Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:39 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4962
Location: Washington, DC
Barrys Dopers wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
Barrys Dopers wrote:
Sorry JC, I don't see Holt as a MLB prospect at all. He has no power, no speed, and fields poorly. His hit tool certainly doesn't rate anywhere near the short 10 day hot streak he had in Sept (he finished the year going 3/21). Dejesus has just as good of a minor league record at just one year older.


De Jesus ain't fast, either. He also doesn't have power. Basically, De Jesus is a better fielder and Holt is a better hitter. I'd rather keep Holt, who is left-handed and more likely to get some cheap HRs at PNC as a utility infielder.


I know, my 1st post on the trade said Holt is essentially DeJesus. Why be upset about that swap?


For the reasons I just noted. I'd rather have a lefty-hitting utility infielder with a better hit tool. Barmes and Walker are strong defensively already, so you don't really need a glove guy to steal a bunch of starts.

It's not a big deal, but it's my opinion that keeping Holt would have been better. Keith Law thinks he's the best prospect involved in the deal.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
House of Poe wrote:
I apologize for the snarky comment that was in my last post...
The thing that has bothered me most about NH's deals is that he would rather have quantity over quality. Potential is a word that can get a GM fired in this game, yet it's something that NH clearly loves.
I would much rather have a proven commodity than a prospect that has potential...

So would everyone else. But the former costs much more than the latter, and the Pirates are trying to create a winner on a $70M budget. Plus, the "proven commodity" that was traded here has proven that he's much like other relievers in this game: unpredictable.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
House of Poe wrote:
Hate to be the guy who breaks up the myth of Moneyball, but that story and movie was a giant scam...u wanna know how the A's won the AL West...three reasons...Hudson, Mulder and Zito...

And how did the Red Sox win in 2004?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Barrys Dopers wrote:
House of Poe wrote:
Batting average is irrelevant...oh you new age baseball fans with your copy of the Bible err I mean Moneyball and your 18x24" poster of Brian Kenney.. thanks for the chuckle...


Poe, it has little to do with Moneyball.

Baseball offense comes down to two things, run creation and out prevention. Please explain to me how batting average is even a good measure of either. Why would you use outdated data when better data is available? Why do you liek batting average just because some newspaper guy in 1900 decided to divide hits by at bats? I'll take real stats developed by people with advanced degrees in statistics that measure what matters.

Spare me the made-up numbers crap. The new stats are no more made up than the old ones. We can calculate OBA very easily and even adjust it based on how a hitters park/league favor or hurt his prodcution. Its not rocket science, it just requires more than x divided by y.

We use to think the Flu was caused by bacteria, but then we discovered viruses. Should we have clung to century old information just because it was traditionally accepted?

I, for one, prefer the method of drilling a hole in one's head in order to let the bad spirits out.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
Barrys Dopers wrote:
I know, my 1st post on the trade said Holt is essentially DeJesus. Why be upset about that swap?


For the reasons I just noted. I'd rather have a lefty-hitting utility infielder with a better hit tool. Barmes and Walker are strong defensively already, so you don't really need a glove guy to steal a bunch of starts.

It's not a big deal, but it's my opinion that keeping Holt would have been better.

Perhaps, but don't assume that the deal would have been executed without the inclusion of Holt.

J_C_Steel wrote:
Keith Law thinks he's the best prospect involved in the deal.

Keith Law might be the only one who thinks that.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5131
Location: Pittsburgh
J_C_Steel wrote:
For those who care (and judging by the amount of people who discuss his work on here, that's a lot of you), here's DK's take on the Hanrahan trade:

So there's no ambiguity or distortion, my initial impression of Joel Hanrahan trade. It's clearly a salary dump and, in that context, the GM did OK. Melancon has pitched better in recent past than in 2012. Could be setup guy. Rest look like spare parts, but time will tell on Sands. Bottom line: This was case of prioritizing cash elsewhere, notably $17M for coming year on .211/.311/.403 Martin, on 5-plus ERA Liriano, on REHABBING Morton. Smarter decisions there, and Hanrahan could stay. Yes, $7M a lot for closer, but back-end bullpen a known strength. Now uncertain. Trades, signings don't happen in vacuums.

I disagree that Hanrahan is a known strength. Given his performance last year, he's a wild card. If he keeps giving up walks and long balls the way he did last year and he'll be lucky to post an ERA under 4.00.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:36 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5525
House of Poe wrote:
The thing that has bothered me most about NH's deals is that he would rather have quantity over quality... I would much rather have a proven commodity than a prospect that has potential...


Pretty much this.

It's not so much that anyone knows this trade is/will be bad, but more that it follows a trend of trades which didn't turn out too well (the Bay package, the par for the course Marte/Nady deal, etc.).

The Pirates need one of the four players acquired to turn into an injury-free Karstens/pre-injury Tabata or pre-frefall J-Mac for this trade to be a 'win'.

In that respect it's better to have four 'lotto tickets' than just one, but... it's kind of getting old playing the lotto.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10582
J_C:

I agree that Holt is a better prospect than Dejesus. Holt is younger, bats left-handed, and has a better record of minor league hitting.

However, as Barrys pointed out, I don't think the Red Sox make the deal without the Holt-for-Dejesus portion since the remainder of the deal favors the Pirates pretty clearly.

Melancon has very similar value to Hanrahan for the following reasons:

  • He is younger.
  • He is cheaper. (This matters to every team, not just the Pirates.)
  • His control is better.
  • He is under the team's control for 4 more season (thx, Barrys - I thought it was 3).
  • He performed well as a closer in 2011.
  • He was dealing at 97 mph last September.

If the trade were Melancon-for-Hanrahan, advantage Red Sox - but not by as much as one would think. The peripherals matter, boys - check out Hanrahan's xFIP the past 4 years. It noted that the inflated 2009 ERA of 4.78 was not going to remain that high, and should have been in the upper 3's or low 4's. It also warned that and outlier ERA like 1.72 in 2011 was going to come back down to earth, and wind up in the upper 2's or low 3's.

So guess what happened? Exactly that.

Hanrahan's increasing walk rate and HR rate are troubling, people. I still think he has the stuff to do the job, but "counting" on him to avoid problems is really ignoring the data.

So then ... Melancon for Hanrahan favors the Sox, but not by that much. Then, the Pirates get a right-handed power prospect with a plus walk rate.

And a young right-hander who deals at 97 mph and has a plus change.

Pretty clear advantage, Pirates - based on data, not "feelings." So the Sox are not willing to do that deal and demand something on the other end.

Hence, Holt-for-Dejesus.

But calling Holt the best prospect in the deal is interesting if only because Holt does not have a position. He cannot play SS. His defense is not even decent enough for 2nd base. He is a utility IF'er.

I like his bat, but that bat is not NEARLY good enough to overcome his defensive weakness at MI. If Sands hits, he plays since corner OF and 1B are positions where defense can be hidden.

MI and C are not.

If you cannot field at MI or C, you better hit like Jeter or Piazza. Holt is not going to hit enough to force playing time. He has a decent eye, but his ISO is going to be around 100. A guy with a 100 ISO needs to log a .350 OBP+ to merit playing time.

I don't think Holt can do that.

He is therefore a guy who can produce something in the area of .700 OPS, with significant defensive limitations. That is not a starter, unless he suddenly develops power in the major leagues at age 26. I submit that the litany of MI'ers who developed power in the major leagues at age 26, in contravention to minor league performance, is pretty darn low.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:14 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Springfield, IL
Willton wrote:
House of Poe wrote:
Hate to be the guy who breaks up the myth of Moneyball, but that story and movie was a giant scam...u wanna know how the A's won the AL West...three reasons...Hudson, Mulder and Zito...

And how did the Red Sox win in 2004?


Pedro, Schilling, a killer bullpen and some clutch hitting by Papi and Manny...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:35 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
House of Poe wrote:
Willton wrote:
House of Poe wrote:
Hate to be the guy who breaks up the myth of Moneyball, but that story and movie was a giant scam...u wanna know how the A's won the AL West...three reasons...Hudson, Mulder and Zito...

And how did the Red Sox win in 2004?


Pedro, Schilling, a killer bullpen and some clutch hitting by Papi and Manny...

Talk about glossing over the details. The Red Sox succeeded with Pedro on the mound because they kept him healthy by adhering to a strict pitch count, a concept abhorred by traditionalists. The Red Sox succeeded by acquiring David Ortiz for a song because nobody else could see past his bad defense and low batting average. The Red Sox succeeded by inserting Mark Bellhorn at 2B because, despite his prolific strikeout rate, he was very good at getting on base. The Red Sox succeeded by having the best offense in the league, which featured a league-high OBP and slugging percentage while executing only 12 sacrifice bunts the entire season, easily the lowest of any team in the AL. The Red Sox succeeded by entrusting the general manager position to a 28-year-old stat-friendly baseball mind in Theo Epstein, not an older, bird-dog traditionalist.

