PDA

View Full Version : Still Want to Trade Edwin?



RedFanAlways1966
07-18-2009, 03:07 AM
Not all were for trading EE. But many were and there were reports that mentioned his name in trade talks. Since his return from the DL (July 3) in 11 games...

> 38 AB, 15 H, 3 HR, 7 EBH, .395 BA
> .452 OB%, .763 SLG, 1.216 OPS

Hot bat. Fluke or a sign that the 26-yr-old can be a force in the future for this team? Maybe "it" has snapped into place and he has broken on through to the other side. Many have waited for "it", many weren't sure but hoped "it" would happen, some wanted to unload him. The deadline looms and his production since his return from the DL might have changed the mindset of the FO.

I stick with him. There is no one in the minors who can help and money can be better spent on other positions. I hope "it" has happened.

Nice work since the return, Edwin. :thumbup:

Ron Madden
07-18-2009, 04:01 AM
I'd trade anybody for the right return... that said, I've always been one of Edwins biggest supporters. I hope the Reds hang in there with EE, when healthy he will produce.

This Club has much bigger problems to address than Edwin at 3B.

Rojo
07-18-2009, 04:04 AM
Well, he's not a 1.200 ops bat? And he can't play third base.

reds44
07-18-2009, 04:09 AM
I don't understand why some people can't just accept Edwin for what he is at this point. He's going to be an .800 OPS streak hitter who has a chance to improve and maybe put it all together at one point. He had 33 doubles and 15 HRs in 2006 in only 406 ABs, and last year he hit 26 homers. For his career he has an 80 point BA/OB split, so he has a decent eye at the plate. He's probably the most sure thing hitter on the team next to Votto (yes, I'm including Bruce who obviously has more upside), and he's 26 years old. Edwin has the ability to be an .850-900 OPS guy, and at worst you can expect an OPS right around .800 OPS from him. On a team that has Taveras, Hairston, and Laynce Nix starting on it something should be said for a guy like Edwin. He's underappreciated.

redsfandan
07-18-2009, 05:06 AM
EE can be frustrating at times but the biggest problem with him is the defense. See if someone like Mike Schmidt can help him. Next year he'll be 27. Isn't 27 the mythical age when things for some players start to click? I'd hold onto him for now.

GAC
07-18-2009, 07:53 AM
Pretty small window if you ask me. Lets see what he does in the second half. But I'm rootin' for the kid. But he needs to "turn that corner".


I don't understand why some people can't just accept Edwin for what he is at this point.

Why do we have to accept it when what we have seen out of him, up to this point, has been a disappointment due to his inconsistency?


who has a chance to improve and maybe put it all together at one point....Edwin has the ability to be an .850-900 OPS guy

How many chances and opportunities does he get? When? When are we going to start to see this? That's what Red fans are asking themselves.


On a team that has Taveras, Hairston, and Laynce Nix starting on it something should be said for a guy like Edwin. He's underappreciated.

One does not justify the other. Just because we have a Taveras and JHJ on this team does not shine up EE's star any more then what it has been, or make him somehow immune from scrutiny. But the analogy does bring up another valid point. IMHO, EE possesses greater talent and potential then those other guys. Notice I said possesses. Yet so far we really haven't seen it come to fruitation. Why?

Let me put on my psychiatry cap for a second. I'm no psychiatrist, but I have stayed in a Holiday Express.....

Because from what I have read on this kid, he is a very emotionally withdrawn individual. He has his emotional highs and lows. And he allows it to affect him in an adverse way. Right now he is on an emotional high. I watched the game last night and when he hit that Hr he was all smiles as everyone was huddling around him and patting him on the back. A good thing. But it seems like he always needs that positive reinforcement because he is somehow unsure of his own abilities. He lacks self-confidence in his own potential. And when he goes into a funk he withdraws, and it affects his play.

This coaching staff has bent over backwards working with this kid for the last several years trying to help him realize that potential and improve defensively at 3B.

So it's not an issue of being under-appreciated as much as it's frustration on the fan's part, who see the kid's potential and talent, and wonder when is HE going to see it?

But he's back, and he's healthy. So leave him alone and lets see what he does in the second half. But he needs to have a good second half, or the criticism is going to come, and IMO, it's justified.

But 3B is not a huge, pressing problem right now. We have other fish to fry.

Redhook
07-18-2009, 08:23 AM
I'd trade EE in a heart beat.

He has the talent, but I don't believe he'll put it all together. He's a terrible 3rd baseman and most likely will stay that way. He can hit, at times, but his month-long disappearances cripple the offense.

If I'm the Reds, I try to sell high on EE and Arroyo with their current hot streaks.

lollipopcurve
07-18-2009, 10:04 AM
Not really. Not so interested in Rolen any more.

EdE is healthy now, and he's young. If he puts his offensive game together -- patience plus power plus full-field approach -- he could put up impressive numbers. Low risk -- he's relatively cheap still -- high reward. The defense will never be great, but he can probably reduce his throwing errors over time. Patience isn't easy, but Edwin could be on the brink of an impressive breakout, and there's no real reason not to find out if he is.

RedEye
07-18-2009, 10:04 AM
Hard to believe EE is only two years older than Stubbs and Heisey. For me, that really puts things in perspective. I'm not against trading him, but if he is traded it better be for an absolutely vital piece of the puzzle (like a young SS). The team has other options on the way, but none are guaranteed to be what Edwin already is.

Will M
07-18-2009, 10:07 AM
yes. however i am ok with keeping him at 3B until Frazier arrives in about 12 months.

Scrap Irony
07-18-2009, 10:16 AM
I'd deal him tomorrow, not because he's horrible, but because he probably has some value (right now, he's a Type B with a good shot at Type A free agency status after 2010 and he can OPS 800 or so with seriously subpar defense). Not only that, the Reds have Frazier, Francisco, and Soto who should all be ready in consecutive years starting at around the All Star Break 2010.

Like posters have said, he's not a huge problem, but, overall, he's been below average to date. Perhaps he does find "it". If so, great. I'm guessing he's going to be much the same as he's been.

VR
07-18-2009, 10:18 AM
If only the entire league was made up of Braden Looper and Jeff Suppan.

I hope EE is getting it, I really do. But until he realizes right field exists...he will continue to aggravate with lunging ground balls pounded to third on those pitches on the outer half of the plate. The loop and pause in his throwing motion still exists, and while there haven't been an onslaught of errors so far, that tendency will certainly bring more.

The Reds have had the keen ability to trade guys 3 years to late, tremendously diminishing any value they may have in return.
Harang/ Arroyo/ Cordero/ EE have all passed their prime trading value....but can all be part of a pretty signifcant haul this year if the cards are played well.

mth123
07-18-2009, 10:42 AM
He's not untouchable. He can be dealt if it improves the team. For the record, I don't think the Reds have a 3B in the system capable of year as good as the one EdE had in 2008. I think Edwin has a few more of those in his future. Trading him to get rid of him and make way for kids who would have to top out to match him is simply settling for lesser players at a lower cost, but if he can be dealt to fill an important need and one of the kids can be used to backfill with an acknowledged probable loss in production, the team may still come out ahead.

Dealing EdE is dependent completely on what he could bring back. Otherwise keep him and deal the kids.

mbgrayson
07-18-2009, 10:43 AM
The other thing nobody is factoring in on EE is that he was probably playing hurt in April before he went on the DL.

This was from BP back in late April:

Encarnacion had been dealing with some wrist soreness since spring training, but it got significantly worse after Monday's game. Tests showed a chip fracture in his wrist, possibly signaling a stress fracture as the cause of the previous soreness. These are extremely difficult to diagnose, even with imaging, so it's hard to blame the Reds; it does at least explain why Encarnacion was struggling at the plate.

EE's April number vs. July numbers:
April: .127/.286/.190 for an OPS of .476 with 1 HR in 76 PAs.
July: .395/.452/.763 for an OPS of 1.216 with 3 HRs in 41 PAs.

Obviously, EE will not continue to be a 1.216 hitter, but I don't place the difference primarily on him being streaky, I place it on the injury.

Scrap Irony
07-18-2009, 10:58 AM
At the risk of starting another huge thread on it, EdE is streaky. Extremely so.

SMcGavin
07-18-2009, 11:02 AM
I don't understand why some people can't just accept Edwin for what he is at this point. He's going to be an .800 OPS streak hitter who has a chance to improve and maybe put it all together at one point. He had 33 doubles and 15 HRs in 2006 in only 406 ABs, and last year he hit 26 homers. For his career he has an 80 point BA/OB split, so he has a decent eye at the plate. He's probably the most sure thing hitter on the team next to Votto (yes, I'm including Bruce who obviously has more upside), and he's 26 years old. Edwin has the ability to be an .850-900 OPS guy, and at worst you can expect an OPS right around .800 OPS from him. On a team that has Taveras, Hairston, and Laynce Nix starting on it something should be said for a guy like Edwin. He's underappreciated.

His bat is just fine, not going to anchor your lineup but not going to hurt you either. The problem is that he's a horrible, horrible third baseman. Over the past few years he's been the worst defensive third baseman in the majors. Any analysis of EE that doesn't mention his defense is completely missing the point.

bucksfan2
07-18-2009, 11:12 AM
Yes.

Its nothing against Edwin because he is helping the team out right now. The problem is you can't make snap judgments after a 2-4 game hot streak. He is seeing the ball exceptionally well right now, but this is what Edwin does. He goes on great hot streaks but then he goes on bad cold spells.

What makes or breaks players is their ability to get on base when they are cold. Its the ability to stop the damage when things aren't going right. It is the ability to go back to a basic swing in order to break out of a slump. Edwin's long swing is a reason for his up and down nature, when he is seeing the ball well he is all over it, but when he isn't he is on his front foot trying to pull the ball into the left field bleachers and struggling.

