Johan Santana

[ORS]

In terms of Lowrie' date=' you significantly decrease his worth if he becomes a UTIL guy.[/quote']

By this logic, Chamberlain's value diminished when he came up and pitched in relief last year.

[jacksonianmarch]

or not. Relievers come in during crunch time. Utility guys come in when the starters get tired.

[ORS]

Nice try. You know a highly touted RP prospect has much less value than his SP counterpart.

 

Oh wait, we are talking about Joba. What was I thinking, he's clearly equally valuable in every capacity. I hear he's a more valuable CF prospect than Ellsbury.

[TheKilo]

pr0FF3ss0r_F4rnsw0rth: /reaches for piece of chocolate cake

 

JobaToTheStars: Uh, excuse me... /pushes Farnsworth out of the way

/grabs slice of choclate cake

 

but I was NEXT !

 

pr0FF3ss0r_F4rnsw0rth: oh my [coital act toward a Christian God] mister bungle are you srsly gonna make farnsworth the last dinosaur break bad on you in the [judicially punished by same Christian God] lunch line

 

/takes back slice of cake

 

JobaToTheStars: Uh, pardon my French, cornpone, but as the Next Roger Clemens and the Future of Sports Today it's my RIGHT to be NEXT !

 

/takes back slice of cake

pr0FF3ss0r_F4rnsw0rth: what army died and made you next

 

JobaToTheStars: None other than ESPN magazine...

 

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/sports.aol.com/fanhouse/media/2007/12/espnmag.jpg

 

the revolutionary force in sports entertainment.

pr0FF3ss0r_F4rnsw0rth: i saw that movie, whereupon in nicholas cage saves his girlfriend by premonitionen her bein ran over by abraham lincolns secret presidential train an then stoppen it before it happens, or whatever

 

it was mediocre to boren

 

JobaToTheStars: I have no idea what you're talking about but Buster Olney sat down with me to write a feature length article in a professional news magazine about how quickly I can text message. When was the last time anybody sat down with YOU?

pr0FF3ss0r_F4rnsw0rth: the last time i did somethin bad

JobaToTheStars: which was when

 

pr0FF3ss0r_F4rnsw0rth: the last few times i got to do anything

 

dont act like a cats mreow, i got a b+ on a seventh grade vacabulary test whence everyone thought i was gonna fail, an jayson stark sat down with me at the middle school an wrote about it for the gazette

 

pr0FF3ss0r_F4rnsw0rth: how did they decide on you bein next anyways

 

how do you measure that

 

JobaToTheStars: 32 sports celebrities, teams, related-personalities, and abstract concepts were put into four eight-man regional tournaments and pitted against each other to see who was most NEXT

 

JobaToTheStars: I was in the Northeastern or "Meadowlark Lemon" Region against Danica Patrick, Dan Shanoff, The Miz, Sportsmanship, Radek Bonk, a bucket of Gatorade, and Greg Legg. Each matchup was then judged and decided by a panel of Stephen A. Smith.

JobaToTheStars: In the finals it was determined that while Sportsmanship was important, it wasn't as important as being a Yankee, so I won.

pr0FF3ss0r_F4rnsw0rth: your lucky you dident have to go up against gatorade, riptide rush woulda flipped you for real

 

JobaToTheStars: Well, you can't deny the gravitas and career-defining legacy of the 24 innings I pitched in the one season I've played. That was almost two and a half games of quality.

 

/takes back slice of cake

 

pr0FF3ss0r_F4rnsw0rth: well if yer tryen to be the next roger clemens lemme help you

 

/puts entire chocolate cake on Joba's tray

 

pr0FF3ss0r_F4rnsw0rth: who gives a [fecal dropping of obscure animal] whether or not ESPN the Magazine For [the most offensive thing you can think of] thinks you are next, red rocker kyle farnsworth is more now

 

so cake me MORE NOW and get outer my way you [doo doo chump, and additional quotes from The Humpty Dance] an stop holden up the line

 

JobaToTheStars: Wait, your humpty nose is going to do what to my where?

 

JobaToTheStars: Look, I've had enough of this crap, get out of my way right now. I'm NEXT, you are the bottom of the totem pole, and if you don't obey the Joba Rules I'm going to text the present of this team and get you [s***-canned].

 

 

**Online Host**

JobaToTheStars has been tapped on the shoulder.

 

JobaToTheStars: What, what is it? Wait your turn, I'm having a conversation here. Don't make me get my Dad!

 

**Online Host**

JobaToTheStars has been tapped on the shoulder.

 

JobaToTheStars: WHAT

 

WHAT IS IT

 

GOLDBERG: Excuse me, who's next?

