PDA

View Full Version : Lopez since 'The Trade'/How bad is Lopez's D?



TC81190
08-07-2006, 07:21 PM
Since the Trade, Lopez has hit .284/.385/.432 with 2 HR in 81 AB. Still not on par with last year (except for the BB rate), but still good numbers.

And about his defense:

How bad is it really? From what I could tell visually, he had at the very least average range, if not above average, and a strong, if at teams a tad erratic, arm. What really was wrong with his defense?

pedro
08-07-2006, 07:34 PM
very poor range, good but scatter arm. not that great at the double play.

TC81190
08-07-2006, 07:38 PM
very poor range, good but scatter arm. not that great at the double play.

I just don't see it, range-wise. From what I could tell, he wasn't the best, but not the worst by any measure, either.

pedro
08-07-2006, 07:42 PM
I just don't see it, range-wise. From what I could tell, he wasn't the best, but not the worst by any measure, either.

from defensive statistic metrics he was in the bottom third in the majors.

from watching him, it sure seemed likely.

he was very poor at going into the hole IMO.

He may end up being a decent second baseman but I just don't see him cutting it at SS.

reds44
08-07-2006, 07:45 PM
Since the Trade, Lopez has hit .284/.385/.432 with 2 HR in 81 AB. Still not on par with last year (except for the BB rate), but still good numbers.

And about his defense:

How bad is it really? From what I could tell visually, he had at the very least average range, if not above average, and a strong, if at teams a tad erratic, arm. What really was wrong with his defense?
He also has 9 stolen bases.


He is one of the worst defensive SS in baseball.

That being said if we can get him back for Majewski I'd do it in a second.

westofyou
08-07-2006, 07:48 PM
He was clocking the 3rd worst SS fielding percentage for Reds SS since Harry Trumans first term.

Not a badge of honor.

TC81190
08-07-2006, 07:49 PM
He also has 9 stolen bases.


He is one of the worst defensive SS in baseball.

That being said if we can get him back for Majewski I'd do it in a second.

From a statistic metric stance, yes, and I'll believe that he was a bad SS (I'm not the greatest scout :( ), but had a strong arm...that has to count for SOMETHING....right?

I'd still have waited til November and did the Brandon Phillips/Felipe Lopez Musical Chair Position Switch Jamboree and kept the extra offense sacrificed for Gary Majewski.

For the record, the deal most likely could've been done simply Austin Kearns for Bill Bray, no?

pedro
08-07-2006, 08:07 PM
From a statistic metric stance, yes, and I'll believe that he was a bad SS (I'm not the greatest scout :( ), but had a strong arm...that has to count for SOMETHING....right?

I'd still have waited til November and did the Brandon Phillips/Felipe Lopez Musical Chair Position Switch Jamboree and kept the extra offense sacrificed for Gary Majewski.

For the record, the deal most likely could've been done simply Austin Kearns for Bill Bray, no?

the problem with that IMO is Lopez is going to make about 5 mil next year. What if he's a failure at 2B?

Hap
08-07-2006, 08:53 PM
http://i20.ebayimg.com/04/i/07/c8/2a/70_1.JPG

In the same class as Larkin and Concepcion?

Ravenlord
08-07-2006, 09:13 PM
...but had a strong arm...that has to count for SOMETHING....right?
since Range Factor includes Assists, i believe RF tends to be a decent measure of arm strength as well...but when you have a good arm AND a poor RF, it most definetly means your range is lacking.

TC81190
08-07-2006, 09:32 PM
the problem with that IMO is Lopez is going to make about 5 mil next year. What if he's a failure at 2B?

He can still hit.

pedro
08-07-2006, 09:35 PM
He can still hit.


lefthanded, yes. right not so well. and what if he's a disaster at 2B? The Reds can't continue to suck it up defensively IMO.

TMBS, I think they probably should have tried it this year and found out if it would have worked before he got big bucks in arb as SS.

Another thing to consider is that his bat is really only above average as a SS and maybe a 2B, but if he couldn't play MI then his bat really isn't that good.

TC81190
08-07-2006, 09:41 PM
lefthanded, yes. right not so well. and what if he's a disaster at 2B? The Reds can't continue to suck it up defensively IMO.

TMBS, I think they probably should have tried it this year and found out if it would have worked before he got big bucks in arb as SS.

Another thing to consider is that his bat is really only above average as a SS and maybe a 2B, but if he couldn't play MI then his bat really isn't that good.

Eh. He on-bases well, and has a tiny bit of pop. He could work as a 3B. CF, maybe.

pedro
08-07-2006, 09:52 PM
Eh. He on-bases well, and has a tiny bit of pop. He could work as a 3B. CF, maybe.

and that's where the problem is IMO. He's already going to be making 5 mil and we're not sure where he'll even be able to play.

that's a lot of maybe's that are just fine when a guy is making less money but the time to find a position for a guy is before he's getting big bucks.

SteelSD
08-08-2006, 12:43 AM
and that's where the problem is IMO. He's already going to be making 5 mil and we're not sure where he'll even be able to play.

that's a lot of maybe's that are just fine when a guy is making less money but the time to find a position for a guy is before he's getting big bucks.

Player sucks, so he's going to make a lot of money and he can't play another position so let's trade him for less than he's worth.

Bang that drum.

pedro
08-08-2006, 01:11 AM
Player sucks, so he's going to make a lot of money and he can't play another position so let's trade him for less than he's worth.

Bang that drum.

he doesn't suck, and I don't think they got a great return for him in terms of potential, but his abscence isn't going to bum me out that much.

Hey, he could turn into Jeff Kent. I get that. But I don't think he will. What can I say?

westofyou
08-08-2006, 01:17 AM
Hey, he could turn into Jeff Kent. I get that. But I don't think he will. What can I say?

