runs last night, but gave up 7, how can we expect to keep winning if that happens night after night. We are not short on offense. We are short on pitching, and this trade is an improvement in that area. Yeah, it hurts to give up two everyday players, but we need pitching to win, and we could afford to give up some offense.

REDREAD
07-14-2006, 12:04 PM
Excuse me, but when you trade an OF who is hitting .275 WITH 16 HR's and 50 RBI's while batting 6th or 7th most of the year, I am more than a little upset.....and I truely doubt that Denorfia will come anywhere close to duplicating those numbers anytime soon.

Kearns was expendable for several reasons, but let's not try to minimuize or ignore his contribution to this offense.

Denorfia or (cough) Freel over Kearns in RF is an upgrade ONLY because of the statue in CF who should have been moved to DH or 1B long ago. But since this franchise has a long history of letting the team (and the fans) suffer because it cannot mess with the feelings of a superstar, the statue remains in CF.


I predict that in 4-5 weeks, Defornia gets moved to "whipping boy" status as he gets exposed as the AAAA player he is. I really don't even think he upgrades the defense. Kearns was a nice defensive player.

The dropoff at SS is huge. A slumping Lopez is a lot better than Castro or Clayton (both of who have very overrated defense). Let's be honest. Bowden probably wanted to throw Clayton in the deal to help balance out the salaries, and because Clayton is useless to Wash once they pick up Lopez.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 12:16 PM
Excuse me, but when you trade an OF who is hitting .275 WITH 16 HR's and 50 RBI's while batting 6th or 7th most of the year, I am more than a little upset.....and I truely doubt that Denorfia will come anywhere close to duplicating those numbers anytime soon.

Kearns was expendable for several reasons, but let's not try to minimuize or ignore his contribution to this offense.

Denorfia or (cough) Freel over Kearns in RF is an upgrade ONLY because of the statue in CF who should have been moved to DH or 1B long ago. But since this franchise has a long history of letting the team (and the fans) suffer because it cannot mess with the feelings of a superstar, the statue remains in CF.

How so? Griffey is STILL a great defensive Centerfielder. Sticking Ryan Freel or ANYONE from the team, for that matter, into CF you're creating a DOWNGRADE in performance (Hitting, specifically). Griffey has played Centerfield his entire life, sticking him at first base would be the wrong thing to do.

Why? Well, let's think of the most obvious reason here. First base, is the FIRST place you go to get a runner out! If a first baseman lacks in fielding ability, you'll get un-earned baserunners. That's something we don't need, and one of the reasons Fe-Lo was traded, even though he was a SS.

Having Griffey and Dunn in the middle of a lineup, creates one of the most dangerous in the MLB. We don't need to eliminate EITHER of them.

Call that complaint in with Tracy Jones on 700WLW. He'll embarrass ya. LOL

flyer85
07-14-2006, 12:26 PM
So is this trade a success if the Reds don't make the playoffs?

flyer85
07-14-2006, 12:27 PM
Griffey is STILL a great defensive Centerfielder. Need to lay off those hallucinogens.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 12:28 PM
But still, as trades go, this was about as lopsided as they get. Krivsky jettisoned two of our most valuable everyday players.The article described it perfectly it was trading dollar bills for loose change. It was trading a $10 bill for 2 quarters to use in the vending machine.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 12:31 PM
Need to lay off those hallucinogens.

How do you figure that he's not? If his play seems lackadaisical out there, it's because it ALWAYS has. Griffey has a way of making everything hit look EASY to catch, and has since his youngest years.

acredsfan
07-14-2006, 12:32 PM
So is this trade a success if the Reds don't make the playoffs?Is this trade a failure if they don't? I think this is a step in the direction of making a push for the playoffs, but you can't hang the whole weight of making the playoffs on this one trade.

BoydsOfSummer
07-14-2006, 12:37 PM
How do you figure that he's not? If his play seems lackadaisical out there, it's because it ALWAYS has. Griffey has a way of making everything hit look EASY to catch, and has since his youngest years.

Lackadasical has nothing to do with it my friend. At this point he has slightly better range than me and you. His effort,instincts and attitude remain world class.

Rotater Cuff
07-14-2006, 12:40 PM
We may lose a little power, but how much more do we need?

You know, someone did a study, and Kearns' homeruns were some of the shallowest in the major league, i.e.: they don't travel too far. He has "warning track" power imo, and I think outside of GABP he will suffer by comparison.

The same might hold true for Lopez. Both of these players offensive resumes were burnished by GABP factors.

dabvu2498
07-14-2006, 12:41 PM
You know, someone did a study, and Kearns' homeruns were some of the shallowest in the major league, i.e.: they don't travel too far. He has "warning track" power imo, and I think outside of GABP he will suffer by comparison.

The same might hold true for Lopez. Both of these players offensive resumes were burnished by GABP factors.
I'd be interested to see that study. Just from recollection, it seems like there might be some truth to that.

Rotater Cuff
07-14-2006, 12:52 PM
I'd be interested to see that study. Just from recollection, it seems like there might be some truth to that.

Here's the quote from this past May:
Greg keeps a list of the average standard length of each player's home runs and awards a "Golden Sledgehammer" to the player with the longest average homer. At this point, Tigers shortstop Carlos Guillen has "only" hit six home runs, but they've traveled 425 standard feet, on average. Contrast that to noted muscleman Austin Kearns, whose nine home runs have traveled an average of 370 feet. None of his home runs have gone as far as Guillen's average. Plus, the average speed of Guillen's home runs has been 115 miles per hour when they first leave his bat. For Kearns, the average ball speed has been 103 miles an hour. Kearns is 30 pounds heavier than shortstop Guillen.
Here's the entire article:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ten-things-i-learned-from-hit-tracker/

registerthis
07-14-2006, 12:56 PM
Bingo.

It's not about winning the trade, it's about winning games. And people continue to undervalue quality pitching. Krivsky is piecing together a staff -- starters and relievers -- that will be here a while. That's how you compete consistently.

Pitch well, play good defense, and play hard. That's what Krivsky is about. I think it's great.

But, again--and I hate to keep sounding like a broken record--no justification for dealing Kearns and Lopez necessitates giving them away for peanuts and cotton candy.

With regards to this trade, I'm happy the Reds got a couple of players who appear to be able to help the woeful bullpen situation. That's a positive. Beyond that, I'm not banking on Clayton, Harris or Thompson ever being large contributors to this team. So throw them aside, and you essentially have Kearns and Lopez for Bray and Majewski.

And that's utterly pathetic, no matter what needs the Reds had or how much Krivsky wants to remake the clubhouse culture of the team. No one's arguing that the Reds didn't help fill a need with this deal, but Krivsky should have gotten more in return. You can create excuses or justifications for why Kearns and Lopez were dealt, but none of them will provide a satisfactory answer to the question of why the return for such talent was so low.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 12:58 PM
How do you figure that he's not? there are a number of defensive metrics that say he isn't just "not great", but that he is the worst everyday CF in all of baseball. BTW, ZR is the easiest one to find.

registerthis
07-14-2006, 12:58 PM
You know, someone did a study, and Kearns' homeruns were some of the shallowest in the major league, i.e.: they don't travel too far. He has "warning track" power imo, and I think outside of GABP he will suffer by comparison.

Now, I've read some critiques of players in my time, but this ranks as one of the more interesting ones.

Yes, Kearns hits home runs, but he doesn't hit them far enough?

Wow, is that really what we're reduced to in trying to create justifications for this deal? Amazing.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 01:01 PM
Now, I've read some critiques of players in my time, but this ranks as one of the more interesting ones.

Yes, Kearns hits home runs, but he doesn't hit them far enough?

Wow, is that really what we're reduced to in trying to create justifications for this deal? Amazing.Even if AKs power doesn't play well in RFK, and it liekly won't, that isn't a justification for trading him away from GABP.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 01:10 PM
there are a number of defensive metrics that say he isn't just "not great", but that he is the worst everyday CF in all of baseball. BTW, ZR is the easiest one to find.

Really? Hmmm....this is what I found...



----------------G-----TC-----PO-----A-----E-----DP-----FPCT
Career Totals--2072--5199---4987---138----74----39-----.986


Some interesting NOTES:

Griffey had 10 errors his first season in the big leagues. He has had no more than 9 in the following 16 seasons.

His Fielding PCT has not fell below .971 since his first season.

Having 74 errors over 17 Major League Seasons is not what I would call 'the worst everyday centerfielder in the game today.'

But hey....everyone has their own opinions, I guess! :rolleyes:

SteelSD
07-14-2006, 01:12 PM
Now, I've read some critiques of players in my time, but this ranks as one of the more interesting ones.

Yes, Kearns hits home runs, but he doesn't hit them far enough?

Wow, is that really what we're reduced to in trying to create justifications for this deal? Amazing.

Let's ignore the fact that from 2003-to-current, Kearns has hit more HR per AB away from the GAB:

2003-2006

Home: 614 AB/28 HR= 1 HR/21.9 AB
Away: 607 AB/30 HR= 1 HR/20.2 AB

Lopez may be more negatively affected by the park swap due to the fact that he's not a true power-game player but both hitters have the discipline and line-drive strokes to succeed in any park. And yeah, I wish I were surprised that folks are grasping at straws in order to justify this stinker.

vic715
07-14-2006, 01:15 PM
Overpaid? If this trade had happened in November I would say he overpaid. But in the middle of July, the price for pitching is steep. Really steep.

Antsy? Was last night's ninth inning fun? You bet it wasnt. There was no, pardon the pun, relief in sight and unless we wanted to watch meaningless baseball in August and September this needed to be done. Trades are not made in vacuums and sometimes talent is not the only factor involved.
A great point. The Reds scored 9 runs last night without Kearns and Lopez and the bullpen again was threating to give it away.Regardless if you like this trade or not this team was going to finish well below 500 unless somethig was done.

SteelSD
07-14-2006, 01:15 PM
Really? Hmmm....this is what I found...



Some interesting NOTES:

Griffey had 10 errors his first season in the big leagues. He has had no more than 9 in the following 16 seasons.

His Fielding PCT has not fell below .971 since his first season.

Having 74 errors over 17 Major League Seasons is not what I would call 'the worst everyday centerfielder in the game today.'

But hey....everyone has their own opinions, I guess! :rolleyes:

Ken Griffey Junior posted a .805 Zone Rating in 2005 and is at .810 ZR this season. That ranks him last in MLB for two years in a row and by a wide margain. He can catch what he can get to. But he can't get to a whole lot right now. That's what happens as players age. Sorry.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 01:16 PM
Regardless if you like this trade or not this team was going to finish well below 500 unless somethig was done. and it still likely to do so. You would have thought we just got Forster and Gossage from the White Sox.

harangatang
07-14-2006, 01:19 PM
How do you figure that he's not? If his play seems lackadaisical out there, it's because it ALWAYS has. Griffey has a way of making everything hit look EASY to catch, and has since his youngest years.The problem is now that he makes catches only IF his aging body with horrible range allows him to get to the ball. Griffey still makes brilliant plays, no doubt, but his ability to get to the ball will only decrease as he gets older.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 01:19 PM
Ken Griffey Junior posted a .805 Zone Rating in 2005 and is at .810 ZR this season. That ranks him last in MLB for two years in a row and by a wide margain.

Zone rating? How long has this been a statistic? I've been playing semi-pro baseball for 4 years now, and have never heard anything like this....:rolleyes:


He can catch what he can get to.

LMAO. That's the way the outfield works, dude. If you can't get to it, you can't catch it, obviously. :laugh:

westofyou
07-14-2006, 01:21 PM
Zone rating? How long has this been a statistic? I've been playing semi-pro baseball for 4 years now, and have never heard anything like this....

Yeah that devalues it right away... Rob Dicken has never heard of Zone Rating, therefore it is useless.... Alert the presses.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 01:22 PM
That's the way the outfield works, dude. If you can't get to it, you can't catch it, obviously. :laugh:which is why speed is still the most important attribute a CF can possess. Jr lost his a long time ago and his ability to play the position well went with it.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 01:26 PM
Yeah that devalues it right away... Rob Dicken has never heard of Zone Rating, therefore it is useless.... Alert the presses.

Okay. Here's the question. Do you think Major League coaches look at Zone Ratings? I don't think so.

If MLB.com doesn't even keep track of it on their website, it's a pretty useless statistic.

It's basically saying, 'OH! A ball landed for a base hit, let's RATE the fielders on that!" It's a statistic based on a personal opinion, for crying out loud, and isn't even really endorsed by the MLB.

So base your look at Griffey on a personal opinion, and I will stick with the stats.

westofyou
07-14-2006, 01:28 PM
Okay. Here's the question. Do you think Major League coaches look at Zone Ratings? I don't think so.

Do they keep charts and direct the players to play certain areas when certain batters are up?

RichRed
07-14-2006, 01:28 PM
LMAO. That's the way the outfield works, dude. If you can't get to it, you can't catch it, obviously. :laugh:

If you know that's how the outfield works then what are you laughing at?

The average CF has the speed/range to get to many of the balls that Griffey can't. I love Junior but he doesn't belong in CF any more.

Spitball
07-14-2006, 01:30 PM
I posted this on another thread, but I think this trade symbolizes the difference between the two GM's. The Reds needed bullpen help so Krivsky boldly acquired bullpen help. The Nationals have Ramon Ortiz (think about that) as their number one starter and Bowden acquires a five tool outfielder and a statue to play shortstop.

I like the bold new approach.

osuceltic
07-14-2006, 01:30 PM
But, again--and I hate to keep sounding like a broken record--no justification for dealing Kearns and Lopez necessitates giving them away for peanuts and cotton candy.

With regards to this trade, I'm happy the Reds got a couple of players who appear to be able to help the woeful bullpen situation. That's a positive. Beyond that, I'm not banking on Clayton, Harris or Thompson ever being large contributors to this team. So throw them aside, and you essentially have Kearns and Lopez for Bray and Majewski.

And that's utterly pathetic, no matter what needs the Reds had or how much Krivsky wants to remake the clubhouse culture of the team. No one's arguing that the Reds didn't help fill a need with this deal, but Krivsky should have gotten more in return. You can create excuses or justifications for why Kearns and Lopez were dealt, but none of them will provide a satisfactory answer to the question of why the return for such talent was so low.
You know, you're right. He probably only talked to Bowden. He probably didn't call any other GMs. He probably didn't consider any other offers. Well, maybe he did, but he discounted the really, really good ones and settled for this.

It doesn't matter what a few posters on a message board think Kearns and Lopez are worth. What matters is what other GMs think they're worth -- and what Krivsky think they're worth. Their worth is determined by the market. And the market for pitching is tough.

Sure, they could just sit tight if they don't get any better offers. That's what Dan O'Brien would have done.

The sad thing is even if this trade solidifies the bullpen, even if Denorfia plays well in right field, and even if the Reds make the playoffs, some on here will never give Krivsky credit for the move. They'll still say he overpaid (maybe he did) and insist he should have kept Kearns and Lopez and waited for a better offer -- maybe in the offseason.

I'm glad we have a front office tired of waiting. I'm glad we have a GM willing to try to win now and worry about tomorrow tomorrow. The object is to win. The Reds have a better chance to do that today than they did yesterday.

