PDA

View Full Version : Hamilton - Patterson



HamFinDogs
04-11-2008, 12:13 PM
Interesting comparison thus far:

Player AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
Hamilton 36 3 9 3 1 1 7 3 5 0 0 .317 .472 .250
Patterson36 8 10 4 0 4 8 2 2 1 1 .308 .722 .278

sweetsport06
04-11-2008, 12:19 PM
interesting. but there pretty biased as neither have even reached 40 AB. give it time. thats ridiculious to even ponder the fact patterson is better than hamilton.

SultanOfSwing
04-11-2008, 01:20 PM
Still very early, however I would much rather have Patterson/Volquez/Herrera than Hamilton/$3m.

I believe Patterson is greatly superior to Hamilton in CF and SP is what wins games, as we have had the pure pleasure of observing in this young season.

big boy
04-11-2008, 01:36 PM
I believe Patterson is greatly superior to Hamilton in CF

I don't agree on this one. Hamilton has equal range and his arm is ridiculous.

UK Reds Fan
04-11-2008, 01:54 PM
I don't agree on this one. Hamilton has equal range and his arm is ridiculous.

Come on...equal range. Did you watch the defensive series Patterson had against Brewers? Not very close to range/speed of Patterson vs. Hamilton.

AmarilloRed
04-11-2008, 02:17 PM
Small sample size.

NDReds9
04-11-2008, 02:22 PM
Too small sample size, not even worth discussing.

Hamilton is hands down the better player, and speed is the only attribute in Patterson's favor.

keeganbrick
04-11-2008, 02:28 PM
I love Hamilton but there is no way he has close to equal range in CF as Patterson. Patterson also reads the ball off the bat extremely well.

Va Red Fan
04-11-2008, 03:34 PM
You guys claim there is too small a sample size, but before the games began many of you were making wild statements.

Patterson is one of the worst OF in all of baseball. Our team will be ruined with such a horrible player leading off. Signing Patterson was a waste of money. If we wanted to waste money why not get a real CF like Lofton.

Now that the season has started and Patterson has begun hot, you have a hard time denying what he's done so far but by claiming a small sample size you are assuming he can't keep it up.

I can guarantee you that if Hamilton had 5 homers and 15 rbi and Patterson was hitting .150 with no stolen bases and no walks you would claim that you were surely right small sample size or not.

Jefferson24
04-11-2008, 03:39 PM
I am becoming more and more comfortable with the trade of Hamilton now that I have seen Cory and Volquez play. At first I was very skeptical. I still think Hamilton is something special, but baseball is about addressing needs and this trade addressed a need quite well.

At the end of the day I would rather have Hamilton over Patterson. I would rather have Patterson/Volquez/Herrera over just Hamilton though. So, I'm happy with Patterson right now, he is addressing a need the Reds have and doing a fine job.

Kingspoint
04-11-2008, 03:47 PM
As great as Patterson's hitting, that OBP is still only .308.

What's going to happen when he comes back to normal? An OBP of .250 for a whole month plus a loss of power?

It's been fun.

"Ride the Hurricane!"

Kingspoint
04-11-2008, 03:51 PM
I am becoming more and more comfortable with the trade of Hamilton now that I have seen Cory and Volquez play. At first I was very skeptical. I still think Hamilton is something special, but baseball is about addressing needs and this trade addressed a need quite well.

At the end of the day I would rather have Hamilton over Patterson. I would rather have Patterson/Volquez/Herrera over just Hamilton though. So, I'm happy with Patterson right now, he is addressing a need the Reds have and doing a fine job.


I hope Hamilton wins an MVP. If he does it would still be a good trade as starting pitching, the most difficult thing to acquire in baseball, had to be addressed, and Hamilton was clearly the best choice for obtaining the talent. They couldn't get what they wanted for Dunn before last year's trade deadline, so they held onto him. The can't get as much for Junior as they could for Hamilton. They aren't trading Bruce. They traded from strength to help a weakness. And there's still the other pitcher that came with Volquez.

In 4 games at Chattanooga so far, LHP Daniel Herrera has gone 8.2 innings allowing 4 hits with 0 Earned Runs. He's 23 years old. He could be helping the REDS next year.

big boy
04-11-2008, 03:58 PM
I love Hamilton but there is no way he has close to equal range in CF as Patterson. Patterson also reads the ball off the bat extremely well.

