Author Topic: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread  (Read 70276 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2825: December 09, 2012, 02:34:52 AM »
I'm glad the people who post in this thread are not the front office... Espinosa does strike out too much, but not enough that he was anything close to a terrible hitter last year.  Unless he tanks in value this season, if Rendon comes up earlier than expected I'd much rather rearrange things to move Espinosa to short, put Desmond at second, keep Zimmerman at third, and try out Rendon at first.

Offline nobleisthyname

  • Posts: 2103
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2826: December 09, 2012, 03:15:12 AM »
Do we have a good idea of what numbers are statusticakky significant in comparing OPS or WAR? Do either make proper allowance for K's? Boswell inisted that Espi was he victim of bad luck in 2011; as soon as his BABIP return to normal range, and "all" hitters make that normal reang -- about .300 or a but more -- then Espi would rocket.

His BABIP was about .297 by the end of 2011. Was about .320 last year. He struck out about 200 times, proving that your BA on ball in play doesn't help much if you put the fail to put the ball in plave 200 times.

Yes, give ESpi half the season to become a useful hitting. After that, we remind ourselves of the post that said Espin's only hitting weakness is that he can't make contact. As Ted Williams taught in 1969, "First, you have to hit the [maternal fornicating] ball."

Except our alternative to Espi, Lombardozzi, doesn't do anything after he makes contact. He has no power and actually doesn't get on base any more frequently than Espinosa. Being able to put the ball in play at a high rate isn't very valuable if those balls in play are all weak grounders and popouts.

Offline Rasta

  • Posts: 1039
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2827: December 09, 2012, 08:13:04 AM »
I'm glad the people who post in this thread are not the front office... Espinosa does strike out too much, but not enough that he was anything close to a terrible hitter last year.  Unless he tanks in value this season, if Rendon comes up earlier than expected I'd much rather rearrange things to move Espinosa to short, put Desmond at second, keep Zimmerman at third, and try out Rendon at first.


I agree.  If you look at his month to month stats, he started off slow bur was much better from July on.   Sure, the strikeouts suck but that doesn't mean he is terrible.   He still has time to improve.  I wouldn't get rid of him unless it brought something equally valuable in return.   

Online Smithian

  • Posts: 5465
  • Team America 2014
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2828: December 09, 2012, 11:14:14 AM »
Not even worried about Espinosa.

We roasted Desmond and then we all ate crow when he turned into a star last year.

Even Espinosa can even take a solid leap forward we'll be scary good. If he struggles then Lombo will turn into the guy who gets more at bats.

Davey Johnson and Rick Eckstein will coach him up.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 20350
  • Trade for Zobrist
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2829: December 09, 2012, 12:30:09 PM »
I wish I had faith that Davey would start Lombo over Danny. Its pretty obvious that Lombo is a superior hitter against righties

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27235
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2830: December 09, 2012, 03:15:29 PM »
Do we have a good idea of what numbers are statusticakky significant in comparing OPS or WAR? Do either make proper allowance for K's?

Of course both OPS and WAR reflect the negative impact of strikeouts.  But if you mean "strikeouts are so obviously such horrendous events that they should be weighted far more heavily than other ways of making outs", then they might not meet your "proper" threshold.   

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 11551
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2831: December 09, 2012, 03:24:51 PM »
I really don't understand the desire for some to trade a 3+ WAR young player at a premium position so we can put in a player who not only was not as good this past season, but has far less potential.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 14391
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2832: December 09, 2012, 03:35:04 PM »
7 strikeouts in 15 at bats soured me personally

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27235
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2833: December 09, 2012, 03:37:56 PM »
7 strikeouts in 15 at bats soured me personally

Outs are bad, nobody disagrees.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 14391
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2834: December 09, 2012, 03:39:55 PM »
Other types have the potential to score runs or at least advance runners

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27235
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2835: December 09, 2012, 03:43:56 PM »
Other types have the potential to score runs or at least advance runners

Or cause double plays.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 14391
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2836: December 09, 2012, 03:47:19 PM »
Or cause double plays.

Fortunately Lombo is really fast

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27235
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2837: December 09, 2012, 03:54:16 PM »
Fortunately Lombo is really fast

Danny actually had 11 to Lombo's 1.

Online blue911

  • Posts: 16104
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2838: December 09, 2012, 03:59:27 PM »
Or cause double plays.

One could argue that the double play is no more relevent than the RBI.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27235
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2839: December 09, 2012, 04:01:32 PM »
One could argue that the double play is no more relevent than the RBI.

Certainly having opportunities is a major factor.

Online blue911

  • Posts: 16104
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2840: December 09, 2012, 04:08:02 PM »
Certainly having opportunities is a major factor.

Danny had really good splits with 2 outs and RISP. I care more about that than K's or DP's. While I would prefer his BA was higher in those situations, his OBP & ISO (.358 & .333)  were very good.

Offline Mr Clean

  • Posts: 1839
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2841: December 09, 2012, 04:37:25 PM »
Suppose Rendon kicks ass in spring training.  What will Davey do?

Offline Squab

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 3493
  • Sit down Stanton.
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2842: December 09, 2012, 04:38:49 PM »
Suppose Rendon kicks ass in spring training.  What will Davey do?

Probably send him down so he can learn a new position.

Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2843: December 09, 2012, 05:25:33 PM »
I'm not sold on Rendon.  He has to play one full season of AA-AAA ball with no injuries to make me consider shaking up the infield for him. 

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15497
  • Future
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2844: December 09, 2012, 05:33:56 PM »
I'm not sold on Rendon.  He has to play one full season of AA-AAA ball with no injuries to make me consider shaking up the infield for him. 

No one's sold on Rendon but his AFL season is a nice comeback.

Offline TylerDC

  • Posts: 5954
  • The Future.
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2845: December 09, 2012, 05:39:13 PM »
Dodgers signed Ryu. Wtf.

Online houston-nat

  • Posts: 15464
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2846: December 09, 2012, 05:40:17 PM »
Dodgers signed Ryu. Wtf.

2012 Dodgers = 2011 Marlins

(just to clarify, that's a joke)

Offline TylerDC

  • Posts: 5954
  • The Future.
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2847: December 09, 2012, 05:41:27 PM »
2012 Dodgers = 2011 Marlins

(just to clarify, that's a joke)

Not gonna lie, they have a scary roster.

Offline zimm_da_kid

  • Posts: 6168
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2848: December 09, 2012, 05:54:47 PM »
Not gonna lie, they have a scary roster.

But ours is better

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37010
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #2849: December 09, 2012, 06:21:56 PM »
2012 Dodgers = 2011 Marlins

(just to clarify, that's a joke)
:lmao: