The Official 2010 Hot Stove Thread.

[boy racer]

If you think Pujols is going to Boston then the Sox had more money than I thought.

[boy racer]

No.... Pujols won't be going to NY or Boston. Whichever reporter suggested the Yanks drop CC for Pujols is retarded. Yankees would never move Tex to DH' date='[/b'] its already reserved for A Rod down the road. Not to mention Tex is one of the best defensive 1B's in MLB.

 

 

I don't know about that... I could see them putting Tex at DH any day. A-Rod can hit but they wouldn't take him off the field.

[BSN07]

Pujols makes little sense for either team. But if CC opted out and left the Bronx we all know Hank and Hal would be trying to compensate somehow. So I guess anything is possible :dunno: I still think he signs with the Nationals.

[jacksonianmarch]

I'd put a Pujols to NY at about 2%. There would need to be a multitude of factors and IMO, CC isnt one of them. If we lose CC, then Hank and Hal will push hard on Cash to make a deal and we'd probably gut our MiLB system for King Felix, who will finally become expensive in 2012. But for Pujols to come to NY, we'd need to see the offense falter significantly in 2011 and we'd need to miss the playoffs. And by falter, I dont mean get injured, I mean players all having career worsts at the same time. That would spur the boys in the FO to make a major play for Albert, IMO. And I think the likelihood that Cano dips back to .270, ARod drops below .800OPS, Tex drops below .800OPS and Swisher goes back to what he was in Chicago is pretty low

[a700hitter]

If you think Pujols is going to Boston then the Sox had more money than I thought.

I think they have more money than any of us know about. The MLB Players Union also doesn't have a clue about the Sox finances. Baseball owners guard their finances more than the government guards our military secrets. Almost no one thought we would sign Carl Crawford, and by "almost no one" I mean that I was the only one who thought it could happen. Now, that the deal is about 3 months old, people are rationalizing it in ways so that it fits their idea of a FO "value philosophy" where draft picks are valued more than FA's. The truth is that they have a s*** load of Money and they went out a bought a Ferrari. People will ooh and ah over a Ferrari and not about blue prints of the next generation's electric cars (I.e., draft choices). They are in the business of putting fans in the seats and winning games. Crawford will do both for you.

 

Is there $ to sign Pujols? Of course there is. The question is whether there is a fit. Would he play LLF with Crawford moving to center? Would he share 1B/DH with Gonzo? I don't know if there is a fit, but there is certainly the $.

[boy racer]

I think they have more money than any of us know about. The MLB Players Union also doesn't have a clue about the Sox finances. Baseball owners guard their finances more than the government guards our military secrets. Almost no one thought we would sign Carl Crawford, and by "almost no one" I mean that I was the only one who thought it could happen. Now, that the deal is about 3 months old, people are rationalizing it in ways so that it fits their idea of a FO "value philosophy" where draft picks are valued more than FA's. The truth is that they have a s*** load of Money and they went out a bought a Ferrari. People will ooh and ah over a Ferrari and not about blue prints of the next generation's electric cars (I.e., draft choices). They are in the business of putting fans in the seats and winning games. Crawford will do both for you.

 

Is there $ to sign Pujols? Of course there is. The question is whether there is a fit. Would he play LLF with Crawford moving to center? Would he share 1B/DH with Gonzo? I don't know if there is a fit, but there is certainly the $.

 

Well now that you break it down like THAT. But yeah if this is the case, and what's truly on Epstein's mind, then I think that they haven't been all over him simply because of Gonzalez' presence. Why would they sign Pujols when they haven't even broken Gonzo in, ya know? The guy hasn't even swung a bat in a Sox uniform down in Florida. If they want it to work, they most likely want Pujols at 1B and that's the conflict.

[a700hitter]

Well now that you break it down like THAT. But yeah if this is the case' date=' and what's truly on Epstein's mind, then I think that they haven't been all over him simply because of Gonzalez' presence. Why would they sign Pujols when they haven't even broken Gonzo in, ya know? The guy hasn't even swung a bat in a Sox uniform down in Florida. If they want it to work, they most likely want Pujols at 1B and that's the conflict.[/quote']Pujols can play 1B, LF or 3B. They just signed Gonzo to play 1B and Crawford to play LF. If Youk doesn't turn out to be a gold glove caliber 3B, maybe the Sox would consider trading him and installing Pujols at 3B? I think it is a long shot.

[Palodios]

I just don't see Pujols as a good fit for the Sox. He'll push them way over the luxury cap. He'll be signed to age 41 and they'll be in a massive bidding war. They already have 2 GG 1B already(and an expensive LF) and both of them are arguably in the top 10-20 hitters in baseball. If they try to move them around positionally, it could cause chemisty issues. If they try to trade away one of them, and fail, that could get ugly. Weighing risks versus rewards, I don't think losing Youkilis is worth picking up a 300 million dollar contract. As good as Pujols is, it just doesn't make sense.

[a700hitter]

I just don't see Pujols as a good fit for the Sox. He'll push them way over the luxury cap. He'll be signed to age 41 and they'll be in a massive bidding war. They already have 2 GG 1B already' date=' and both of them are arguably in the top 10-20 hitters in baseball. If they try to move them around positionally, it could cause chemisty issues. If they try to trade away one of them, and fail, that could get ugly. Weighing risks versus rewards, I don't think losing Youkilis is worth picking up a 300 million dollar contract.[/quote']Fit is the problem, not the money. This is Pujols -- the best there is.

[Palodios]

Both are problems. There are lots of problems. I want a Ferrari, but sometimes you need to settle for a Lexus.

[boy racer]

Pujols can play 1B' date=' LF or 3B. They just signed Gonzo to play 1B and Crawford to play LF. If Youk doesn't turn out to be a gold glove caliber 3B, maybe the Sox would consider trading him and installing Pujols at 3B? I think it is a long shot.[/quote']

 

Definitely a long shot. I wouldn't risk it at all. The Sox have money but at this point they aren't going to break their back to get Albie on the team. It's almost unnecessary.

[Dipre]

I think they have more money than any of us know about. The MLB Players Union also doesn't have a clue about the Sox finances. Baseball owners guard their finances more than the government guards our military secrets. Almost no one thought we would sign Carl Crawford, and by "almost no one" I mean that I was the only one who thought it could happen. Now, that the deal is about 3 months old, people are rationalizing it in ways so that it fits their idea of a FO "value philosophy" where draft picks are valued more than FA's. The truth is that they have a s*** load of Money and they went out a bought a Ferrari. People will ooh and ah over a Ferrari and not about blue prints of the next generation's electric cars (I.e., draft choices). They are in the business of putting fans in the seats and winning games. Crawford will do both for you.

 

Is there $ to sign Pujols? Of course there is. The question is whether there is a fit. Would he play LLF with Crawford moving to center? Would he share 1B/DH with Gonzo? I don't know if there is a fit, but there is certainly the $.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

The Sox spending money last year came as a surprise to no one, after they got rid of a bunch of dead weight from the payroll. They have always stayed under/around the luxury tax threshold. That is their limit. They do not spend like the Yankees, because they do not have as much money as the Yankees, and unless you can prove this with facts, like Forbes' report that the Sox are the third most profitable baseball team, and, surprise, they spend like the third most profitable baseball team.

 

There is no "secret money", they spend around the luxury tax threshold and that's that.

 

Also, you keep pounding your chest over the Crawford signing: Newsflash. They were going to sign an Outfielder, and the preferred one was Werth, but after he signed that decidedly ridiculous contract with the Nationals, pulling the trigger on Crawford (who is still overpaid and his platoon issues are still there) suddenly made a whole lot more sense.

 

That being said, i wouldn't discount them going balls to the wall for Pujols, and not because of their "Secret finances" but because being one of the richest baseball clubs in MLB and having a lot of money coming off the books next year (Cameron, Drew, Ortiz, Papelbon) they could create the fit while operating under their usual parameters.

 

There is no conspiracy.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

Third most profitable team? After who? I know the Yankees are one of them but what is the other?

[a700hitter]

Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

The Sox spending money last year came as a surprise to no one, after they got rid of a bunch of dead weight from the payroll. They have always stayed under/around the luxury tax threshold. That is their limit. They do not spend like the Yankees, because they do not have as much money as the Yankees, and unless you can prove this with facts, like Forbes' report that the Sox are the third most profitable baseball team, and, surprise, they spend like the third most profitable baseball team.

 

There is no "secret money", they spend around the luxury tax threshold and that's that.

 

Also, you keep pounding your chest over the Crawford signing: Newsflash. They were going to sign an Outfielder, and the preferred one was Werth, but after he signed that decidedly ridiculous contract with the Nationals, pulling the trigger on Crawford (who is still overpaid and his platoon issues are still there) suddenly made a whole lot more sense.

 

That being said, i wouldn't discount them going balls to the wall for Pujols, and not because of their "Secret finances" but because being one of the richest baseball clubs in MLB and having a lot of money coming off the books next year (Cameron, Drew, Ortiz, Papelbon) they could create the fit while operating under their usual parameters.

 

There is no conspiracy.

Where do I get this stuff from? MLB Players Union has been screaming for years about MLB not opening its books. More is disclosed today, but not what the MLB union would like to see. Don't ask me. Write to the MLB Players Union and ask them.

[Dipre]

Third most profitable team? After who? I know the Yankees are one of them but what is the other?

 

Believe it or not, the friggin' Mets.

 

Even though in terms of estimated net worth, the Red Sox come second to the Yankees: The Yankees are valued at 1,660 million while the Sox are valued at 870 million, in terms of revenue, the Sox are third to the Yankees (441 million), and Mets (268 million) with a (266 million) in team revenue.

 

Source: http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=126

 

Notice the difference between the revenue output of the Yankees, then the 173 million friggin' difference to the Mets? Jesus Christ.

[Dipre]

Ok, so the Players Union is your source.

 

Give me some actual evidence of the Players' Union screaming for MLB teams to open their coffers, and some hard numbers that counteract the fact that MLB pays more money in more guaranteed contracts than any other sport in the USA, even though they're no longer the number one cash-cow of professional sports (NFL).

 

And for the record, that doesn't directly back up a claim of "having more money" or whatever. They operate around the limits of the luxury tax, which was set there to discourage teams from excessive spending. Neither the players' union nor the MLB can have it both ways.

[a700hitter]

Ok, so the Players Union is your source.

 

Give me some actual evidence of the Players' Union screaming for MLB teams to open their coffers, and some hard numbers that counteract the fact that MLB pays more money in more guaranteed contracts than any other sport in the USA, even though they're no longer the number one cash-cow of professional sports (NFL).

 

And for the record, that doesn't directly back up a claim of "having more money" or whatever. They operate around the limits of the luxury tax, which was set there to discourage teams from excessive spending. Neither the players' union nor the MLB can have it both ways.

The union makes the same claims throughout every collectively bargaining negotiation. I'm not going to research something that I already know. I'm not interested in getting you to agree with me. No offense, but it's my opinion based on what I have read and heard that MLB has been hiding its finances. It doesn't matter to me whether others agree.

 

When MLB was talking about eliminating a few franchises (i.e contraction), the Union went nuts and demanded that MLB open its books. To my knowledge MLB never opened its books, but it backed off on the contraction idea.

 

You are right that MLB's hiding it's finances is not direct proof that MLB has more $, but why maintain this legal fight is they don't have more money. Why would they protect the information when the accurate information would support their public stance with union? There's little chance that they are hiding it because they have less $.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

The Sox spending money last year came as a surprise to no one, after they got rid of a bunch of dead weight from the payroll. They have always stayed under/around the luxury tax threshold. That is their limit. They do not spend like the Yankees, because they do not have as much money as the Yankees, and unless you can prove this with facts,like Forbes' report that the Sox are the third most profitable baseball team, and, surprise, they spend like the third most profitable baseball team.

 

There is no "secret money", they spend around the luxury tax threshold and that's that.

 

Also, you keep pounding your chest over the Crawford signing: Newsflash. They were going to sign an Outfielder, and the preferred one was Werth, but after he signed that decidedly ridiculous contract with the Nationals, pulling the trigger on Crawford (who is still overpaid and his platoon issues are still there) suddenly made a whole lot more sense.

 

That being said, i wouldn't discount them going balls to the wall for Pujols, and not because of their "Secret finances" but because being one of the richest baseball clubs in MLB and having a lot of money coming off the books next year (Cameron, Drew, Ortiz, Papelbon) they could create the fit while operating under their usual parameters.

 

There is no conspiracy.

 

Crawford is still a career .270 hitter vs LHP and you could make an argument that he's a smart and good enough hitter that he'll be able to stay inside the ball and pepper the monster when he's facing LHP at Fenway. I realize his splits aren't great, but let's see if he can learn to stay inside the ball and drive it the other way and use the wall to his advantage before we say he's got platoon issues.

[SoxFanForsyth]

And yes. I realize that I cherrypicked probably the only thing you typed in there that was not relevant to your overall point.

[Dipre]

Crawford is still a career .270 hitter vs LHP and you could make an argument that he's a smart and good enough hitter that he'll be able to stay inside the ball and pepper the monster when he's facing LHP at Fenway. I realize his splits aren't great' date=' but let's see if he can learn to stay inside the ball and drive it the other way and use the wall to his advantage before we say he's got platoon issues.[/quote']

 

 

Average is an utterly and completely useless statistic unless it's used as a complimentary stat. In the end, it's just a component of OBP.

 

He has a .315 OBP and .384 SLG% against lefthanders in his career. That is downright abysmal.

 

We don't know if he's smart enough to stay inside and pepper the monster or whatever, that is all speculation. What we do have is his entire body of work, which suggests he has platoon problems.

 

Can he improve? Certainly, specially nearing his prime and in this lineup.

 

Will he improve? We don't know. But the problems are certainly there, and being optimistic won't make them go away.

 

We're talking about nine seasons of cumulative data that should not be discounted just because he now has the Monster at his disposal.

 

Not to mention Crawford has minimal power the other way. He slaps the ball the other way, he doesn't drive it.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Article on Fangraphs about Crawford's splits:

 

Carl Crawford was widely considered to be the biggest prize among position players this offseason, and it was no surprise that he got the big money from the Boston Red Sox. However, historically he has had a lot of trouble with left-handed pitching. It’s one thing to point out that platoon splits can be expected to regress pretty heavily to league average. But beyond that issue, how much does his platoon split really matter, anyway?

 

Crawford has more than 1500 plate appearances in his career against left-handed pitching, so, in his case, Crawford’s true-talent platoon skill is probably closer to his observed split than to league average. Using his ZiPS‘ .351 projected wOBA for 2011 (with steals and caught-stealing removed because we’re concerned with the batter/pitcher matchup), I get a projected wOBA of .362 versus right-handed pitching, and .322 versus left-handed pitching. That .322 is about league-average in the 2010 run environment. If that seems high for a player with a .307 career wOBA versus left-handed pitching (and a .337 wOBA career with steals removed), keep in mind that we regress so much partly because of the year-to-year volatility (partly due to a low annual sample of plate appearances against sought paws) of splits. For example, as recently as 2007, Crawford had a .360 wOBA against left-haded pitching. He followed that in 2008 with a .289. But while regression to the mean is (as usual) important, it is really a side issue for this post.

 

In 2010, Carl Crawford had a .306 wOBA versus left-handed pitching and still managed to accumulate 6.9 Wins Above Replacement. In 2009, Crawford had a .313 wOBA versus southpaws and put up 5.7 WAR. Crawford’s value isn’t purely tied up in his bat: he adds value on the bases and in the field even when he’s facing left-handed pitchers. Beyond that, as bad as he can be against lefties, he hits righties very well, and (like all full-time players) sees them most of the time (more than 70 percent of his career plate appearances are against right-handed pitching). One might point out that he only had a .289 wOBA versus lefties in his disappointing 2.5-WAR 2008 season, except he didn’t exactly smash right-handed pitching (.327 wOBA) either — the problem wasn’t his platoon split, but his hitting overall. Even if Crawford’s true-talent wOBA is only about .310 versus left-handed pitching and he had to face them every plate appearance, his defense and baserunning would still make him about a league-average player. He isn’t going to hurt the team when he starts against lefties (although it would be a good idea to move him down in the order, but that’s another can of worms.). Crawford’s broad base of baseball skills and hitting ability against right-handers means that, despite his platoon issues, his value is what it is: outstanding.

 

That is enough to briefly answer the scattered concerns about Crawford’s platoon issues hurting his value. But might not the split still matter in another sense? Teams surely know that Crawford is a much less effective hitter against southpaws, so in crucial, high-leverage situations, they can exploit this by putting in a lefty-specialist in against him, right? Since Crawford changed teams within the division, he will be facing almost the same team opponents, so let’s see if he’s had trouble in high-leverage situations in the past. This is not to assume that there is some “clutch skill” on Crawford’s part, but rather to look at Crawford’s likely opponents’ treatment of him in the past: have they been able to exploit him in high leverage situations in the past?