 

JobaToTheStars: me, why

 

**Online Host**

JobaToTheStars has been speared and jackhammered.

pr0FF3ss0r_F4rnsw0rth: lol i knew letten goldberg into the cafeteria would be great fun

[Gom]

Whoever made that up should just kill himself. Now. Stop wasting oxygen.

[cam780]

Chris Carter has never hit outside the PCL and will never be an everyday major leaguer for any substansial peroid of time.

 

Hitting is actually the one thing Carter can do. In 2006, he hit 19 home runs, drove in 97 his average was .301 and obp was at .395. In 2007 the line was 18, 84, .324 and .383 in Tucson. Given the number drastically declined in his 24 games in Pawtucket but both of those stops were AAA.

 

As far as the proposed Reyes deal. I'm shouldn't say that the Sox wouldn't want him. I just don't think it would be a strong priority. The question that you have to ask yourself is if Reyes played for Minnesota and he was available would the Sox trade for him? I dont' think so. Career wise, Lugo and Reyes aren't that far away from each other and if you believe in VORP. Masterson projects quite a bit better than Pelfrey albeit in different roles.

 

If the Sox are in on a three way deal involving Santana, I believe that the Sox would need a frontline starter, young star outfielder ie Manny's eventual replacement, and/or a strong back of the bullpen guy.

 

After considering this I think I could see the following trade happen before the other one.

 

Red Sox deal Coco Crisp, Jed Lowrie, Jon Lester

Mets deal Fernando Martinez, Carlos Gomez, Kevin Mulvey, Phil Humber

Twins deal Santana and Nathan.

Red Sox get Nathan and Gomez

Mets get Santana

Twins get Crisp, Lowrie, Lester, Martinez, Mulvey and Humber

 

I think this is probably too complicated for the Sox tastes but it addresses needs within each teams parameters - the Sox are only dealing one of their three kids - the Mets aren't dealing Reyes and the Twins are getting a proven young pitcher and blue chip prospect outfielder.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I'm not convinced that he won't improve defensively.

 

Arm strength and speed are the 2 tools most difficult (impossible in many cases) to improve. However, fielding can be improved, although it is not a given and it does take dedication.

 

Look at Wade Boggs...the thing many teammates were impressed most by was his transformation from, at best, a mediocre 3B to a proficient one...and it was a matter of hard work as opposed to great reflexes or natural ability.

 

By what metric was Wade Boggs's fielding improved?

 

[table]AGE | YEAR | FRAR

24 | 1982 | 25

25 | 1983 | 32

26 | 1984 | 32

27 | 1985 | 25

28 | 1986 | 22

29 | 1987 | 21

30 | 1988 | 16

31 | 1989 | 34

32 | 1990 | -3

33 | 1991 | 24

34 | 1992 | 8

35 | 1993 | 32

36 | 1994 | 14

37 | 1995 | 11

38 | 1996 | 13

39 | 1997 | 13

40 | 1998 | 10

41 | 1999 | 0[/table]

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/boggswa01.php

 

By FRAR, his best two years were his second and third year; his best four were his first four. His peak in 1989 was clearly a variance from his average level of 6.5 the surrounding two years.

 

Don't like FRAA? We can't check ZR-based stats that far back, but let's check Range Factor per Game:

 

[table]Year | Age | RFg

 

1982 | 24 | 3.34

1983 | 25 | 3.18

1984 | 26 | 3.02

1985 | 27 | 2.91

1986 | 28 | 2.60

1987 | 29 | 2.68

1988 | 30 | 2.46

1989 | 31 | 2.55

1990 | 32 | 2.30

1991 | 33 | 2.61

1992 | 34 | 2.56

1993 | 35 | 2.88

1994 | 36 | 2.73

1995 | 37 | 2.24

1996 | 38 | 2.14

1997 | 39 | 2.39

1998 | 40 | 2.35

1999 | 41 | 1.96[/table]

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/boggswa01.shtml

 

Now Wade Boggs's peak was his rookie year, and his first four years were, again, clearly his best.

 

Defense peaks early. I'm sure that there are exceptions, although I can't think of one. I'm just pointing out that your chosen, cited exception to that rule isn't an exception in any way but one:

 

Gold Gloves: 1994, 1995

 

Sometimes it helps to play for the Yankees.*

 

In any case, I expect Carter not to learn to field any better than he does today. YMMV.

 

 

 

 

*Ask Derek Jeter about his Gold Gloves.

[rician blast]

By what metric was Wade Boggs's fielding improved?

 

[table]AGE | YEAR | FRAR

24 | 1982 | 25

25 | 1983 | 32

26 | 1984 | 32

27 | 1985 | 25

28 | 1986 | 22

29 | 1987 | 21

30 | 1988 | 16

31 | 1989 | 34

32 | 1990 | -3

33 | 1991 | 24

34 | 1992 | 8

35 | 1993 | 32

36 | 1994 | 14

37 | 1995 | 11

38 | 1996 | 13

39 | 1997 | 13

40 | 1998 | 10

41 | 1999 | 0[/table]

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/boggswa01.php

 

By FRAR, his best two years were his second and third year; his best four were his first four. His peak in 1989 was clearly a variance from his average level of 6.5 the surrounding two years.

 

Don't like FRAA? We can't check ZR-based stats that far back, but let's check Range Factor per Game:

 

[table]Year | Age | RFg

 

1982 | 24 | 3.34

1983 | 25 | 3.18

1984 | 26 | 3.02

1985 | 27 | 2.91

1986 | 28 | 2.60

1987 | 29 | 2.68

1988 | 30 | 2.46

1989 | 31 | 2.55

1990 | 32 | 2.30

1991 | 33 | 2.61

1992 | 34 | 2.56

1993 | 35 | 2.88

1994 | 36 | 2.73

1995 | 37 | 2.24

1996 | 38 | 2.14

1997 | 39 | 2.39

1998 | 40 | 2.35

1999 | 41 | 1.96[/table]

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/boggswa01.shtml

 

Now Wade Boggs's peak was his rookie year, and his first four years were, again, clearly his best.

 

Defense peaks early. I'm sure that there are exceptions, although I can't think of one. I'm just pointing out that your chosen, cited exception to that rule isn't an exception in any way but one:

 

Gold Gloves: 1994, 1995

 

Sometimes it helps to play for the Yankees.*

 

In any case, I expect Carter not to learn to field any better than he does today. YMMV.

 

 

 

 

*Ask Derek Jeter about his Gold Gloves.

 

Shoulda known that the "metrics" would refute what many players, coaches and, IIRC, Boggs himself, had acknowledged. Shame on all of them for leading us astray when the numbers tell the real story.

 

<_>

[Cocos Disciples]

Shoulda known that the "metrics" would refute what many players, coaches and, IIRC, Boggs himself, had acknowledged. Shame on all of them for leading us astray when the numbers tell the real story.

 

<_>

 

[Taliesin]

Taylorism....it never gets old. Yes it does. I've been converted. I'm going to advocate for not playing actual baseball games w/ all of it's antiquated mystery and drama and magic and instead having a computer chip implanted in Hawkings brain that can be downloaded for the masses into metric potentials and revisionist history. What a comforting world it will be then when everything is so comfy and predictable. A Utopian nightmare or dream depending on your perspective. Where's Aldous Huxley when you need him.

 

I'll take the red pill.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Shoulda known that the "metrics" would refute what many players, coaches and, IIRC, Boggs himself, had acknowledged. Shame on all of them for leading us astray when the numbers tell the real story.

 

<_>

 

 

Shoulda known that you'd reply with sarcasm when every metric (not "metric," metric) I posted refuted what you'd alleged. :harhar:

 

You cite Boggs's own unquoted words. Could be. After all, why wouldn't Wade Boggs applaud the wisdom of those who proclaimed him, years past his prime as a third baseman, the best in the league?

 

Let's check other AL third basemen in 1995, using an actual metric, FRAR, rather than unquoted secondhand opinions:

 

[table]Player | 3B FRAR

Jim Thome | 0

Tony Phillips| 1

Gary Gaetti | 2

Wade Boggs | 11

Kevin Seitzer | 14

Robin Ventura | 14

Tim Naehring | 17

Ed Sprague | 21

Travis Fryman | 38[/table]

 

Perennial Gold Glove Ventura had an off year defensively, and he and Boggs weren't that different, but Travis Fryman was far and away the best defensive third baseman. The thing is, that 3.08 Range Factor per game at third base was obscured by the memory of his 20+ error seasons at shortstop in then-recent years. Fryman didn't win his only Gold Glove until 2000, a bad year with the glove for Fryman but his best year as a hitter.

 

Boggs didn't win Gold Gloves when he was posting similar Range Factors to Fryman's as a young third baseman. Errors were big stats back then. Let's look at Wade Boggs's career again:

 

[table]Year | Age | PO | A | E | RFg

1982 | 24 | 28 | 119 | 5 | 3.34

1983 | 25 | 118 | 368 | 27 | 3.18

1984 | 26 | 141 | 330 | 20 | 3.02

1985 | 27 | 134 | 335 | 17 | 2.91

1986 | 28 | 121 | 267 | 19 | 2.6

1987 | 29 | 111 | 277 | 14 | 2.68

1988 | 30 | 122 | 250 | 11 | 2.46

1989 | 31 | 123 | 264 | 17 | 2.55

1990 | 32 | 108 | 241 | 20 | 2.3

1991 | 33 | 89 | 276 | 12 | 2.61

1992 | 34 | 70 | 229 | 15 | 2.56

1993 | 35 | 75 | 311 | 12 | 2.88

1994 | 36 | 40 | 214 | 10 | 2.73

1995 | 37 | 69 | 193 | 5 | 2.24

1996 | 38 | 62 | 201 | 7 | 2.14

1997 | 39 | 42 | 140 | 4 | 2.39

1998 | 40 | 52 | 131 | 5 | 2.35

1999 | 41 | 45 | 100 | 9 | 1.96[/table]

 

And now we see a possible logic for the Gold Gloves: it didn't matter that Boggs was making barely half of the plays in 1994-95 that he'd made in 1983-85, because the 200 fewer assists and putouts were somehow offset by the 20 fewer errors each year.

 

We now know better.

 

I'm not convinced that he (Carter) won't improve defensively.

 

Arm strength and speed are the 2 tools most difficult (impossible in many cases) to improve. However, fielding can be improved, although it is not a given and it does take dedication.

 

Look at Wade Boggs...the thing many teammates were impressed most by was his transformation from, at best, a mediocre 3B to a proficient one...and it was a matter of hard work as opposed to great reflexes or natural ability.

 

My position was, and remains, that 25-year-old Carter is unlikely to improve at first base. Is Wade Boggs's ability to decline in fielding range four consecutive years from ages 25 to 28, never again to regain his performance level of the third of those four years, your strongest argument?

 

If so, then maybe we can agree that Carter isn't going to get better.

[cam780]

Taylorism....it never gets old. Yes it does. I've been converted. I'm going to advocate for not playing actual baseball games w/ all of it's antiquated mystery and drama and magic and instead having a computer chip implanted in Hawkings brain that can be downloaded for the masses into metric potentials and revisionist history. What a comforting world it will be then when everything is so comfy and predictable. A Utopian nightmare or dream depending on your perspective. Where's Aldous Huxley when you need him.

 

I'll take the red pill.

 

Congrats, who would've thought that post #1000 in the Johan Santana thread would contain a reference to A Brave New World.

[ORS]

My position was, and remains, that 25-year-old Carter is unlikely to improve at first base. Is Wade Boggs's ability to decline in fielding range four consecutive years from ages 25 to 28, never again to regain his performance level of the third of those four years, your strongest argument?

 

If so, then maybe we can agree that Carter isn't going to get better.

I disagree. Boggs, while declining in range, which is more important for a 3B, did improve one fielding skill over time. His hands improved over time. His F% went from about .960 in the first half of his career to about .975 in the latter half. This regularly happens. Hands improve when range is fading.

 

I haven't seen Carter field, so I don't know in what regards he is considered a deficient fielder. Usually, when a 1B is classified as a butcher, it's bad hands, and for good reason because they are the most important skill for a 1B, IMO. It's no stretch to suggest his hands will improve, and thus his ability at 1B will improve.

[das11209]

Heard this morning from Buster Olney in M&M while driving to train station.

 

"Johan Santana trade between the Red Sox and the Twins will happen. They have talked throught out the weekend. Twins have looked into the Lester vs Ellsbury package and they are leaning towards the later. There needs to be talks regarding setting up the rest of the package and deciding on the minor leagers"

[rician blast]

My position was' date=' and remains, that 25-year-old Carter is unlikely to improve at first base. Is Wade Boggs's ability to decline in fielding range four consecutive years from ages 25 to 28, never again to regain his performance level of the third of those four years, your strongest argument? [/quote']

 

Per Merriam-Webster: argument = discourse intended to persuade.

 

There is no argument here, as I'm not trying to persuade anyone, I'm stating that IMO there is no guarantee that Carter will not get better defensively. You disagree...so be it.

 

As is typical, you've employed your thoroughness, determination and, I guess, accumen in the realm of statistical measurements in sports in an attempt to statistically prove other points of view to be erroneous. Your effort here has not gone unnoticed. You've put together a fine case supported by referenced numbers, and I do see some validity to what you're saying. Could there be stats cutting the other way, though? Possibly, not sure, perhaps at some point I can explore that idea.

 

In my opinion there is room for subjectivity here. Perhaps the fact that many posters rely on personal opinion and experience (some actually watch the games as opposed to reading about them) or the comments of those seemingly in the know (teammates, analysts, coaches, opponents, etc.), as opposed to digging out stats that further support their positions, is a reflection of the fact that they do not have the time, the understanding or more likely the interest and/or sense of desperation that would lead them to do so. The lack of using statistics to support a view or refute an opposing view doesn't deny their existence.

 

 

 

If so, then maybe we can agree that Carter isn't going to get better.)

 

Ummm...no. I remain skeptical.

 

Of course if and when Carter hits the bigs, even if some mix of managers, coaches, scouts, teammates, opponents, etc. conclude that he has improved defensively I have tremendous faith that you, Bill, aka Lord Kelvin, will be able to find some "metric" to rebut their claims.

[Paradisecity]

Dammit Dammit Dammit I do NOT want to see Ellsbury gone. Lester is probably at a high as far as his trade value is concerned and I don't see him being a #2 starter, or a #3 even down the line. Further, with Santana in the mix where does that leave Lester?

 

Beck

Santana

Dice-K

Schill

Bucholz

Lester

Wakefield

 

Meanwhile Ellsbury makes out lineup SO much more dangerous. Our 2-6 hitters become greater weapons with this guy, and he isn't like Coco, you can't just throw right to him- he frustrates pitchers and cranks doubles like crazy. he is much more dangerous on the basepaths than his predecessor and takes pitchers out of the at-bat so our 2-6 can take advantage.

 

I love Santana, but Coco is not my guy in Center and this also leaves us with lots of young pitching with nowhere to put it, Yeah, Yeah, you can never have enough..i know.

 

I'd much rather see them add another prospect or upgrade a prospect in the Lester deal.

 

Yes, we are spolied as Sox fans right now, i know. I've never worn a sox number on my back in my life and I was ready to go for Ellsbury's...

[Paradisecity]

 

Of course if and when Carter hits the bigs, even if some mix of managers, coaches, scouts, teammates, opponents, etc. conclude that he has improved defensively I have tremendous faith that you, Bill, aka Lord Kelvin, will be able to find some "metric" to rebut their claims.

 

 

No offense Bill- but this is really funny.

 

 

I'm staying out of the statistics argument

[das11209]

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the Twins "continued exploring potential trade options for Johan Santana on Monday" and "were focused on a package headlined by center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury."

 

The Twins are said to be leaning more towards an Ellsbury-led package than a Jon Lester-led package, which makes sense given the team's needs. The newspaper speculates that a deal with Ellsbury would also involve Jed Lowrie and Justin Masterson, plus a fourth prospect. Meanwhile, talks with the Yankees reportedly "remained dormant," although "a person close to the talks" surprisingly notes that Kei Igawa "was one of several players the sides discussed last week" along with Phil Hughes and Melky Cabrera.

 

What use Minny has of Igawa? Groundman or Sushie chef?

[YAZMAN]

No offense Bill- but this is really funny.

 

Agreed, even without an absolute zero quip.

[Jayhawk Bill]

In my opinion there is room for subjectivity here. Perhaps the fact that many posters here rely on personal opinion and experience (some actually watch the games as opposed to reading about them) or the comments of those seemingly in the know (teammates' date=' analysts, coaches, opponents, etc.), as opposed to digging out stats that further support their positions, is a reflection of the fact that they do not have the time, the understanding or more likely the interest and/or sense of desperation that would lead them to do so. The lack of using statistics to support a view or refute an opposing view doesn't deny their existence.[/quote']

 

Some might assume that posters who know stats don't watch the games, while others might ask, "How did you come to check that Wade Boggs lost so much range?" It might be possible that some posters are old enough to remember Wade Boggs as a AAA player and a rookie, and that they might have witnessed his decline in range through his years in Boston. It's certainly easier to use stats if one knows for what to look.

 

Not using stats (or actual quotes) to support a position might indicate that a poster doesn't care about what they post enough to perform research. It might also indicate that their criticism of others' points was invalid. :dunno:

 

I disagree. Boggs, while declining in range, which is more important for a 3B, did improve one fielding skill over time. His hands improved over time. His F% went from about .960 in the first half of his career to about .975 in the latter half. This regularly happens. Hands improve when range is fading.

 

A third baseman makes, at most, roughly 500 plays a season. A fifteen-point improvement in fielding percentage equates to, at most, seven or eight balls in play turned into outs instead of errors.

 

Wade Boggs stopped pushing himself to make plays. That saved one or two errors a month, but his decision to avoid risk--and his slowing in the field with age, as almost all players do--cost him around 150 plays a year. That's 150 outs that became hits...that's 200 points of batting average in 750 plate appearances.

 

You're right, his fielding percentage improved slightly. My point is that he was a much less valuable fielder.

 

I haven't seen Carter field, so I don't know in what regards he is considered a deficient fielder. Usually, when a 1B is classified as a butcher, it's bad hands, and for good reason because they are the most important skill for a 1B, IMO. It's no stretch to suggest his hands will improve, and thus his ability at 1B will improve.

 

OK...I agree with the bolded statement as written.

 

I don't agree, however, that the biggest discriminating factor between first basemen defensively is fielding percentage or "hands."

 

Let's look at the two best full-time AL first basemen in 2007 by fielding percentage, Kevin Youkilis and Kevin Millar. Youkilis made no errors; Millar made one. Is that the difference between the two defensively?