BuckWoody
07-14-2006, 01:31 PM
This should be good. http://home.comcast.net/~Kona_Kane/Smilies/popcorn.gif

flyer85
07-14-2006, 01:34 PM
I posted this on another thread, but I think this trade symbolizes the difference between the two GM's. The Reds needed bullpen help so Krivsky boldly acquired bullpen help. The Nationals have Ramon Ortiz (think about that) as their number one starter and Bowden acquires a five tool outfielder and a statue to play shortstop.

I like the bold new approach.Bowden isn't trying to win this year and knows that a GM can put together a decent bullpen in the offseason with little cost. He acquired some parts he needed for little cost because he found another team desperate for what he was willing to sell(because he knows it can be replaced after the season without a problem). It's not like the Reds got Forster and Gossage from the White Sox.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 01:38 PM
The sad thing is even if this trade solidifies the bullpen, even if Denorfia plays well in right field, and even if the Reds make the playoffs, some on here will never give Krivsky credit for the move. overpaying is allowed if it gets you to your objective, which is the playoffs. However, I don't see this deal as one that gets them there. Instead it could be a deal that puts them further behind the 8-ball instead of in front of it. If this deal makes them a playoff team I will give WK a high five for having the cojones to make such a bold move. If it doesn't happen this year, then ...

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 01:40 PM
Do they keep charts and direct the players to play certain areas when certain batters are up?

Yes they do. I do too for my very own team. But the fact is, this is a statistic based on an opinion, as I mentioned before which is why a lot of people do not endorse it (specifically MLB).

These guys are in the Majors for a reason, because they can play the game of baseball and are the best in the WORLD. If a ball drops in front of a guy, it's because it's unplayable. If they can't reach it, why are we sitting back saying he could? Because we think we could do better? This is a lame arguement. Thanks for wasting my time! I WANT MY 20 minutes back!!! :bang:


f you know that's how the outfield works then what are you laughing at?

The average CF has the speed/range to get to many of the balls that Griffey can't. I love Junior but he doesn't belong in CF any more.

Read what I wrote above.

One thing is for sure, he belongs in the outfield. He's played 1B 2 games his entire career, and it would be an even bigger risk putting him there than Adam Dunn.

SteelSD
07-14-2006, 01:41 PM
Okay. Here's the question. Do you think Major League coaches look at Zone Ratings? I don't think so.

If MLB.com doesn't even keep track of it on their website, it's a pretty useless statistic.

It's basically saying, 'OH! A ball landed for a base hit, let's RATE the fielders on that!" It's a statistic based on a personal opinion, for crying out loud, and isn't even really endorsed by the MLB.

So base your look at Griffey on a personal opinion, and I will stick with the stats.

One gentleman piggybacked off Zone Rating to produce Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR). Really interesting stuff when you could get ahold of the data.

But alas...he doesn't publish it anymore because he was hired by the St. Louis Cardinals to produce it and other apparantly "useless" statistics.

Yeah. Really. Your not knowing about it means absolutely nothing.

westofyou
07-14-2006, 01:42 PM
Thanks for wasting my time!

No problem, and to think back channel I'm getting slammed for my prior response to you.

LMAO

flyer85
07-14-2006, 01:43 PM
Yeah. Really. Your not knowing about it means absolutely nothing.Well, actually it does but I'm not going to say it.

Newman4
07-14-2006, 01:43 PM
Overpaid? If this trade had happened in November I would say he overpaid. But in the middle of July, the price for pitching is steep. Really steep.

Antsy? Was last night's ninth inning fun? You bet it wasnt. There was no, pardon the pun, relief in sight and unless we wanted to watch meaningless baseball in August and September this needed to be done. Trades are not made in vacuums and sometimes talent is not the only factor involved.

Yes, overpaid. Kearns was one of the better outfielders to be had as the deadline approaches. As while Lopez would soon have been priced out of Cincinnati by Boras, he still was a valuable commodity. Read registerthis' post #35. He echoes my thoughts much better than I can.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 01:47 PM
One gentleman piggybacked off Zone Rating to produce Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR). Really interesting stuff when you could get ahold of the data.

But alas...he doesn't publish it anymore because he was hired by the St. Louis Cardinals to produce it and other apparantly "useless" statistics.

Yeah. Really. Your not knowing about it means absolutely nothing.

This argument could go on forever and ever....so let's just end it here.

You can keep your 'Cardinal statistic', and I will stick with the original statistics.

And while you're at it, call Marty or Tracy Jones with your Zone statisitics. I am sure they'll love to hear them. :laugh:

It's a shambles when fans know more than the professionals. :rolleyes:

flyer85
07-14-2006, 01:48 PM
You can keep your 'Cardinal statistic', and I will stick with the original statistics.The sure sign of a dying _______, "we've never done it that way before".

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 01:51 PM
The sure sign of a dying _______, "we've never done it that way before".

Why would we need to?

Because flyer85 says so? LMAO

westofyou
07-14-2006, 01:53 PM
You can keep your 'Cardinal statistic', and I will stick with the original statistics.

The ones created during the Civil War? Or the ones created during the late 40's?

Or is the ones from the early 80's?

GridironGrace
07-14-2006, 01:53 PM
The Trade was made to QUICK........how long could talks have POSSIBLY been in process?

If your gonna trade away 2 good plaeyers Kearns/Lopez

YOU MUST TEST THE WATERS. Put the word out that you wanna trade them see what comes in... we could have gotta MUCH MUCH BETTER.

TOO MANY Teams wanted Kearns to NOT have something else.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 01:56 PM
Why would we need to?
The Reds new slogan "Defining Baseball Success, The Old Way". :mooner:

osuceltic
07-14-2006, 01:56 PM
The Trade was made to QUICK........how long could talks have POSSIBLY been in process?

If your gonna trade away 2 good plaeyers Kearns/Lopez

YOU MUST TEST THE WATERS. Put the word out that you wanna trade them see what comes in... we could have gotta MUCH MUCH BETTER.

TOO MANY Teams wanted Kearns to NOT have something else.
Yep. I'm sure he took the first offer. Never even talked to anyone else.

He should have waited. Sure, the bullpen would have had this team 12 games out by the trade deadline, but what the heck? He might have been able to squeeze a better prospect into the deal.

Krivsky is an idiot. Bronson Arroyo, Brandon Phillips and Dave Ross were pure luck.

Newman4
07-14-2006, 01:56 PM
Okay. Here's the question. Do you think Major League coaches look at Zone Ratings? I don't think so.

If MLB.com doesn't even keep track of it on their website, it's a pretty useless statistic.

It's basically saying, 'OH! A ball landed for a base hit, let's RATE the fielders on that!" It's a statistic based on a personal opinion, for crying out loud, and isn't even really endorsed by the MLB.

So base your look at Griffey on a personal opinion, and I will stick with the stats.

Major League coaches may or may not, but I bet GMs do. By the way, the stat is not based on any opinion. The 'zones' are divided up equally and since all ML outfielders are judged on the same criteria then there is no opinion involved.

Read this from BBTF:

An outfielder’s zone rating is equal to balls hit into his zone which do not result in hits, divided by the number of balls hit into his zone. The player is credited with both an ‘out’ and a ‘ball in zone’ for balls caught outside his zone, just like the infielders.

This explains exactly how the zones are defined. The reason these zones were selected is because these are the zones where balls are turned into outs at a greater than 50% rate. The greater zone is not so much arbitrary, as drawn from a reasonable expectation that a fielder should make the play, since his peers do.

Joseph
07-14-2006, 01:56 PM
Ah Reds colored goggles.....making more league average players seem to be future Hall-of-Famers than beer goggles make fat chicks appear attractive at closing time.

Maybe thats a stretch, but I'm just saying.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 01:56 PM
The ones created during the Civil War?

