PDA

View Full Version : Hamilton will be Rule 5 Poster Boy



JaxRed
04-12-2007, 10:19 AM
In future years, Hamilton will be cited as why teams should draft in Rule 5. For years it was Clemente, then Santana.

Starting this fall, it will be Hamilton, and the Cubs picking him for the Reds will look like one of the all time Cub screw-ups.

REDREAD
04-12-2007, 11:30 AM
I hope so. That would be great. The guy has been amazing so far.

IMO, the real test will be how he performs after about 200-300 at bats when the league learns him. Will he be able to adjust? I'm not predicting it either way. I hope he can maintain his great production, as our offense definitely needs him.

UC_Ken
04-12-2007, 11:39 AM
As long as Santana's in the league he's the poster boy.

lollipopcurve
04-12-2007, 11:55 AM
IMO, the real test will be how he performs after about 200-300 at bats when the league learns him.

He'll be doing some learning, too. Usually, they say pitchers have the advantage when neither has see the other.
"The real test" has been a moving target in the Hamilton debate. For a while, it was the latter part of spring training. Then, the regular season. Now, it's 200-300 ABs. Sure, making adjustments is a huge part of the game for every young player, and it will be for Hamilton, too. But I fail to see how anyone who's been watching could say that he hasn't proven anything significant about his ability to compete at the major league level, whether it be immediately or down the line.

Blitz Dorsey
04-12-2007, 12:01 PM
Dan Uggla also makes the cut in the Rule 5 poster (montage version).

This Hamilton story is just too good to be true. I'm waiting for Maurice Clarett to break out of jail and kill him or something. This can't really be happening. Hamilton looks like a star. Not a future star. A star right now.

Chip R
04-12-2007, 12:06 PM
I think that with Hamilton's success - and if Burton pitches the way he did in ST - teams will be more likely to use Rule 5 as a way to acquire talent.

UGADaddy
04-12-2007, 12:28 PM
Santana and Uggla were both good Rule 5 pick-ups, but I don't remember them being quite so publicized as such at the time. I only learned they were Rule 5ers after the media made such a big deal of Hamilton. I really think that Josh (if the success continues) will change the way teams think about protecting players because I think more teams will be looking with open eyes when the Rule 5 Draft comes along.

Degenerate39
04-12-2007, 12:31 PM
Either way Hamilton is the steal of the year

George Anderson
04-12-2007, 12:41 PM
Either way Hamilton is the steal of the year

Any grief that Krivsky may still be dealing with in regards to "the trade" will be forgotten if Hamilton continues to look like a steal.

Degenerate39
04-12-2007, 12:57 PM
Any grief that Krivsky may still be dealing with in regards to "the trade" will be forgotten if Hamilton continues to look like a steal.

You have a point there

REDREAD
04-12-2007, 01:04 PM
Any grief that Krivsky may still be dealing with in regards to "the trade" will be forgotten if Hamilton continues to look like a steal.

Nah, "the trade" will never be forgotten, no matter what other moves Wayne makes. ;)

REDREAD
04-12-2007, 01:07 PM
He'll be doing some learning, too. Usually, they say pitchers have the advantage when neither has see the other.
"The real test" has been a moving target in the Hamilton debate. For a while, it was the latter part of spring training. Then, the regular season. Now, it's 200-300 ABs. Sure, making adjustments is a huge part of the game for every young player, and it will be for Hamilton, too. But I fail to see how anyone who's been watching could say that he hasn't proven anything significant about his ability to compete at the major league level, whether it be immediately or down the line.


Well, for me, the test was never spring training. I think 200-300 at bats is pretty generous.

Dan Gladden hit something like 350 in his rookie season and then fell down to average at best. He said the pitchers adjusted to him, and he couldn't readjust.

My point is that after Hamilton gets 200-300 at bats (probably sooner), word will get around the league about how to pitch to him. He'll get a steady diet of pitches that he struggles the most with. If he can adjust to that, then I'll be convinced, he's the real deal.

His batting eye and power have been quite impressive so far. I didn't mean to imply he hasn't had an impressive start.

Hey Meat
04-12-2007, 01:11 PM
Any grief that Krivsky may still be dealing with in regards to "the trade" will be forgotten if Hamilton continues to look like a steal.

I am fired up right now about Josh Hamilton. But I'm sorry, it's going to take alot more than that to make me forget about "the trade". I will withhold final judgement until the trade deadline this year and see how it goes.

rotnoid
04-12-2007, 01:13 PM
Nah, "the trade" will never be forgotten, no matter what other moves Wayne makes. ;)

What if he had some Babe Ruth DNA and was able to make a babe clone that could hit 60 homers and pitch 200 innings?

No, I didn't think so. ;)

Degenerate39
04-12-2007, 01:15 PM
I think Wayne has had more ups than downs so far with the Reds. Brandon Phillips was a steal, Bronson Arroyo was a good trade (I still miss Willy Mo though), signing Gonzo, trading for Hamilton, Ross was a good trade last year but now not so much, and he did improve the bullpen.

westofyou
04-12-2007, 01:45 PM
Hamilton could have the same impact to the Reds as the Pirates pickup of Clemente out of the Dodgers system had on the Pirates.

HalMorrisRules
04-12-2007, 01:51 PM
Suddenly the guy who was against Hamilton playing in the majors has changed his tune. From Steve Phillips' ESPN chat today, the first question that was asked was this:

Brad, Columbus OH: What should the Reds do with Josh Hamilton?? 2 HR in 2 starts, great fielder, how do they find him time??

SportsNation Steve Phillips: I think he'll get enough playing time considering they'll have to rest Ken Griffey Jr. Ryan Freel plays a hard center field and at times gets hurt, and Adam Dunn needs to be replaced defensively at the end of just about every game. If he can get 350-400 plate appearances over the course of this season, he'll have a chance to continue to develop his game. He's an amazing story.

RedFanAlways1966
04-12-2007, 01:53 PM
SportsNation Steve Phillips: ... and Adam Dunn needs to be replaced defensively at the end of just about every game.

Really? Good lord. Steve Phillips... the mouth that keeps on giving.

BRM
04-12-2007, 01:56 PM
SportsNation Steve Phillips: ... and Adam Dunn needs to be replaced defensively at the end of just about every game.

Yeah, because you don't need offense at the end of games. What a moron.

Chip R
04-12-2007, 02:30 PM
Suddenly the guy who was against Hamilton playing in the majors has changed his tune. From Steve Phillips' ESPN chat today, the first question that was asked was this:

Brad, Columbus OH: What should the Reds do with Josh Hamilton?? 2 HR in 2 starts, great fielder, how do they find him time??

SportsNation Steve Phillips: I think he'll get enough playing time considering they'll have to rest Ken Griffey Jr. Ryan Freel plays a hard center field and at times gets hurt, and Adam Dunn needs to be replaced defensively at the end of just about every game. If he can get 350-400 plate appearances over the course of this season, he'll have a chance to continue to develop his game. He's an amazing story.


They are sportscasters. They change their minds more than they change their underwear.

Highlifeman21
04-12-2007, 02:36 PM
They are sportscasters. They change their minds more than they change their underwear.

If they change their underwear, or wear any at all, for that matter.

bucksfan2
04-12-2007, 02:50 PM
Well, for me, the test was never spring training. I think 200-300 at bats is pretty generous.

Dan Gladden hit something like 350 in his rookie season and then fell down to average at best. He said the pitchers adjusted to him, and he couldn't readjust.

My point is that after Hamilton gets 200-300 at bats (probably sooner), word will get around the league about how to pitch to him. He'll get a steady diet of pitches that he struggles the most with. If he can adjust to that, then I'll be convinced, he's the real deal.

His batting eye and power have been quite impressive so far. I didn't mean to imply he hasn't had an impressive start.