Rum pum pum pum

http://www.jimwoodring.com/galleryimages/ars_10_01/drumboysketch.jpg

macro
08-08-2006, 01:19 AM
Is it just me, or did he seem to have more than his share of mental lapses?

westofyou
08-08-2006, 01:24 AM
Is it just me, or did he seem to have more than his share of mental lapses?
No, it's not just you.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/content/sports/reds/daily/071406redsnotes.html



The Reds had grown weary of Lopez's inconsistency. And, apparently, his work ethic.

"Felipe has a chance to be a good major-league shortstop," Narron said. "It's up to him how much he wants to put into it.

WVRedsFan
08-08-2006, 01:30 AM
Is it just me, or did he seem to have more than his share of mental lapses?

Yes. I have watched him be asleep many times and not break for second as I screamed at the TV. I also cheered when he got that big hit (yes, he was streaky) or that unexpected home run. He could dazzle at short or befuddle with his ineptitude, but he was a potential 20 HR's and 80 RBI's. Our shortstop position now is half that. And the fielding powress is nearly equal.

I'm having trouble with all of this. Maybe I should call it a season. I do not understand especially in the light of Magic's arm problems (which everyone but Krivsky knew about). The false hope of finding a great middle reliever cost us a lot. And it just ain't panning out. Sad.

SteelSD
08-08-2006, 01:56 AM
he doesn't suck, and I don't think they got a great return for him in terms of potential, but his abscence isn't going to bum me out that much.

Hey, he could turn into Jeff Kent. I get that. But I don't think he will. What can I say?

What can you say? Well, you could acknowledge that he's an above-average performer at a position of need who was sent packing for a below-average return at a time which he projects a solid value return for what he might be paid over the next couple of seasons- especially if the Reds locked him up long-term for less money that you project he'll be paid.

At minimum, he's a commodity that could have been involved in a trade off-season for at least what the Reds got in-season; which was a sore-armed pitcher, a prospect arm, and a couple of extreme "maybes".

Right now the Reds have exactly one Starting Pitcher with a DIPS ERA under 4.00 (Harang). The bullpen wasn't fixed and the defense wasn't fixed. You're asking what you can say, but that's exactly my question. At what point do we realize that the Trade didn't actually help the Reds contend in 2006? At what point do we realize that the Run value loss actually hurt the club? At what point do we realize that Krivsky's mechanizations have hurt the Reds' overall Run Differential?

Folks have, in error, been pointing to the Reds' W/L record and bullpen ERA since the ASB to support that the return from the Trade was worth the cost. Yet we can plainly see that the return has virtually nothing to do with the improvement of anything and that nothing is actually imrproved. The Reds' Run Diff is worse. The bullpen ERA is normalizing. The Starting Pitching ERA is trending downward as we speak.

I noted a few games ago that the Reds were at a flashpoint in the season. Either they truly got better or we can reasonably project they'll drop because of the moves made to bolster a bullpen that'll protect fewer leads. Well, that's happening and it's happening because "pitching and defense" have become the mantra of a team that can't actually isolate pitching and defense when trading huge chips for pitching and defense.

oregonred
08-08-2006, 02:34 AM
I noted a few games ago that the Reds were at a flashpoint in the season. Either they truly got better or we can reasonably project they'll drop because of the moves made to bolster a bullpen that'll protect fewer leads. Well, that's happening and it's happening because "pitching and defense" have become the mantra of a team that can't actually isolate pitching and defense when trading huge chips for pitching and defense.

Sweet, another trade thread!

As stated many times, I would have liked Lopez finish the season given our MI gap (by scaling back the deal to kearns/wagner for bray/maj playing off JimBo's manlove), but I still can't understand how Lopez/Kearns were some kind of huge trading chips at the Reds disposal that was going to help reel in this trove of talent from another franchise. Kearns of 2002/2003 yes, not the July '06 version.

We'll survive the loss of Lopez/Kearns, but losing Lopez has hurt for the rest of this season given what we have as replacement. Trade looking worse with the Maj issue, but by no means is this thing a catastrophically bad deal. The real core building blocks of franchise value Harang + Arroyo + Dunn + EE + BP (IMO, much more so than Lopez) + Bailey + Bruce + Votto are still all in tact. I might also add Bray to this list.

On the Maj injury front -- I certainly will agree that any GM should due serious due-diligence on anyone acquired in a deal. Especially when buying from a certain leather panted, used-car, snakeoil salesman. Let's hope WayneK is smarting and won't be duped in the future.

Rojo
08-08-2006, 02:36 AM
FeLo presented a kind of Juan Samuel-like problem. Obvious talents but hard to find a place for him to contribute. There's no question that he should have become someone else's problem, but a better return would've been nice.

oregonred
08-08-2006, 03:07 AM
FeLo presented a kind of Juan Samuel-like problem. Obvious talents but hard to find a place for him to contribute. There's no question that he should have become someone else's problem, but a better return would've been nice.

Interesting post -- forgot about the tease that was Juan Samuel. Nomad, man without position, messy in the field, career year at 26 and all around mediocrity until one final horrah at age 34 in 1995. And of course passed through the Reds with a very forgetful season on a crummy '93 team. Career .735 OPS...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/samueju01.shtml

Ron Madden
08-08-2006, 03:08 AM
If we had kept Kearns and Lopez, we wouldn't be any worse off in the standings than we are right now.

I would've liked to have kept them in the Reds line up and given them a chance to improve their stats. THEN trade them during the off season and recieve more value in return.

We're just about outta chips now.

KronoRed
08-08-2006, 03:31 AM
/\ Same here

But, me thinks Krivsky felt compelled to make some sort of move to try and save the season, maybe Casto ordered a move, who knows, but not making a move would have been a terrible signal to the fan base I suppose.

GAC
08-08-2006, 04:27 AM
he doesn't suck, and I don't think they got a great return for him in terms of potential, but his abscence isn't going to bum me out that much.

I think that is alot of people's sentiment on the issue. In addition to the other items you mentioned (salary, etc).

IslandRed
08-08-2006, 10:04 AM
I think that is alot of people's sentiment on the issue. In addition to the other items you mentioned (salary, etc).

Yeah, I'm kind of with that too.

I don't know how long Lopez will stick at shortstop in Washington, but I can't see any team that really cares about shortstop defense playing him there for long. One can make the argument that he hits enough to still provide value at the position. Which is true. But by a strict VORP measure where bad defense can be cancelled by great offense, I could justify playing Albert Pujols at SS. Doesn't make it a good idea. Lopez can hit, so I could see where a team could live with his defense at 2B or 3B. But I'm a bit old-school when it comes to shortstops; I don't think that's the place to "live with" a guy's defense. I want my shortstop to actually be good. No, I'm not saying the current occupant is to my taste either.

Johnny Footstool
08-08-2006, 10:08 AM
No, it's not just you.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/content/sports/reds/daily/071406redsnotes.html

Ah, the press/coaching staff's jabs at Felipe's work ethic. I don't remember anyone saying anything bad about it when he was with the team. In fact, didn't Team Clark praise Felipe as a consciencious, hard worker?

Kc61
08-08-2006, 10:17 AM
This really isn't very complicated. If Maj was a true shut down, 8th inning set up man, this trade is ok, probably good when you consider financial ramifications. True, the Reds now need a regular shortstop, but FeLo likely wasn't that guy anyway.

Problem is with the return: a very good young reliever (who, by the way, is being overused at great risk, I think) and a veteran reliever with a sore shoulder. Majewski's injury status really is a major negative for this front office. I thought we were getting a set up man like Mike Jackson in 1995 who teamed with Brantley for a terrific combo. Instead, the guy is now on a two week rest because his cortisone shot wore off. Not good.

No need to criticize Kearns/Lopez. They are good players, with flaws, but good. Trading them for pitching made sense. The problem is with the return.

westofyou
08-08-2006, 10:20 AM
Ah, the press/coaching staff's jabs at Felipe's work ethic. I don't remember anyone saying anything bad about it when he was with the team. In fact, didn't Team Clark praise Felipe as a conscientious, hard worker?
Try that search function, then try google... let me know.

Falls City Beer
08-08-2006, 10:23 AM
Ah, the press/coaching staff's jabs at Felipe's work ethic. I don't remember anyone saying anything bad about it when he was with the team. In fact, didn't Team Clark praise Felipe as a conscientious, hard worker?

When your position has been completely demolished by logic and statistics, attack the player's character.

It works in politics, it works in baseball.

Sometimes you just got to admit defeat. It's good for the soul. It helps you understand what victory is and what it takes to get there.

westofyou
08-08-2006, 10:31 AM
When your position has been completely demolished by logic and statistics, attack the player's character.

Yeah, you'd know with your Kearns slamming the past year.

Pot meet kettle.

registerthis
08-08-2006, 10:50 AM
Yeah, you'd know with your Kearns slamming the past year.

Pot meet kettle.

...and still he thought that trading Kearns for chump change was a mistake.

westofyou
08-08-2006, 10:53 AM
...and still he thought that trading Kearns for chump change was a mistake.
You mean it's not better then the bag of rocks he was lobbying for over the past year?

Wow..... that does suck.

registerthis
08-08-2006, 10:55 AM
You mean it's not better then the bag of rocks he was lobbying for over the past year?

I think I'd take the bag of rocks over Majewski at this point.

Johnny Footstool
08-08-2006, 11:53 AM
Try that search function, then try google... let me know.

I looked it up before I made my original post, but since you asked...



Felipe Lopez. A real shame to see him go. This is a guy who works hard at the game. He takes this game seriously. Unfortunately he has a very difficult time becoming consistent. When the trade for Castro was made it was mainly doen to HELP Lopez. It did. I have several game notes and have asked for others on Lopez before and after the trade. I also had a few Tivo games that I watched just to see if the notes were dead on. They were. Prior to Castro coming over Lopez had SIGNIFICANT trouble with is footwork, glove postioning and throwing angle. Watch some old footage of him. Routine groundball comes right to him he would STOP, separate and then get his feet going. No can do. In order to make a quick throw he would get caught with his feet together and end up with a high throw OR a taling throw. Something Reds fans have seen far too much of. It's not like Bucky Dent was not working with him. Feverish would be the word that comes to mind. For whatever reason, they just could not get on the same page. No one to blame, it just happens sometimes. Unfortunately it happened to the SS. Castro comes aboard. Castro, Lopez and Dent spend HOURS working together and whhaaalah. Lopez is now settling through the ball, footwork is timed and MOST IMPORTANT he is throwing over the top and right on the bag. Not to say he didn't make an error or is never going to make one again. He's just more consistent and has a better base to work with. His biggest fielding problem still remains the ball over the mound coming across the middle. He'll get it.
...

This coming from a guy who seems to be in the know.

Most of the other comments I found about Felipe when he was with the Reds praised how hard he worked with Chris Chambliss. Nothing about him being lazy.

I did find some negative comments about his work ethic when he was with the Blue Jays. Interestingly, the comments were made *after* they traded Felipe.

Is it a pattern of after-the-fact character assassination? Who's to say. Kinda looks that way, though.

Wheelhouse
08-08-2006, 12:04 PM
Since the Trade, Lopez has hit .284/.385/.432 with 2 HR in 81 AB. Still not on par with last year (except for the BB rate), but still good numbers.

And about his defense:

How bad is it really? From what I could tell visually, he had at the very least average range, if not above average, and a strong, if at teams a tad erratic, arm. What really was wrong with his defense?