No. Not your birthdate, silly.

I am talking of the statistics you keep normally for EVERY baseball game. TOO MANY made-up statistics make the game not as fun to play.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 01:58 PM
Nice try Newman. But I don't think you can explain a 3rd dimension to someone that only lives in two.

RichRed
07-14-2006, 01:59 PM
Nice try Newman. But I don't think you can explain a 3rd dimension to someone that only lives in two.


Yep, the effort was admirable though.

dabvu2498
07-14-2006, 02:01 PM
No. Not your birthdate, silly.

I am talking of the statistics you keep normally for EVERY baseball game. TOO MANY made-up statistics make the game not as fun to play.
The "far out" statistics that everyone is talking about have nothing to do with the experiences of playing or watching a game.

I don't think any player stands in the field and thinks, "Jessh I gotta get my zone rating up."

And I know if I'm in the stands I'm not praying for Nook Logan to come play CF for the Reds because he has a better zone rating.

But for analyzing by front office, management, or yes, even fans, statistics of any kind can be a useful tool.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 02:01 PM
a reasonable expectation

That's an opinion right there. HAHA! :laugh:

Keep in mind, the people doing the scoring for this, are NOT official MLB licensed statisticians, nor have they probably EVER played the game of baseball.

Joseph
07-14-2006, 02:03 PM
That's an opinion right there. HAHA! :laugh:

Keep in mind, the people doing the scoring for this, are NOT official MLB licensed statisticians, nor have they probably EVER played the game of baseball.

Are you? So why criticize what others choose to help judge the talent/skill of a player.

westofyou
07-14-2006, 02:03 PM
No. Not your birthdate, silly.

I am talking of the statistics you keep normally for EVERY baseball game. TOO MANY made-up statistics make the game not as fun to play.
Then could we be talking about putouts?

If so how does Griffey measure up in getting to the ball vs the other players who have played CF for the Reds this year?

Griffey 2.5 Put Outs every 9 innings
Freel 3.1 Put outs every 9 innings
Everyone else 3.2 Putouts every 9 innings.

Personally When looking at Center Fielders I'd rather have 510 putouts every season then 405.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 02:03 PM
I don't think any player stand in the field and thinks, "Jessh I gotta get my zone rating up."Actually they should because it is all about getting to more balls and making plays, thats what you are trying to do if you want to get better.

It is why FLD% is so absurdly deficient as a defensive metric, it tells you absolutely nothing about balls that a player doesn't get to, it is completely silent about it.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 02:03 PM
The "far out" statistics that everyone is talking about have nothing to do with the experiences of playing or watching a game.

I don't think any player stand in the field and thinks, "Jessh I gotta get my zone rating up."

And I know if I'm in the stands I'm not praying for Nook Logan to come play CF for the Reds because he has a better zone rating.

But for analyzing by front office, management, or yes, even fans, statistics of any kind can be a useful tool.

I agree with you 100%. But a GM or a Manager is NOT going to base a person's playing time on ZONE RATING.

RichRed
07-14-2006, 02:04 PM
You can keep your 'Cardinal statistic', and I will stick with the original statistics.



Yeah, because what does an organization that's won more World Series than any other team not named the Yankees or Athletics know about anything?

Especially a team that once employed a guy who didn't "stick with the original statistics." Guy by the name of Branch Rickey. You should look him up.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 02:05 PM
Then could we be talking about putouts?

If so how does Griffey measure up in getting to the ball vs the other players who have played CF for the Reds this year?

Griffey 2.5 Put Outs every 9 innings
Freel 3.1 Put outs every 9 innings
Everyone else 3.2 Putouts every 9 innings.

Personally When looking at Center Fielders I'd rather have 510 putouts every season then 405.and that is even considering the fact the Reds have a flyball pitching staff which tilts RF slightly in Jrs favor.

dabvu2498
07-14-2006, 02:06 PM
I agree with you 100%. But a GM or a Manager is NOT going to base a person's playing time on ZONE RATING.
I'd say it or some similar way of measuring range a factor for sure. It's not all just the naked eye.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 02:07 PM
Actually they should because it is all about getting to more balls and making plays, thats what you are trying to do if you want to get better.

It is why FLD% is so absurdly deficient as a defensive metric, it tells you absolutely nothing about balls that a player doesn't get to, it is completely silent about it.

Get real dude. Seriously LOL

It's obvious you have probably never played the game of baseball. There is not one player that would even FATHOM standing in the field and worry about ZONE RATINGS, hell, most of them probably don't even know what it is!

The player out in the field knows what he can get to and what he can't. A rating doesn't need to be based on that. If he can't get to it, it's not a playable ball, simply put. Just move on and forget about it.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 02:07 PM
It's not all just the naked eye.Sure it is, anecdotal evidence and secret knowledge is much better and less biased than objective data. :evil:

ChatterRed
07-14-2006, 02:08 PM
The Reds won in this trade. How do I know?

When Jim Bowden was GM of the Reds.........he traded off more young pitching talent that blossomed elsewhere than any GM I can remember. He grows way too impatient and was always more interested in the 5 tool player.

The Reds just picked Bowden's pocket and the media and even Reds fans stil don't realize it. Just like other organizations use to pick Bowden's pocket when he was GM of the Reds.

How many games over .500 were we with Lopez and Kearns? Oh yeah..........ONE LOUSY GAME.

But the Reds got screwed?

BWAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!

Wise up people.

dabvu2498
07-14-2006, 02:12 PM
The Reds won in this trade. How do I know?

When Jim Bowden was GM of the Reds.........he traded off more young pitching talent that blossomed elsewhere than any GM I can remember. He grows way too impatient and was always more interested in the 5 tool player.

The Reds just picked Bowden's pocket and the media and even Reds fans stil don't realize it. Just like other organizations use to pick Bowden's pocket when he was GM of the Reds.

How many games over .500 were we with Lopez and Kearns? Oh yeah..........ONE LOUSY GAME.

But the Reds got screwed?

BWAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!

Wise up people.
How dare you try to get this thread back on topic!!!

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 02:13 PM
How dare you try to get this thread back on topic!!!

LMAO.

And yes, back on topic, I totally agree with the guy 100% :D

flyer85
07-14-2006, 02:16 PM
ZONE RATINGS, hell, most of them probably don't even know what it is!Obviously you don't but you should. The goal when playing any defensive position is to make as many plays as possible(this isn't even debatable).

ZR simply explains in an easy to understand number(for most) how one fielder compares to the next in how many plays they actually make in comparision to other players who play the same position. And that is ultimately what fielding is all about. Do you make more plays successfully than you counterparts, not the absurd FLD% which only considers those balls that a player can actually get to.

ZR simply explains in a number why a guy like Ozzie Smith was the greatest SS ever. If wasn't because Ozzie had the highest fielding percentage, it was because he got to more balls and made more plays than anyone else. In other words he made plays that no one else could.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 02:18 PM
The Reds won in this trade. How do I know?

When Jim Bowden was GM of the Reds.........he traded off more young pitching talent that blossomed elsewhere than any GM I can remember. Would you care to document that claim?

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 02:18 PM
Obviously you don't but you should. The goal when playing any defensive position is to make as many plays as possible(this isn't even debatable).

ZR simply explains in an easy to understand number(for most) how one fielder compares to the next in how many plays they actually make in comparision to other players who play the same position. And that is ultimately what fielding is all about. Do you make more plays successfully than you counterparts, not the absurd FLD% which only considers those balls that a player can actually get to.

ZR simply explains in a number why a guy like Ozzie Smith was the greatest SS ever. If wasn't because Ozzie had the highest fielding percentage, it was because he got to more balls and made more plays than anyone else. In other words he made plays that no one else could.

Yeah. Okay Grand Wizard, let's get back on topic.

You like Zone Rating, I don't. End of story. I hope you have nightmare about it.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 02:20 PM
Yeah. Okay Grand Wizard, let's get back on topic.

You like Zone Rating, actually I much prefer FRAA and FRAR (and UZR when it was available) but seeing as you don't understand ZR I won't waste my time. :laugh:

CrackerJack
07-14-2006, 02:24 PM
actually I much prefer FRAA and FRAR (and UZR when it was available) but seeing as you don't understand ZR I won't waste my time. :laugh:


Yeah you shouldn't - you'll quickly find out "Rob Dicken" knows how to play the game and knows more about it than anyone else. :)

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 02:25 PM
actually I much prefer FRAA and FRAR (and UZR when it was available) but seeing as you don't understand ZR I won't waste my time. :laugh:

I understand it, I just don't like it.

And before you start another spiel, nor do I care if you think I should.

Sea Ray
07-14-2006, 02:28 PM
If we make the playoffs this year can anyone say that the trade was a bust?

flyer85
07-14-2006, 02:30 PM
Yeah you shouldn't - you'll quickly find out "Rob Dicken" knows how to play the game and knows more about it than anyone else. :)ah, secret knowledge. I missed the initiation. :cry:

flyer85
07-14-2006, 02:32 PM
If we make the playoffs this year can anyone say that the trade was a bust?I posed the converse which is probably a better question. The answer to the above would hinge on how much the acquired players contributed to the success.

Can this trade be considered successful if the don't make the playoffs?

westofyou
07-14-2006, 02:34 PM
Can this trade be considered successful if the don't make the playoffs?

There lies the rub, the trade comes on the heels of (if IIRC ) an 8-20 run. This trade just wedged its fat butt in the way of the last month being the reason for the direction this team was going in.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 02:35 PM
Yeah you shouldn't - you'll quickly find out "Rob Dicken" knows how to play the game and knows more about it than anyone else. :)

No, but I believe I know more about the game, playing it, that people that haven't played their entire lives.

So, take it from that.

BoydsOfSummer
07-14-2006, 02:37 PM
Oh yeah?...well...uh...Adam Dunn strikes out too much!

westofyou
07-14-2006, 02:38 PM
No, but I believe I know more about the game, playing it, that people that haven't played their entire lives.

So, take it from that.
Really?

What if you used to play ball and you've been watching and studying it for almost twice as long as Rob Dicken's been drawing a breath on this spinning ball in space?

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 02:39 PM
Oh yeah?...well...uh...Adam Dunn strikes out too much!

Yeah, and I bet his Zone rating is terrible too!!! AND HE SHOULD CARE!

LMAO :laugh:

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 02:42 PM
Really?

What if you used to play ball and you've been watching and studying it for almost twice as long as Rob Dicken's been drawing a breath on this spinning ball in space?

As long as you have played it, I find it just fine to refute anything I say. We're all here to learn.

But, if you're basically saying I am stupid for not liking a statstic, whether you've played or not, then that is rather childish....

If I don't like it, I don't like it. I don't believe I need to apologize.

dabvu2498
07-14-2006, 02:50 PM
As long as you have played it, I find it just fine to refute anything I say. We're all here to learn.

But, if you're basically saying I am stupid for not liking a statstic, whether you've played or not, then that is rather childish....

If I don't like it, I don't like it. I don't believe I need to apologize.
Once upon a time, a long time a go, and many galaxies, far, far away, I played at a fairly high level. Everything I learned was learned in the process of making me a better player.

What I've learned since I quit playing is what actually constitutes a good player (and thus, a good team should be constituted of good players).

It's all relative. If only I'd known then what I know now.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 02:54 PM
Once upon a time, a long time a go, and many galaxies, far, far away, I played at a fairly high level. Everything I learned was learned in the process of making me a better player.

What I've learned since I quit playing is what actually constitutes a good player (and thus, a good team should be constituted of good players).

It's all relative. If only I'd known then what I know now.Yeah, but it is was only a game back then that we played for the challenge and the fun. Now it's life and death. :D

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 03:03 PM
Once upon a time, a long time a go, and many galaxies, far, far away, I played at a fairly high level. Everything I learned was learned in the process of making me a better player.

What I've learned since I quit playing is what actually constitutes a good player (and thus, a good team should be constituted of good players).

It's all relative. If only I'd known then what I know now.

As time passes, we gain more knowledge. But, as far as playing....I still believe you have to haved played to actually 'KNOW' this game inside and out.

dabvu2498
07-14-2006, 03:10 PM
I still believe you have to haved played to actually 'KNOW' this game inside and out.
That was the exact opposite of the point of the post you quoted.

Knowing how to play baseball is completely different, and sometimes counter-productive, from any other set of knowledge in the game.

ochre
07-14-2006, 03:11 PM
As time passes, we gain more knowledge. But, as far as playing....I still believe you have to haved played to actually 'KNOW' this game inside and out.
oh, and since none of us joined your team http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32962 - none of us have played?

Newman4
07-14-2006, 03:13 PM
As long as you have played it, I find it just fine to refute anything I say. We're all here to learn.

But, if you're basically saying I am stupid for not liking a statstic, whether you've played or not, then that is rather childish....

If I don't like it, I don't like it. I don't believe I need to apologize.

Rob, I've played the game, coached the game and have very close relatives that are currently playing the game at almost the highest level and I don't think you're stupid for not liking it, but understand that as a player, as a coach and as a fan I would like to find a consistent, reliable way to measure how much ground players can cover to gauge their defensive abilities. Until I am presented with a better alternative, then I will continue to use Zone Rating as the indicator as to whether or not a player covers their position efficiently. Do you have an alternative?

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 03:28 PM
oh, and since none of us joined your team http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32962 - none of us have played?

I don't believe I said anything like that....maybe I went into Skitzophrenic mode earlier and wrote that NO ONE HERE HAS PLAYED. But then again, I don't see where I did.


Rob, I've played the game, coached the game and have very close relatives that are currently playing the game at almost the highest level and I don't think you're stupid for not liking it, but understand that as a player, as a coach and as a fan I would like to find a consistent, reliable way to measure how much ground players can cover to gauge their defensive abilities. Until I am presented with a better alternative, then I will continue to use Zone Rating as the indicator as to whether or not a player covers their position efficiently. Do you have an alternative?

Usually the way I do it, is watch the person on a daily basis, and determine if he's good enough to play that position over any other player. I mean, I use statistics as far as hitting and speed to determine where a person bats in the lineup, but as far as the field goes, you need to actually watch the person on a daily basis.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 03:31 PM
That was the exact opposite of the point of the post you quoted.

Knowing how to play baseball is completely different, and sometimes counter-productive, from any other set of knowledge in the game.


Not really, what i was pointing at, is that after your tenure of a player, you became more knowledgable on the game. That's true almost every time. Just take a look at MLB Managers!

But, do you honestly think those guys would be MLB Managers if they NEVER played the game? No. And like I have basically mentioned about 3-4 different times, you need to play the game to actually FULLY understand it.

And that goes with any sport.

Like I could study up on Basketball all I want, but unless I am or was a player at a decently high level (High School, College), then I am not going to fully understand what's going on down on that court. And I don't. LOL

dabvu2498
07-14-2006, 03:40 PM
Not really, what i was pointing at, is that after your tenure of a player, you became more knowledgable on the game. That's true almost every time. Just take a look at MLB Managers!

But, do you honestly think those guys would be MLB Managers if they NEVER played the game? No. And like I have basically mentioned about 3-4 different times, you need to play the game to actually FULLY understand it.

And that goes with any sport.

