sbrylski

MLB Trade Rumors Nice call on the Sox.

BTW, I think Rowand would be an excellent fit in San Diego.

They have two CFers: Rowand and Victorino. Great defenders, but no better than average bats for a center fielder, much less one of them in right. Was it Mench they had interest in during the Lieber rumors?

I see value in each method. But I do wish BP would have come up with a new name for its stat. Yes, I agree.

I don't think I like BP's way. Because the guy is fast they shouldn't take away that base. Does it matter which extra bases came from speed and which from power? As long as he can get those extra bases, that is what the stat is trying to measure.

Am I way off with this, or what? Looks fair to me, but Tampa's front office wouldn't accept that, IMO.

Hart's look great. Kind of interesting to see Mench > Jenkins.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come across condesending. But the bolded statement is exactly my point. We all want to win now, but a GM has to look out for the future. Especially the Brewers. To repharse a bit, "that's why I'm glad you are not the GM." Better? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

...Obviously, it would suck to deal some of our "great" prospects- WHO CARES!! I want to win NOW. With the squad we have now, we could use a bat like Jones or someone of his caliber. If we loose out on some good prospects--- oh well. WE HAVE MORE!!!!! No offense, as we all feel like that sometimes, but that is why you are not qualified to make front office decisions.

AVG OBP SLG OPS HR/AB SALARY Player A .306 .381 .490 .871 25.7 $7.000 Player B .294 .400 .508 .908 20.8 $0.388 This is still the most compelling reason I've seen to trade Jenkins. Granted, Gross is still a bit of an unknown as he had limited AB's last year, but his stats mirrored that of his extensive time spent in AAA. I feel his game final translated to the big league level and he can keep it up close to this pace. Really, it would be hard for me to decide who I would trade as well because I think they all (Jenkins, Mench, and Gross) can have good seasons next year as a starter. I do think one has to go.

end, I'm still can't see both Jenkins and Mench on the team next year. One goes, opening up Clark a spot. Hopefully.

I really don't see a reason to trade Clark, especially if we are keeping Jenkins and Gross. I think Clark would be a great pinch hitting backup OF.

I still think 2007 is a growth year and 2008 is the first year we make a real run at the playoffs so Jenkins won't be around for it regardless. I agree totally with your post, but I think next year we can grow and make a real run at the playoffs, with 2008 being our first year as real WS contendors.

I too like Petit, but I was never a fan of trading Turnbow. Petit would be a very good return for him, as I think there was speculation that New York would center a package around him for Overbay.

Thames will be 30 next year. He'd be nice to platoon Jenkins with.

Too bad nobody seems to remember that Jenkins was very clutch last year. I remember, I just don't care. Varies from year to year with everybody. And I don't think Melvin will just give him away. If he was going to, I think he'd be gone already.

In case anyone is interested, here are his values charted: http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/sbrylski06/LP.jpg He expressed some concern over there accuracy, but they are decently close. They at least show how much OBP and SLG values can vary between lineup spots.

This is the only mention of Jenkins in the original FOX story: Sounds kind of like speculation to me, rather than heating up disscussions. I still think Jenkins will be the one to go. I think he will likely outhit Mench next year, but we can provide Mench more AB's in favorable matchups with Gross also on the roster. Jenkins would also save more money. Mench just seems like a better fit on the team next year. Never understood why people wanted Clark to be the first OFer traded. Dropping him wouldn't solve our OF jam at all. I think he can be helpful off the bench anyway.

I like this better, Leadoff Above Average: LOAA = LO - 1.257 I took the average production of NL teams out of the leadoff spot in 2006 and used that to generate league average LO. Subtracting it from the players LO gives LO above average. This way I'm comparing leadoff hitters to other leadoff hitters, rather than just an average replacement player. (I'm not even sure if my replacement stats were correct.) Here's the results of LOAA: http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/sbrylski06/LOAA.jpg

Did some digging, found this: LINK So based on that, these are the relative values for the leadoff hitter, rounded to the 10ths place: OBP 2.5 SLG 1.0 SB/G .2 CS/G - .6The first hitter in the lineup will recieve about 750 plate appearances a year, or ~4.6 per game - LINK. Therefore, SB/G = SB/PA*4.6 An equation like this should give you your best analysis: LO = [OBP*2.5]+[sLG]+[(SB/PA*4.6)*.2]-[(CS/PA*4.6)*.6] Simplified to: LO = [OBP*2.5]+[sLG]+[sB/PA*.9]-[CS/PA*2.8] How would I get a more relative comparison of their actual value? I took a replacement player's line (is OBP/SLG of .266/.335 accurate for that?) and plugged it into the LO formula. Then subtracted that from LO to find LORP: LORP = LO - .996 Does this make sense/work right? Here are the results: http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/sbrylski06/LORP.jpg Any critiques or suggestions? I'm sure I've made a mistake or two or there are ways to improve on this.

John Grabow could be a good LOOGY to ask for.

I also don't like Andy. I'm going to hope that Michael finds out what Dwight actually was doing in New York and then gets mad at Andy so he quits/get fired and then Michael finds Dwight and they make up and he comes back. Best part: Michael - "How you fit in with this company is something you are going to have to think long and hard ab---" Dwight - "That's what she said."

(Except for the DIPS part) Yup, I didn't think you'd like it. Threw it in for people who value it. But still, I want Alex Rios. We have 6 somewhat capable SPs, Toronto wants a capable SP (hell, they'll even take a Blanton for Rios!) Sure, so do I. Just not for Bush, and not for Capuano. Mench + Turnbow for Lieber and then Jenkins + Vargas for Rios. I would actually like to hold on to Turnbow, but I don't think either trade would go through anyway.

Completely ignoring the slugging percentage of a batter leaves out a good chunk of valuable known data that can easily help evaluate a batter. Though SLG for a leadoff is probably a little less important, it still matters. We know on average OBP is about 1.6 to 1.8 times as important as SLG. It's going to be more valuable than that for the top two guys in the order getting on base infront of the boppers and probably a bit less important for the 7th and 8th guys in the lineup because its unlikely that the 8-9-1 hitters will drive the player in if he only reaches 1st. However, for that same reason a SB is going to be more valuable infront of the 7-8-9-1 hitters than infront of the 2-3-4-5 hitters. If the middle of the order guys are going to be knocking doubles around and hitter homers, you might as well sit on first. The 7-8-9-1 hitters would have to string two or three hits together to score a run, so any advancement by the runner by way of a steal is going to be very helpful. Also, getting caught won't hurt as bad because its a lot less likely the runner would have scored had he stayed put. I guess what I'm getting at is that a more accurate stat for leadoff hitters would have to take into account the value of OBP compared to SLG and the SB value out of that spot in the lineup. That's probably a lot more in depth that your original goal. What you have so far looks okay for a rough stat. It be interesting to see how well it correlates to runs scored or runs created or something. Also, for whatever reason when I saw your sample I thought that if you divide them by 4 you drop the numbers into a scale fairly close to that of batting average; i.e. Raines - .307, Pierre - .270. Just a thought.

I probably could have predicted Geno's and Briggs' back-to-back posts, not that its a bad thing. Its totally understandable that the traditionalist crowd would be somewhat skeptical of Bush and view him as an "okay #3". Being presented only with the numbers in Geno's post I would be hard pressed not to agree. But here's what the saber crowd would site as reasons why he could be or already is so much more: K/9 BB/9 K/BB WHIP BAA OPS G/F ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 2005 4.95 1.91 2.59 1.25 .269 .780 1.37 2006 7.11 1.63 4.37 1.14 .252 .717 1.44 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Rank 25th 8th 4th 7th 21st 26th 24th The rankings are from 2006 and are out of the entire MLB! I believe this shows that Dave Bush is already one of the 25 best pitchers in the league and getting better. DiPS ranks him 23rd, though that probably means little to Geno and Briggs. In comparison, Capuano is just behind at 25th and Blanton is a bit further down the list at 38th. Of course, the answer a traditionalist could spit back would be that despite the excellent peripheral stats he still gave up 4.41 runs per nine, and that's simply a difference of opinion and a different way to look at it. But no matter how you value peripheral stats, they have to at least look encouraging. Here's a link to FanGraphs.com comparison charts set up to compare Bush to Capuano and Carpenter. Those three are quite similar looking at the season to season graphs, but looking at the age graphs make Bush seem even better.