Point - Counterpoint

[Ltlabner]

Some random thoughts....

The trendy idea that strike-outs are no big deal is silly. It's an out. At the least you lost 33.3% of your chances to continue the inning. BUT the number of times a player K's needs to be ballenced against his overall production. Adam Dunn strikes out...I don't care too much in light of his run, home run and RBI production. Jason LaRue strikes out and I'm far less forgiving, just the same as if he flyed out or ground out.

Players over 30 are not useless and don't turn into a pumpkin when the clock strikes 12:00 as some try to imply. When used properally they can add much to a team in production (Aurila, Rich) or experience to pass along to others (Merker, Kent). BUT players skills diminish with age. It's a fact of life. There are some outliers (Ryan, Nolen) but mostly you better keep a sharp eye on guys as they reach 35 and don't count on them forever (Clayton, Royce). Don't hang on to the past.

Fuzzy Clubhouse stuff is a valuable skill. In any orginization you have to be able to manage people, keep them happy, and keep them focused on the common goal. Juggling an ever changing roster is a skill that is needed. BUT let's not get silly about it. Just like any manager, strength in one skill-set does not make a manager good. There's a lot more to the task of being a manager than one skill whether it be line up, running the pitching staff, in game management, clubhouse stuff, etc.

Having "potential" doesn't garentee success at the MLB level. Every orginization has guys with "potential". How many of them actually make it to "the show" and contribuite? Let's not get wacky because a guy once had "potential". Must guys with "potential" end up with another label after a while. It's called, "in a new line of work". BUT, when do you get a guy with potential, real solid potential you better guard it with your life. Develop the guy methodically and with purpose. All it takes is for one guy with real potential to break onto the sceen to really improve your entire team. Value potential.

Sometimes I think this stuff gets lost in the arguments, debates and polerized positions.

[mth123]

I'll bite.

The strike out thing has been done to death, but I do agree that if lack of contact is the reason a player is not hitting then its a problem. If a player hits anyway but still strikes out, I see no issue.

The key phrase in the players over 30 idea is "when used properly." I think some on here transfer improper use of a player to hatred for that player.

Fuzzy clubhouse stuff is very important. Most knowledgeable fans can come up with acceptable strategy, but it doesn't make them managers.

The comment about potential is very true. That is why it is so important to stockpile guys with it. Eventually some one pans out and you have an answer at a spot for years. Teams that struggle don't have enough of these to overcome the wash-outs.

[BUTLER REDSFAN]

jane, you ignorant ****......sorry the title threw me off

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

The trendy idea that strike-outs are no big deal is silly. It's an out. At the least you lost 33.3% of your chances to continue the inning. BUT the number of times a player K's needs to be ballenced against his overall production. Adam Dunn strikes out...I don't care too much in light of his run, home run and RBI production. Jason LaRue strikes out and I'm far less forgiving.

Knowing that K's aren't a big deal isn't "silly" or "trendy". It's just what we know to be true. If a player makes too many Outs, that's a big deal but how he makes them is of little to no consequence. Your comments on Dunn and Larue are about production and that's independent of their respective K rates.

Players over 30 are not useless and don't turn into a pumpkin when the clock strikes 12:00 as some try to imply.

Strawman #1. No one holds the position you cite.

Having "potential" doesn't guarentee success at the MLB level.

Strawman #2. No one holds the position you cite.

Sometimes I think this stuff gets lost in the arguments, debates and polarized positions.

No. It doesn't. But positions sure seems to get misunderstood, misinterpreted, misrepresented, and flat-out made up a whole lot.

[RedFanAlways1966]

BUT players skills diminish with age. It's a fact of life.

There was an all too recent time when some players seemed to buck this trend. Some guy named Bud claimed to have no clue as to why this was happening unlike any other time in MLB. Guys w/ names like Mark, Sammy, Barry, Rafeal, Luis (and others) made incredible adjustments w/ weightlifting and diets (right, Bud?) to buck that age-old trend of age diminishes skills.

[OSUmed2010]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

There was an all too recent time when some players seemed to buck this trend. Some guy named Bud claimed to have no clue as to why this was happening unlike any other time in MLB. Guys w/ names like Mark, Sammy, Barry, Rafeal, Luis (and others) made incredible adjustments w/ weightlifting and diets (right, Bud?) to buck that age-old trend of age diminishes skills.

Darn... you beat me to it.