Like I could study up on Basketball all I want, but unless I am or was a player at a decently high level (High School, College), then I am not going to fully understand what's going on down on that court. And I don't. LOL
To be involved in the teaching of baseball skills (as a coach), certainly it is a necessity to have the background as a player, but that certainly is not the only thing. But playing experience does not equate to coaching magic: Jim Rice -- great hitter, bad hitting coach.

For the management of an organization, playing experience should matter none.

registerthis
07-14-2006, 03:44 PM
I think Rob Dicken and Joe Morgan would have a grand old time together, sitting on the porch, sipping ice teas and ruminating about the poor saps who never played the game yet drone on and on about statistics and whatnot.

If I'm not an author, does that mean I can't understand a good literary work from a crap one? Please.

dabvu2498
07-14-2006, 03:45 PM
I think Rob Dicken and Joe Morgan would have a grand old time together, sitting on the porch, sipping ice teas and ruminating about the poor saps who never played the game yet drone on and on about statistics and whatnot.

If I'm not an author, does that mean I can't understand a good literary work from a crap one? Please.
Sitting on the porch???

Oh yeah, because Tracey Jones wouldn't have even let them in the house to watch the game with him.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 03:48 PM
To be involved in the teaching of baseball skills (as a coach), certainly it is a necessity to have the background as a player, but that certainly is not the only thing. But playing experience does not equate to coaching magic: Jim Rice -- great hitter, bad hitting coach.

For the management of an organization, playing experience should matter none.

You're still not refuting what I am exactly trying to say...

If you're talking about MANAGING a baseball club, yes, you need playing experience. General Manager? No. That's when statistics come into play. But, you have to remember that General Managers get most of their advice from scouts, of which whom HAVE PLAYED some sort of high level baseball.

All I said was that I would rather to have people refute my knowledge that have actually played the game, as opposed to people that use statistics as their only knowledge. I don't really see where I am wrong in saying that. :confused:

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 03:51 PM
I think Rob Dicken and Joe Morgan would have a grand old time together, sitting on the porch, sipping ice teas and ruminating about the poor saps who never played the game yet drone on and on about statistics and whatnot.

If I'm not an author, does that mean I can't understand a good literary work from a crap one? Please.

You're damn right I would.

Comparing the game of baseball to books? That's probably why you never played LMAO

ochre
07-14-2006, 03:53 PM
We could compare it to your team's performance in your "semi-pro" amateur league. Would seem to be equally valid, as your hypothesis doesn't seem to be translating much to on the field success.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 04:00 PM
Masked profanity


We could compare it to your team's performance in your "semi-pro" amateur league. Would seem to be equally valid, as your hypothesis doesn't seem to be translating much to on the field success.

Dude, quit bringing personal [edited for masked profanity] over to the board.

First off, it is a semi-pro/amateur league. Why? Because it has former professioanl players in it. There's quite a few ex-minor league players in the league, so therefore it HAS to be called semi-pro.

Secondly, my team has nothing to do with Major League Baseball. We don't draft people, we don't purchase contracts, we don't have free agency. We pick up players wanting to play, and whom have had some sort of former playing (high school and above). My team is struggling this year, which every team does. We finished about 2 games over .500 last season, and 3rd in the league tournament our of 7 or 8 different teams.

I don't see what the hell this has to do with anything we are talking about here....

flyer85
07-14-2006, 04:02 PM
Usually the way I do it, is watch the person on a daily basis, and determine if he's good enough to play that position over any other player. I mean, I use statistics as far as hitting and speed to determine where a person bats in the lineup, but as far as the field goes, you need to actually watch the person on a daily basis.So why is it OK to use batting stats over subjective observation but not OK to use fielding statistics over subjective observation?

That is rhetorical because the only answers are
a) fielding stats do not adequately capture fielding ability (FLD% surely doesn't) and thus subjective observation is superior
b) simple bias

gonelong
07-14-2006, 04:03 PM
Like I could study up on Basketball all I want, but unless I am or was a player at a decently high level (High School, College), then I am not going to fully understand what's going on down on that court. And I don't. LOL

I am going to take a wild guess that you were a pretty decent high school player that managed to latch onto a smaller college team.

Coincidentally, this is also the level of playing time you needed to receive in order to understand the game.

uh huh.

GL

registerthis
07-14-2006, 04:03 PM
Comparing the game of baseball to books? That's probably why you never played LMAO

I did, actually.

I just don't hang my hat on it. LMAO

Matt700wlw
07-14-2006, 04:04 PM
Standing pat would get this team nowhere.

So they did something, and addressed the most glaring hole this team has.

Now we see if it works.

registerthis
07-14-2006, 04:04 PM
I am going to take a wild guess that you were a pretty decent high school player that managed to latch onto a smaller college team.

Coincidentally, this is also the level of playing time you needed to receive in order to understand the game.

uh huh.

GL

It's quite the coincidence, isn't it?

ochre
07-14-2006, 04:09 PM
Dude, quit bringing personal **** over to the board.

First off, it is a semi-pro/amateur league. Why? Because it has former professioanl players in it. There's quite a few ex-minor league players in the league, so therefore it HAS to be called semi-pro.

Secondly, my team has nothing to do with Major League Baseball. We don't draft people, we don't purchase contracts, we don't have free agency. We pick up players wanting to play, and whom have had some sort of former playing (high school and above). My team is struggling this year, which every team does. We finished about 2 games over .500 last season, and 3rd in the league tournament our of 7 or 8 different teams.

I don't see what the hell this has to do with anything we are talking about here....
I didn't bring anything personal over to the board that you hadn't already posted.

You are claiming that posters here don't know enough about the game, because they haven't played to your level. I'm merely calling into question what level that might be.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 04:10 PM
So why is it OK to use batting stats over subjective observation but not OK to use fielding statistics over subjective observation?

That is rhetorical because the only answers are
a) fielding stats do not adequately capture fielding ability (FLD% surely doesn't) and thus subjective observation is superior
b) simple bias

Will you quit critiquing every thing I [masked profanity removed -ochre] say? That's all 3/4 of the people have done in this thread since I said I like Griffey and think he should start in Centerfield! I've had quite enough of it, and it got old probably 50000000 posts ago.

I've got people telling me that basically my opinions don't matter, pulling out 3 word quotes and making smart ass quips from what I write, and even some idiot going over to my league's website basically trying to tell me that I am a terrible coach.

I wish some of you would just get the point, I don't like Zone Rating and I don't want people refuting my views that haven't even played the game. Point blank. That's all I've said. That doesn't make me a bad person, a bad coach, and it DEFINITELY doesn't mean I don't know anything about baseball!

I never said you had to reach a certain level in the sport....never did. Almost all of you arguing with me, has put waaaay too many words into my mouth.

This has gone a little overboard. I'm sorry you don't like my opinions, but, tough love.

JohhnyBench1001
07-14-2006, 04:10 PM
I don't understand the ill will towards this trade at all. When WK got here we were a team that needed to score 7 or 8 runs a game to win, because as good as our O was we had a horrible pitching staff. So first he gets rid of yet another big HR guy with very little else in WMO for Arroyo. Then he steals Brandon Phillips away for basically nothing, and that helps the D as well as the O. So now we swallow hard and give up 2 good position players for 2 good YOUNG Bullpen help. See what I am getting at?? He's balancing this team out to the point where we can win. Sorry fellas we aren't the Red Sox and Yankees who can have a Gazillion dollar payroll, and the way that BOWDEN built this team was stupid. Pitching makes the post season not offense. Furthermore, we didn't get rent a player arms in the pen, but got 2 young solid relievers. IF things work out this pen could actually go from being an achillies heal of the ball club to a strength. I personally didn't blink when I heard Kearns was in the deal, because he is just a replica of the other big bats in our lineup, and doesn't offer much else (Deno is a push with the glove). Lopez made me sigh a bit, because of the speed factor, but getting his glove out of the field actually makes me live with that to. This team actually has a shot at being competitive now and some of you guys don't get what he's doing. WK doesn't have the big bucks and prospects to just go add big pitching help, so he had to be creative and find ways to make this team better..............and he did. Yeah I know Clayton couldn't hit an elephant, but his glove is ten times better than FeLo's, and our pen is finally decent, and could be solid if things pan out. Furthermore, the core of this team will be back next year, and we will be able to add peices in the off season. Some of you guys are soarly underestimating the value of 2 good YOUNG arms.

ochre
07-14-2006, 04:16 PM
Whether people have played the game, or not, is one of the most irrelevant items of discussion on an internet message board.

If you'd take the time to explain why you don't like ZR instead of attacking the credibility of others, without substantiation, people might be a bit more willing to accept your opinion.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 04:17 PM
I don't want people refuting my views that haven't even played the game. I'm not sure you have found one of those yet

but

I am pretty sure you have a hat that says "baseball player" on it.

gonelong
07-14-2006, 04:18 PM
I wish some of you would just get the point, I don't like Zone Rating and I don't want people refuting my views that haven't even played the game. Point blank.
..
I never said you had to reach a certain level in the sport....never did. Almost all of you arguing with me, has put waaaay too many words into my mouth.


:laugh:

You don't really get to dictate who gets to refute your views here. You have a right to an opinion here, but you don't have the right to an unchallenged opinion.

GL

westofyou
07-14-2006, 04:19 PM
and I don't want people refuting my views that haven't even played the game.

Veruca Salt in the House

flyer85
07-14-2006, 04:19 PM
Whether people have played the game, or not, is one of the most irrelevant items of discussion on an internet message board.

If you'd take the time to explain why you don't like ZR instead of attacking the credibility of others, without substantiation, people might be a bit more willing to accept your opinion.His position is a logical fallacy known as an "Appeal to Authority".

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

Unassisted
07-14-2006, 04:21 PM
Let's judge this trade three years from now.Amen! And welcome to my signature. :thumbup:

ochre
07-14-2006, 04:22 PM
His position is a logical fallacy known as an "Appeal to Authority".

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
aber natürlich.

Appeal to Authority can be non-fallacious if the authority is valid. :)

flyer85
07-14-2006, 04:23 PM
aber natürlich.

Appeal to Authority can be non-fallacious if the authority is valid. :)... and I have yet to see any evidence of that other than self-proclamation. You know I'm a retired HOFer but I don't advertise it.

registerthis
07-14-2006, 04:24 PM
I don't understand the ill will towards this trade at all.

Then you haven't read the 1000 or so posts that have been made about it over the last 24 hours, nor read any of the numerous articles in the media critiquing it. The ill-will towards this trade has been very well explained. I'd refer you to some excellent posts made by Steel and Cyclone as good places to start.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 04:29 PM
Whether people have played the game, or not, is one of the most irrelevant items of discussion on an internet message board.

If you'd take the time to explain why you don't like ZR instead of attacking the credibility of others, without substantiation, people might be a bit more willing to accept your opinion.

Which I already have. Read back. Go back to pages 3 & 4.

I never attacked anyone's credibility UNTIL mine was attacked. People were saying I was 2 dimensional and that, yes, MY opinion didn't matter.

This was well before I started to dictate who could refute my views, because people were already dictating that on my behalf.

registerthis
07-14-2006, 04:30 PM
Which I already have. Read back. Go back to pages 3 & 4.

you don't like Zone Rating because you believe what you personally observe tells you more about a player's abilities than a statistic, is that about it?

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 04:32 PM
you don't like Zone Rating because you believe what you personally observe tells you more about a player's abilities than a statistic, is that about it?

That's it!

I really don't see the problem with that. I'm not telling everyone they are stupid for liking Zone Rating....I never did.

But that really is minute compared to what has really went on in this situation....

registerthis
07-14-2006, 04:34 PM
That's it!

I really don't see the problem with that. I'm not telling everyone they are stupid for liking Zone Rating....I never did.

But that really is minute compared to what has really went on in this situation....

So where do you believe zone rating fails in communicating a player's abilities? What factors does--or does it not--take into consideration that lead you to believe that personal observation is superior?

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 04:41 PM
So where do you believe zone rating fails in communicating a player's abilities? What factors does--or does it not--take into consideration that lead you to believe that personal observation is superior?

Well, I mentioned earlier, and it was ENTIRELY refuted....that I believe the statistic is something that is based on a personal opinion. Which, I believe it half is. I mean, whether the person keeping score THINKS he could get to the ball, or couldn't....is exactly what it is....an opinion!

The stat is based off of REAL statistics, but it's also based off personal opinion. The opinion that matters, is the manager and the person playing that specific position.

That's all I said, and I firmly believe that. Why is that so bad?

registerthis
07-14-2006, 04:57 PM
Well, I mentioned earlier, and it was ENTIRELY refuted....that I believe the statistic is something that is based on a personal opinion. Which, I believe it half is. I mean, whether the person keeping score THINKS he could get to the ball, or couldn't....is exactly what it is....an opinion!

The stat is based off of REAL statistics, but it's also based off personal opinion. The opinion that matters, is the manager and the person playing that specific position.

That's all I said, and I firmly believe that. Why is that so bad?

Based upon this response, I am not convinced that you have a clear understanding of what zone rating entails. The link below is to a very good overview of the statistic, and why it is useful.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/what_is_zone_rating/

Zone rating does not include personal opinion. Simply stated: the entire baseball field is divided into 22 different "zones". Each player on the field is assigned a number of zones for which they are responsible for handling balls hit there. Outfielders have zones both for fly balls and for line drives. A zone rating is simply the number of outs made in a player's zone divided by the total number of balls hit there.

This statistic thus provides a good picture of how much ground a fielder can cover at their position. So while Junior may *appear* to be playing an adequate centerfield, his zone rating indicates that he's not covering nearly as much ground as most other comparable centerfielders. In fact, in terms of everyday players, Junior ranks dead last in zone rating.

From a purely subjective sense, I'm wondering why you would disqualify a measureable metric because you perceive it to be a combination of facts and opinions, while choosing instead to rely solely on opinion?

BuckeyeRedleg
07-14-2006, 05:02 PM
Based upon this response, I am not convinced that you have a clear understanding of what zone rating entails. The link below is to a very good overview of the statistic, and why it is useful.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/what_is_zone_rating/

Zone rating does not include personal opinion. Simply stated: the entire baseball field is divided into 22 different "zones". Each player on the field is assigned a number of zones for which they are responsible for handling balls hit there. Outfielders have zones both for fly balls and for line drives. A zone rating is simply the number of outs made in a player's zone divided by the total number of balls hit there.

This statistic thus provides a good picture of how much ground a fielder can cover at their position. So while Junior may *appear* to be playing an adequate centerfield, his zone rating indicates that he's not covering nearly as much ground as most other comparable centerfielders. In fact, in terms of everyday players, Junior ranks dead last in zone rating.

From a purely subjective sense, I'm wondering why you would disqualify a measureable metric because you perceive it to be a combination of facts and opinions, while choosing instead to rely solely on opinion?

And I like to add that to rely on one's own subjective opinion, it would be incomplete without witness to every moment of all 162 games played.

ochre
07-14-2006, 05:07 PM
My personal problem with ZR, which is perhaps only an issue with the Reds, is that I don't see where it allows for a really really bad pitching staff that gives up rope after rope.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 05:09 PM
From a purely subjective sense, I'm wondering why you would disqualify a measureable metric because you perceive it to be a combination of facts and opinions, while choosing instead to rely solely on opinion?Personal bias? It also limits the application of "secret knowledge".

flyer85
07-14-2006, 05:10 PM
My personal problem with ZR, which is perhaps only an issue with the Reds, is that I don't see where it allows for a really really bad pitching staff that gives up rope after rope.it certainly isn't perfect. Try reading Dewan's Fielding Bible, it was certainly a step forward.

