PDA

View Full Version : Giancarlo-Cruz Michael Stanton is a strong, strong man



dougdirt
08-18-2012, 12:39 AM
If you have not seen the home run he hit off of former Red Josh Roenicke tonight in Colorado, go watch it here (http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=23980563&topic_id=8878534), right now.

Brutus
08-18-2012, 12:51 AM
Apparently it was 474-feet, which if memory serves me correctly, was the exact distance of Frazier's straight-away bomb to center the other night.

oregonred
08-18-2012, 12:55 AM
Yes, identical to Frazier's. Giancarlo has a much cooler new name though.

dougdirt
08-18-2012, 12:57 AM
Apparently it was 474-feet, which if memory serves me correctly, was the exact distance of Frazier's straight-away bomb to center the other night.

Hittrackeronline.com has Frazier's at 436 feet. There is an explanation of the vast difference in distances over on RedReporter if you want to see why.

BBTN just said that Stanton's home run was into a 10 MPH wind.... blowing toward home and that it was actually a 494 footer even with the wind. I will be checking Hittrackeronline in the morning to see what it was when adjusted for the weather/altitude.

oregonred
08-18-2012, 01:00 AM
I used to hit 300+ yd drives with ease when I lived in Colorado and that was with much older club technology in the late 90s. Good times.

Brutus
08-18-2012, 01:08 AM
Hittrackeronline.com has Frazier's at 436 feet. There is an explanation of the vast difference in distances over on RedReporter if you want to see why.

BBTN just said that Stanton's home run was into a 10 MPH wind.... blowing toward home and that it was actually a 494 footer even with the wind. I will be checking Hittrackeronline in the morning to see what it was when adjusted for the weather/altitude.

I get his explanation but there is clearly a lot of error with it. There's no way that ball would have only landed 36 feet away from the fence if there were no obstruction. That's just not very likely.

I think in this case, 474 feet is much more probable. Both are total estimates based on trajectory, so neither explanation is going to be definitive. I trust the ballpark's estimate more though because they had a much better view of the trajectory. The guy even admits the camera angle isn't very good, so that has to leave a lot of issue with his estimation. I don't think it's prudent to believe an estimation where the trajectory of the ball can't be seen on the video he used to estimate it.

OesterPoster
08-18-2012, 01:08 AM
Hittrackeronline.com has Frazier's at 436 feet. There is an explanation of the vast difference in distances over on RedReporter if you want to see why.

BBTN just said that Stanton's home run was into a 10 MPH wind.... blowing toward home and that it was actually a 494 footer even with the wind. I will be checking Hittrackeronline in the morning to see what it was when adjusted for the weather/altitude.

I saw that earlier today too. After the Reds called Ludwick's HR tonight 425, I'm curious what the other guys come up with on that one too.

RedlegJake
08-18-2012, 02:47 AM
That there can be such a vast difference itself tells me that the whole thing is completely bogus - meaning estimated only and liable to big error. Seems to be really true they'd need three cameras and a triangulation method.

oneupper
08-18-2012, 05:54 AM
That there can be such a vast difference itself tells me that the whole thing is completely bogus - meaning estimated only and liable to big error. Seems to be really true they'd need three cameras and a triangulation method.

Mantle's drive was still rising when it hit the fašade at Griffith Stadium. Or so they say...:)

Vottomatic
08-18-2012, 06:42 AM
Meh. I'll take Frazier's bomb over Stanton's.

RANDY IN INDY
08-18-2012, 09:15 AM
Hittrackeronline.com has Frazier's at 436 feet. There is an explanation of the vast difference in distances over on RedReporter if you want to see why.

BBTN just said that Stanton's home run was into a 10 MPH wind.... blowing toward home and that it was actually a 494 footer even with the wind. I will be checking Hittrackeronline in the morning to see what it was when adjusted for the weather/altitude.

Impressive, but no more impressive than Fraziers blast in my opinion.

dougdirt
08-18-2012, 11:30 AM
That there can be such a vast difference itself tells me that the whole thing is completely bogus - meaning estimated only and liable to big error. Seems to be really true they'd need three cameras and a triangulation method.

The difference is in the trajectory of the ball. HTO saw it being a high trajectory, meaning that it fell much quicker once it reached its apex, where as the Reds labeled it as a lower trajectory. HTO noted that hardly ever do the stadium guys pick the high trajectory, which is why we will at times see their numbers be off a bit from HTO.

dougdirt
08-18-2012, 11:32 AM
Impressive, but no more impressive than Fraziers blast in my opinion.

It went 60 feet further than Fraziers, which is incredibly more impressive.

marcshoe
08-18-2012, 11:32 AM
What you guys are forgetting is that Frazier's Homer had already circled the Earth once.

dougdirt
08-18-2012, 11:34 AM
What you guys are forgetting is that Frazier's Homer had already circled the Earth once.

I thought it jumped the moon?

RedsManRick
08-18-2012, 12:51 PM
I get his explanation but there is clearly a lot of error with it. There's no way that ball would have only landed 36 feet away from the fence if there were no obstruction. That's just not very likely.

Based on what? Your statement only makes sense if you simply ignore the arguments he makes in regards to the angle of the of the overhang, angle of descent and so forth.

Yeah, it looked longer; but looks can be deceiving. There's a lot of error in perception as well.

_Sir_Charles_
08-18-2012, 01:19 PM
You know what makes Frazier's shot MUCH more impressive. Not the distance, the trajectory, the wind, the park it was hit in, or even the pitcher it was hit against. It's that it was a 2 run shot and Stanton's was a solo shot. Twice as productive. Debate OVER. :O)

dougdirt
08-18-2012, 01:24 PM
You know what makes Frazier's shot MUCH more impressive. Not the distance, the trajectory, the wind, the park it was hit in, or even the pitcher it was hit against. It's that it was a 2 run shot and Stanton's was a solo shot. Twice as productive. Debate OVER. :O)

I thought it was going to be that it wasn't off of a hanging slider dead read middle of the plate like Stanton's was.

_Sir_Charles_
08-18-2012, 01:26 PM
I thought it was going to be that it wasn't off of a hanging slider dead read middle of the plate like Stanton's was.

LOL. Nah, I thought I'd go for the argument you stat guys are always using. It's all about production. *grin*

Tom Servo
08-18-2012, 01:37 PM
Stanton is definitely one of my favorite non-Reds to watch. Wish he were not a non-Red. ;)

757690
08-18-2012, 01:51 PM
What amazed me about Frazier's was that he was a bit off balanced and out in front when he hit it. Not as impressive as the homer he hit with his hands literally letting go of the bat as he hit it, however.

RedsManRick
08-18-2012, 02:48 PM
What amazed me about Frazier's was that he was a bit off balanced and out in front when he hit it. Not as impressive as the homer he hit with his hands literally letting go of the bat as he hit it, however.

Yeah, I don't remember anybody hitting for as much power while looking so bad doing it...

Brutus
08-18-2012, 03:31 PM
Based on what? Your statement only makes sense if you simply ignore the arguments he makes in regards to the angle of the of the overhang, angle of descent and so forth.

Yeah, it looked longer; but looks can be deceiving. There's a lot of error in perception as well.

You picked this one line out of my whole post? It's based on the fact I trust people that saw the trajectory in person to have a better estimation of it than he did. My own opinion is the ball was not on a rapid descent downward, but he definitely didn't have a better view than the ballpark estimation.

By his own admission, the lone view of the homer he has cannot know the trajectory of the ball. So his explanation only makes sense if he ignores that the person in the ballpark that did the estimation had a better view of that than he could possibly know off the camera angle. But I say based on the same view he had that there's no way it only would have traveled just over 36 feet further. I'm not challenging him on his rationale for the math, I'm saying the math is wrong because it's based on a terribly big assumption.

Tom Servo
08-18-2012, 03:51 PM
I just saw Frazier's HR today. Holy craaaaaaaaaap.

RANDY IN INDY
08-18-2012, 04:57 PM
I just saw Frazier's HR today. Holy craaaaaaaaaap.

Yes, but not nearly as mathematically impressive. It actually hit something and fell backwards before landing.;)

RANDY IN INDY
08-18-2012, 05:12 PM
I used to hit 300+ yd drives with ease when I lived in Colorado and that was with much older club technology in the late 90s. Good times.

Excellent point.

dougdirt
08-18-2012, 06:02 PM
HTO has Stanton's home run at 494 when adjusting for the wind and sea level and all of that other fun jazz.

Homer Bailey
08-18-2012, 06:05 PM
Stanton's homer was hit much, much further than Frazier's home run. It isn't even close. That ball was an absolute bomb.

Razor Shines
08-18-2012, 06:14 PM
I analyzed the radio call of each home run. The Marlins announcers sounded like Stanton's was further.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brutus
08-18-2012, 06:16 PM
Stanton's homer was hit much, much further than Frazier's home run. It isn't even close. That ball was an absolute bomb.

The ballparks had each one going 474 feet. Apparently, it was close

Homer Bailey
08-18-2012, 06:17 PM
The ballparks had each one going 474 feet. Apparently, it was close

HTO has them almost 60 feet apart in true distance. Not really even close.

Brutus
08-18-2012, 06:29 PM
HTO has them almost 60 feet apart in true distance. Not really even close.

It's only not close if you assume, for some odd reason, that he has insight that people at the ballparks, in-person, don't have. It's not a question of math, it's a question of limitations that he's not there in person to actually see the trajectory. All he has at his disposal is replays where often times the ball isn't seen until the last few frames. With all due respect to him, his methodology is seriously suspect due to the limitations of what he's basing his math off of. At best it's pick your poison... not sure why his numbers are being taken as gospel.

I trust the ballparks to know their dimensions and the trajectory of the ball more accurately than some guy sitting at his computer. That's not to say I don't respect his work, his efforts or that his math isn't correct, but he simply doesn't have a very complete perspective without seeing the balls in person.

dougdirt
08-18-2012, 07:05 PM
I will trust the guy who with the help of slo motion replay who calculates the angle of the ball off of the bat, the speed off of the bat and several other things over someone at the ballpark using a rough estimator on distances.

Brutus
08-18-2012, 07:38 PM
I will trust the guy who with the help of slo motion replay who calculates the angle of the ball off of the bat, the speed off of the bat and several other things over someone at the ballpark using a rough estimator on distances.

He admits to having to make certain assumptions and making "best-guesses" to certain things, Doug. His math and logic is sound, but it's based sometimes on assumptions and guesses. That leaves a lot of room for error.

WildcatFan
08-18-2012, 07:52 PM
There's a famous story of Bo Jackson hitting a home run that was so low the pitcher reached up thinking he had a shot at catching it. It'd be interesting to see with today's tech how different the estimates would have been

dougdirt
08-18-2012, 07:52 PM
He admits to having to make certain assumptions and making "best-guesses" to certain things, Doug. His math and logic is sound, but it's based sometimes on assumptions and guesses. That leaves a lot of room for error.

I will still take his guesswork over the guess work of some people who work at GABP.

Brutus
08-18-2012, 08:02 PM
I will still take his guesswork over the guess work of some people who work at GABP.

That's your prerogative. But let's not act like it's perfect science. It's still prone to error just like the people at GABP. I'm not suggesting the ballpark estimates are without flaws, but neither is this guy's work. So we will never know which estimate is more accurate.

Personally, I prefer the people at GABP because the software they use takes into account the same concepts but they get a better read on the actual ball since they're seeing it in front of them. They're all using the same mathematical concepts, though. The software used at ballparks are using the same things we're taught in geometry class.

dougdirt
08-18-2012, 08:23 PM
There is no software they use. You can go to their website and use the exact same thing that they use to estimate the home run distance. You click where it lands and the trajectory and it spits out how far it went.

WildcatFan
08-18-2012, 08:26 PM
Crap, wrong thread again. I'm a disaster.

Brutus
08-18-2012, 08:29 PM
There is no software they use. You can go to their website and use the exact same thing that they use to estimate the home run distance. You click where it lands and the trajectory and it spits out how far it went.

They do use software. The guy from Hittracker even mentioned that in the email posted on RedReporter.

But I'm not sure what you're getting at, because if you go to a website and input data and it spits out a number, that's software, my friend.

RANDY IN INDY
08-18-2012, 08:49 PM
Both big blasts. Just another thing to get in a p1$$!n contest about.

dougdirt
08-18-2012, 08:55 PM
They do use software. The guy from Hittracker even mentioned that in the email posted on RedReporter.

But I'm not sure what you're getting at, because if you go to a website and input data and it spits out a number, that's software, my friend.

Ok, you are right. But they aren't using anything all complex that you or I can't go get off of their website. Unlike what Greg does, where we don't have anything close to the stuff he uses.

Brutus
08-18-2012, 09:00 PM
Ok, you are right. But they aren't using anything all complex that you or I can't go get off of their website. Unlike what Greg does, where we don't have anything close to the stuff he uses.

The guy isn't using anything complex either, Doug. It's basic geometry. What he's doing is nothing more than simple physics. The math would be the same that any software is programmed to calculate. It's basically a situation where in both his spreadsheet and the ballparks' software, y=mx+b. If y=distance, we can solve the equation by knowing m and b.

The problem isn't with that guy's formulas or the software's formulas. They are calculating the same things... because again, it's geometry. The issue is that he admits he has to make some "best guesses" when it comes to the ball coming off the bat, estimating the speed based on how long it took the ball to land, etc. Because he has to guess on a few of these things, the calculations can be incorrect. Same with the guys at the ballpark. They have to estimate on their inputs, which can leave room for error.

I assure you, Doug, they're using basically the same concepts. It's simple geometry. It's just a matter of human error when guessing the inputs to make the calculations.

Vottomatic
08-19-2012, 11:36 AM
I can't wait until Stanton is a Red. ;)

klw
08-19-2012, 08:00 PM
Not sure how this one only rates 456/460 but it was an impressive one by our old friend.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=23867391&c_id=mlb
http://hittrackeronline.com/detail.php?id=2012_3513&type=hitter

RedFanAlways1966
08-20-2012, 09:28 AM
Geometry, wind aided, thin air... as long as it clears the wall before touching the ground it counts the same. No bonus runs for distance/style/spin/etc. Save that crap for the All Star Game activities.

Makes me wonder. How many of you will still trade Chapman for this OF? Pitching, pitching, pitching...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95685&highlight=Stanton

dougdirt
08-20-2012, 09:37 AM
Actually the wind was blowing in....

And I would absolutely, without blinking, trade Chapman for Stanton. Not even a second thought.

jojo
08-20-2012, 11:26 AM
Actually the wind was blowing in....

And I would absolutely, without blinking, trade Chapman for Stanton. Not even a second thought.

Chapman for Stanton? Heck yes. Lets get the physicals done before they change their mind.....

Jamz
08-20-2012, 12:11 PM
Would you trade Bruce for Stanton?

Tom Servo
08-20-2012, 01:13 PM
Would you trade Bruce for Stanton?
Yes.

RedFanAlways1966
08-20-2012, 04:30 PM
Would you trade Bruce for Stanton?

YES. Chapman... hell no. The lack of good arms has contributed to the lack of pennants on the Great American walls/poles much more than bats. The taste of a 10-8 loss still lingers in my mouth. I guess after too many of those defeats (10+ years?) it will take some time to eliminate that after-taste. Each time Chapman takes the mound it is like a strong Altoids mint helping to eliminate that nasty taste.

Wonderful Monds
08-20-2012, 05:26 PM
Would you trade Bruce for Stanton?

I think the better question is, would anybody in their right mind not?

jojo
08-20-2012, 05:36 PM
YES. Chapman... hell no. The lack of good arms has contributed to the lack of pennants on the Great American walls/poles much more than bats. The taste of a 10-8 loss still lingers in my mouth. I guess after too many of those defeats (10+ years?) it will take some time to eliminate that after-taste. Each time Chapman takes the mound it is like a strong Altoids mint helping to eliminate that nasty taste.

The Reds teams of the lost decade couldn't field, hit or pitch.

Chapman would have been a curiosity on those teams much like Dunn....

RedFanAlways1966
08-20-2012, 07:04 PM
The Reds teams of the lost decade couldn't field, hit or pitch.

Chapman would have been a curiosity on those teams much like Dunn....

This I cannot argue. However, I like "strength in numbers". The number of runs scored is important, but runs allowed gets the nod IMO when comparing the two. And of course defense is important. But when Chapman takes the mound you might get away with a "The King and His Court" defense.

I de-railed the thread! I just cannot believe REDS fans have forgotten the era of Harnisch/Haynes/Graves/etc. The playoff-less era. Bats are sexy. Arms win.

dougdirt
08-20-2012, 08:39 PM
This I cannot argue. However, I like "strength in numbers". The number of runs scored is important, but runs allowed gets the nod IMO when comparing the two. And of course defense is important. But when Chapman takes the mound you might get away with a "The King and His Court" defense.

I de-railed the thread! I just cannot believe REDS fans have forgotten the era of Harnisch/Haynes/Graves/etc. The playoff-less era. Bats are sexy. Arms win.

I don't think we have forgotten about it. Mike Stanton the every day player is going to help you win more baseball games than Aroldis Chapman the reliever ever will. If Chapman were a starter, this might be a different thing. But it isn't.

RedFanAlways1966
08-20-2012, 09:17 PM
I don't think we have forgotten about it. Mike Stanton the every day player is going to help you win more baseball games than Aroldis Chapman the reliever ever will. If Chapman were a starter, this might be a different thing. But it isn't.

Starter? Now we're talking, doug. :thumbup:

Brutus
08-20-2012, 09:19 PM
I don't think we have forgotten about it. Mike Stanton the every day player is going to help you win more baseball games than Aroldis Chapman the reliever ever will. If Chapman were a starter, this might be a different thing. But it isn't.

Even as a reliever, the WAR differential right now is only 4.0 to 3.3. Not a vast difference. And one could argue that is a close enough difference Chapman is still more valuable.

That said, there's nothing stopping the Reds from converting Chapman to a starter and the official word is that's still in the plans.

jojo
08-20-2012, 09:41 PM
I don't think we have forgotten about it. Mike Stanton the every day player is going to help you win more baseball games than Aroldis Chapman the reliever ever will. If Chapman were a starter, this might be a different thing. But it isn't.

Yep. It would be a pretty easy decision as it stands.

dougdirt
08-20-2012, 09:43 PM
Even as a reliever, the WAR differential right now is only 4.0 to 3.3. Not a vast difference. And one could argue that is a close enough difference Chapman is still more valuable.

That said, there's nothing stopping the Reds from converting Chapman to a starter and the official word is that's still in the plans.

While you are right, I just see the Reds keeping Chapman in the bullpen and I expect Stanton to continue to get better. Plus, Stanton has only played in 92 games and put up that 4.0 WAR, where as most guys have played 120 games or so.

Hopefully the Reds do the right thing and at least give Chapman a real shot at starting, not like the shot they gave Marshall at closing, but a real shot even if he has a few hiccups along the way. I just don't have faith that it is going to happen.

Brutus
08-20-2012, 09:46 PM
While you are right, I just see the Reds keeping Chapman in the bullpen and I expect Stanton to continue to get better. Plus, Stanton has only played in 92 games and put up that 4.0 WAR, where as most guys have played 120 games or so.

Hopefully the Reds do the right thing and at least give Chapman a real shot at starting, not like the shot they gave Marshall at closing, but a real shot even if he has a few hiccups along the way. I just don't have faith that it is going to happen.

I like Stanton, a lot. But it's easier to find a Stanton than it is to find a Chapman.

dougdirt
08-20-2012, 09:54 PM
I like Stanton, a lot. But it's easier to find a Stanton than it is to find a Chapman.

Is it though? If Chapman were going all Verlander, then I would agree with you. But he is a reliever. Regardless of how incredibly good he is, we are talking about 70-80 innings in a season with 1500 of them for our boys.

Brutus
08-20-2012, 09:58 PM
Is it though? If Chapman were going all Verlander, then I would agree with you. But he is a reliever. Regardless of how incredibly good he is, we are talking about 70-80 innings in a season with 1500 of them for our boys.

I don't know why you insist of calling him a "reliever." He pitched as a starter in spring training this year. It wasn't until Ryan Madson got hurt that he was put back in the bullpen. He's a starter. He was signed as a starter. The Reds, as recently as June, have said they still intend to make him a starter.

Yet, even as a reliever, he's on the way to setting all sorts of records for a reliever in the history of baseball. So yeah, I'd say it's extremely hard to find another Chapman... considering no one in the history of baseball has struck out as many batters per nine innings as Chapman currently has done. There are many other guys every single season that have a .940 OPS. In fact, the Reds have one well over that and two others that are very close to that. No one in baseball has had the kind of season Chapman is having... ever.

So yeah, it's a lot easier to find another Stanton than it is to find another Chapman. Even as a reliever. And Chapman is still likely going to be a starter.

kaldaniels
08-20-2012, 10:02 PM
I don't know why you insist of calling him a "reliever." He pitched as a starter in spring training this year. It wasn't until Ryan Madson got hurt that he was put back in the bullpen. He's a starter. He was signed as a starter. The Reds, as recently as June, have said they still intend to make him a starter.

Yet, even as a reliever, he's on the way to setting all sorts of records for a reliever in the history of baseball. So yeah, I'd say it's extremely hard to find another Chapman... considering no one in the history of baseball has struck out as many batters per nine innings as Chapman currently has done. There are many other guys every single season that have a .940 OPS. In fact, the Reds have one well over that and two others that are very close to that. No one in baseball has had the kind of season Chapman is having... ever.

So yeah, it's a lot easier to find another Stanton than it is to find another Chapman. Even as a reliever. And Chapman is still likely going to be a starter.

As it stands Brutus, it is fair to say Chapman is a reliever in the major leagues. He has the potential to be a great starter, an extremely great one. But it is not right to consider him a "bird in the hand" major league starter. I hope one day we can do so.

jojo
08-20-2012, 10:03 PM
Is it though? If Chapman were going all Verlander, then I would agree with you. But he is a reliever. Regardless of how incredibly good he is, we are talking about 70-80 innings in a season with 1500 of them for our boys.

Chapman is having an incredible season for a reliever. Who knows if he can ever repeat it. History tells us probably not.

Brutus
08-20-2012, 10:04 PM
As it stands Brutus, it is fair to say Chapman is a reliever in the major leagues. He has the potential to be a great starter, an extremely great one. But it is not right to consider him a "bird in the hand" major league starter. I hope one day we can do so.

Suit yourself, but I consider him a bird in the hand starter. Show me I'm wrong :)

He's been a starter all his life. He started games as recently as March. It's not like someone that's been a reliever that has never done it. That's never been the question. I don't believe for a second someone of his talent is going to struggle as a starter. Dusty said repeatedly this spring Chapman was great as a starter. I have no doubts he'll be successful. How successful? TBD. But I am of no concern he'll be anything less than a top-of-the-rotation arm.

Wonderful Monds
08-20-2012, 10:28 PM
Guy just launched another upper decker

dougdirt
08-20-2012, 10:39 PM
I don't know why you insist of calling him a "reliever." He pitched as a starter in spring training this year. It wasn't until Ryan Madson got hurt that he was put back in the bullpen. He's a starter. He was signed as a starter. The Reds, as recently as June, have said they still intend to make him a starter.

Yet, even as a reliever, he's on the way to setting all sorts of records for a reliever in the history of baseball. So yeah, I'd say it's extremely hard to find another Chapman... considering no one in the history of baseball has struck out as many batters per nine innings as Chapman currently has done. There are many other guys every single season that have a .940 OPS. In fact, the Reds have one well over that and two others that are very close to that. No one in baseball has had the kind of season Chapman is having... ever.

So yeah, it's a lot easier to find another Stanton than it is to find another Chapman. Even as a reliever. And Chapman is still likely going to be a starter.

I still call him a reliever because there is the number 0 in his career starts line. It is pretty simple. The Reds have 'planned on him being a starter' since 2010. Well, 2012 is just about over and he still hasn't started a game for the Reds.

Aroldis Chapman is having an elite season for his position. But his position simply isn't used enough.

Brutus
08-20-2012, 10:47 PM
I still call him a reliever because there is the number 0 in his career starts line. It is pretty simple. The Reds have 'planned on him being a starter' since 2010. Well, 2012 is just about over and he still hasn't started a game for the Reds.

Aroldis Chapman is having an elite season for his position. But his position simply isn't used enough.

There were 13 starts in AAA. Do those not count? I know you don't hesitate to bring up minor league numbers for younger players when it's suitable :)

And considering he was a starter all throughout spring training, and it only was a TJ surgery of their closer that changed their minds, I don't think it's fair to hold 2012 against them for why Chapman isn't starting.

dougdirt
08-20-2012, 10:52 PM
No, those don't count. A lot of relievers started in the minor leagues. This is his second full season in the Majors and part of a third for him. Until the Reds actually start him in the Majors, he is a reliever.

The Reds rationale that taking Chapman and moving him to the bullpen because their closer went down tells me that they weren't sure about him starting.

Brutus
08-20-2012, 11:02 PM
No, those don't count. A lot of relievers started in the minor leagues. This is his second full season in the Majors and part of a third for him. Until the Reds actually start him in the Majors, he is a reliever.

The Reds rationale that taking Chapman and moving him to the bullpen because their closer went down tells me that they weren't sure about him starting.

They don't count because it's not convenient to your case? I'd say they should count because it shows A) the Reds signed him with intent of being a starter, and B) this year started him in spring training with the intent of moving him back to the rotation.

Considering we're discussing the Reds' intent, I'd say those 13 starts he made in 2010 are quite relevant.

Further, it wasn't just Madson. It was also Masset. And Bray. Yet, three of their bullpen arms get hurt, and yet we're supposed to believe their moving him is evidence they weren't sure of him starting? That's very strange logic, Doug. They had five starters this year. They didn't need him in the rotation, they needed him in the bullpen on short notice. It's not even debatable as to why they moved him... they said that several times. Dusty said on a few occasions he was in line to make the rotation if Madson had not gotten hurt.

dougdirt
08-20-2012, 11:05 PM
No, they don't count because they came 2 and a half years ago. That is like saying that Sam LeCure is a starter too. He isn't. Does Chapman have the potential to be a starter? Sure. But he isn't right now, nor has he ever been a starter as a Major Leaguer. He shouldn't be counted on as a starter. We don't know that he can go 6 innings on a consistent basis and maintain his stuff and control. He has never done it before in his life.

dougdirt
08-20-2012, 11:07 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24071681&topic_id=&c_id=mia&tcid=vpp_copy_24071681&v=3

That was a blast.

Brutus
08-20-2012, 11:25 PM
No, they don't count because they came 2 and a half years ago. That is like saying that Sam LeCure is a starter too. He isn't. Does Chapman have the potential to be a starter? Sure. But he isn't right now, nor has he ever been a starter as a Major Leaguer. He shouldn't be counted on as a starter. We don't know that he can go 6 innings on a consistent basis and maintain his stuff and control. He has never done it before in his life.

Did Sam LeCure pitch as a starter in the spring and only get moved after three bullpen arms got hurt? I know what the answer to that question is :)

Look, it's not a given that they move him back, although they continue to say they are going to. But it is absolutely a given he was a starter in the spring and that the only reason he got moved to the bullpen is because three of their expected high-leverage relievers all got hurt. That part isn't a mystery.

dougdirt
08-20-2012, 11:28 PM
We just are not going to agree on that. At the end, I believe Stanton > Chapman. Simple as that.

Brutus
08-20-2012, 11:40 PM
We just are not going to agree on that. At the end, I believe Stanton > Chapman. Simple as that.

Fair enough. I'll reserve my right to renew my objection when it becomes clear that a guy like Chapman is irreplaceable. I just think in this case, you're being Jim Bowden-bamboozled.

:thumbup:

cinreds21
08-21-2012, 12:31 AM
I agree with Doug on this one. They have said Chapman is going to be a starter for a few years and they haven't done that. Even if Madson didn't get injured, he likely would have started back in Louisville. Everyone knows how I have the biggest mancrush ever on Giancarlo. I think he's the best player in baseball.


/kindanotseroius

Brutus
08-21-2012, 02:17 AM
I have some more to add on the Chapman aspect, as to being back as a starter going forward, but I'll move that to a Chapman thread...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2710207#post2710207

RedFanAlways1966
08-21-2012, 07:46 AM
Chapman is having an incredible season for a reliever. Who knows if he can ever repeat it. History tells us probably not.

I'll bet the following players/year had the same skepticism from some hard-to-please fans of theirs...

* Hack Wilson, 1930.
>> He'll never repeat 56 HR and 191 RBI.
* Babe Ruth, 1927
>> He'll never repeat 60 HR, 164 RBI.
* Walter Johnson, 1913
>> He'll never repeat a 36-7 record, 11 shutouts and 1.14 ERA.

Asking any man to repeat the kind of season they are having (or predicting it will not be as good) of this magnitude is tough. One and done? I doubt this is what you mean, but let's try to be fair. We (all of us) were lucky enough to see something historical this season. Not just our REDS, but in MLB history. The kind of dominance on the mound by one guy that most of us have NEVER seen on our fav team nor seen in all of MLB. And some us are willing to unload this person? WOW! Sell high, I know. And of course (to be fair) most of you "sellers" would only do it for a player like Stanton.

I keep arms. As Brutus mentioned... good non-pitchers are more a dime-a-dozen than good pitchers. I will put my money on that good pitcher when facing that good hitter in every AB.

jojo
08-21-2012, 08:54 AM
I'll bet the following players/year had the same skepticism from some hard-to-please fans of theirs...

* Hack Wilson, 1930.
>> He'll never repeat 56 HR and 191 RBI.
* Babe Ruth, 1927
>> He'll never repeat 60 HR, 164 RBI.
* Walter Johnson, 1913
>> He'll never repeat a 36-7 record, 11 shutouts and 1.14 ERA.

Asking any man to repeat the kind of season they are having (or predicting it will not be as good) of this magnitude is tough. One and done? I doubt this is what you mean, but let's try to be fair. We (all of us) were lucky enough to see something historical this season. Not just our REDS, but in MLB history. The kind of dominance on the mound by one guy that most of us have NEVER seen on our fav team nor seen in all of MLB. And some us are willing to unload this person? WOW! Sell high, I know. And of course (to be fair) most of you "sellers" would only do it for a player like Stanton.

I keep arms. As Brutus mentioned... good non-pitchers are more a dime-a-dozen than good pitchers. I will put my money on that good pitcher when facing that good hitter in every AB.

I bet they didnt....

An argument has been made that there isn't much difference between the value of Stanton and Chapman up to this point and since Chapman is "rare" that means he's more valuable.

Chapman is having a historic season for a relief pitcher and history tells us that very few bullpen arms put up a 4 WAR season and really none should be expected to consitently repeat the feat-i.e. it's not appropriate to assume Chapman is a 4WAR or close bullpen arm going forward.

Stanton on the other hand is averaging 4 WAR/yr through his age 22 season, is a everyday player and impacts both run scoring as well as run prevention.

So in order for the two to be considered roughly equal, one has to assume that Chapman will successfully transition to the rotation and be a something greater than a 4 WAR starter (Stanton may end up being a 7+ WAR player at his peak). This even though Chapman has only had 13 starts as a pro (all of them three years ago in the minors), hasn't logged anything near a starter's workload, and largely has been allowed to ignore the development of any secondary stuff in lieu of throwing gas.

Can Chapman become a valuable starter? Sure, it's possible. But he'll be 25 years old before the Reds even push that button, assuming that they actually will.

In other words, Stanton looks like he is tracking to be a 7+WAR guy with a plus bat and glove. It's alot riskier to assume Chapman could become that valuable than it is to project Stanton.

And lets be accurate and fair-no one argued "one and done".

Also, position players are much safer bets than pitchers. If one has to frame the argument as "either or" (and there really isn't a reason to force the issue to framed thusly), I'd trade you pitchers for position players all day as a general rule and my team would generally be better.

RedFanAlways1966
08-21-2012, 12:48 PM
In other words, Stanton looks like he is tracking to be a 7+WAR guy with a plus bat and glove. It's alot riskier to assume Chapman could become that valuable than it is to project Stanton.

Also, position players are much safer bets than pitchers. If one has to frame the argument as "either or" (and there really isn't a reason to force the issue to framed thusly), I'd trade you pitchers for position players all day as a general rule and my team would generally be better.

I am not an expert on WAR, however:
* Does WAR for a position player factor in your team allowing ungodly amounts of runs? Is a position player WAR of 7.0 the same for a team that has a team ERA of 5.50 the same as a guy with a WAR of 7.0 for a team that has an ERA of 4.00?
* Is it fair to comapre the WAR of a position player against the WAR of a pitcher?

Safer bets? Nothing safe about losing 12-10. I agree that pitchers are much more of an injury risk. But not too many teams have gone anywhere with a team ERA that is in the lower half of their own league. And thise rehab project pitchers ain't doin' the trick either (right, Jim Bowden?). No risk, no reward. No pitching, no post-season... history shows you that.

No way your good hitters beat my good pitchers. Good hitting beats good pitching, is that how the saying goes? I love the statistical side of things. But sometimes WAR does not tell the whole picture. If it did, they'd create sayings for it too.

dougdirt
08-21-2012, 12:55 PM
Yes, the WAR is still the same. WAR is for wins above replacement and replacement isn't a moving target for each team based on how that team's other talent is.

As for the good pitching beats good hitting thing.... well that isn't always true.

Jamz
08-21-2012, 12:57 PM
It's too bad that Stanton looks like he is on the way to fulfilling his potential, while Bruce has turned out to just be an above average player. It's too bad he couldn't attain what everyone thought he could after being the #1 prospect in baseball.

jojo
08-21-2012, 01:18 PM
I am not an expert on WAR, however:
* Does WAR for a position player factor in your team allowing ungodly amounts of runs? Is a position player WAR of 7.0 the same for a team that has a team ERA of 5.50 the same as a guy with a WAR of 7.0 for a team that has an ERA of 4.00?
* Is it fair to comapre the WAR of a position player against the WAR of a pitcher?

WAR is basically the number of "wins" (or runs..10 runs/win) that a player's production was worth above a generic player that was freely obtainable.

I think what you're asking is "does the worth of a player's WAR change with a team's run differential?" In theory 7 WAR is 7 WAR but a case could be made that 1 WAR is more valuable to the Reds (i.e. a world series contender) than it is to the Astros (i.e. a team that would be no better off by adding 1 WAR).

But really I disagree with the notion that it's pitching, pitching, pitching. It's run scoring and run prevention as this quote argues:


Here's a little calculus.... Pythag demonstrates that run scoring is roughly 50% of the equation and run prevention is roughly 50% of the equation.

Run prevention is comprised of pitching AND defense. So if one were to parse offense, defense, pitching into percentages based upon their impact on run scoring, it might look something like this: offense (50%) +pitching (35-40%)+defense (10-15%).

A position player influences both offense and defense significantly. Position players in general experience less attrition then pitchers and offense is much easier to model and is thus more reliable to project.

Also while Chapman is electric and a special talent (this I believe everyone in this discussion would stipulate), he currently is a releif pitcher which limits his ulitmate impact. It is no given that he could successfully transition to the rotation, but I agree that it's reasonable to suggest Chapman could become a good starter. It's also very reasonable to suggest that it's not certain that he could.

These assertions are backed by history.

If you want to beat the house more often, go with the position player. No one is arguing being dogmatic about it-approach decisions on a case by case basis. But there is very little mystery surrounding Stanton. Trading the pitcher for the position player makes alot of sense in this case.

Truthfully the Reds didn't emerge from the dark decade until they completely redefined the profile of their position players in a way that revamped their defense from chronically being one of the worst to being one of the best in the majors. The pitching suddenly improved.

The 2001 Seattle Mariners are a great example too....they were decidely vanilla from a pitching standpoint but won 116 games based upon exceptional offense and defense.


Safer bets? Nothing safe about losing 12-10. I agree that pitchers are much more of an injury risk. But not too many teams have gone anywhere with a team ERA that is in the lower half of their own league. And thise rehab project pitchers ain't doin' the trick either (right, Jim Bowden?). No risk, no reward. No pitching, no post-season... history shows you that.

No way your good hitters beat my good pitchers. Good hitting beats good pitching, is that how the saying goes? I love the statistical side of things. But sometimes WAR does not tell the whole picture. If it did, they'd create sayings for it too.

The arguement is that i'll have more good position players than you'll have good pitchers....

The goal is to be at least average at every position while being as above average as possible at as many positions as possible. Erring on the side of position players-who impact both run scoring and run prevention as everyday players-will accomplish that goal more often simply because of the odds associated with a position player reaching his cieling compared to that of a pitcher.

dougdirt
08-21-2012, 02:21 PM
It's too bad that Stanton looks like he is on the way to fulfilling his potential, while Bruce has turned out to just be an above average player. It's too bad he couldn't attain what everyone thought he could after being the #1 prospect in baseball.

Sigh.....

RedFanAlways1966
08-21-2012, 02:34 PM
Good stuff on WAR. Thanks! I wonder if there is statistical data on the batting statistics of Cooperstown players in ABs against Cooperstown picthers? I tired to locate some data, but mark it down as a fail on my part. Of course we know some players/pitchers may not belong, but it might go against/for the old saying. Not to mention it would be interesting to view for stats nuts like most die-hard baseball fans can be.

Brutus
08-21-2012, 02:43 PM
Yes, the WAR is still the same. WAR is for wins above replacement and replacement isn't a moving target for each team based on how that team's other talent is.

As for the good pitching beats good hitting thing.... well that isn't always true.

It's true a lot more often than it's not.

The 10-year correlation to winning: runs scored (.5917) or 35% of the variance, and runs allowed (.6559) or 43% of the variance. Pitching/defense has already shown to correlate to a much higher playoff success as well.

If you're someone that wants to play the percentages, you're better off opting for the pitching and defense first.

dougdirt
08-21-2012, 02:47 PM
It's true a lot more often than it's not.

The 10-year correlation to winning: runs scored (.5917) or 35% of the variance, and runs allowed (.6559) or 43% of the variance. Pitching/defense has already shown to correlate to a much higher playoff success as well.

If you're someone that wants to play the percentages, you're better off opting for the pitching and defense first.

But pitching and defense are two separate things, yet you are attributing runs allowed solely to the 'pitching side'.

Brutus
08-21-2012, 02:57 PM
But pitching and defense are two separate things, yet you are attributing runs allowed solely to the 'pitching side'.

I'm also attributing runs scored in part of baserunning to the 'hitting side.' It evens out, yes? Stolen bases, passed balls, balks and taking extra bases on hits aren't directly a function of hitting, yet they're included in runs scored. So that argument doesn't hold water.

If there were a direct way of splitting pitching and defense fairly, I would. But there's really not.

Most defenses range from roughly a .715 defensive efficiency ratio to .675. That works out to roughly a difference of 160 extra baserunners a year between the best team and the worst team. Probably about 275 extra bases, roughly. The average number of stolen bases, bases taken and extra bases taken works out to roughly 500 per team.

So yes, actually pitching does correlate much higher to hitting if you want to remove baserunning and fielding from the equation.

Dan
08-21-2012, 03:03 PM
Sigh.....

agreed

Homer Bailey
08-21-2012, 03:07 PM
It's too bad that Stanton looks like he is on the way to fulfilling his potential, while Bruce has turned out to just be an above average player. It's too bad he couldn't attain what everyone thought he could after being the #1 prospect in baseball.

I can't believe Jay Bruce retired. I hadn't heard this anywhere else.

Jamz
08-21-2012, 03:12 PM
I can't believe Jay Bruce retired. I hadn't heard this anywhere else.

I didn't mean that to have such a tone of finality -- I just meant up to this point. While it's certainly true he could progress and attain a higher level moving forward I just meant it in that Stanton is 22 and Bruce is now 25 and he hasn't shown any significant progress in 3 years of major league experience.

My apologies if it came off as I think that he can never be better than he is right now. It's not even that an above average player is a bad thing -- it's just that there were such high expectations.

jojo
08-21-2012, 03:38 PM
But pitching and defense are two separate things, yet you are attributing runs allowed solely to the 'pitching side'.

Right. We know: hitting+defense > pitching because we know RS=RA.

dougdirt
08-21-2012, 03:45 PM
I didn't mean that to have such a tone of finality -- I just meant up to this point. While it's certainly true he could progress and attain a higher level moving forward I just meant it in that Stanton is 22 and Bruce is now 25 and he hasn't shown any significant progress in 3 years of major league experience.

My apologies if it came off as I think that he can never be better than he is right now. It's not even that an above average player is a bad thing -- it's just that there were such high expectations.

Comparing Bruce as a rookie to now is night and day. Plate discipline is incredibly stronger. Lots more power.

Razor Shines
08-21-2012, 04:34 PM
I can't believe Jay Bruce retired. I hadn't heard this anywhere else.

Awesome.

What I want to know is how much Ada...I mean Jay fishes in the off season. Plus I saw him strike out the other night and he didn't even look mad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Razor Shines
08-21-2012, 04:35 PM
Dp

Crumbley
08-21-2012, 06:01 PM
.

Tom Servo
08-21-2012, 06:23 PM
Awesome.

What I want to know is how much Ada...I mean Jay fishes in the off season. Plus I saw him strike out the other night and he didn't even look mad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I bet he doesn't even TRY to make contact for a sac fly.


Sent from my iDunn using BadFundamentals.

Jamz
08-22-2012, 12:44 AM
Comparing Bruce as a rookie to now is night and day. Plate discipline is incredibly stronger. Lots more power.

This is the first year his ISO has actually gone above his 2009 levels, and pretty much everything else besides O-Swing% has remained relatively the same. In fact the amount that he has changed from 08 to now is incredibly small. He's been almost the exact same player for going on 5 years now. It's not a bad thing, but to say he's night and day from being a rookie exaggerates a bit.