He had a very high occurence of DEs, or Devastating Errors. Devastating Errors are errors plus the measure of vacancy in the players face shown on FoxSports following the play divided by the pints of blood sent into his managers face times the routine ratio of the play (as determined by how easily my cat could have made the play) minus the number of times he and his teammates use stock answers to explain away the miscue to the press.

pedro
08-08-2006, 12:05 PM
I don't recall reading about Lopez having a poor work ethic before he was traded but I have seen him on his cell phone in the dugout during the game which doesn't scream "dedication"....especially after the stories I've heard about who he was talking to.

Wheelhouse
08-08-2006, 12:07 PM
Who was he talking to?

pedro
08-08-2006, 12:09 PM
Who was he talking to?

He wasn't talking about making himself a better baseball player and I'll leave it at that.

Johnny Footstool
08-08-2006, 12:13 PM
He wasn't talking about making himself a better baseball player and I'll leave it at that.

Without any details or a credible source, I'll have to take it as hearsay.

SteelSD
08-08-2006, 12:16 PM
I don't recall reading about Lopez having a poor work ethic before he was traded but I have seen him on his cell phone in the dugout during the game which doesn't scream "dedication"...

Nor does a pitcher in the pen asking some kid to go get him a hot dog or a pretzel.

Or a Manager heading into the dugout tunnel to have a smoke.

Hitting the showers before the game is over.

Shooting a water gun into a crowd.

Giving someone the "hotfoot".

"You're talking on your cell phone in the dugout. You'll never make it to the bigs talking on your cell phone in the dugout. Ya think classy, you'll be classy. You win a batting title in the show, you can talk on your cell phone in the dugout, the press'll call you "colorful". Until you win a batting title in the show, however, it just means you're a Milo."

pedro
08-08-2006, 12:19 PM
Without any details or a credible source, I'll have to take it as hearsay.

That's fine. I would too.

Rojo
08-08-2006, 12:51 PM
FeLo's work ethic is beside the point. He just isn't a shortstop. With his eye and speed he might've been an acceptable outfielder -- in the eighties.

Chip R
08-08-2006, 01:38 PM
Is it a pattern of after-the-fact character assassination? Who's to say. Kinda looks that way, though.
I seem to recall stories in the newspaper about how Wily Mo worked hard on defense before games and such. Then, late last year, I would hear Marty criticizing him for his lack of work ethic. Then we heard the same thing after the trade about how he didn't work hard. Now either the Reds are pumping sunshine under the writers' skirts about these players while they are here or they are spreading misinformation to make the trade(s) look good. Because the worst thing you can say about a Cincinnati Red is that he doesn't work hard. Most other sins are forgivable but that seems to be a mortal sin. Because of these conflicting reports it worries me to hear reports of Edwin Encarnacion taking extra fielding practice and being a hard worker.

REDREAD
08-08-2006, 01:44 PM
I don't recall reading about Lopez having a poor work ethic before he was traded but I have seen him on his cell phone in the dugout during the game which doesn't scream "dedication"....especially after the stories I've heard about who he was talking to.

Maybe he's answering his text messages so the girls don't call the cops on him. :laugh:

Johnny Footstool
08-08-2006, 02:33 PM
FeLo's work ethic is beside the point. He just isn't a shortstop. With his eye and speed he might've been an acceptable outfielder -- in the eighties.

It's not beside the point. It was cited as a rationale for the trade.

pedro
08-08-2006, 02:38 PM
It's not beside the point. It was cited as a rationale for the trade.

I think it's a potential contributing factor, but not the only rationale. I also think there are enough questions about his game and impending salary to make him the logical target for a trade, whether you like the trade that went down or not.

Kearns, to me, is the bigger loss.

westofyou
08-08-2006, 02:40 PM
It's not beside the point. It was cited as a rationale for the trade.
And of course players are always just traded on talent, never because of anything else right?

Johnny Footstool
08-08-2006, 02:41 PM
I think it's a potential contributing factor, but not the only rationale. I also think there are enough questions about his game and impending salary to make him the logical target for a trade, whether you like the trade that went down or not.

Kearns, to me, is the bigger loss.

There were indeed a lot of contributing factors, but I think it's troubling when a player's work ethic is called into question despite reports to the contrary. As FCB said, it looks like a dirty political move -- rationalizing via character assassination.

westofyou
08-08-2006, 02:45 PM
but I think it's troubling when a player's work ethic is called into question despite reports to the contrary.
The Manger of the team reported it after the trade, you want him to telegraph it to the rest of the league prior to any trade talk?

When the Reds did that about Kearns last year FCB found fault with that as well... so which way should one go?

dabvu2498
08-08-2006, 02:50 PM
The Manger of the team reported it after the trade, you want him to telegraph it to the rest of the league prior to any trade talk?

When the Reds did that about Kearns last year FCB found fault with that as well... so which way should one go?
How about... not demeaning a player's work ethic at all.

This is just as an aside, but not long after the trade, I was listening to the Nats-Dodgers on XM and Vin Scully told a story about Lopez and his father that I had not heard in all his time with the Reds. I'll spare the details for now, but just wondering if anyone else had heard a story relating to Felipe and his father.

pedro
08-08-2006, 02:50 PM
There were indeed a lot of contributing factors, but I think it's troubling when a player's work ethic is called into question despite reports to the contrary. As FCB said, it looks like a dirty political move -- rationalizing via character assassination.

the reports I've heard to the contrary come from a poster on this site so they are just hearsay/speculation as well AFAIAC.

pedro
08-08-2006, 02:51 PM
How about... not demeaning a player's work ethic at all.

This is just as an aside, but not long after the trade, I was listening to the Nats-Dodgers on XM and Vin Scully told a story about Lopez and his father that I had not heard in all his time with the Reds. I'll spare the details for now, but just wondering if anyone else had heard a story relating to Felipe and his father.

yes, a sad story indeed.

Johnny Footstool
08-08-2006, 02:56 PM
the reports I've heard to the contrary come from a poster on this site so they are just hearsay/speculation as well AFAIAC.

Yes, but TC has earned at least some credibility as an insider. And there are other stories reported by the media that credit Lopez for working hard with Chris Chambliss.

Rojo
08-08-2006, 03:03 PM
It's not beside the point. It was cited as a rationale for the trade.

Well, its beside the point to me. I don't care how hard he worked, he's not a shortstop. And yes I'd rather take Kearns back as well.

ochre
08-08-2006, 03:07 PM
Kearns, to me, is the bigger loss.
I fully agree with you there. It's hard to slot Lopez defensively. Kearns, if he could put his injuries behind him, was there offensively and defensively. People's perception of his potential was his biggest obstacle.

Falls City Beer
08-08-2006, 03:29 PM
Kearns' OPS for the season continues to slide--exacerbated perhaps by RFK.

Go ahead and miss that water. The well's gone dry.

He's like a baseball progeriac; he's a baseball senior citizen at age 26.

KronoRed
08-08-2006, 03:37 PM
You mean it's not better then the bag of rocks he was lobbying for over the past year?

I would have liked to have the rocks for some of the BP performances since the trade

ochre
08-08-2006, 03:52 PM
Kearns' OPS for the season continues to slide--exacerbated perhaps by RFK.

Go ahead and miss that water. The well's gone dry.

He's like a baseball progeriac; he's a baseball senior citizen at age 26.
.885 for July? I'll take some of that slide.

Falls City Beer
08-08-2006, 03:55 PM
.885 for July? I'll take some of that slide.

Check out August.

Fact is, his OPS since joining the Nats is worse than when he was here--and it's been a long, slow boring but consistent slide all season long.

Sure, the heat and humidity will cause him to hiccup his OPS up in the hottest month of the year, but it's a trend downward, not up, finally. He has the endurance of a housefly.

westofyou
08-08-2006, 03:59 PM
Check out August.

Fact is, his OPS since joining the Nats is worse than when he was here--and it's been a long, slow boring but consistent slide all season long.

Sure, the heat and humidity will cause him to hiccup his OPS up in the hottest month of the year, but it's a trend downward, not up, finally. He has the endurance of a housefly.
He's been on the coast all August. Pitchers parks too, not very hot at night.

pedro
08-08-2006, 04:03 PM
what mystifies me FCB is that you value Lopez more than Kearns, even though your own projections of Lopez (as a .830 OPS left fielder) are actually lower than what Kearns is already producing, and Kearns is doing it at half the cost.

It just doesn't seem very internally consistent to me.

Falls City Beer
08-08-2006, 04:07 PM
what mystifies me FCB is that you value Lopez more than Kearns, even though your own projections of Lopez (as a .830 OPS left fielder) are actually lower than what Kearns is already producing, and Kearns is doing it at half the cost.

It just doesn't seem very internally consistent to me.

For one, Lopez is an athlete, which means his skills as a hitter are unlikely to diminish at a rate that Kearns's skills will.

Kearns for the record is actually OPS-ing right around .830 for the season, plus Kearns' and Lopez's salaries should even out next year, with Kearns possibly earning more (arbitration awards homers, etc).

For a third point, I think Lopez would make a fine second baseman. Not electric by any means, but fine. I think carping too much on his defense misses the point, though. He has value and value wasn't gotten in return.

ochre
08-08-2006, 04:12 PM
Kearns is a much better athlete than he is given credit for around here.

pedro
08-08-2006, 04:13 PM
Kearns is a much better athlete than he is given credit for around here.


Plus he eats more chicken than any man ever seen.

oh wait, that was Jim Morrison.

Falls City Beer
08-08-2006, 04:14 PM
Kearns is a much better athlete than he is given credit for around here.

He's awfully slow and his swing is awfully slow. Plus I think his "jumps" on balls hit toward him are really overrated.

Plus, we all saw how he can let himself go physically (cf. 2005).

ochre
08-08-2006, 04:17 PM
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, as neither of us has any tangible evidence to back our assertions. I see a fielder that has good enough speed to ZR above average in RF and has been successful in 8 out of 10 steal attempts this season. Sure Kearns let himself go last year. At some point we have to let that go... :)

Falls City Beer
08-08-2006, 04:18 PM
as neither of us has any tangible evidence to back our assertions.

Except for many seasons in a row of intraseason declining OPS. ;)

ochre
08-08-2006, 04:20 PM
Except for many seasons in a row of intraseason declining OPS. ;)
which, of course had no mitigating circumstances?

This feels like deja vu, but without all the nude chicks.

Ltlabner
08-08-2006, 04:27 PM
This feels like deja vu, but without all the nude chicks.

While they have 1,000's of pretty girls, I was always a fan of the 3 ugly ones. Is that so wrong?

Falls City Beer
08-08-2006, 04:28 PM
which, of course had no mitigating circumstances?

This feels like deja vu, but without all the nude chicks.

You get full frontal in Ohio?

I'm speechless.

Rojo
08-08-2006, 06:00 PM
Kearns has more value than Lopez because he's gotta a place to play and a bat that contributes more. His value is limited because he's so easily replaceable. Righty corner outfielders with 25-homer pop aren't hard to find.

Rojo
08-08-2006, 06:13 PM
But by a strict VORP measure where bad defense can be cancelled by great offense, I could justify playing Albert Pujols at SS.

Why not a whole team of Albert Pujolseses? You've won before the first pitch.

oregonred
08-08-2006, 06:16 PM
Why not a whole team of Albert Pujolseses? You've won before the first pitch.

vs. a whole team of mini-Ditka's ??? Who wins?

(I got a laugh seeing the word "Pujolseses" in a thread)

Rojo
08-08-2006, 07:50 PM
vs. a whole team of mini-Ditka's ??? Who wins?

The mini-Ditka's win by controlling the strike zone, Gaedel-style.

KronoRed
08-08-2006, 10:01 PM
Dika's don't need a strike zone

Johnny Footstool
08-09-2006, 12:36 AM
Kearns has more value than Lopez because he's gotta a place to play and a bat that contributes more. His value is limited because he's so easily replaceable. Righty corner outfielders with 25-homer pop aren't hard to find.

*sigh*


MLB Player Batting Stats: 2006

As Rightfielder

Sorted by OPS

RK PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Jermaine Dye CWS 364 67 116 20 2 30 84 4 2 44 .319 .390 .632 1.022
2 Brad Hawpe Col 350 48 106 20 5 16 54 2 4 50 .303 .389 .526 .915
3 Vladimir Guerrero LAA 382 56 119 17 0 21 74 7 3 31 .312 .364 .521 .885
4 Bobby Abreu NYY 359 65 103 27 2 8 65 22 4 92 .287 .430 .440 .871
5 Austin Kearns Cin 376 60 103 26 1 17 58 7 2 48 .274 .360 .484 .844
6 J.D. Drew LA 331 51 93 20 4 10 61 2 3 50 .281 .378 .456 .834
7 Trot Nixon Bos 301 49 90 20 0 7 47 0 1 47 .299 .398 .435 .834
8 Juan Encarnacion StL 381 54 111 19 4 16 62 4 4 18 .291 .324 .488 .813
9 Jacque Jones ChC 363 43 104 23 0 17 52 6 1 15 .287 .317 .490 .807
10 Magglio Ordonez Det 394 54 115 20 1 15 72 1 4 29 .292 .341 .462 .803
11 Michael Cuddyer Min 333 60 85 23 4 12 60 3 0 41 .255 .345 .456 .802
12 Ichiro Suzuki Sea 470 77 155 12 6 6 35 34 2 36 .330 .382 .419 .801
13 Shawn Green Ari 352 49 103 19 3 9 45 4 3 30 .293 .356 .440 .797
14 Brian Giles SD 414 59 113 20 1 8 59 6 2 68 .273 .378 .384 .762
15 Jeff Francoeur Atl 461 60 119 16 5 21 78 1 6 11 .258 .283 .451 .734
16 Geoff Jenkins Mil 389 43 99 23 1 10 55 4 1 39 .254 .330 .396 .725

Falls City Beer
08-09-2006, 12:41 AM
*sigh*


MLB Player Batting Stats: 2006

As Rightfielder

Sorted by OPS

RK PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Jermaine Dye CWS 364 67 116 20 2 30 84 4 2 44 .319 .390 .632 1.022
2 Brad Hawpe Col 350 48 106 20 5 16 54 2 4 50 .303 .389 .526 .915
3 Vladimir Guerrero LAA 382 56 119 17 0 21 74 7 3 31 .312 .364 .521 .885
4 Bobby Abreu NYY 359 65 103 27 2 8 65 22 4 92 .287 .430 .440 .871
5 Austin Kearns Cin 376 60 103 26 1 17 58 7 2 48 .274 .360 .484 .844
6 J.D. Drew LA 331 51 93 20 4 10 61 2 3 50 .281 .378 .456 .834
7 Trot Nixon Bos 301 49 90 20 0 7 47 0 1 47 .299 .398 .435 .834
8 Juan Encarnacion StL 381 54 111 19 4 16 62 4 4 18 .291 .324 .488 .813
9 Jacque Jones ChC 363 43 104 23 0 17 52 6 1 15 .287 .317 .490 .807
10 Magglio Ordonez Det 394 54 115 20 1 15 72 1 4 29 .292 .341 .462 .803
11 Michael Cuddyer Min 333 60 85 23 4 12 60 3 0 41 .255 .345 .456 .802
12 Ichiro Suzuki Sea 470 77 155 12 6 6 35 34 2 36 .330 .382 .419 .801
13 Shawn Green Ari 352 49 103 19 3 9 45 4 3 30 .293 .356 .440 .797
14 Brian Giles SD 414 59 113 20 1 8 59 6 2 68 .273 .378 .384 .762
15 Jeff Francoeur Atl 461 60 119 16 5 21 78 1 6 11 .258 .283 .451 .734
16 Geoff Jenkins Mil 389 43 99 23 1 10 55 4 1 39 .254 .330 .396 .725




According to MLB.com, after tonight's game Kearns's OPS is .829--which puts him at 7. But MLB.com may have their numbers wrong.

Johnny Footstool
08-09-2006, 12:41 AM
According to MLB.com, after tonight's game Kearns's OPS is .829--which puts him at 7. But MLB.com may have their numbers wrong.

His overall OPS is .829, tying him with JD Drew. When he plays right field, it's .844.

Rojo
08-09-2006, 12:27 PM
*sigh*


MLB Player Batting Stats: 2006

As Rightfielder

Sorted by OPS

RK PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Jermaine Dye CWS 364 67 116 20 2 30 84 4 2 44 .319 .390 .632 1.022
2 Brad Hawpe Col 350 48 106 20 5 16 54 2 4 50 .303 .389 .526 .915
3 Vladimir Guerrero LAA 382 56 119 17 0 21 74 7 3 31 .312 .364 .521 .885
4 Bobby Abreu NYY 359 65 103 27 2 8 65 22 4 92 .287 .430 .440 .871
5 Austin Kearns Cin 376 60 103 26 1 17 58 7 2 48 .274 .360 .484 .844
6 J.D. Drew LA 331 51 93 20 4 10 61 2 3 50 .281 .378 .456 .834
7 Trot Nixon Bos 301 49 90 20 0 7 47 0 1 47 .299 .398 .435 .834
8 Juan Encarnacion StL 381 54 111 19 4 16 62 4 4 18 .291 .324 .488 .813
9 Jacque Jones ChC 363 43 104 23 0 17 52 6 1 15 .287 .317 .490 .807
10 Magglio Ordonez Det 394 54 115 20 1 15 72 1 4 29 .292 .341 .462 .803
11 Michael Cuddyer Min 333 60 85 23 4 12 60 3 0 41 .255 .345 .456 .802
12 Ichiro Suzuki Sea 470 77 155 12 6 6 35 34 2 36 .330 .382 .419 .801
13 Shawn Green Ari 352 49 103 19 3 9 45 4 3 30 .293 .356 .440 .797
14 Brian Giles SD 414 59 113 20 1 8 59 6 2 68 .273 .378 .384 .762
15 Jeff Francoeur Atl 461 60 119 16 5 21 78 1 6 11 .258 .283 .451 .734
16 Geoff Jenkins Mil 389 43 99 23 1 10 55 4 1 39 .254 .330 .396 .725