You can poo-poo Moneyball and advanced metrics all you want, but the principles of Moneyball and advanced metrics are being used by the best organizations in MLB to win baseball games today. In the end, folks like you who refuse to learn anything new and adhere to old, outdated knowledge and traditions will be left behind.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:23 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Springfield, IL
Wilton, not one of your reasons had anything to do with sabremetrics. Pedro got tired after 100 pitches, u make sure he doesn't go over that number...common sense. Ortiz is a DH and the AL has the DH...Bellhorn was also a solid defensive player at a position that demands defense and he did get on base a ton...
Do u honestly think us old school guys don't know the importance of on-base% or slugging%? Those numbers have been around and we know their importance...the only two good stats to come from these stat geeks are OPS and WHIP and the OPS isn't used properly...the rest of your new age stats are crap that can be manipulated to make an ordinary player look like a dominant fantasy league stud...
For the record. The next time I hear some moron talk about a Punch and Judy hitters OPS, they're gonna get repeatedly punched in the throat...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:07 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
House of Poe wrote:
Wilton, not one of your reasons had anything to do with sabremetrics. Pedro got tired after 100 pitches, u make sure he doesn't go over that number...common sense. Ortiz is a DH and the AL has the DH...Bellhorn was also a solid defensive player at a position that demands defense and he did get on base a ton...
Do u honestly think us old school guys don't know the importance of on-base% or slugging%? Those numbers have been around and we know their importance...the only two good stats to come from these stat geeks are OPS and WHIP and the OPS isn't used properly...the rest of your new age stats are crap that can be manipulated to make an ordinary player look like a dominant fantasy league stud...
For the record. The next time I hear some moron talk about a Punch and Judy hitters OPS, they're gonna get repeatedly punched in the throat...


Wow you nailed it, the whole purpose of the SABR is to make fantasy players look good :roll:

Put your head in the sand and ignore facts. What is the possible argument for ERA over xFIP? xFIP is proven to better predict future ERA. Its simple math, you graph previous year xFIP versus the next season's ERA then calculate the R value. You point out the obvious flaw in OPS (it treats obp and slg equally which is clearly wrong), that is the reason why wOBA and wRC+ are superior.

"We mock what we don't understand" - Austin Millbarge

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
Another take on the trade -
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.ph ... n-shuffle/

The argument that Joel was worse than Melancon the last two years.

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:11 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Barrys Dopers wrote:
House of Poe wrote:
Wilton, not one of your reasons had anything to do with sabremetrics. Pedro got tired after 100 pitches, u make sure he doesn't go over that number...common sense. Ortiz is a DH and the AL has the DH...Bellhorn was also a solid defensive player at a position that demands defense and he did get on base a ton...
Do u honestly think us old school guys don't know the importance of on-base% or slugging%? Those numbers have been around and we know their importance...the only two good stats to come from these stat geeks are OPS and WHIP and the OPS isn't used properly...the rest of your new age stats are crap that can be manipulated to make an ordinary player look like a dominant fantasy league stud...
For the record. The next time I hear some moron talk about a Punch and Judy hitters OPS, they're gonna get repeatedly punched in the throat...


Wow you nailed it, the whole purpose of the SABR is to make fantasy players look good :roll:

Put your head in the sand and ignore facts. What is the possible argument for ERA over xFIP? xFIP is proven to better predict future ERA. Its simple math, you graph previous year xFIP versus the next season's ERA then calculate the R value. You point out the obvious flaw in OPS (it treats obp and slg equally which is clearly wrong), that is the reason why wOBA and wRC+ are superior.

"We mock what we don't understand" - Austin Millbarge

Don't bother, Barry's. Poe is the baseball equivalent of a Luddite.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:36 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Springfield, IL
You can't gauge future ERA's with a formula because nobody can see the other variables involved (the pitchers health, sudden loss or gain of velocity or movement, player gets dealt and has to pitch in a bandbox or canyon...)
All these numbers are for people who don't know how to instinctively look at a player and determine if he's any good. I don't need these numbers because I've been around the game long enough to know (with pretty good accuracy) who can play at the major league level and who can't...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
House of Poe wrote:
You can't gauge future ERA's with a formula because nobody can see the other variables involved (the pitchers health, sudden loss or gain of velocity or movement, player gets dealt and has to pitch in a bandbox or canyon...)
All these numbers are for people who don't know how to instinctively look at a player and determine if he's any good. I don't need these numbers because I've been around the game long enough to know (with pretty good accuracy) who can play at the major league level and who can't...

Really? Then why are you basing your analysis of this trade on numbers? You point to Sands' batting average and Hanrahan's saves and ERA in this discussion, and you presumably use Melancon's numbers to evaluate him because I find it very unlikely you watched Melancon pitch all of last season in Boston and the season before in Houston.

But if you are so damn good at evaluating players based on observation, then have at it. Please explain to us, based on your own observations, what it is about Hanrahan that makes him so special despite the fact that he walked over 5 batters every 9 innings and gave up 1.2 homeruns per 9 last year, which is ten times as many as he did the year before. Then please explain to us, based on your own observations, why Melancon, Sands, Pimentel, and DeJesus is not enough for Hanrahan and Holt. We'll wait.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:46 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Springfield, IL
No problem Wilton...
First of all, despite Hanrahan's control problems and his tendency to leave his pitches up, he got the job done and the bottom line is it doesn't matter how bad it looked, he got it done...looking forward, Hanrahan will have to keep his pitches down and have better control or he will get abused in the better hitting AL.
I've already made my opinion known about the players involved in this deal but I'll do it again...I like Melancon because he throws hard and hits his spots...he did well in Houston, but struggled with the Yanks and Sox, leading me to believe he's more comfortable being away from the big stage...I think he'll do well taking Grilli's setup role... The other three players are a crapshoot. Sands could be a decent player, but I'm not betting on it...really good prospects don't get dealt twice in less than a year...I like his power, but he's another example of a AAAA player. DeJesus glove is major league ready, but he can't hit well enough to be an everyday player and while I would like to have him as a defensive replacement guy, the bench would have to be really good offensively to justify keeping him on the major league roster. Pimentel is a mess...he's gotten destroyed two straight years in a pitching friendly Eastern League...he might be better with a change of scenery, but he will have to go back to the Eastern League...He has the stuff to be a big leaguer, but he doesn't have the mentality...I doubt that he ever will...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:43 pm
Posts: 4842
Location: Omaha, NE via Sioux City, Kansas City, and Chicago
This is a case of the Pirates being the Pirates. Trade a guy for a bunch of spare AAAA parts, none of which are as good as the person traded. What is the problem with letting a guy reach free agency? I mean seriously, does it do any good to get a handful of players that are just OK? Are you telling me there won't be a slug of Melancon-type players ready for every MLB team to pick up next off season?

What the Pirates have been doing for years hasn't worked. There isn't a sane person out there that can argue this. Trade a good player at his walk year only to get crap in return. Hey Pirates...take a chance...get a great year out of a player and see what happens! You don't have to sign him for next season and you can get bullpen help in the off season.

_________________
#15 Kansas State Wildcats (1-0) at Iowa State Cyclones (0-1)
Jack Trice Stadium
September 6, 2014
11:00 AM CST
Fox Sports 1


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
House of Poe wrote:
No problem Wilton...
First of all, despite Hanrahan's control problems and his tendency to leave his pitches up, he got the job done and the bottom line is it doesn't matter how bad it looked, he got it done...looking forward, Hanrahan will have to keep his pitches down and have better control or he will get abused in the better hitting AL.
I've already made my opinion known about the players involved in this deal but I'll do it again...I like Melancon because he throws hard and hits his spots...he did well in Houston, but struggled with the Yanks and Sox, leading me to believe he's more comfortable being away from the big stage...I think he'll do well taking Grilli's setup role... The other three players are a crapshoot. Sands could be a decent player, but I'm not betting on it...really good prospects don't get dealt twice in less than a year...I like his power, but he's another example of a AAAA player. DeJesus glove is major league ready, but he can't hit well enough to be an everyday player and while I would like to have him as a defensive replacement guy, the bench would have to be really good offensively to justify keeping him on the major league roster. Pimentel is a mess...he's gotten destroyed two straight years in a pitching friendly Eastern League...he might be better with a change of scenery, but he will have to go back to the Eastern League...He has the stuff to be a big leaguer, but he doesn't have the mentality...I doubt that he ever will...

Your "analysis" lacks the amount of detail I was hoping someone with your self-proclaimed ability would be able to provide. There are a slew of generalizations here about Hanrahan, Melancon and Sands that are begging for a more refined discussion. Your analysis looks like you just looked at the back of their baseball cards and inferred some generalized conclusions about their ability going forward.

You seem to admit that if Hanrahan pitches for Boston like he did for the Pirates in 2012, he is going to get lit up. So why are you so high on him? What makes you think that he will "keep his pitches down and have better control" next year? What makes you think that 2012 was the anomaly and not 2011?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hanrahan trade
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:35 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Springfield, IL
Not to mention the fact that there's an extra high draft pick involved if the player walks...this deal doesn't have a good future unless a lot of things fall into place...


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits