Bavasi not afraid to fast track Hamilton

[lonewolf371]

But he isn't just fast Doug he is super fast and super rangy and super athletic. And I noticed that you stated recently that speed is more of a complimentary asset while power is more than that. I have a problem with that, speed can be every bit the weapon power is and it's not as easily found. Rickey Henderson, Vince Coleman, Brett Butler the list goes on and on of guys whose speed was not just game changing but league/championship altering.

Though I agree about fast tracking guys, not a fan of it but equally not a fan of the Reds sometimes snail pace.

Now that the steroid era has passed I think power is most definitely more valuable than speed. The Reds led the NL in offense last year pretty much without a major speed guy in their lineup. Speed is great to have at the top of the order, but I think most any team would take a power guy in the middle of the lineup over a speed guy, provided they're roughly equal in their power/speed skills.

As for rushing players, I'm with you. I generally don't like it, and would always prefer to hold a guy down too long than rush him up too fast.

[Mario-Rijo]

Now that the steroid era has passed I think power is most definitely more valuable than speed. The Reds led the NL in offense last year pretty much without a major speed guy in their lineup. Speed is great to have at the top of the order, but I think most any team would take a power guy in the middle of the lineup over a speed guy, provided they're roughly equal in their power/speed skills.

As for rushing players, I'm with you. I generally don't like it, and would always prefer to hold a guy down too long than rush him up too fast.

See that is the thing for me this kid has 35+ HR Speed, if you will.

[kpresidente]

Now that the steroid era has passed I think power is most definitely more valuable than speed.

Wouldn't the opposite be true? Fewer runs scored in general means closer games, which means more emphasis on "manufactured runs".

I think a little bit of speed is not that important, but a lot of speed starts to become so. If you can swipe 60 or 70 bases, you have a real psychological effect on the defense that isn't counted in the stats. But even if you look at just the numbers, Bill James counts 10 SBs as worth .005 points of OBP. So 70 SBs = .035 OBP, which is roughly equal to .065 SLG, which is roughly equal to 10 HRs. In the case of Hamilton, counting his SBs as HRs makes his line look something like this: .318/.383/.540, which are "top-prospect" numbers for an outfielder, much more a second-baseman.

[dougdirt]

But he isn't just fast Doug he is super fast and super rangy and super athletic. And I noticed that you stated recently that speed is more of a complimentary asset while power is more than that. I have a problem with that, speed can be every bit the weapon power is and it's not as easily found. Rickey Henderson, Vince Coleman, Brett Butler the list goes on and on of guys whose speed was not just game changing but league/championship altering.

Though I agree about fast tracking guys, not a fan of it but equally not a fan of the Reds sometimes snail pace.

Rickey Henderson would have been a Hall of Famer even if he was an average runner. The guy was a GREAT hitter. He had 16 seasons with an OPS+ over 120, 12 over 130 and 7 over 140. His speed takes him from a Hall of Famer to one of the best players ever, but his bat was far more important than his speed was.

As for speed being every bit the weapon of power.... I strongly disagree with that.

[dougdirt]

Wouldn't the opposite be true? Fewer runs scored in general means closer games, which means more emphasis on "manufactured runs".

I think a little bit of speed is not that important, but a lot of speed starts to become so. If you can swipe 60 or 70 bases, you have a real psychological effect on the defense that isn't counted in the stats. But even if you look at just the numbers, Bill James counts 10 SBs as worth .005 points of OBP. So 70 SBs = .035 OBP, which is roughly equal to .065 SLG, which is roughly equal to 10 HRs. In the case of Hamilton, counting his SBs as HRs makes his line look something like this: .318/.383/.540, which are "top-prospect" numbers for an outfielder, much more a second-baseman.

Except stolen bases don't really add the slugging, because unlike real slugging, you are never moving anyone up with your steals. Just you. So the value isn't quite on a 1 to 1 scale there. And no amount of steals is equal to HR's. A home run scores at least 1 run every time. You could theoretically steal 150 bases and never score.

As for speed being more valuable now.... at an incredibly small level, sure, its more valuable now than speed was 10 years ago. But it isn't like we are going back to the deadball era. But there are still a lot of guys who can hit 20+ HR's in baseball and a lot of guys who can still smack 40+ doubles too.

[lonewolf371]

See that is the thing for me this kid has 35+ HR Speed, if you will.

I don't think any amount of speed is worth 35 HRs, if you're talking 35 HRs in the context of guys like Joey Votto, Adrian Gonzalez, and Mark Teixeira. I wouldn't trade any of those players for a speed guy no matter how good the speed guy is.

Wouldn't the opposite be true? Fewer runs scored in general means closer games, which means more emphasis on "manufactured runs".

I think a little bit of speed is not that important, but a lot of speed starts to become so. If you can swipe 60 or 70 bases, you have a real psychological effect on the defense that isn't counted in the stats. But even if you look at just the numbers, Bill James counts 10 SBs as worth .005 points of OBP. So 70 SBs = .035 OBP, which is roughly equal to .065 SLG, which is roughly equal to 10 HRs. In the case of Hamilton, counting his SBs as HRs makes his line look something like this: .318/.383/.540, which are "top-prospect" numbers for an outfielder, much more a second-baseman.

It makes the philosophy of scoring with manufactured runs more important, but it also means there's fewer guys out there banging 30-40 HRs each year, which makes the few guys that do hit 30-40 HRs each year more valuable. I don't think you can even have a top offense without a few top sluggers, but you can be just fine if you don't have a speed guy.

[Mario-Rijo]

Rickey Henderson would have been a Hall of Famer even if he was an average runner. The guy was a GREAT hitter. He had 16 seasons with an OPS+ over 120, 12 over 130 and 7 over 140. His speed takes him from a Hall of Famer to one of the best players ever, but his bat was far more important than his speed was.

As for speed being every bit the weapon of power.... I strongly disagree with that.

So what you are arguing is that Rickey would have hit like that without his speed? I say his speed was a main element of why he hit the way he did. He beat out alot of IF hits, he bunted his way on, he forced the defense to play at a disadvantage so hits that wouldn't have fell in did. How much of his speed played into how well he hit? OPS+ isn't really a fair indicator of how well he could hit in the 1st place, it is an indicator of how good an overall offensive player he was, so not sure why you chose that for your argument. Perhaps to get as far away as possible from his BA which was good but not elite even with his speed. He hit .325 one season and .327 another but other than that nothing ever higher than .315 and he wasn't regularly over .300.

Bottom line when you have a guy with this type of speed it is every bit the weapon that power is.

[Mario-Rijo]

I don't think any amount of speed is worth 35 HRs, if you're talking 35 HRs in the context of guys like Joey Votto, Adrian Gonzalez, and Mark Teixeira. I wouldn't trade any of those players for a speed guy no matter how good the speed guy is.

Actually you said something to the effect of everything being equal I was just pointing out that if his speed were power then he would be a guy who has 35+ HR power a season. Or if you prefer 50+ base stealing ability. Is that just as valuable as a guy who hits 35 HR's a season, IMO it's not as vast a difference as people like to let on, just not sure how to quantify it for proof.

It makes the philosophy of scoring with manufactured runs more important, but it also means there's fewer guys out there banging 30-40 HRs each year, which makes the few guys that do hit 30-40 HRs each year more valuable. I don't think you can even have a top offense without a few top sluggers, but you can be just fine if you don't have a speed guy.

Certainly pretty true, a team can be fine without a top speedster but not so much a top power hitter. That is a tough one to debate, maybe you are right. But try this one on for size. Is that because there is more power around the league than speed? For example if we went to some Bizarro baseball world where all teams had lots of speed but little to no power in the league. Could a team win without speed under such circumstances, even with a little more power than the norm? Meaning the frequency of which a team scores runs could come from how they score, with power or speed. One thing to remember speed never slumps and one can use it even when they aren't swinging the bat well. In order for your power to be of use you must hit the ball, well.

Just some food for thought, just think about it a minute instead of shrugging it off or looking for a counter argument right away. Let it marinate in your mind for a few minutes.

[Scrap Irony]

Wouldn't the opposite be true? Fewer runs scored in general means closer games, which means more emphasis on "manufactured runs".

I think a little bit of speed is not that important, but a lot of speed starts to become so. If you can swipe 60 or 70 bases, you have a real psychological effect on the defense that isn't counted in the stats. But even if you look at just the numbers, Bill James counts 10 SBs as worth .005 points of OBP. So 70 SBs = .035 OBP, which is roughly equal to .065 SLG, which is roughly equal to 10 HRs. In the case of Hamilton, counting his SBs as HRs makes his line look something like this: .318/.383/.540, which are "top-prospect" numbers for an outfielder, much more a second-baseman.

Ncely done, kpresidente. A 923 OPS would be candidate for fast-tracking pretty much anywhere it's put up. I think power is one way to gauge the effectiveness of prospects, but it's certainly not the only.

[signalhome]

So what you are arguing is that Rickey would have hit like that without his speed? I say his speed was a main element of why he hit the way he did. He beat out alot of IF hits, he bunted his way on, he forced the defense to play at a disadvantage so hits that wouldn't have fell in did. How much of his speed played into how well he hit? OPS+ isn't really a fair indicator of how well he could hit in the 1st place, it is an indicator of how good an overall offensive player he was, so not sure why you chose that for your argument. Perhaps to get as far away as possible from his BA which was good but not elite even with his speed. He hit .325 one season and .327 another but other than that nothing ever higher than .315 and he wasn't regularly over .300.

Bottom line when you have a guy with this type of speed it is every bit the weapon that power is.

Actually, Rickey rarely bunted.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2000-06-0...ases-ty-cobb/2

Rickey absolutely would have been as good of a hitter without his speed, because his walk rate was always absurdly high. That was the biggest factor in his prowess at the plate, not his speed.

Edit: The last paragraph in that URL is what I'm referring to when I say Rickey rarely bunted.

[dougdirt]

Rickey Henderson led the league in OPS one year. The guy was going to absolutely hit the ball regardless of his speed. Sure, it helped him beat out some singles, but the guy could flat out swing the bat.

[dougdirt]

Certainly pretty true, a team can be fine without a top speedster but not so much a top power hitter. That is a tough one to debate, maybe you are right. But try this one on for size. Is that because there is more power around the league than speed? For example if we went to some Bizarro baseball world where all teams had lots of speed but little to no power in the league. Could a team win without speed under such circumstances, even with a little more power than the norm? Meaning the frequency of which a team scores runs could come from how they score, with power or speed. One thing to remember speed never slumps and one can use it even when they aren't swinging the bat well. In order for your power to be of use you must hit the ball, well.

Just some food for thought, just think about it a minute instead of shrugging it off or looking for a counter argument right away. Let it marinate in your mind for a few minutes.

My guess is that the team without speed would hit just fine. The reason is simple, they will be hitting the ball out of the ballpark, while all of these fast guys will be keeping BABIP's lower than normal since they can run all over the place and track things down. Can't track down a HR, so you are going to be getting guaranteed runs on those.

As for the 'speed never slumps' argument, I never liked it. If a guy isn't hitting, it absolutely slumps because they aren't able to use it (offensively).

[lonewolf371]

Actually you said something to the effect of everything being equal I was just pointing out that if his speed were power then he would be a guy who has 35+ HR power a season. Or if you prefer 50+ base stealing ability. Is that just as valuable as a guy who hits 35 HR's a season, IMO it's not as vast a difference as people like to let on, just not sure how to quantify it for proof.

Certainly pretty true, a team can be fine without a top speedster but not so much a top power hitter. That is a tough one to debate, maybe you are right. But try this one on for size. Is that because there is more power around the league than speed? For example if we went to some Bizarro baseball world where all teams had lots of speed but little to no power in the league. Could a team win without speed under such circumstances, even with a little more power than the norm? Meaning the frequency of which a team scores runs could come from how they score, with power or speed. One thing to remember speed never slumps and one can use it even when they aren't swinging the bat well. In order for your power to be of use you must hit the ball, well.

Just some food for thought, just think about it a minute instead of shrugging it off or looking for a counter argument right away. Let it marinate in your mind for a few minutes.

I did think about it, and I think that the few teams with power would always be at the top of the offensive rankings. Sooner or later, someone has to knock those runs in.

I can't think of any great examples either, but I can talk about the closest ones. The Mets stole 130 bases last year, the Padres stole 124, and the Nationals stole 110 to go (1), (2), (3) in the National League. Offensively they were (13), (12), (14), respectively. Slugging-wise they were (12), (15), (16), respectively. The main problem is in terms of batting average they were (13), (15), (14).

Top three slugging teams were Reds, Rockies, Brewers and they ranked (1), (3), (4) in offense.

In the American League the Rays stole 172 bases, the White Sox stole 160, and the Athletics stole 156. Offensively they were (3), (7), (11), respectively. Slugging-wise they were (8), (5), (12), respectively. In batting average they were (13), (5), (9), respectively.

Top three slugging teams were Blue Jays, Red Sox, and Yankees for (6), (2), (1) in offense.

The main difference between the AL teams with a range of offense and the NL teams with bad offense is that the AL teams didn't combine their speed with abysmal slugging. The Rays seem to be either an outlier or your ideal team that can manufacture runs without great slugging.

[Superdude]

In the case of Hamilton, counting his SBs as HRs makes his line look something like this: .318/.383/.540, which are "top-prospect" numbers for an outfielder, much more a second-baseman

This is just not true...not even close.

[camisadelgolf]

This is just not true...not even close.

Yeah, I can't make any sense of it either. I might argue that the stolen bases should make an increase to his slugging since he's actually advancing bases. However, it doesn't help him drive in runs, so it's not like one stolen base is the equivalent of converting a single into a double. Not only that, but each caught stealing would deduct from all his slash lines. Overall, it probably raises his career OPS from .726 to something closer to .800, which is nothing to shake a stick at, but it's a far cry from .318/.383/.540.

edit: It looks like dougdirt already addressed this. In that case, let's pretend I repeated it for emphasis.