Funny how two people can look at the same data and take away something completely different. I see Kearns bunched with a bunch of good, not great, players. Juan Encarnacion, Trot Nixon, JD Drew. Those aren't building blocks.

ochre
08-09-2006, 12:33 PM
Then that's an "ascent or descent" question. I'd have waited until the offseason and then made somebody pay handsomely for the right to find out.

oregonred
08-09-2006, 02:12 PM
Then that's an "ascent or descent" question. I'd have waited until the offseason and then made somebody pay handsomely for the right to find out.

That's the thing I can't get over. Krivsky has been shopping Kearns all season. If someone wanted Austin they knew Wayne would listen all day long. He already had dealt a 2-year younger Pena for pitching so presumably he had as much real-time market knowlege in trading a player like Kearns as anyone. Seems more than reasonable that Pena had a lot more value than Kearns given his age, service time and by virtue simply of having the "Potential" wildcard that had been demystified by Kearns longer track record.

Three years ago a much cheaper and higher potential Kearns would have delivered much more in return -- but with a 4.6 year track record of being a nice player (but very injury prone/undependable and soon to get expensive). I believe Krivsky had a correct bead on his market value and I also believe no GM would overvalue Kearns more than Jim Bowden.

Now, seeing that 2006 could actually be Austin's 1st year in his first five that he might actually ledger enough ABs to qualify for offensive stat purposes (previous career high is 387ABs) then maybe his value would have spiked a bit more in the offseason with career highs in actual yearly production (games played, HRs, RBIs). Downside is his arb award will also dramatically increase his salary escalation and given the Reds circumstances (lack of propsect trading chips outside the untouchable group of Bruce + Bailey + Votto) and unlikely opportunity to make a postseason run to maybe reinvigorate baseball in Cinci, Krivsky chose to move him in early July.

The deal got muddy when another promising but flawed player (Lopez) got included and it became more of a blockbuster -- with two polarizing guys as the centerpiece being shipped out and an unconventional return being received. Edskin's post above summarized simply the key issues of contention.

ochre
08-09-2006, 02:18 PM
the in-season market for position players is not the same as the out of season market.

oregonred
08-09-2006, 02:28 PM
the in-season market for position players is not the same as the out of season market.

true, don't think anyone was saying it isn't :confused:

ochre
08-09-2006, 02:43 PM
true, don't think anyone was saying it isn't :confused:


That's the thing I can't get over. Krivsky has been shopping Kearns all season. If someone wanted Austin they knew Wayne would listen all day long. He already had dealt a 2-year younger Pena for pitching so presumably he had as much real-time market knowlege in trading a player like Kearns as anyone. Seems more than reasonable that Pena had a lot more value than Kearns given his age, service time and by virtue simply of having the "Potential" wildcard that had been demystified by Kearns longer track record.
Sorry, I read that as pretty much saying that the difference was Pena had more value without recognizing he was traded in the offseason.

Johnny Footstool
08-09-2006, 03:11 PM
Funny how two people can look at the same data and take away something completely different. I see Kearns bunched with a bunch of good, not great, players. Juan Encarnacion, Trot Nixon, JD Drew. Those aren't building blocks.

Kearns is 26.

Nixon is 32. Drew is 30.

Encarnacion is 30, and Kearns' OPS is 30 points higher.

But aside from ages, the point is that Kearns is more productive than all but 5 other right fielders. That kind of production isn't as easy to find as people think.

Rojo
08-09-2006, 03:56 PM
Kearns is 26.

Nixon is 32. Drew is 30.

Encarnacion is 30, and Kearns' OPS is 30 points higher.

But aside from ages, the point is that Kearns is more productive than all but 5 other right fielders. That kind of production isn't as easy to find as people think.

Three words: Reggie, LaVerne, Sanders

Not saying its easy per se, just not that hard.

Falls City Beer
08-09-2006, 04:14 PM
Three words: Reggie, LaVerne, Sanders

Not saying its easy per se, just not that hard.

Right you are, my good man. They don't grow on trees, but it's easy as hell to start your own garden that grows 'em.

VR
08-09-2006, 04:35 PM
I wonder what happens when you compare the combined OPS of Clayton/Castro/Freel vs. Kearns/Felipe since the trade.

ochre
08-09-2006, 04:44 PM
I wonder what happens when you compare the combined OPS of Clayton/Castro/Freel vs. Kearns/Felipe since the trade.
I think that was the formula for a doomsday device in one of the Bond Movies.

Johnny Footstool
08-09-2006, 04:53 PM
Three words: Reggie, LaVerne, Sanders

Not saying its easy per se, just not that hard.

Who would you rather have for the next 3 years? Or the next 5 years, for that matter?

For every Reggie, there's a Geoff Jenkins and Jeromy Burnitz circling the drain.

Rojo
08-09-2006, 06:02 PM
Who would you rather have for the next 3 years? Or the next 5 years, for that matter?

For every Reggie, there's a Geoff Jenkins and Jeromy Burnitz circling the drain.

And for every Geoff Jenkins and Jeromy Burnitz there's a Juan Encarnacion or Jose Guillen waiting for a spring phone call.

I thought Kearns had a shot at Ralph Kiner, now I'm thinking Kevin McReynolds.

MaineRed
08-09-2006, 09:19 PM
How many of these players that Kearns is now better than, because of this seasons OPS, were in AAA with Austin last year?

Johnny Footstool
08-09-2006, 11:22 PM
How many of these players that Kearns is now better than, because of this seasons OPS, were in AAA with Austin last year?

Very few. Most of them were putting up mediocre stats in the big leagues, because corner outfielders with pop are so easy to find.

Rojo
08-10-2006, 01:14 AM
Most of them were putting up mediocre stats in the big leagues

As was Austin.

SteelSD
08-10-2006, 01:42 AM
As was Austin.

Yeah, and he didn't need to be sent down. He'd have been fine if management had the least bit of patience.

BTW, it's strange that you compared Kearns to Juan Encarnacion considering that the numbers noted that Kearns was actually within a standard deviation of a couple players ahead of him on the OPS list (Abreau, Vlad) as well.

Yeah, it's interesting that two people can look at the same data and draw different conclusions. Problem is that you apparently only consider players below the level at which a player you don't like is playing as real comps.

If you're going to look below, then you'd better look above as well. Any other take is disingenuous.

Rojo
08-10-2006, 05:59 PM
If you're going to look below, then you'd better look above as well. Any other take is disingenuous.

Disingenuous?

dis·in·gen·u·ous
Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who... exemplified... the most disagreeable traits of his time”.
Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
Usage Problem. Unaware or uninformed; naive.

I'm guessing you meant the later because my take, as wrong as it may be, is not insincere.

ochre
08-10-2006, 06:08 PM
disingenuous
One entry found for disingenuous.
Main Entry: dis·in·gen·u·ous
Pronunciation: "dis-in-'jen-y&-w&s, -yü-&s-
Function: adjective
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : CALCULATING

ochre
08-10-2006, 06:09 PM
candor
One entry found for candor.
Main Entry: can·dor
Pronunciation: 'kan-d&r, -"dor
Function: noun
Etymology: French & Latin; French candeur, from Latin candor, from candEre -- more at CANDID
1 a : WHITENESS, BRILLIANCE b obsolete : unstained purity
2 : freedom from prejudice or malice : FAIRNESS
3 archaic : KINDLINESS
4 : unreserved, honest, or sincere expression : FORTHRIGHTNESS <the candor with which he acknowledged a weakness in his own case -- Aldous Huxley>

Rojo
08-10-2006, 08:27 PM
candor
One entry found for candor.
Main Entry: can·dor
Pronunciation: 'kan-d&r, -"dor
Function: noun
Etymology: French & Latin; French candeur, from Latin candor, from candEre -- more at CANDID
1 a : WHITENESS, BRILLIANCE b obsolete : unstained purity
2 : freedom from prejudice or malice : FAIRNESS
3 archaic : KINDLINESS
4 : unreserved, honest, or sincere expression : FORTHRIGHTNESS <the candor with which he acknowledged a weakness in his own case -- Aldous Huxley>

:confused:

Johnny Footstool
08-10-2006, 11:05 PM
BTW - Reggie LaVerne Sanders is OPSing a nifty .700 this year.

REDREAD
08-11-2006, 12:59 AM
Funny how two people can look at the same data and take away something completely different. I see Kearns bunched with a bunch of good, not great, players. Juan Encarnacion, Trot Nixon, JD Drew. Those aren't building blocks.

But when you look at that list, are any of them "building blocks" if Kearns isn't?

If you love cheap youth, maybe Francour is, but he's not producing what Kearns is.

Vlad, Dye, and Abreu are high priced vets, even though they produce. I must honestly say I don't know anything about the Colorado player, maybe he's an up and coming superstar, I don't know.

Rojo
08-11-2006, 12:34 PM
But when you look at that list, are any of them "building blocks" if Kearns isn't?

If you love cheap youth, maybe Francour is, but he's not producing what Kearns is.

Vlad, Dye, and Abreu are high priced vets, even though they produce. I must honestly say I don't know anything about the Colorado player, maybe he's an up and coming superstar, I don't know.

Building blocks are 1) Starting pitching, 2) Up-the-middle players, 3) a feared slugger, 4) a third baseman who can hit and field, 5) bullpen arms, 6) lf,rf,1b that can add offense.

Now, my question is not how much Kearns is worth as a number 6 on that list, but rather does he have a chance of turning into a number 3. Dunn, Pujols, Ortiz those are your number 3's.

Johnny Footstool
08-11-2006, 01:03 PM
Building blocks are 1) Starting pitching, 2) Up-the-middle players, 3) a feared slugger, 4) a third baseman who can hit and field, 5) bullpen arms, 6) lf,rf,1b that can add offense.

Now, my question is not how much Kearns is worth as a number 6 on that list, but rather does he have a chance of turning into a number 3. Dunn, Pujols, Ortiz those are your number 3's.

Your list is very subjective. Up-the-middle players (especially infielders) with decent gloves truly are a dime a dozen. Bullpen arms are generally add-ons -- failed starters and aging vets that can be found on every team. Both of these are easier to find than outfielders who can OPS near .850.

Rojo
08-11-2006, 01:28 PM
Bullpen arms are generally add-ons --failed starters and aging vets that can be found on every team. Both of these are easier to find than outfielders who can OPS near .850.

Most years this is true, but not as much this year. And besides, there's a difference between an ok vet in the pen and shutdown, nasty-boy-type.





Your list is very subjective.

No way! If I write it, think it or say it, it's a universal truth.

ochre
08-11-2006, 01:35 PM
Most years this is true, but not as much this year. And besides, there's a difference between an ok vet in the pen and shutdown, nasty-boy-type.

when are they adding the shutdown, nasty-boy-type?





No way! If I write it, think it or say it, it's a universal truth.
:)

Rojo
08-11-2006, 01:40 PM
when are they adding the shutdown, nasty-boy-type?:)

Good question. Bray has a shot.