 

During his career as a whole, Crawford has a .341 wOBA in low-leverage situations, .352 in medium-leverage situations, and a a.357 in high-leverage situations. Nothing there. Let’s looks at Crawford’s Clutch score, which quantifies player performance in terms of wins in crucial situations. Again, this is not to impute this skill (or lack thereof) to Crawford, but to see if teams have used it again him in the past. For his career, Crawford is +1.5 wins in “Clutch.” If we look more closely, we do see that his highest seasonal Clutch value came in 2007 (+1.79) when he also had his best season against southpaws (.360 wOBA). On the other hand, in his second best season against lefties, (.338 wOBA) 2006, he was -0.93 Clutch wins, and during 2008 when he wOBAed .289 against lefties, he was +1.08 wins. Without going listing every season and associated performances, it is simply worth noting that there is too little correlation with his platoon performance to conclude that the teams Crawford has faced have been trying (or at least not successfully trying) to exploit his problems against southpaws in high leverage situations.

 

Carl Crawford is an excellent player with a larger-than-average platoon split for a left-handed hitter. Despite that split, his abilities in the field, on the bases, and against right-handed pitching more than make up for it. Moreover, there isn’t obvious evidence most of the teams that Crawford will continue to face in the near future have been able to consistently exploit his platoon problem in high leverage situations. One ambiguous note in conclusion: there is one opponent that knows Crawford every well, although he hasn’t played against them in real competition before. He will now face them quite frequently. It’s a team known for using every bit of information they have to get that extra two percent. Carl Crawford versus the Tampa Bay Rays is a late-inning match-up I can’t wait to see.

 

Now - I will concede that his splits are more severe than I had originally anticipated, and you are right that his splits are pretty drastic, but the value that he adds on the basepaths and in defense more than makes up for those poor splits, and it's been evident the past two years when he had a 6.9 WAR with a .696 OPS vs LHP in 2010, and a 5.7 WAR with a .704 OPS vs LHP.

 

All this to say that Crawford, specifically, provides an overwhelming amount of defense and speed and game changing ability on the basepaths, so much so that his splits do not merit a platoon issue with him.

[BSN07]

Article on Fangraphs about Crawford's splits:

 

 

 

Now - I will concede that his splits are more severe than I had originally anticipated, and you are right that his splits are pretty drastic, but the value that he adds on the basepaths and in defense more than makes up for those poor splits,

 

You have to be able to get on base to capitalize on that particular skill set.

[Palodios]

Why is it that when Beltre and Iglesias's offensive flaws come up, it is acceptable to hide behind their defense, but when we're talking about Crawford, his top notch defense means so much less?

[SoxFanForsyth]

Right. Let's take a look at it.

 

In 2010, he had 223 PA's vs LHP.

 

He's got a career .315 OBP vs LHP, and a career .346 OBP vs RHP.

 

So, from a career perspective, if, in 2011, he has 223 PA's vs LHP, we can assume he will be on base 70 times (.315 * 223).

 

If those PA's came vs RHP, he would be on base 77 times (.346*223).

 

So here's the question I pose. Is getting on base 7 times fewer over the course of 220 AB's significant enough that it is worth considering platooning him vs LHP, even with the speed and defense he provides?

 

I don't think it's even a question. And in all actuality, I think Dipre largely overvalues his platoon split issues, especially with his AB's vs LHP only accounting for 30% of his total AB's.

 

And let's not forget, it was just 2 seasons ago that he put up a .325 OBP vs LHP with a BABIP of .314, 6 ticks below his career BABIP vs LHP of .320.

[SoxFanForsyth]

For the record - using his career numbers and his 2010 PA's vs LHP, we are arguing over a guy getting on base a total of 49 times over the course of 7 years.

 

That just does not seem like a legitimate argument. I could see it it was a guy like Cameron who crushes LHP but struggles vs RHP, because he (if he was an everyday starter) would be facing RHP 70% of the time. But having a 6+ WAR player that gets on base 7 fewer times per year vs LHP than he would vs RHP appears to be nitpicky.

[BSN07]

I was just pointing out that using a players base running abilities as an argument for how valuable he is, is a bad point to use when the argument is about the players inability to get on base. Bare running means absolute sqwadoosh if your not on base to begin with.

 

I think Crawford will be a good player overall. Just won't be shocked if he's held in check by the better LHP in the league.

 

Pal, what Offensive flaws from Beltre? The park is catered to someone like him. And to think he would improve after leaving the Hitters paradise(sarcasm) that is Safeco park was not a big stretch.

 

Iglesiais offense is ignored because of his elite defense and the fact he won't be counted on as a middle of the lineup hitter.

 

Crawfors catches more flack because he is going to be a top of the order type hitter and counted on to be a big producer for the offense.

 

Overall I think we should all relax and enjoy Spring Training and let things play out a bit before we take to hard a stance on anything.

[Dipre]

Why is it that when Beltre and Iglesias's offensive flaws come up' date=' it is acceptable to hide behind their defense, but when we're talking about Crawford, his top notch defense means so much less?[/quote']

 

Do you think before you post?

 

I'm being totally honest here.

 

Beltre was a one-year deal who, let's face it, exceeded every possible expectation, but before he was signed, i spoke about his issues getting on base, which was mitigated by what i and others recognized as a fluky year due to a high BABIP. What other flaws did Beltre's game have? He hit .328 with 28 Homers , a .378 OBP and he posted the best OPS for a 3B in the league for a $10 million dollar salary. For one year. Not 140 over 7. If he had hit .260./335/.470, he would have been worth his contract due to the presence of his defense.

 

Any other words you wanna put in my mouth there?

 

Crawford is going to be around for seven years at a 20 million per year salary. I'm pointing out the one flaw in his game that would give me pause when giving a guy like this that much money over such a period of time. His main assets are speed and defense, now, he is probably the best defensive OF in the game, but you need to get on base to utilize your speed offensively, something he does not do against left-handed pitching. And he's making roughly 10% of the total payroll.

 

Now, what i find funny is how easily people are to look over something like this:

 

Can he improve? Certainly, specially nearing his prime and in this lineup.

 

Did i say he can't, or won't improve? No, but i would certainly like to see it happen before i proclaim all his problems solved by the monster.

 

 

As for Iglesias, he's a generational talent with the glove who could be an above-average performer with the stick. He's already better than your main man Lowrie with the glove. The problem in this case is that there's upside, and he'd make the league minimum, keeping Lowrie around as the super-sub, strengthening the bench massively.

 

I am realistic in my analysis of players, Palodios, because i'm not a homer. And by the way, don't start asking me stupid s*** like this if you're going to pull your little victim act later. I'm just saying.

[Dipre]

ForSyth: Let's make two things clear:

 

Number one, you nitpicked the current topic of discussion from a post that pretty much had absolutely nothing to do with being a criticism of Crawford as a player.

 

Number two, you're trying to extrapolate two variables in a very incorrect manner. Because he is weak (or has been historically weak) against LHP, Crawford will see an enormous amount of at bats against lefty relief pitchers, now, it is true that the RHP/LRP ratio will always hover around 65/35% but is this 35% of non-production not important to his value?

 

I don't get why you would get so defensive because i pointed out a flaw in his game (it is a flaw, and it is there) while saying he can certainly (and probably will, since he's entering his prime) improve upon.

 

Relax brah.

[SoxFanForsyth]

ForSyth: Let's make two things clear:

 

Number one, you nitpicked the current topic of discussion from a post that pretty much had absolutely nothing to do with being a criticism of Crawford as a player.

 

Number two, you're trying to extrapolate two variables in a very incorrect manner. Because he is weak (or has been historically weak) against LHP, Crawford will see an enormous amount of at bats against lefty relief pitchers, now, it is true that the RHP/LRP ratio will always hover around 65/35% but is this 35% of non-production not important to his value?

 

I don't get why you would get so defensive because i pointed out a flaw in his game (it is a flaw, and it is there) while saying he can certainly (and probably will, since he's entering his prime) improve upon.

 

Relax brah.

 

I'm not trying to get defensive. I'm just disagreeing with the statement that he has platoon issues, that's all. I saw it in someone's sig, and always meant to address it.

 

As far as him seeing LHP more often than most, I would say that depends a lot on where he hits in the line up (i.e. if Gonzo or Youk is behind him, I would imagine they save the LHP for Gonzo), but for the most part, I'll agree with that. Still, though. If he gets 230 AB's vs LHP and gets on 10 times less over the course of a season, I don't see it as being a big enough issue to regard it as platoon issues purely based on his defensive skills, that's all. I just don't see the population of AB's vs LHP being high enough year to year that a 4-6% decrease in OBP (.040 - .060 to be clear) would have a high enough effect to merit the consideration of platooning him.

 

That's all I'm trying to say. Not trying to rant, not trying to piss anyone off (FTR, I don't think I did), just trying to show a point. I know when I initially looked at the splits, I thought it would have much more of an effect than just getting on base 7-10 more times, so I was just trying to show a point.

 

Plus it's been too long since I've argued with Dipre. :thumbsup:

[SoxFanForsyth]

By the way - Why does everyone capitalize the S in Forsyth when they are talking to me?