I have yet to see a play made by Patterson that made me say "No way Hamilton would catch that ball". In 2007, Hamilton had .3 putouts per inning vs. .27 for Patterson. If Hamilton wasn't even close as you say, wouldn't it be the other way around? Also, Patterson has had 5 seasons of more than 120 games. Does he have any gold gloves that I don't know about?

tommycash
04-11-2008, 03:58 PM
This is a small sample size, but so is Spring Training. I think it is AWESOME that Patterson is doing better than Hamilton right now. Does it mean anything? It means that so far Patterson is doing more to help the Reds win than Hamilton is helping the Rangers win. Is Patterson better than Hamilton, who cares? As long as Patterson keeps producing he will be this year. Thats all that matters. I think to say that Hamilton is this great star (and believe me I loved Josh Hamilton last year) is wrong and I would say that the sample size you are using to say how good he is, is too small. I wish Josh Hamilton the best, but I love Edison Volquez now and I will cheer Corey Patterson until he stops producing for us.

Stephenk29
04-11-2008, 04:19 PM
Isn't put out per inning pretty worthless when it come to grading fielders? So Hamilton got more chances last year, so what? Patterson seems to be pretty widely known as a + fielder. Hamilton with more practice and experience could be as well (if he isn't already). I agree with the notion that Hamilton<Volquez/Patterson at this point. Gotta love the fact that we have a deep rotation for a change. Patterson isn't exactly terrible. No he should NOT lead off but he's just fine with me being in the lineup all things considered.

big boy
04-11-2008, 04:44 PM
Isn't put out per inning pretty worthless when it come to grading fielders?

Doesn't it show that he gets to more balls than Patterson? Isn't range about getting to balls?

I checked out Andruw Jones (the guy with a case-full of gold gloves) and he is around .3 per inning with a peak of .34.

Stephenk29
04-11-2008, 04:50 PM
Doesn't it show that he gets to more balls than Patterson? Isn't range about getting to balls?

I checked out Andruw Jones (the guy with a case-full of gold gloves) and he is around .3 per inning with a peak of .34.

I believe the poster said put outs per inning, not the range factor?

HalMorrisRules
04-11-2008, 05:09 PM
Interesting comparison thus far:

Player AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
Hamilton 36 3 9 3 1 1 7 3 5 0 0 .317 .472 .250
Patterson36 8 10 4 0 4 8 2 2 1 1 .308 .722 .278

We all know that if those numbers were switched and Hamilton was the one slugging .722, the Patterson bashers wouldnt be giving him a break based upon sample size.

big boy
04-11-2008, 05:20 PM
I believe the poster said put outs per inning, not the range factor?

Correct...the numbers I provided were putouts per inning which supports the idea that Hamilton gets to more balls than Patterson.

Va Red Fan
04-11-2008, 05:36 PM
Correct...the numbers I provided were putouts per inning which supports the idea that Hamilton gets to more balls than Patterson.

Hamilton gets to .03 more balls per inning? How many is that for the year?

Also, this stat does not reflect much at all. One guy had more balls hit to him - big deal.

Splitting hairs to make a mute point.

durl
04-11-2008, 05:44 PM
Interesting comparison but is it really necessary? Since we didn't trade one CF for the other comparing them to each other is a secondary matter. The true value of the trade is how well Volquez performs. To me, the question is does Volquez give the Reds more than what they gave up in trading Hamilton.

maniem
04-11-2008, 06:18 PM
I am becoming more and more comfortable with the trade of Hamilton now that I have seen Cory and Volquez play. At first I was very skeptical. I still think Hamilton is something special, but baseball is about addressing needs and this trade addressed a need quite well.

At the end of the day I would rather have Hamilton over Patterson. I would rather have Patterson/Volquez/Herrera over just Hamilton though. So, I'm happy with Patterson right now, he is addressing a need the Reds have and doing a fine job.

I couldn't agree more, and well said. It just goes to show you how much easier it is to find a solid outfielder on the scrap heap as opposed to finding a solid starting pitcher. Will Hamilton produce more than Patterson? Sure he will, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Patterson hit 20 - 25 homers, steal 30 bases and play solid D. Stick him in the seventh spot in the lineup and I'd be more than satisfied with him playing every day. Hamilton is a special talent no doubt, but the Reds have had a knack for resurrecting offensive players, especially outfielders. Phillips, Hamilton, Hatteberg, Aurillia, Guillen, Hammonds, Ochoa, Eric Davis ('96) all come to mind. Maybe it's ballpark related, but for some reason, many players hit well while in a Reds uniform. I hated seeing Hamilton go, but the trade is a good one for both teams because we addressed a weakness and used one of our strengths of finding cheap talent to replace it.

gedred69
04-11-2008, 07:46 PM
As Durl posted, didn't trade a CF for a CF. Getting a quality starter----the toughest thing to trade for trumps Hamilton as much as I enjoyed watching him last year. I know Patterson has done well so far, and I am glad to see he has been much better defensively than he did in the 3 games I saw him in ST. I didn't see the need to sign him, but hey, maybe he turns out to be this year's version of Billy Hatcher in '90. That'd be sweet.:D

RedsFan2008
04-11-2008, 08:20 PM
I think its pretty simple, we have had power HR hitters and we were still a bad team. You have to have pitching if you want to win a world series. Not to mention we have Jay Bruce coming up who could be just as good or better than Josh.

Cueto, Harang, Volquez, Bailey, and Arroyo plus some hitting can win you a world series.

Griffey, Dunn, Hamilton, and Bruce plus some pitching will not win you a world series.


If Volquez can continue to pitch like he did in his last start, I dont care if Josh hits 45 HR every single year of his career, it will still be a good trade.

Stephenk29
04-11-2008, 09:52 PM
Correct...the numbers I provided were putouts per inning which supports the idea that Hamilton gets to more balls than Patterson.

I don't see how that is the relationship. Does it account for the fact that Hamilton might have just got .03 more fly balls right at him that year? Besides .03 seems like such a small number anyway, why even mention it?

big boy
04-11-2008, 11:48 PM
I don't see how that is the relationship. Does it account for the fact that Hamilton might have just got .03 more fly balls right at him that year? Besides .03 seems like such a small number anyway, why even mention it?

Defense is about making plays. Hamilton made more per inning than Patterson. Look up Ozzie Smith compared to normal shortstops. It isn't close and that is not because more balls just happened to be hit to him. In this example, the stat was used to show that Patterson's range does not far exceed that of Hamilton. In fact, Hamilton's is better. Just read through the thread again to see the context.

laxtonto
04-11-2008, 11:49 PM
Well, look at this clip for the Rangers-Tor game....

Makes me realize what Hamilton really is...

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2008_04_11_tormlb_texmlb_1

And more appropriately, makes me wonder what would have been if he stayed and cameup through the minors on the normal track as a minor leaguer

Big Hurt
04-14-2008, 08:30 PM
Maniem has the answer IMO. The Reds have a knack for finding solid OFers put on the garbage heap. I think Patterson is going to have a career year for us. If he does, wouldn't that be sweet!!:cool: Just remember he wasn't the third overall pick in the draft because he lacked talent.

gedred69
04-14-2008, 10:19 PM
Maniem has the answer IMO. The Reds have a knack for finding solid OFers put on the garbage heap. I think Patterson is going to have a career year for us. If he does, wouldn't that be sweet!!:cool: Just remember he wasn't the third overall pick in the draft because he lacked talent.

I was puzzled by his signing initially, but given his start, wouldn't it be sweet if he turns out to be this year's version of Billy Hatcher in '90?!!?

AmarilloRed
04-14-2008, 11:51 PM
We needed some starting pitching, and Hamilton was available to be traded. He had one good year which raised his value, and we seem to have gotten a good young SP in Edinson. I liked Josh Hamilton, but I don't regret the trade, As for Patterson, I expect he can hold down a starting outfielder spot until Bruce is ready.

redlegsmustache
04-15-2008, 12:30 AM
I love Hamilton but there is no way he has close to equal range in CF as Patterson. Patterson also reads the ball off the bat extremely well.

Are you serious? Hamilton can throw runners trying to steal home from near the warning track. I know I've seen it myself in person.