Reds1
07-18-2009, 11:16 AM
Might keep us out of the Rolen talks which It think is a good thing.

redsfandan
07-18-2009, 11:38 AM
yes. however i am ok with keeping him at 3B until Frazier arrives in about 12 months.
Imo, that's the key. Since EE hasn't been able to play for almost 3 months leave him be for now but maybe send him to winter ball with the specific point of working on his defense. Hopefully Frazier can be up say next May/June and get some abs. If EE hasn't shown enough improvement in the 1st half of 2010 then deal him in July and hand 3rd over to Frazier. Sometimes teams are more willing to overpay mid-season when the playoff chase heats up and they may also be more willing to overlook defensive flaws if it means they have a solid bat to help them for the stretch.

mth123
07-18-2009, 11:49 AM
Does anybody really believe that the Reds are giving serious consideration to Todd Frazier as a 3B? They don't seem to be giving him the opportunity at the position. I'd say Valaika or Sutton is the more likely backfill until Francisco or Soto can prove they can hack past upper minors pitching.

RANDY IN INDY
07-18-2009, 11:49 AM
Yes.

Its nothing against Edwin because he is helping the team out right now. The problem is you can't make snap judgments after a 2-4 game hot streak. He is seeing the ball exceptionally well right now, but this is what Edwin does. He goes on great hot streaks but then he goes on bad cold spells.

What makes or breaks players is their ability to get on base when they are cold. Its the ability to stop the damage when things aren't going right. It is the ability to go back to a basic swing in order to break out of a slump. Edwin's long swing is a reason for his up and down nature, when he is seeing the ball well he is all over it, but when he isn't he is on his front foot trying to pull the ball into the left field bleachers and struggling.

Good post!

traderumor
07-18-2009, 12:30 PM
He was showing improved plate discipline even though he wasn't hitting before the injury. It may have been out of necessity, but there was a marked difference. Hopefully that will not all be set aside now that he is healthy.

mbgrayson
07-18-2009, 01:13 PM
His bat is just fine, not going to anchor your lineup but not going to hurt you either. The problem is that he's a horrible, horrible third baseman. Over the past few years he's been the worst defensive third baseman in the majors. Any analysis of EE that doesn't mention his defense is completely missing the point.

Yes, Edwin's defense is poor. He was -12.1 UZR/150 last year, and is on pace to do worse this year.

However, FWIW, Jerry Hairston Jr. has a UZR/150 at third base of -16.0 in 33 games this year.

For the sake of comparison, there have been other good hitting, bad fielding 3rd basemen.

Ryan Braun in 2007, over 112 games at 3rd base, rated a -35.5 UZR/150 before being moved to LF in 2008.

Hank Blalock from 2005 thru 2008 for Texas was about a -12.5 UZR/150 fielder at 3rd base.

Garrett Atkins was a -14.6 UZR/150 fielder for the Rockies in 153 games in 2007, and improved to -8.6 last season.

Alex Rodriguez was a -12.4 UZR/150 fielder for the Yankees over 151 games in 2006, but improved to +2.3 UZR/150 in 2007.

Troy Glaus was a -13.7 UZR/150 fielder for the D-Backs in 2005 over 151 games, and improved to -1.3 in 2006, and was up to +5.0 in 2008 for the Cards.

UZR/150 (ultimate zone rate per 150 games): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is, per 150 defensive games.

What I want to know is why there is no serious discussion within the Reds organization of moving EE to left? He hits better than anyone who has played leftfield for us this year.

Unassisted
07-18-2009, 01:16 PM
If the Reds are truly about to be sellers, he would be a logical player to sell high on.

RedEye
07-18-2009, 01:18 PM
At the risk of starting another huge thread on it, EdE is streaky. Extremely so.

Aren't there players who grow out of their streakiness? He's only 26 and far from a finished product. If Bill James new analysis is true, Edwin still has around six years left in his prime. Right?

I'm not convinced that right now would be "selling high" on Edwin. If he keeps hitting like this for another few weeks though, it might be. Should be interesting.

dougdirt
07-18-2009, 01:24 PM
I love how Edwin is always considered 'streaky' but other players aren't.

The Reds #4 hitter has these OPS splits the last 2 seasons:
.799
.719
1.074
.612
.511
.698
.732
.678
.898
.837

Why doesn't that guy get labeled as 'streaky'? Is it because he sucks 4 months out of the year? Is it because he can play defense which really doesn't come into play when we talk 'streakiness'?

I(heart)Freel
07-18-2009, 01:29 PM
Might keep us out of the Rolen talks which It think is a good thing.

Or, if Walt still has the manlove for Rolen, this just might make Toronto more interested in Edwin.

PuffyPig
07-18-2009, 01:29 PM
If only the entire league was made up of Braden Looper and Jeff Suppan.

I hope EE is getting it, I really do.

It is not a question of EE "getting it"

He's always been an .800+ OPS guy so we knew he would start hitting once he got healthy.

He's likely will be leaving the Reds once his current contract is up after the 2010 season in any event, and his replacement is likely in the Reds system now.