I agree to a point. The scouting reports will adjust to Hamilton and pitchers will have more knowledge of what he struggles at. However with a good eye and good plate knowledge the fall wont be nearly as severe. Also if he shows the ability to hit the ball all over the park he will even further limit the pitchers adjustment.

westofyou
04-12-2007, 03:25 PM
Dan Gladden hit something like 350 in his rookie season and then fell down to average at best. He said the pitchers adjusted to him, and he couldn't readjust.Maybe it was you and luck when you hit 70 points over your career average for 350 at bats? Gladden never sniffed above .295 the rest of his career, 4200 at bats... that's quite the adjustment Dan.

mbgrayson
04-12-2007, 03:40 PM
When will Hamilton finally get a single? In 9 ABs (12 plate appearances) so far, he has 2 HRs, a double, 2 Ks, 3 BBs, and is hitting .333/.500/1.111 with an OPS of 1.611!

I know he probably won't be able to stay this hot, but I grabbed him up for my fantasy team....

KronoRed
04-12-2007, 03:48 PM
Singles are for sissies

REDREAD
04-12-2007, 04:10 PM
Maybe it was you and luck when you hit 70 points over your career average for 350 at bats? Gladden never sniffed above .295 the rest of his career, 4200 at bats... that's quite the adjustment Dan.

If it's possible to hit .081 points higher than your career average by "luck", then how come other players don't have such wildly fluctuating batting averages?

Was it luck that Gladden was hitting .397 in AAA when he was promoted in 1984? http://www.dangladdensbaseballcamp.com/sitepages/pid23.php

Also, consider that I heard Gladden say in an interview in the twilight of his career that after his rookie year, ML pitchers adjusted to him, and he was unable to adjust to the new way they were pitching him.

Everything that can't be explained by stats isn't "luck". If Gladden's high rookie batting average was luck driven, then I'd expect wild fluctations in some other players' BA too. But that's not the case.

westofyou
04-12-2007, 04:35 PM
If it's possible to hit .081 points higher than your career average by "luck", then how come other players don't have such wildly fluctuating batting averages?

Some do, Juan Beniquez (84) Dwight Smith (89) Reggie Jefferson (96), Jerry Mumphry (87), Rich Coggins (73) Barry Bonnell (83)

klw
04-12-2007, 04:54 PM
My concern with Hamilton is that the Cubs were the team that drafted him in the Rule 5 and this hour long period before he was traded to the Reds. My issue is whether this makes Hamilton an ex-Cub for post season curse purposes?

Natty Redlocks
04-12-2007, 05:40 PM
My concern with Hamilton is that the Cubs were the team that drafted him in the Rule 5 and this hour long period before he was traded to the Reds. My issue is whether this makes Hamilton an ex-Cub for post season curse purposes?

Bellhorn and Mueller were ex-Cubs when the Red Sox won it. I think we're okay.

lollipopcurve
04-12-2007, 05:43 PM
My concern with Hamilton is that the Cubs were the team that drafted him in the Rule 5 and this hour long period before he was traded to the Reds. My issue is whether this makes Hamilton an ex-Cub for post season curse purposes?

They had an agreement to trade whoever the Reds wanted -- they didn't know who it would be until the Reds told them -- in exchange for cash. So, you could say he was traded the moment they selected him -- making him never a Cub.

Natty Redlocks
04-12-2007, 05:45 PM
Yeah, because you don't need offense at the end of games. What a moron.

If you have a lead, you may need good defense and a good bullpen more than you need more offense. Also, Dunn's career OPS drops like 75 points after the 6th inning, so there are worse moves you could make.

That doesn't mean he's not still a moron though.

Chip R
04-12-2007, 05:47 PM
My concern with Hamilton is that the Cubs were the team that drafted him in the Rule 5 and this hour long period before he was traded to the Reds. My issue is whether this makes Hamilton an ex-Cub for post season curse purposes?


Good question. I'd have to say no since he never played for the Cubs. It'd be like if a player was drafted in the amateur draft by the Cubs but either never signed or never made it to the big leagues.

vaticanplum
04-12-2007, 07:40 PM
My concern with Hamilton is that the Cubs were the team that drafted him in the Rule 5 and this hour long period before he was traded to the Reds. My issue is whether this makes Hamilton an ex-Cub for post season curse purposes?

Ex-Cubs don't carry the curse with them. Players only have goat nonsense swirling around in their brains in the excuse-filled air of Wrigley. Their heads clear and things go back to normal if they're traded or sign elsewhere.

PuffyPig
04-12-2007, 07:44 PM
Well, for me, the test was never spring training. I think 200-300 at bats is pretty generous.

Dan Gladden hit something like 350 in his rookie season and then fell down to average at best. He said the pitchers adjusted to him, and he couldn't readjust.

.

Very good point.

But hopefully the difference is that Josh has always had a world of talent.

When Gladden hit .350 it was a shock.

Players like Hamilton can usually make the adjustment.

I have little doubt that Hamilton can be a major league regular. I'm just uncertain as to what the time frame is for that type of progression. I still find it hard to believe he can be this good with so little seasoning.

PuffyPig
04-12-2007, 07:47 PM
When will Hamilton finally get a single? In 9 ABs (12 plate appearances) so far, he has 2 HRs, a double, 2 Ks, 3 BBs, and is hitting .333/.500/1.111 with an OPS of 1.611!

I know he probably won't be able to stay this hot, but I grabbed him up for my fantasy team....


I'd have to agree that he probably won't OPS 1.611 this year.:laugh:

Eric_Davis
04-12-2007, 08:20 PM
I hope so. That would be great. The guy has been amazing so far.

IMO, the real test will be how he performs after about 200-300 at bats when the league learns him. Will he be able to adjust? I'm not predicting it either way. I hope he can maintain his great production, as our offense definitely needs him.

That's true. Let him go through the league a couple of times. When Adam Dunn first came up, it looked like he could be a .280-290 hitter for his first 5 years, after batting .269 his first year. Now what is he? We'd be happy if we got .250 out of him. He's in his 7th year and he's made one All-Star game and that was in his 2nd year. He's never finished higher than 26th in MVP voting and only twice has he ever gotten any votes.

It seems that Hamilton has a chance where his peak will be much better than Adam Dunn's, and I see him blowing away any potential that Austin Kearns had going for him, or Wily Mo Pena had going for him.

But let him go through the league a several times, and see where he is after 500 at-bats. Two homers in two days may get those at-bats to come more quickly, though. Freel back to a utility role?

redsupport
04-13-2007, 12:59 AM
Jorge Bell another rule 5 steal

klw
04-13-2007, 11:30 AM
Ex-Cubs don't carry the curse with them. Players only have goat nonsense swirling around in their brains in the excuse-filled air of Wrigley. Their heads clear and things go back to normal if they're traded or sign elsewhere.

I thought there was a working "theory" that the team with the greater number of former Cubs on the WS roster will lose. Similar to the "correlation" between the super bowl winner and the winner of the Presidential election.

klw
04-13-2007, 11:38 AM
Bellhorn and Mueller were ex-Cubs when the Red Sox won it. I think we're okay.

Yes but the Cardinals had Ray King, Julian Tavarez,and Tony Womack. That one extra ex-Cub clearly is what coomed the Cardinals that season. ;)

REDREAD
04-13-2007, 01:31 PM
Some do, Juan Beniquez (84) Dwight Smith (89) Reggie Jefferson (96), Jerry Mumphry (87), Rich Coggins (73) Barry Bonnell (83)

Maybe I'm seeing a different Juan Beniquez.. I see a career high of 336, and a career ave of 274 http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/beniqju01.shtml Edit.. see the comment on Mumphrey.. My guess is your screening tool includes short seasons.


Dwight Smith had a 324 peak/275 average. He also had his peak in his rookie year, just like Gladden. Perhaps the pitchers adjusted to him as well. I remember him playing, but I didn't really follow him that much.

Jefferson had a 337 season and a 347 season, with a career average of 300.. Are you saying his big seasons were luck based? I seem to recall Jefferson battling various injuries which resulted in him having some down seasons.

Mumphry's biggest season was oddly enough at age 34.. He hit 333, despite a career average of 289.. But that's only a delta of 0.044, nowhere near Gladden's disparity. I don't count Mumphry's 1975 season where he batted 375 in 16 at bats.. I imagine your software pulled that up.

Coggins also had his big season as a rookie, and then fell off the earth, only it was just a 319-265 (we can't count 1972 where he only had 39 at bats)

Bonnel's deficit was only 318-272. He had his biggest year in the middle of his career as well.

Thus, nobody has had an 80 point swing in batting average between their best year and career average.
Smith and Coggins also cooled after their rookie seasons (possibly supporting the "pitchers adjust to hot rookie" theory). Jefferson had some injury plagued years that brought him down. I remember Mumphrey, but I don't know why he had a career year at 34 (perhaps he made an adjustment, I don't know).
The other two players, I know nothing about.

The point is.. No other player has had an 80 point swing, so it's doubtful that it's due to "luck". I'm sure if you did an analysis, an 80 point swing would be statistically significant.. which means not due to randomness.

Saying that Gladden got unprecendented luck in his rookie season is ignoring what Gladden himself has said and is actually ignoring statistical analysis. Not to harp on this, but it doesn't do the stat community any favors when they continue to reach back and use "luck" to explain things they don't understand or can't explain otherwise. It's a cop out used far too often.

REDREAD
04-13-2007, 01:41 PM
Let me also add, if luck could affect + or - .080 on the batting average, then it would be pointless to pay a premium for hitters, because I'm not sure that the difference between an average player and Tony Gywnn at his peak would be significant, if that much of batting average is random.

Castro's career batting average is 233. Gwynn's is 338.. Surely .080 of that difference is not due to randomness. By theory above, Gwynn could be called the luckiest man alive, and Castro the unluckiest player alive.

BTW, Gwynn's peak BA was 394, and his average was 338.. Was his 394 season a result of luck?

westofyou
04-13-2007, 01:42 PM
The point is.. No other player has had an 80 point swing, so it's doubtful that it's due to "luck". I'm sure if you did an analysis, an 80 point swing would be statistically significant.. which means not due to randomness.

Saying that Gladden got unprecendented luck in his rookie season is ignoring what Gladden himself has said and is actually ignoring statistical analysis. Not to harp on this, but it doesn't do the stat community any favors when they continue to reach back and use "luck" to explain things they don't understand or can't explain otherwise. It's a cop out used far too often.

Luck, is the residue of design and BABIP is the residue of a career year in batting average.

Not to get hung up on 80 points, but +.50 is a pretty significant gain in a season, much alone vs career averages.

Here's a few guys who killed their career averages in one year.

Deb Garms +.67 - 1940
Tito Francoa + .91 - 1959
Jim Eisenreich + .71 - 1996

REDREAD
04-13-2007, 01:46 PM
Very good point.

But hopefully the difference is that Josh has always had a world of talent.

When Gladden hit .350 it was a shock.

Players like Hamilton can usually make the adjustment.

I have little doubt that Hamilton can be a major league regular. I'm just uncertain as to what the time frame is for that type of progression. I still find it hard to believe he can be this good with so little seasoning.

I agree with you. I'm just saying that many rookies start off hot, then a scouting report gets made on them. I'm not saying Josh won't adjust. He has all the tools. I'm just saying we shouldn't bank on him just yet.
I admit, he's surprised me. It's amazing he has such a good batting eye and can hit ML pitching that hard given how little he's played baseball in recent history.

I hope he continues to surprise me.

westofyou
04-13-2007, 01:50 PM
Let me also add, if luck could affect + or - .080 on the batting average, then it would be pointless to pay a premium for hitters, because I'm not sure that the difference between an average player and Tony Gywnn at his peak would be significant, if that much of batting average is random.

Castro's career batting average is 233. Gwynn's is 338.. Surely .080 of that difference is not due to randomness. By theory above, Gwynn could be called the luckiest man alive, and Castro the unluckiest player alive.

BTW, Gwynn's peak BA was 394, and his average was 338.. Was his 394 season a result of luck?

Now you're confusing the issue, Gwynn is a HOF player, Gladden never was, he had a good year meanwhile Gywnn has topped the league batting average by .80 a total of 8 times in his career, good for 3rd all time. Is that luck?

I don't think so, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't think Gladdens was lucky.


1 Ty Cobb 14
T2 Tris Speaker 10
T2 Nap Lajoie 10
4 Tony Gwynn 8
T5 Honus Wagner 7
T5 Pete Browning 7
T5 Rogers Hornsby 7
T5 Dan Brouthers 7
T5 Cap Anson 7
T10 Ted Williams 6
T10 Joe Jackson 6
T10 Ed Delahanty 6
T10 Wade Boggs 6

REDREAD
04-13-2007, 02:05 PM
Luck, is the residue of design and BABIP is the residue of a career year in batting average.

Not to get hung up on 80 points, but +.50 is a pretty significant gain in a season, much alone vs career averages.

Here's a few guys who killed their career averages in one year.

Deb Garms +.67 - 1940
Tito Francoa + .91 - 1959
Jim Eisenreich + .71 - 1996


:confused: You say luck is the residue of design and BABIP.. Isn't that contradictory. I thought the whole theory of BABIP was that it was uncontrollable. Taken to the extreme, wouldn't the BABIP theory advocate taking weak swings to maximize contact, since a hit is totally random anyhow? Obviously, we know that's not an effective strategy. We know that lazy fly balls or fair pop ups are less likely to be hits than solid line drives.

IMO, BABIP is only a theory, and there's been examples (Rivera) and other work that has contradicted it or at least weakened the argument.

How was Gwynn a consistently great hitter all those years if luck plays such a huge part in whether a ball put into play is a hit or not? Why should a team bother to invest in premium hitters if so much of hitting is pure luck?

Also, doesn't Gladden himself saying the pitchers changed the way they pitched him and he couldn't adjust hold any weight? Isn't that pretty solid evidence? I bet if we had tape of all his at bats, we could see how he was pitched differently after his rookie year.

I remember Eisenriech.. He had toret's syndrome or something like that. IIRC, he had periods where it was worse than others. Could've affected his game. Not totally out of the question to theorize that if he was 100% healthy he could've had a much higher career average. There's a story behind all these players, a human side, that you can't get just by browsing their stats.

Gwynn was a tremendous student of hitting. He studied tapes of every pitcher, he worked hard on his swing. My guess is that during his 394 season, he made some adjustments which the pitchers couldn't react to. To imply that his 394 season was largely a result of luck (since it was about 60 points higher than his career average) is really insulting to him.

My other theory is that is if luck played such a huge role in batting average, there'd be much more player turnover, because the difference between someone like Casey (high BA, low to medium power) and someone like Olmedo (low BA, zero power) would be negligible, since luck plays such a huge role in BA.. Heck, why not just pay Olmedo the mimium, as he's got as much chance of hitting 300 as Casey does if the luck theory is correct (which it isn't, IMO).

JaxRed
04-13-2007, 02:06 PM
Sure glad this turned into a thread about Dan Gladden

REDREAD
04-13-2007, 02:07 PM
Now you're confusing the issue, Gwynn is a HOF player, Gladden never was, he had a good year meanwhile Gywnn has topped the league batting average by .80 a total of 8 times in his career, good for 3rd all time. Is that luck?

I don't think so, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't think Gladdens was lucky.


Ok, then how do you discern between the lucky and the skilled players?

Reggie Jefferson is actually a decent example.. Was he good or just lucky two years, in your opinion?