Handofdeath
07-14-2006, 05:18 PM
As someone who got an official warning for profanity, which was deserved but I was making a valid point, I am continually amazed at the attitude and behaviors on this board. People are taking things too seriously and too personally because opinions are not being respected. This is not the end all here . For example TRF and I have had NUMEROUS converations and arguments about Dunn. TRF thinks he's a future Hall of Famer and better than Jim Thome. I think TRF is off his rocker and have said so. TRF is still my best friend. If you're a Dunn fan, or Kearns, or Jr. if someone doesn't care for them they are not attacking you. If you're not a fan of a certain player and somebody else is state your case against the player in a respectful way and let it go at that. There is no reason to be hateful. We are supposed to be here as fans of the Reds and lets remember that and also remember that we are adults. I'm not meaning to preach but lets show a little tolerance and respect here.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 06:00 PM
it certainly isn't perfect. Try reading Dewan's Fielding Bible, it was certainly a step forward.

So it's not perfect, but I am '2 dimensional' by not going by it? You just said it yourself.


From a purely subjective sense, I'm wondering why you would disqualify a measureable metric because you perceive it to be a combination of facts and opinions, while choosing instead to rely solely on opinion?

Because I do. What other reason do I really need? I would just rather use my own opinion, as opposed to someone sitting in a press box. I have assistant coaches for second opinions.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 06:02 PM
As someone who got an official warning for profanity, which was deserved but I was making a valid point, I am continually amazed at the attitude and behaviors on this board. People are taking things too seriously and too personally because opinions are not being respected. This is not the end all here . For example TRF and I have had NUMEROUS converations and arguments about Dunn. TRF thinks he's a future Hall of Famer and better than Jim Thome. I think TRF is off his rocker and have said so. TRF is still my best friend. If you're a Dunn fan, or Kearns, or Jr. if someone doesn't care for them they are not attacking you. If you're not a fan of a certain player and somebody else is state your case against the player in a respectful way and let it go at that. There is no reason to be hateful. We are supposed to be here as fans of the Reds and lets remember that and also remember that we are adults. I'm not meaning to preach but lets show a little tolerance and respect here.

I wish someone would've said this before. I am guilty of profanity, but it's gone a little over the line when 50 different people have to chime in because I don't agree with a statistic that supposidely 'isn't perfect.'

ochre
07-14-2006, 06:16 PM
I think you're mixing up what has caused 50 different people to chime in.

I'd say it was more related to the whole "you've never played the game" line of reasoning. It's not unreasonable to expect someone to have a tangible reason as to why a particular metric does not appeal to them. I'm not fond of the English usage of "Stone". I can't do math by 14s in my head all that quickly.

KoryMac5
07-14-2006, 06:22 PM
If 29 other teams know that you desperately need bullpen hope (help) you are going to overpay Krivs said as much during the press conference. To have this article say that Bowden ripped off the Reds is laughable. Especially when nobody has played for either team yet.

registerthis
07-14-2006, 06:51 PM
Because I do. What other reason do I really need? I would just rather use my own opinion, as opposed to someone sitting in a press box. I have assistant coaches for second opinions.

Again, "zone rating" isn't defined by someone "sitting in a press box." it's defined by the player on the field, and what he accomplishes (or fails to accomplish.) It's as quantifiable as batting average or rbi. I'm not understanding your disagreement with its use as a metric of performance. Other than a "because", I've not heard any substantive disagreement with its methods. Certainly, you're entitled to disagree with it--but without providing any substantive reason for doing so, you should expect people (particularly on this board) to question you about it.

registerthis
07-14-2006, 06:53 PM
If 29 other teams know that you desperately need bullpen hope (help) you are going to overpay

Which is a very good reason to not make a trade. If the other 29 teams truly have you over a barrel, you hold onto what you have and play for next year. Or pursue someone a step down. You don't sell two productive cows for a sack of beans.

reds44
07-14-2006, 06:54 PM
Bowden is starting a lineup with 4 former Reds tonight. It didn't work when he was here, why does he think it will work in Washington?

I don't care if Bowden did get the better of the deal, it would make the score about Krivsky 11 Bowden 1.

Handofdeath
07-14-2006, 07:40 PM
Bowden is starting a lineup with 4 former Reds tonight. It didn't work when he was here, why does he think it will work in Washington?

I don't care if Bowden did get the better of the deal, it would make the score about Krivsky 11 Bowden 1.

Everybody and their dog has known that Kearns has been on the block for a couple of years. The Yankees are starting Bernie Williams at RF right now. If Kearns is that much of a difference maker the Yankees would have made a play for him and so would others.

harangatang
07-14-2006, 08:29 PM
I believe the statistic is something that is based on a personal opinion. Which, I believe it half is. I mean, whether the person keeping score THINKS he could get to the ball, or couldn't....is exactly what it is....an opinion!Well if you want to take that approach isn't it true that everything in baseball has a way of averaging out? Sometimes a player will hit a soft grounder that shouldn't be a base hit and is and sometimes a player will hit a screaming rocket right at the 2nd baseman that should be a basehit and isn't. While the point you make about personal opinion of the umpires may account in slight discrepencies in Zone Rating or other statistics, the game of baseball has a way of averaging things out.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 08:44 PM
I think you're mixing up what has caused 50 different people to chime in.

I'd say it was more related to the whole "you've never played the game" line of reasoning. It's not unreasonable to expect someone to have a tangible reason as to why a particular metric does not appeal to them. I'm not fond of the English usage of "Stone". I can't do math by 14s in my head all that quickly.

Which I told you I wouldn't have said if people weren't being smart asses and telling my opinion doesn't count.

BoydsOfSummer
07-14-2006, 08:57 PM
you don't like Zone Rating because you believe what you personally observe tells you more about a player's abilities than a statistic, is that about it?

I find it amazing that anyone could conclude that Junior is still a great CF by any measure. He doesn't pass the statistical test or the eyeball test.

Some of those "great" plays he still makes would have been routine for him 5 years ago. I love the guy,but I'd be deluding myself if I thought otherwise.

Rob Dicken
07-14-2006, 09:06 PM
I find it amazing that anyone could conclude that Junior is still a great CF by any measure. He doesn't pass the statistical test or the eyeball test.

Some of those "great" plays he still makes would have been routine for him 5 years ago. I love the guy,but I'd be deluding myself if I thought otherwise.

The point I was trying to say, was telling people who think Junior should be starting at 1B (which he has only done 2 times in his career), wouldn't make any sense. He's 'good enough' to start in CF everyday, but not as good as he used to be, you're right. I love Junior, but I can't say that starting him any other place than the outfield is the best choice....

BoydsOfSummer
07-14-2006, 11:51 PM
He needs to be wearing a glove on a corner position,plain and simple. He can play LF right now and be more valuable. The domino effect on the defense after that is debatable.

KoryMac5
07-15-2006, 12:04 AM
Which is a very good reason to not make a trade. If the other 29 teams truly have you over a barrel, you hold onto what you have and play for next year. Or pursue someone a step down. You don't sell two productive cows for a sack of beans.


The point of competitive sports is to win this year not throw up the white flag and say lets wait AGAIN until next year. I for one am tired of waiting for a next year that will come 5 years from now. The trade helps us this year we were able to deal from a strength which was offense for good bullpen help. What's the use of having an offense that can score ten runs if we can't close out the tough games in the 7, 8, and 9th innings. The sack of beans you refer to might sprout into a very productive beanstalk.