 

No, we watch the games. Millar seemed nearly immobile at first base, while Youkilis has considerable lateral range. Stats can confirm our observations: Youkilis fielded 83.5% of the balls hit into his zone; Millar fielded only 70.7%. If Youkilis had possessed Millar's range, he would've made roughly 20 fewer plays this season.

 

No full-time AL first baseman made over eight "hands" errors (fielding errors vice throwing errors) this year. While botching eight catches is perhaps enough to earn Carlos Pena a continued rep as a bad fielder, it's less than half the difference between Youkilis and Millar caused by their fielding ranges.

 

But that written, now let's look at Chris Carter. Is it just bad hands?

 

In the field, Carter has spent much of his career at 1B but also has seen some significant time in left. He has always been know as poor fielder. He focused on his glove and footwork in 2007 and has improved slightly, but still not enough.

 

http://www.soxprospects.com/players/carter-chris.htm

 

There's so much to not like about Chris Carter from a scouting perspective. He's got a bad body, both his set-up and his swing are awkward and mechanical, he's a well below average athlete who is slow on the bases, and to call him below-average defensively is being far too kind. One scout sums Carter up in only three words: "He's just weird."

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5273

 

Carter has spent the last two years in Triple-A in part because Arizona has no openings at first base or in left field, but also in part because he's a well below-average defender at both positions and is best suited to become a DH.

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/majors/news/264692.html

 

-15

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/CARTER19820916A.php

 

How does one earn a -15 FRAA in only 118 games? I checked: that's the average FRAA of Dr. Strangeglove, Dick Stuart, when he played first base for Boston, but Stuart played over 150 games a year to be that bad. Stuart had roughly a .980 fielding percentage at first base, roughly three times worse than the worst full-time AL first baseman in 2007, and roughly comparable to Chris Carter's fielding percentage. Stuart didn't budge to play defense: he had practically zero range.

 

Chris Carter is worse per game defending first base than Dr. Strangeglove.

 

Can Carter get better? Maybe...researching today, I learned he was so bad on defense that Stanford didn't use him on defense at all his last two years there, so he missed a couple of developmental seasons.

 

http://gostanford.cstv.com/sports/m-basebl/stats/2003-2004/histcarr.html

 

But the peak for defense comes early, and Soxprospects writes that he's already improved, but that it's not enough.

 

I remain skeptical. YMMV.

 

No offense Bill- but this is really funny.

 

Glad that I could offer you a laugh to brighten a wintry December day!

[ORS]

The Youk vs Millar comparison is a very good one. For a valid equity analysis we'd need the other end of the spectrum, a player with very good range and utterly horrendous hands. Then we could see if the Youk/Millar comp outweighed the Youk/MysteryMan comp. That is where we find a problem and my original point shows up. First basemen with horrendous hands don't exist, not at this level.

[Jayhawk Bill]

The Youk vs Millar comparison is a very good one. For a valid equity analysis we'd need the other end of the spectrum' date=' a player with very good range and utterly horrendous hands. Then we could see if the Youk/Millar comp outweighed the Youk/MysteryMan comp. [b']That is where we find a problem and my original point shows up. First basemen with horrendous hands don't exist, not at this level[/b].

 

 

Here's your earlier post:

 

I disagree. Boggs, while declining in range, which is more important for a 3B, did improve one fielding skill over time. His hands improved over time. His F% went from about .960 in the first half of his career to about .975 in the latter half. This regularly happens. Hands improve when range is fading.

 

I haven't seen Carter field, so I don't know in what regards he is considered a deficient fielder. Usually, when a 1B is classified as a butcher, it's bad hands, and for good reason because they are the most important skill for a 1B, IMO. It's no stretch to suggest his hands will improve, and thus his ability at 1B will improve.

 

How does this post say that, "First basemen with horrendous hands don't exist, not at this level?" I don't necessarily disagree with your point--I just don't see how what you're saying either amplifies your first post, or how it displays anything regarding Carter's fielding or his potential ability to better his defense....nor do I yet understand why you feel the necessity to include a comparison to hypothetical first basemen who range well but bobble catches.

 

You usually have good points...bear with me, I just don't see where you're going here. If you're trying to say that, "Because all MLB first basemen have good hands, if we promote Chris Carter then he'll have good hands," then I'm not too sure that I'd agree...but you haven't exactly said that.

 

I do see that there are very few MLB players who can discern the velocity and break of MLB pitching well enough to hit those pitches hard with bats who can't reliably manage to catch balls thrown or hit to them in fairly straight paths, but his career thus far suggests that Carter is an exception to that tendency.

[ksushi]

I think he was just leaving a little room for optimism considering all the happy people that seem to like Chris Carter.

[ORS]

I'm saying that due to "good hands" being an industry requirement for 1B, we can't fairly make the opposite comp of Youk/Millar. Millar is a statue. His stone-handed alter ego doesn't exist. Thus, while that comp is a good one, it does nothing to refute my original point that hands take precedence over range as the desirable skillset for a 1B.

 

No, I'm not saying that because all 1B have decent hands that Carter will. However, his comp in F% you mentioned was 3x worse than some of the bottom of the qualified AL list. So, he is seriously deficient in the one area where fielders tend to improve with time. Yet, it's unlikely he'll improve, according to you.

 

Perhaps you are right, and he never will be able to field well enough to earn a starting role. That said, given his deficiency and trends in the progression/regression of skills associated with age, it's certainly not as black and white as you make it.

 

EDIT: I think we are talking apples and oranges here. I've not said the differentiation point between MLB quality 1B is their ability to handle the ball. I've said that good hands take precedence over good range at that position. In order to validate that, we'd need to make those skills mutually exclusive, and then compare to someone who is good at both, like Youk. Millar fits one of the mutually exclusive skillset combinations (good hands, bad feet). The other, due to industry demand, does not exist in major league baseball. That industry demand in effect validates my point to some degree with the caveat that the industry still utilizes small ball inefficiently in some places. In other words, just because baseball agrees with me, it doesn't make me right.

[ORS]

I think he was just leaving a little room for optimism considering all the happy people that seem to like Chris Carter.

Not really. I could care less about Chris Carter. I think his blip on the Red Sox Historic Radar Screen will be measured in nano-seconds (if it occurs at all). I agree with JHB about the importance of range at the other 6 non-battery defensive positions, and I don't think it's totally unimportant at 1B either, but since the 1B handles the ball on such a large portion of the fielded outs, I think the hands are more important.

[Mr Crunchy]

a - 15 fraa?

unreal

and now i wonder how after 40 f***ing years of watching baseball i have survived without knowing what FRAA is....but consider...

this is a guy who didnt know what vorp was till a year ago.

thank christ i found this place.

my life was a circle jerk and lacking definition till then.

 

i do remember carney lansford won the batting title playing 3rd for us the year we dumped him(82?) and brought in an older rookie named wade boggs.

boggs turned himself into a decent 3rd baseman thru endless effort and may have beem the most consistant left handed base hitter in the last 45 years.

 

do you guys ever get laid?

( tommy banged a drill sgt in jamaica so i can vouch for him)

better question

did the sabremetrics guys ever get laid.....by women??

 

i find these stats as appealing as the salary cap issues in football but in their context theres always a tidbit of info i can pull out

 

chris carter wont be playing baseball in boston next year and i dont think the twins or anyone looking for mlb talent are interested.

maybe the yanks as theyre using giambi and meintxxxxx?

if he was any good at all the dbacks wouldve kept him because the kid can hit a ton.

with his offense being solid the only thing holding him back is his glove and can it be that bad??

ya

hes terrible

his defense is so f***ing putrid i think zona was using mark grace at 1st arent they??

i know tony clark was playing 1st there and we waived him when?? 02-03??

 

too bad he cant catch

id like to see youk get some more time off as he fades later in the season and seems overworked...we have had a ton of guys who can mash yet cant get to the next level

im not privy to his swing or his hip placements or his avg with runners on

i do see #s that are mlb ready even if theyre pacific league #s but its the glove that will keep him poor and humbled..

 

what did the scouts and sabremetrics guys say about carlo pena last year??

[ksushi]

Not really. I could care less about Chris Carter. I think his blip on the Red Sox Historic Radar Screen will be measured in nano-seconds (if it occurs at all). I agree with JHB about the importance of range at the other 6 non-battery defensive positions' date=' and I don't think it's totally unimportant at 1B either, but since the 1B handles the ball on such a large portion of the fielded outs, I think the hands are more important.[/quote']

 

I was talking about the no stretch for his hands to improve thing, and I was kinda kidding. I don't understand why we're even talking about Chris Carter. I have a friend who thinks he is the next Stan Musial though.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I'm saying that due to "good hands" being an industry requirement for 1B, we can't fairly make the opposite comp of Youk/Millar. Millar is a statue. His stone-handed alter ego doesn't exist. Thus, while that comp is a good one, it does nothing to refute my original point that hands take precedence over range as the desirable skillset for a 1B.

 

No, I'm not saying that because all 1B have decent hands that Carter will. However, his comp in F% you mentioned was 3x worse than some of the bottom of the qualified AL list. So, he is seriously deficient in the one area where fielders tend to improve with time. Yet, it's unlikely he'll improve, according to you.

 

Perhaps you are right, and he never will be able to field well enough to earn a starting role. That said, given his deficiency and trends in the progression/regression of skills associated with age, it's certainly not as black and white as you make it.

