Reds sign Willy Taveras to 2 year deal....

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

And that's pointing at ONE player. Dunn. I wasn't talking about one player or even two. But rather, in general. Dunn's walks were more consistant...he draws quite a few intentional walks (and even more intentional pitched around walks). Those don't have to do with plate discipline. Those have to do with his scary power and the fact that there was nobody surrounding him in the lineup that could effectively move a runner around. In general, walks fluctuate.

Albert Pujols' has virtually no correlation between BA and IsoD (-0.37 correlation between high BA and high IsoD), which is contrary to your position. Lance Berkman does a better job of slump-proofing than Dunn (-0.60) and that's also not good for you. The one thing that's coming out of this isn't just that high IsoD hitters are more slump-proof than low IsoD hitters, but that some of the former actually appear to make up for lacking hits by pushing their IsoD numbers even higher to compensate while slumping. You might think that your position is intuitive, but it's also inaccurate.

And if you're getting pitched around, you still have to choose not to swing at those pitches. Trying to discount those isn't something you'll be able to do because worse hitters swing at those pitches.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by comment on mlbtraderumors.com

YES! YES! YES! thank you Cincinnati!

you've saved Jim Bowden from himself!

*does the "No-Taveras-In-DC" dance*

[M2]

Originally Posted by Kc61

He will be pretty good defensively, will steal bases and drive the opposition crazy, will hit for no power. So the issue is whether he will get on base at an acceptable clip..

The real issue is can he score a lot of runs at the top of the lineup and there really isn't any "issue" there. He never has and he's almost guaranteed not to do it in a Reds uniform. OB is just the leading reason why he won't do it.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by TRF

Wily Mo Pena may have more power than Dunn.

Never saw him BB 100 times in a season though.

You seem to think taking a BB is not a repeatable skill, but a circumstance of other things. You are incorrect.

Not in the least. I know it's a repeatable skill. As is getting a base hit. And BOTH repeatable skills will fluctuate with proficiency throughout the season.

And regardless of which player (WMP or Dunn) has more power, Dunn causes more fear in opposing pitchers...hence more IBB and pitching around him. But both swing and miss a TON. Unfortunately, THAT'S a repeatable skill as well.

[Raisor]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

OBP. I'm not arguing that. I'm not saying that OBP is a poor stat or a bad stat. I'm saying that OBP does NOT show the whole picture. I'm saying that every OBP point is not created equal and that's what many think. If I've got a man on second, player A gets a single and player B takes a walk. OBP gets adjusted the same for each...but which was more valuable? In general, player A was.

.

OK, we are getting someplace now.

How big of a difference is there between a single and a walk? (We can measure this by the way, so there actually IS an answer)

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by OUReds

So you refuse to defend your position and refuse to believe the evidence presented against it? Nice.

The evidence was of one player. Hardly enough to cement an argument. I really don't think anyone here will say that walks don't come and go from time to time. A player with a high walk rate could go an entire week without taking one depending upon the situations, the pitchers, the lineup surrounding him, etc. Same goes for hitting. To argue differently is rather insane IMO.

[camisadelgolf]

If you're a true Reds fan, you'll put together a fund to get me a good lawyer and put together a story that makes a great alibi. I won't reveal any details, but if anyone has a silencer or something really sharp, please send me a PM. Taveras hurts us only if he's on the field.

signing Taveras = winning suicide

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by Raisor

OK, we are getting someplace now.

How big of a difference is there between a single and a walk? (We can measure this by the way, so there actually IS an answer)

The answer to your question depends on who is on base. If you've got Taveras on second base, a single will be worth more than if you have Alex Gonzalez on base.

Taveras still sucks, but I'm just trying to play devil's advocate.

[Will M]

in 2009 Chris Dickerson will be a 27 year old rookie. he also has had a fair share of injuries. to appoint him the everyday centerfielder is pretty dumb.

i see nothing wrong with signing Taveras. last time i looked we had two outfielders on the team. what would be wrong is to give him the CF job. its Dusty's job to tell both these guys that whoever performs best gets the ABs. if we get the 2008 version of Taveras its Dusty's job to make him the 5th outfielder.

i honestly believe even the 2008 version of Taveras has value as a defensive replacement and pinch runner. remember Owings is an extra bat on the bench.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by TRF

No. A player with a history of repeating .310/.350 I'd at least accept. Call me when Taveras does it more than once. He didn't do it more than once in a park designed for hitters.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to Taveras there...just throwing up some numbers at random. And again, I'm not calling Taveras a great or even a good player. I'm looking at the situation of the market, and I'm finding it acceptable. And mostly, I'm simply pointing out how shocked I am at the fire it's caused. I see this as a stopgap measure for the kids. Nothing more, nothing less. Is his defense worse than Pattersons? Of course. But it's better than what we currently had slotted for CF. Nothing.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by Will M

in 2009 Chris Dickerson will be a 27 year old rookie. he also has had a fair share of injuries. to appoint him the everyday centerfielder is pretty dumb.

i see nothing wrong with signing Taveras. last time i looked we had two outfielders on the team. what would be wrong is to give him the CF job. its Dusty's job to tell both these guys that whoever performs best gets the ABs. if we get the 2008 version of Taveras its Dusty's job to make him the 5th outfielder.

i honestly believe even the 2008 version of Taveras has value as a defensive replacement and pinch runner. remember Owings is an extra bat on the bench.

The fact that Owings could be available on the bench means that Taveras will be taking at-bats from one more player who is more worthy.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by TRF

Actually over the course of a season, BB's are remarkably consistent.

Willy Taveras BB totals over the last 4 seasons: 25, 34, 21, 36.

Consistant and extremely poor. By comparison Adam Dunn, since someone brought him up: 114, 112, 101, 122.

Dunn had 6 more BB's last year than Taveras has in his career.

BB totals from month to month can fluctuate just like BA can. However, high BB guys are less susceptible to slumps, because even when they aren't hitting the secondary skillset of taking a BB is less affected. Taveras doesn't have that secondary skillset. Two things have to fail for a Dunn to hurt the club. All Taveras has to do is be Taveras. His whole game is BA. When that slumps, he's just an out machine that offers nothing on defense.

Over the course of a season. You said it yourself. We were talking about SLUMPS. Players will have walk-slumps. That's all I was saying. That's it.

[OUReds]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

The evidence was of one player. Hardly enough to cement an argument. I really don't think anyone here will say that walks don't come and go from time to time. A player with a high walk rate could go an entire week without taking one depending upon the situations, the pitchers, the lineup surrounding him, etc. Same goes for hitting. To argue differently is rather insane IMO.

The evidence also says that what applies to that player, applies in general.

To say that a player with a high walk rate CAN go a week without a walk has very little to do with to point you are trying to make, namely that high walk rates are no more consistent then high batting averages.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by Raisor

Three of Willy T's four seasons he was in the 65 RC territory. (per 600 PA's) One season he was in the 85 RC territory (still below average for a CF by the way).

Who wants to lay odds that he'll be in the 65 RC territory again?

If he quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck....

Sign it, because apparently it's duck season.

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Not in the least. I know it's a repeatable skill. As is getting a base hit. And BOTH repeatable skills will fluctuate with proficiency throughout the season.

And regardless of which player (WMP or Dunn) has more power, Dunn causes more fear in opposing pitchers...hence more IBB and pitching around him. But both swing and miss a TON. Unfortunately, THAT'S a repeatable skill as well.

By this Dunn must have been IBB 70 times last year alone. It's a repeatable skill but he was pitched around all the time. Which is it? And ofcourse counting stats fluctuate. There are all kinds of factors for that to happen. but strangely enough BB's seem relatively unaffected. Lets look at Adam Dunn again from 2008.

BA and BB totals by month

Month     BA  BB's
April    .232 23
May      .284 20
June     .161 22
July     .310 10
August   .217 26
Sept     .227 20

I see a wildly fluctuating BA and a remarkably consistent BB totals.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

The evidence was of one player. Hardly enough to cement an argument. I really don't think anyone here will say that walks don't come and go from time to time. A player with a high walk rate could go an entire week without taking one depending upon the situations, the pitchers, the lineup surrounding him, etc. Same goes for hitting. To argue differently is rather insane IMO.

You've been given 54 months (nine seasons) of three high-IsoD hitters so far, yet you're the one using the rolleyes emoticons and calling the opposing position "insane". That's pretty strong for someone with no evidence to support their theory, don'tcha think?