[RedsManRick]

I'll bite too.

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Some random thoughts....

The trendy idea that strike-outs are no big deal is silly. It's an out. At the least you lost 33.3% of your chances to continue the inning. BUT the number of times a player K's needs to be ballenced against his overall production. Adam Dunn strikes out...I don't care too much in light of his run, home run and RBI production. Jason LaRue strikes out and I'm far less forgiving.

Absolutely. However, the real point is that the relevant part of the phrase "strike out" is "out". Give me a guy with a .950 OPS and 200 Ss and a guy with an .850 OPS and 50 Ks and I'll take the first guy every time. If a guy is striking out a lot, the problem isn't that he's striking out. It's the he's making outs, period.

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Players over 30 are not useless and don't turn into a pumpkin when the clock strikes 12:00 as some try to imply. When used properally they can add much to a team in production (Aurila, Rich) or experience to pass along to others (Merker, Kent). BUT players skills diminish with age. It's a fact of life. There are some outliers (Ryan, Nolen) but mostly you better keep a sharp eye on guys as they reach 35 and don't count on them forever (Clayton, Royce). Don't hang on to the past.

Sure, players over 30 are great. However, the further past 30 you are, the more likely it is that any given year is going to be the last one in which you are effective. You can reasonable estimate what a guy will do in his next season, but as you move 2, 3, 4 seasons away, you increase the chances of him turning in to a pumpkin at some point. Because of that, you don't want to build a team around them. Maybe the carriage stays a pumpkin until 3am, maybe 4am, but in any case, at 2:30, I'm not putting down a payment on the next 3 hours and I'm gonna have a cab standing by.

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Fuzzy Clubhouse stuff is a valuable skill. In any orginization you have to be able to manage people, keep them happy, and keep them focused on the common goal. Juggling an ever changing roster is a skill that is needed. BUT let's not get silly about it. Just like any manager, strength in one skill-set does not make a manager good. There's a lot more to the task of being a manager than one skill whether it be line up, running the pitching staff, in game management, clubhouse stuff, etc.

I'm not sure how anybody could argue with this one. I would make the point that details aside, given that we can't pick apart every decision given our lack of context, the best judgement should be "does manager X get the best performances from his players as one could reasonably hope for?"

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Having "potential" doesn't garentee success at the MLB level. Every orginization has guys with "potential". How many of them actually make it to "the show" and contribuite? Let's not get wacky because a guy once had "potential". Must guys with "potential" end up with another label after a while. It's called, "in a new line of work". BUT, when do you get a guy with potential, real solid potential you better guard it with your life. Develop the guy methodically and with purpose. All it takes is for one guy with real potential to break onto the sceen to really improve your entire team. Value potential.

So how do you tell "real" potential with "fake" potential. The fact is, that until potential is realized, it's all real. As long as you properly value the relative potential of every player properly, you're fine. The problems come up when you choose to treat 'potential' differently such that it supports the decision you're choosing to make. The other key is realizing that at some point, once potential fails to manifest itself as success, you must cut bait. Being willing to cut bait is what had made teams like the Braves and Twins successful.

Sometimes I think this stuff gets lost in the arguments, debates and polerized positions

Yup. Let's keep it up :-P

[MaineRed]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Strawman #1. No one holds the position you cite.



Strawman #2. No one holds the position you cite.

Now I know who to ask when I want to know what every member of this board thinks. I didn't realize we had a lone voice to speak for all of us.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by MaineRed

Now I know who to ask when I want to know what every member of this board thinks. I didn't realize we had a lone voice to speak for all of us.

Go find the plethora of posts where folks position that all players turn into "pumpkins" when they hit 30. Don't think about it. Go find those posts.

While you're at it, find all the posts where people demand that players with potential are "guaranteed" to succeed. Don't think about it. Go find those posts.

Should be easy if you can type into the Redszone search engine. Good luck.

[MaineRed]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Go find the plethora of posts where folks position that all players turn into "pumpkins" when they hit 30. Don't think about it. Go find those posts.

While you're at it, find all the posts where people demand that players with potential are "guaranteed" to succeed. Don't think about it. Go find those posts.

Should be easy if you can type into the Redszone search engine. Good luck.

Where did anyone say there were a plethora of post where people take that position? The poster said, as some try to imply. He didn't say many, a lot, most or anything close to that. He said, SOME. And he said, IMPLY. He didn't say they write it in stone.

As for the guaranteed success part, I am guessing he was talking about Homer Bailey discussions. Some, even many seem to imply that since he has potential he is a guaranteed ace. I don't need to go find these post as any idiot can see that they are out there.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by MaineRed

Where did anyone say there were a plethora of post where people take that position? The poster said, as some try to imply. He didn't say many, a lot, most or anything close to that. He said, SOME. And he said, IMPLY. He didn't say they write it in stone.

As for the guaranteed success part, I am guessing he was talking about Homer Bailey discussions. Some, even many seem to imply that since he has potential he is a guaranteed ace. I don't need to go find these post as any idiot can see that they are out there.

You nailed it on my comments on age. For those interested in recient topics on the discussion, here's a recient thread....http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50322 BTW, 13 people expressed that they valued young stud players over their 30 to 35 year old counterparts.

Actually I was getting more towards what RedsmanRick commented on regarding potential. How people will get the label of "potential" and it can stick with them too long, people get overly reluctant to consider a trade with them, over-value them, etc. My comments wern't aimed at HB, but his case certinally applies.

And I thought he raised a very good point about the process of evaluating that potential tallent, choosing that which fits with the organization's direction and weeding out those who have overstayed their "potential" welcome.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by MaineRed

Where did anyone say there were a plethora of post where people take that position? The poster said, as some try to imply. He didn't say many, a lot, most or anything close to that. He said, SOME. And he said, IMPLY. He didn't say they write it in stone.

No one has attempted to imply anything of the sort.

As for the guaranteed success part, I am guessing he was talking about Homer Bailey discussions. Some, even many seem to imply that since he has potential he is a guaranteed ace. I don't need to go find these post as any idiot can see that they are out there.

Not even the staunchest Homer Bailey supporter has implied anything of the kind.

And yes, if you claim those posts are out there then you need to go find them to back your contention. Shouldn't be hard if "some" or "many" posts like that actually existed. But then, we both know that your entry into this thread has nothing to do with actually discussing baseball.

[MaineRed]

Nobody has implied that Homer can be an ace? I say they have. People do it all the time. I've seen people say that Arroyo and Harrang will make good 2 and 3 starters in a few years once Homer gets called up. Nobody said YOU feel this way Steel but your responses seem as though this thread has struck a nerve.

Find something to discuss and you can find someone to take each side, even if the argument is Homer Bailey, future ace? The world is a big place and is full of differing opinions. Say anything about your favorite team, good or bad and there is someone out there who believes it. I'm a Celtic fan and people think Danny Ainge is racist despite the fact that something like 11 of his 12 draft choices have been African Americans. It is an absolute ridiculous stance to take, but some take it. Why? Who the heck knows.

To me your responses have been a little overboard in this thread. Ltlabner never even said anything about anyone on this board. The thread title is random thoughts. Maybe he is talking about things he has read on this board, maybe he is venting over discussions he has with his personal baseball friends. I don't know.

I don't believe anyone interpreted his 12:00 on their 30th birthday line to be a direct quote from anyone. To me he simply meant that it seems a lot of guys are put out to pasture once they reach 30. But you blow up and say that nobody has ever said anything close to that.

Your right, I didn't enter this thread to talk baseball. I entered this thread because I saw a pretty harsh overreaction to a guy posting some, "random thoughts" that didn't mention you or anyone else.

[Bob Winters]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Go find the plethora of posts where folks position that all players turn into "pumpkins" when they hit 30. Don't think about it. Go find those posts.

While you're at it, find all the posts where people demand that players with potential are "guaranteed" to succeed. Don't think about it. Go find those posts.

Should be easy if you can type into the Redszone search engine. Good luck.

Wow. That was condescending. Is this how you guys treat each other around here all of the time?

[Always Red]

Some ballplayers age more gracefully than others, with or without "medication."

Who would have ever thought that Carlton Fisk would play so well for so long?

Frank Robby was "old" when the Reds dumped him to the O's for Pappas. Look what he did afterward.

Tony Perez was finished when the Reds traded him for Woody Fryman and Dale Murray. Boy, if the Reds could take back that trade!

This is one of the areas where active scouting, and experienced eyeballs on ballplayers may be more valuable than statistics. Statistical trends can give one a good idea, but live evaluators can tell one if a player can stretch his career by a year or two (or more), just by his speed, endurance, hand-eye coordination, etc.