 

OK, got it. You're saying that lack of range is irrelevant, and that his poor fielding percentage might get better.

 

My point is that range matters, and scouts and stats agree that Chris Carter has neither range nor "hands." Furthermore, my point is that range matters far more than "hands," and that range diminishes with age, more than offsetting any nominal improvement in "hands."

 

Regarding improvement in "hands," though, in 2007 the average full-time MLB first baseman had a career MLB fielding percentage just .0036 higher than his career MiLB fielding percentage.* That's 3-6 fewer bobbled catches annually--and that might be what you could expect if Carter established himself in MLB as a starter (not what we might expect from him as a rookie). Four of the 21 players declined; the two biggest improvements were by players who moved from other positions to first base while in MiLB, giving them poor early stats at first base. Improvement isn't guaranteed, and the expected magnitude is small, and it doesn't begin to offset the loss of range normally associated with age.

 

But "It's not as black and white as you make it?" C'mon, ORS, I ended my lengthy post to which you responded with, "I remain skeptical. YMMV." I'd thought that including YMMV was a clear acceptance of other perspectives...right?

 

 

 

* All career fielding stats from BR.

[rician blast]

It might also indicate that their criticism of others' points was invalid. :dunno:

 

Hi Bill. Couple of things:

 

Characterization of the passage "I'm not convinced that he won't improve defensively" as being a "criticism of others' points" is off base. Read correctly it is quite obviously an opinion that reflects the thought that perhaps this individual player might improve defensively. As for my previously unreferenced remarks regarding Boggs:

 

Comments by a variety of individuals in the Sox organization:

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20050104&content_id=927388&vkey=pr_bos&fext=.jsp&c_id=bos

 

Boggs HOF speech, brief blurb on fielding:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2121545

 

Sporting News article regarding Boggs fielding:

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/Bugs%20and%20Cranks

 

As I stated earlier, your analysis is a fine one, and has validity. But are all of these individuals wrong? Is there perhaps a weakness in the numbers? And does your analysis necessarily translate to Carter and prove that he can not and will not improve defensively? What is interesting here is I've made no claim about Carter's future whatsoever...just that I am not convinced that he can not improve fielding-wise. FYI, according to Baseball Prospectus:

 

Tony Perez achieved his highest FRAR ratings in 1975, 1976 and 1977...his 11th, 12th and 13th seasons in MLB.

 

George Scott's 4 highest FRAR seasons were seasons 9-12, at ages 29-32.

 

Pujols, in his 6th and 7th major league seasons, has recorded his highest FRARs.

 

I know, this is one measure, and just a few players. Does that make it The Rule? No, but it does open doors to the possibility that a player can improve his statistically measured 'D' during his MLB career. As a side-note, there are those who caution how these stats are used...just 2 quick examples:

 

The Illusion of Range Factor

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/espn9809.htm

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2387

 

Do I mean to imply stats have no use? Absolutely not. I've acknowledged the usefullness of your analysis and am aware that the Bill James-types have proven their worth in organizations league wide. However, I think there is a tendency to rely on them too heavily in an effort to shoot down another's expressed opinion, and I'm not quite sure why that is the case.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I was talking about the no stretch for his hands to improve thing' date=' and I was kinda kidding. I don't understand why we're even talking about Chris Carter. I have a friend who thinks he is the next Stan Musial though.[/quote']

 

His top BP PECOTA comp was Todd Helton...Stan Musial was better than either Helton or, especially, Carter, but Carter's hitting style seems similar to Musial's.

 

FWIW, we were talking about Chris Carter with respect to his value as part of a trade package for Santana, or his value at first base for Boston if he were to start following a Santana trade.

 

EDIT: I think we are talking apples and oranges here. I've not said the differentiation point between MLB quality 1B is their ability to handle the ball. I've said that good hands take precedence over good range at that position. In order to validate that, we'd need to make those skills mutually exclusive, and then compare to someone who is good at both, like Youk. Millar fits one of the mutually exclusive skillset combinations (good hands, bad feet). The other, due to industry demand, does not exist in major league baseball. That industry demand in effect validates my point to some degree with the caveat that the industry still utilizes small ball inefficiently in some places. In other words, just because baseball agrees with me, it doesn't make me right.

 

 

I'd suggest that, because we can differentiate the skills through available metrics, we don't need to include a comparable player with bad hands/great range.

 

I think that MLB does tend to agree with you, ORS; I also think that it's changing, which is why Youkilis plays first base for the stats-savvy Boston Red Sox. First base range does matter, especially in Fenway with its difficult right field line.

 

I think that it's easier to field than to hit, leaving very few players who can hit well enough to play first base but who can't field well enough to play it in their early 20's. Chris Carter, I feel, is one of those rare players. :dunno: