User Name

So what would you do about the Closer situation, rest of the bullpen and insurance starters if that were to be the scenario?

That's because Hanson is not "some rookie". He's a highly regarded pitcher with an excellent repertoire. He's probably a better pitcher than Tim Hudson right now.

OPS and OPS+ are not the same thing. This is OPS+: Adjusted OPS. Essentially OPS normalized to the league. Think of it as a rate above the league average expressed as a percentage. 1. Compute the runs created for the league with pitchers removed (basic form) RC = (H + BB + HBP)*(TB )/(AB + BB + HBP + SF) 2. Adjust this by the park factor RC' = RC*BPF 3. Assume that if hits increase in a park, that BB, HBP, TB increase at the some proportion. 4. Assume that Outs = AB - H (more or less) do not change at all as outs are finite. 5. Compute the number of H, BB, HBP, TB needed to produce RC', involves the quadratic formula. The idea for this came from the Willie Davis player comment in the Bill James New Historical Baseball Abstract. I think some others, including Clay Davenport have done some similar things. 6. Using these adjusted values compute what the league average player would have hit lgOBP*, lgSLG* in a park. 7. Take OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP* + SLG/lgSLG* - 1) 8.Note, in my database, I don't store lgSLG, but store lgTB and similarly for lgOBP and lg(Times on Base), this makes calculation of career OPS+ much easier. And how exactly do you use it? It allows for comparison of players from diffrent teams and/or different years. A .750 OPS from Colorado in 1999 isn't very good at all and OPS+ would expose that. OPS is one thing, OPS+ is another statistic, which attempts to fix the issues regular OPS has.

So in retrospect: Trading Ellsbury for: Gavin Floyd and Carlos Quentin Or Tommy Hanson and an MLB-ready bullpen ready arm are both attractive options.

What happens in that instance is that you fixed both your SP problem and part of your bullpen issue extremely cheap (Around $3 million) . That gives you at least seven extra million to play with, which would facilitate the Beltran signing.

21/22. Didn't get 22 because i kept writing "Ugeth" Urbina.

The police has reported that Ramos is still alive, but the kidnappers have yet to make their demands public.

My point is, none of them is worth Ellsbury straight up. But if i had to pick a Braves pitcher, it would be either Teheran or Hanson. Of course, that's personal preference.

I would not trade Ellsbury straight up for a 35-year old pitcher, but that's just me.

The question is who wasn't juicing? And who wasn't taking amphetamines or using corked bats or stealing signs in Ruth's era. Those are uncontrollable variables you simply can't take into account. Ok, i'll play your game. I'm going to go ahead and present every right fielder, and is designated as such in BB-Reference or other sources who has played more than five years on the Red Sox (using only their years as a Red Sox) and compare them using OPS+. It may not be perfect, but it's as objective as you can get: Buck Freeman: 132 OPS+ Dwight Evans: 127 OPS + Jackie Jensen: 120 OPS+ Tony Conigliaro: 120 OPS+ JD Drew: 114 OPS+ Harry Hooper: 114 OPS + Trot Nixon: 112 OPS+ Lou Clinton: 101 OPS+ Troy O'Leary: 99 OPS+ Carlos Quintana: 97 OPS+ Jim Piersall: 93 OPS + As you can see, Drew is tied for fourth amongst the list of OF's i compiled. Make of it what you will.

The problem in this case is value. If they value those pitchers high enough, they're not obligated to make a deal with us for Ellsbury. They can look elsewhere.

I'm speaking about the Red Sox season, which is the example you just posted. I don't agree with anything you say here. If you're going to compare the tenure of JD Drew as a Red Sox player, you compare that tenure against players on the rest of the league during that tenure. That's the only way you eliminate the noise created by "Era" and "League differences". This is my main point of contention, and can't see how that logic is flawed. What prior right fielders did compared to JD Drew is irrelevant to what Drew is doing now compared to the rest of the league if the factor is production. What i see as logical fallacy is trying to compare uneven factors to draw up a conclusion, unless you're making direct player-to-player comparisons.

Normally i would be too, but Quentin's had such an uneven career that i honestly don't know what to think. He does have a potent bat, and is healthy, so i think his ability to hit both righties and lefties should not be a question.

2011: .942 OPS. Quentin's career numbers against LHP were curious there for a couple years (reverse splits) but that usually normalizes, as they started doing last year.

But Quentin's a RHH that mashes lefties, and i honestly don't think Reddick has the OBP abilities to reach that level of production. If you're talking about saving money to spend on more pitching, that may be the way to go.

Floyd would make 7 million next year, 3 million less than the proposed 10 million Ells would supposedly make in arbitration. I still think that getting Quentin (projected 7.5 million in arb) in an Ellsbury trade would be ideal. Since they would cost 14.5 combined, which is far less than what Beltran+ Ellsbury would have made, and would allow the Sox additional breathing room for other moves.

Not at all. My only problem was being accused of being some dude who i have no connection to. I think the discussion can be civil by attacking the posts as much as you want without the posters. Calling other posters "Sugar coaters" or accusing posters of being someone else is crossing the line. Now that's something i'd like for you to agree with me on.

The RHH OF can share most of the DH duties with Lavarnway and Youkilis, who sorely needs it. They need to make a trade. As mentioned above, Ellsbury + for Floyd/Quentin may solve a lot of problems for the Sox while saving them some money in the process.

I apologize and you call me asshat. I'll take it as a compliment thank you very much sir.