If we can improve the team by trading him, by all means do so. But, with no ready replacement, there is no reason to dump him. But with EE apparently health now, an EE for Rolen swap appears to make no sense financially for us.

redsfandan
07-18-2009, 02:02 PM
If the Reds are truly about to be sellers, he would be a logical player to sell high on.
And replace him with who? This is kinda how I feel as well:

... If we can improve the team by trading him, by all means do so. But, with no ready replacement, there is no reason to dump him. But with EE apparently health now, an EE for Rolen swap appears to make no sense financially for us.
If we're gonna trade someone I'd kinda like to have a replacement for him.

Scrap Irony
07-18-2009, 02:19 PM
I love how Edwin is always considered 'streaky' but other players aren't.

You need not put words in my mouth. I find problems talking around the ones I put there. ;)

Just because Brandon Phillips is streaky also doesn't mean Encarnacion isn't as well. In fact, EdE is among the most streaky month-by-month players in all of baseball. (The streakiest, IIRC.)

nate
07-18-2009, 02:31 PM
I love how Edwin is always considered 'streaky' but other players aren't.

The Reds #4 hitter has these OPS splits the last 2 seasons:
.799
.719
1.074
.612
.511
.698
.732
.678
.898
.837

Why doesn't that guy get labeled as 'streaky'? Is it because he sucks 4 months out of the year? Is it because he can play defense which really doesn't come into play when we talk 'streakiness'?

I think we all know what I think about "streaky."

Maybe EE is "splitty?"

nate
07-18-2009, 02:31 PM
You need not put words in my mouth. I find problems talking around the ones I put there. ;)

Just because Brandon Phillips is streaky also doesn't mean Encarnacion isn't as well. In fact, EdE is among the most streaky month-by-month players in all of baseball. (The streakiest, IIRC.)

Which means nothing.

Scrap Irony
07-18-2009, 02:47 PM
And replace him with who? If we're gonna trade someone I'd kinda like to have a replacement for him.

Drew Sutton this year and Frazier next. Or a stop-gap free agent, if Frazier doesn't fill the front office with confidence. While not perfect, it's not the worst thing either. The team finds out what it has in Sutton (as a utility guy or more, perhaps) and gets ready for a good 2010 draft.

Scrap Irony
07-18-2009, 02:50 PM
Which means nothing.

It means exactly what I said it means. Encarnacion is streaky. Extremely so. You don't have to like it, but it's there. I realize you wanted more, but no one else was willing to do the work for you. Do it yourself if you want to crap all over my research.

Highlifeman21
07-18-2009, 02:56 PM
If the Reds are truly about to be sellers, he would be a logical player to sell high on.

But how is it selling high when he's had a good week after coming back from a length injury?

deltachi8
07-18-2009, 03:11 PM
Just curious, when (if) Edwin is gone, who will be the new whipping boy for Reds fans?

Scrap Irony
07-18-2009, 03:14 PM
Edwin is the whipping boy?

Really?

Arroyo and Phillips are both far in the lead of Edwin this year, in terms of negative posts. But number one with a bullet is Taveras. It's not even close. Negative Taveras posts spill over into other boards.

redsfandan
07-18-2009, 03:21 PM
Drew Sutton this year and Frazier next. Or a stop-gap free agent, if Frazier doesn't fill the front office with confidence. While not perfect, it's not the worst thing either. The team finds out what it has in Sutton (as a utility guy or more, perhaps) and gets ready for a good 2010 draft.
Do we know if Sutton can do any better? That might be good to know. I'm ok with Frazier taking over 3rd but it seems expecting him to start the 2010 season may be pushing it. Here are the projected FA 3rd basemen this offseason:

Adrian Beltre SEA
Hank Blalock TEX
Geoff Blum HOU
Joe Crede MIN
Pedro Feliz * PHI
Chone Figgins LAA
Troy Glaus STL
Mike Lamb MIL
Melvin Mora * BAL
* - player whose current contract includes 2010 option

Now, a couple names could be crossed off that don't fit as starters, a couple could have options picked up, a few more could be taken off the list due to new contracts, and then you'll have some players with question marks (health, contract demands, etc). There just may not be a player available willing to be a "stop-gap" for one season that fits.

alloverjr
07-18-2009, 03:24 PM
taveras stinks

Kc61
07-18-2009, 03:31 PM
I love how Edwin is always considered 'streaky' but other players aren't.

The Reds #4 hitter has these OPS splits the last 2 seasons:
.799
.719
1.074
.612
.511
.698
.732
.678
.898
.837

Why doesn't that guy get labeled as 'streaky'? Is it because he sucks 4 months out of the year? Is it because he can play defense which really doesn't come into play when we talk 'streakiness'?

From 2006 EE has had five calendar months with the following OPS numbers: .560, .554, .614, .475, .476.

That could be where the reputation comes from.

I agree that maybe with maturity EE will be steadier, but it is undeniable that he has had long and deep slumps.

And to anticipate the next argument, which I've heard many times, the real good hitters don't have five month-long periods with those kinds of numbers in three plus seasons.

Raisor
07-18-2009, 03:47 PM
.

And to anticipate the next argument, which I've heard many times, the real good hitters don't have five month-long periods with those kinds of numbers in three plus seasons.

You've done the research? How many "real good hitters" did you look at? Can you name them?

nate
07-18-2009, 04:07 PM
It means exactly what I said it means. Encarnacion is streaky. Extremely so. You don't have to like it, but it's there. I realize you wanted more, but no one else was willing to do the work for you. Do it yourself if you want to crap all over my research.

I'm not "crapping" on it, I'm disagreeing with it. I appreciate that you did the work but it's flawed and doesn't mean any of what you portray it to. I have done my own work and I can't even define what "streaky" is...nor can anyone else.

Anyhow, back to the topic which is "do we still want to trade EE after he's played well for 11 games." I say, this performance shouldn't sway a decision either way as it's insufficient. It's the same thing when Homer Bailey threw two decent games in row, a step in the right direction. Nothing more, nothing less.

nate
07-18-2009, 04:10 PM
From 2006 EE has had five calendar months with the following OPS numbers: .560, .554, .614, .475, .476.

That could be where the reputation comes from.

I agree that maybe with maturity EE will be steadier, but it is undeniable that he has had long and deep slumps.

I deny that he slumps appreciably longer and deeper than any other player. I deny that the changing of a calendar month is a good way to measure a "streak."

Therefore, it's deniable.

nate
07-18-2009, 04:11 PM
From 2006 EE has had five calendar months with the following OPS numbers: .560, .554, .614, .475, .476.

That could be where the reputation comes from.

I agree that maybe with maturity EE will be steadier, but it is undeniable that he has had long and deep slumps.

And to anticipate the next argument, which I've heard many times, the real good hitters don't have five month-long periods with those kinds of numbers in three plus seasons.

Who's saying he's a "really good hitter?" I think he's an average 3B.

Mario-Rijo
07-18-2009, 04:15 PM
Which means nothing.

Sure it does. It means you cannot count on that production on a consistent basis. Look guys slump, and it's understandable why they do. But slumping that long is indicative of a bigger problem in fact I wouldn't even call it a slump at that point, it's something else that we have never found a word for yet.

redsfandan
07-18-2009, 04:17 PM
From 2006 EE has had five calendar months with the following OPS numbers: .560, .554, .614, .475, .476. ...
Just for the heck of it I looked up his monthly splits. But I couldn't find a month where he had an OPS of .560. Which month was that?

Mario-Rijo
07-18-2009, 04:21 PM
I deny that he slumps appreciably longer and deeper than any other player. I deny that the changing of a calendar month is a good way to measure a "streak."

Therefore, it's deniable.

Have you ever seen Votto slump that long and how many times have you seen it? Heck even Brandon who does slump for long periods doesn't seem to slump as long as does EE and I do know he doesn't do it as often.

That said I agree with your second sentence but the point still remains his streaks are longer and more often than most other players. I'm not sure just how true the length of his slumps are but it seems that way, but I do know he does slump more often than most if not all recent .800 OPS Reds bats do/done.

Brutus
07-18-2009, 04:28 PM
I deny that he slumps appreciably longer and deeper than any other player. I deny that the changing of a calendar month is a good way to measure a "streak."

Therefore, it's deniable.

I think streakiness is a part of every facet of life, but like clutch hitting, to the extent that it exists, it's hard to quantify. I agree with you about measuring it with calendar months as gauging such streaks, as it's not like our bodies just decide that because the calendar month gets flipped up that it's time to start hitting. However, it works because months generally do separate things that would contribute to or against streaks - i.e. the weather, distance to and from the start of a season, wearing down late in a year, etc. It's been shown that some players are in fact affected by some of these very things, and while maybe not perfectly, using monthly splits to quantify it do give us some indication (sometimes) players' consistency (or lack thereof).

So I guess my point is to say that directly, I agree 100 percent about using months to determine streaks. But indirectly, they can still paint an accurate picture with some players.

Mario-Rijo
07-18-2009, 04:31 PM
Just for the heck of it I looked up his monthly splits. But I couldn't find a month where he had an OPS of .560. Which month was that?

Sept/Oct. of '06

nate
07-18-2009, 04:38 PM
Sure it does. It means you cannot count on that production on a consistent basis.

I think it means no such thing.


Look guys slump, and it's understandable why they do. But slumping that long is indicative of a bigger problem in fact I wouldn't even call it a slump at that point, it's something else that we have never found a word for yet.

Yes, guys "slump."

Whatever that might mean.

nate
07-18-2009, 04:44 PM
Have you ever seen Votto slump that long and how many times have you seen it?

What is a "slump?"

How long is "that long?"


Heck even Brandon who does slump for long periods doesn't seem to slump as long as does EE and I do know he doesn't do it as often.Same as above.

One person might think a slump is an 0-15. Nevermind the 10-12 that came before or 5-8 after. One might quantize data into calendar months and find some pattern in it the way people see Jesus, the state of Oklahoma and words like "I LOVE SNAILS" in toast.


That said I agree with your second sentence but the point still remains his streaks are longer and more often than most other players. Great! Please show me how he slumps longer and more often than most other players. SI's effort was much appreciated but was flawed in it's approach. Maybe we can start by showing how often most other players slump.


I'm not sure just how true the length of his slumps are but it seems that way, but I do know he does slump more often than most if not all recent .800 OPS Reds bats do/done.Some may find this smart-assed, but it's not. I look forward to seeing how he slumps more often than a regular player.

Seriously!

nate
07-18-2009, 04:57 PM
I think streakiness is a part of every facet of life, but like clutch hitting, to the extent that it exists, it's hard to quantify. I agree with you about measuring it with calendar months as gauging such streaks, as it's not like our bodies just decide that because the calendar month gets flipped up that it's time to start hitting. However, it works because months generally do separate things that would contribute to or against streaks - i.e. the weather, distance to and from the start of a season, wearing down late in a year, etc. It's been shown that some players are in fact affected by some of these very things, and while maybe not perfectly, using monthly splits to quantify it do give us some indication (sometimes) players' consistency (or lack thereof).

So I guess my point is to say that directly, I agree 100 percent about using months to determine streaks. But indirectly, they can still paint an accurate picture with some players.

I'm not saying streaks don't exist. I'm saying:

*no one can define them
*no one can tell me how often an average player "streaks"
*no one can show me how much more than an average player EE "streaks"

And I keep coming back to it because any discussion of EE devolves into "EE's streaky!" To which I always say, "how?" And I get all the same responses you see here. I'm not saying he's not but I want to know how they know he's streaky. Sorry, I don't believe the "eyes." Sorry, I don't believe monthly splits. I appreciate the effort but it's not the right methodology to measure something this.

The best visualization I've seen of "streaks" is fangraphs' graphs. The downside is, they divide the average line into years. If it was cumulative, it would be a lot more instructive as to a player's "streak" factor.

Scrap Irony
07-18-2009, 05:28 PM
Streakiness indicates the difference between the peaks and valleys of offensive or defensive effectiveness in a particular span of time. It may mean BA over the course of a month. It may mean seasonal slugging percentages in a career. In this case, it's OPS by month in a season.

Are the numbers flawed? I think not. I do think they give a great picture of "streakiness" as it relates to one season and the players in major league baseball. If you think that definition is incorrect, come up with another.

mbgrayson
07-18-2009, 05:59 PM
Still, streakiness is really meaningless, even if you could define it.

The only real way to define performance is overall numbers. That averages out everyones peaks and valleys, and makes the numbers comparable.

For example, why is a hitter who has a .750 OPS every month of the season any more valuable than one who has three months of .850 OPS, and three months of .650 OPS?

We need the production all the time, and the .850 makes up for the .650, and averages out. In fact, it could even be argued that a streaky hitter is more valuable, since you could move him up to the number 3 or 4 slot when he is hot, and drop him down in the order when he is cold. (Assuming a good manager...).

nate
07-18-2009, 06:05 PM
Streakiness indicates the difference between the peaks and valleys of offensive or defensive effectiveness in a particular span of time. It may mean BA over the course of a month. It may mean seasonal slugging percentages in a career. In this case, it's OPS by month in a season.

That's a split, not a streak.


Are the numbers flawed? I think not.I'm saying the flaw is in calling a monthly split a streak. It isn't.


I do think they give a great picture of "streakiness" as it relates to one season and the players in major league baseball.I don't think it does. Nor do I think limiting the comparison to a single season is useful. Finally, it doesn't compare to any other player in MLB.


If you think that definition is incorrect, come up with another.To me, it would be performance above or below one's norm for a greater than average interval. That's not what monthly splits measure. They don't measure the "zero crossing" of the streak "wave" so they can't know where the "streak" begins.

Mario-Rijo
07-18-2009, 06:26 PM
To me, it would be performance above or below one's norm for a greater than average interval.

I disagree with that second part. That too is a part of the below or above ones norm. Whenever a player is playing at his norm it's just that, when he isn't playing at his norm that is a streak of some sort be it good (a hot streak) or bad (a slump). However whatever is greater than average is tough to quantify but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The better the hitter the less "slumps" he has and the length of them appear to be shorter on average. Also the better the hitter the more hot streaks he has and the longer those are on average. And the better the hitter the more he is playing at the norm.

Edwin on the other hand is an enigma. He seems to be a better more natural hitter than most we've had in recent years but for some reason he has these seemingly endless bouts of offensive ineffectiveness. Then he seems to jump right from that to some impressive streaks of standout performance. It's almost like he never plays at a norm.

corkedbat
07-18-2009, 06:33 PM
I'd rather deal him now than a month from now - after the interlegue deadline when he's in the middle of a 3 for 48 streak

nate
07-18-2009, 06:59 PM
I disagree with that second part. That too is a part of the below or above ones norm. Whenever a player is playing at his norm it's just that, when he isn't playing at his norm that is a streak of some sort be it good (a hot streak) or bad (a slump). However whatever is greater than average is tough to quantify but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The better the hitter the less "slumps" he has and the length of them appear to be shorter on average. Also the better the hitter the more hot streaks he has and the longer those are on average. And the better the hitter the more he is playing at the norm.

Streaks have to be measured against some baseline. A .250 hitter should get a hit every 4 ABs. Is he "streaking" if he goes 0-3 or is he streaking if he gets 2 hits in a row? Both are greater than an average interval.


Edwin on the other hand is an enigma. He seems to be a better more natural hitter than most we've had in recent years but for some reason he has these seemingly endless bouts of offensive ineffectiveness. Then he seems to jump right from that to some impressive streaks of standout performance. It's almost like he never plays at a norm.I'm asking, who does? What is norm?

Mario-Rijo
07-18-2009, 07:19 PM
I get what you arguing nate I do. I'd love for somebody to put this and the clutch theories to bed one way or the other. But and not to be a smartellic I don't really care to undertake such a mammoth exercise. And I do trust my eyes even if you don't trust yours or anyone else's, I can be impartial. Just because no one has undertaken it and just because we can't toss a number on it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't mean it's not a fact.

Mario-Rijo
07-18-2009, 07:24 PM
Streaks have to be measured against some baseline. A .250 hitter should get a hit every 4 ABs. Is he "streaking" if he goes 0-3 or is he streaking if he gets 2 hits in a row? Both are greater than an average interval.

No I don't think you can measure it that way, there is some variance in every player and they will have games where they go 0-Fer.


I'm asking, who does? What is norm?

Both good questions and all I can say to them is I don't know but I feel there is answers to both.

nate
07-18-2009, 07:26 PM
I get what you arguing nate I do. I'd love for somebody to put this and the clutch theories to bed one way or the other. But and not to be a smartellic I don't really care to undertake such a mammoth exercise. And I do trust my eyes even if you don't trust yours or anyone else's, I can be impartial. Just because no one has undertaken it and just because we can't toss a number on it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't mean it's not a fact.

I'm not putting down anyONE's eyes as much as I'm saying no member of the human race has the brain capacity to observe, store and process the huge number of information required for this exercise. I'm also not saying streaks don't exist, I'm saying we've not even defined the basic parameters of a streak, let alone measured them.

Mario-Rijo
07-18-2009, 07:31 PM
I'm not putting down anyONE's eyes as much as I'm saying no member of the human race has the brain capacity to observe, store and process the huge number of information required for this exercise. I'm also not saying streaks don't exist, I'm saying we've not even defined the basic parameters of a streak, let alone measured them.

No I get that but and I agree that no member of the race can do it with exact precisness, but to some degree we all have a feel for when a guy is scuffling if you will. And that's because we pay so much attention to it that we have a rythym of sorts, a feel for when things are going good or bad. I don't know how to explain it but we just know without even looking at the #'s.

kpresidente
07-18-2009, 07:36 PM
OMG anybody who's ever played baseball knows streaks are real. And no, it's not some psychological rationalization after the fact. Sometimes you're not seeing the ball, and sometimes it's the size of a grapefruit.

Kc61
07-18-2009, 07:40 PM
Streaks have to be measured against some baseline. A .250 hitter should get a hit every 4 ABs. Is he "streaking" if he goes 0-3 or is he streaking if he gets 2 hits in a row? Both are greater than an average interval.

I'm asking, who does? What is norm?
.

Monthly stats aren't the only measure but they represent about 25 games for a full time player and are readily available stats. This is usually a fair way to see a player's consistency.

Fans can question the words "slump" or "streak" all they want but, obviously, when somebody has an OPS of .500 for a 25-game stretch he hasn't done well in that period.

As for other hitters compared with EE, just scan through their monthly stats and see. Most top notch hitters don't tend to have huge variations, don't tend to have a .500 OPS except for a rare month over a long career.

So question the terminology, question the interval, pick it apart, go ahead. It's fair to do so, but it doesn't change the obvious.

redsfandan
07-18-2009, 09:22 PM
Fwiw, technically EE isn't projected to be a FA right now until after the 2011 season. His current contract runs through the 2010 season. After that season he'll be up for arbitration. If the Reds don't offer arbitration he becomes a FA but we wouldn't receive any compensation. If the Reds offer arbitration and he declines then he'll be a FA and we receive compensation. If they offer and he accepts...

THAT is why I prefer to deal him once Frazier is ready. If his defense doesn't improve in the next year why risk offering compensation.

nate
07-18-2009, 09:41 PM
No I get that but and I agree that no member of the race can do it with exact precisness, but to some degree we all have a feel for when a guy is scuffling if you will.

I think there's a lot of noise in there to taint what we see.


And that's because we pay so much attention to it that we have a rythym of sorts, a feel for when things are going good or bad. I don't know how to explain it but we just know without even looking at the #'s.

I know what you mean but I'm amazed at how often I confuse excitement for production.

nate
07-18-2009, 09:42 PM
OMG anybody who's ever played baseball knows streaks are real. And no, it's not some psychological rationalization after the fact. Sometimes you're not seeing the ball, and sometimes it's the size of a grapefruit.

I've not proposed that streaks aren't real.

nate
07-18-2009, 09:46 PM
.Monthly stats aren't the only measure but they represent about 25 games for a full time player and are readily available stats. This is usually a fair way to see a player's consistency.

I disagree.


Fans can question the words "slump" or "streak" all they want but, obviously, when somebody has an OPS of .500 for a 25-game stretch he hasn't done well in that period.

At what point does "normal variance" become a "streak?"


As for other hitters compared with EE, just scan through their monthly stats and see.

I think you'll find confirmation bias or a lot of nothing.


Most top notch hitters don't tend to have huge variations, don't tend to have a .500 OPS except for a rare month over a long career.

Again, I'm not portraying EE as a "top hitter." Therefore, I don't really care how he compares to, say, Albert Pujols because that's an impossible bar to reach.


So question the terminology, question the interval, pick it apart, go ahead. It's fair to do so, but it doesn't change the obvious.

I've done that. The obvious doesn't really seem so obvious. For example, what's a "streak?"

SMcGavin
07-18-2009, 09:49 PM
What I want to know is why there is no serious discussion within the Reds organization of moving EE to left? He hits better than anyone who has played leftfield for us this year.

I'm with you... though for all we know, there may have been discussion within the Reds organization about moving him. If the Reds are serious about the "defense first" mantra then they have to do something about 3B.

traderumor
07-18-2009, 10:25 PM
Eh.

westofyou
07-18-2009, 11:42 PM
I've not proposed that streaks aren't real.

I once took a photo at a game, when I developed it there was an odd light in it, hovering above the batter.

I think that was a streak.

But I can't prove it... my friend said one pushed him down the dugout steps once in high school, so I do think they exist.

reds44
07-19-2009, 12:24 AM
I once took a photo at a game, when I developed it there was an odd light in it, hovering above the batter.

I think that was a streak.

But I can't prove it... my friend said one pushed him down the dugout steps once in high school, so I do think they exist.
I think this post belongs in the Ghost in the Graveyard thread. Swear it was a ghost!

TheNext44
07-19-2009, 03:31 AM
Back to the issue of this thread.

I see no reason not to keep EE at third for the rest of the season, to see if he has finally learned how to play it.

If he has, and can approach league average defense, then he is a fine solution at 3B until one of the youngsters is ready. If not, it's not going to be the difference between the Reds making the playoffs or not.

osuceltic
07-19-2009, 10:04 AM
To answer the original question, yes -- I still want to trade Edwin. I've seen this movie before and know how it ends. He will be scorching hot for a couple of weeks, making his numbers look pretty reasonable, when in fact he has given the Reds 40 terrible games and 10 good ones. Then he'll go cold again, drive us all nuts with his lazy at-bats and lousy defense, before salvaging his seasonal numbers with a couple of good weeks in September, when we're already long out of it. No thanks.

gonelong
07-19-2009, 10:05 AM
I'd say a 20 and 50 day moving average, (think stock analysis), would give a pretty good indication of when a player is trending in one direction or another, and has peaked or flat-lined. It wouldn't be an arbitrary time-frame, etc, etc.

GL

RedEye
07-19-2009, 10:53 AM
To answer the original question, yes -- I still want to trade Edwin. I've seen this movie before and know how it ends. He will be scorching hot for a couple of weeks, making his numbers look pretty reasonable, when in fact he has given the Reds 40 terrible games and 10 good ones. Then he'll go cold again, drive us all nuts with his lazy at-bats and lousy defense, before salvaging his seasonal numbers with a couple of good weeks in September, when we're already long out of it. No thanks.

I think there a lot of players who, when scrutinized on a game-to-game basis while they're wearing Reds laundry, end up looking a lot like this. When a player is on your team, you see his cold games as terrible flaws. When he's not, he can look like a model of consistency--because you usually only look at his numbers from afar, or catch a game here and there.

nate
07-19-2009, 10:55 AM
I once took a photo at a game, when I developed it there was an odd light in it, hovering above the batter.

I think that was a streak.

But I can't prove it... my friend said one pushed him down the dugout steps once in high school, so I do think they exist.

Those are ghosts/poltergeists/spirits.

Everyone knows they exist!

:cool:

osuceltic
07-19-2009, 04:30 PM
I think there a lot of players who, when scrutinized on a game-to-game basis while they're wearing Reds laundry, end up looking a lot like this. When a player is on your team, you see his cold games as terrible flaws. When he's not, he can look like a model of consistency--because you usually only look at his numbers from afar, or catch a game here and there.

It's a matter of extremes. Since I don't want to debate Nate for three pages about the definition what "is" is, I'll leave it at that.

AmarilloRed
07-22-2009, 04:50 PM
We don't have a third basemen at present who can provide Edwin's offense, streaky or not. When we do, I'll be all for trading him.