I'm going to keep the league as is. I'll pass the fantasy info of offords league to singer and dave. I'll be curious to see if there will be any difference in their performances between the two leagues.
Offord welcome back, hope Me-he-co treated ya well.
I think with mcclouth, he will put up barry bonds type numbers when he was with the pirates. Just without all the stolen bases, so no MVP's. Then we'll trade him towards the end of his contract and get very little in return because that's just how we do.
13 comments:
You cannot be serious if you think Nate will put up Barry Bonds numbers.
Please tell me you're joking so I don't laugh myself to death.
like 30 homers 20 something steals on a regular basis...that's basically what bonds did as a pirate. Remember, i said Nate would put up bonds numbers as a pirate, I did not say anything about his career averages. Nate, I believe, will consistently put up 25+ home runs and steal 20+ bases as long as he stays healthy. He'll even hit for similar average.
There is no way in hell Nate steals 40-50 bases or clobbers more than 35 home runs, but I don't think that a 30-30 season is out of the question.
to sum it up Nates career as a pirate will be equivalent(waivy equals sign) to bonds career, AS A PIRATE.
Nope. There are just too many statistics to disprove everything you are saying, but let's just use OPS by age.
Bonds OPS
Age 25 .971
Age 26 .924
Age 27 1.080
McLouth OPS
Age 25 .678
Age 26 .810
Age 27 .853
Don't like that argument? Let's use OPS by year of major league service, since Bonds started 4 years younger than Nate.
Bonds OPS
Year 1 .746
Year 2 .821
Year 3 .859
McLouth OPS
Year 1 .678
Year 2 .810
Year 3 .853
Okay, that one doesn't look so good for my sake. BUT, players peak when they are 27, and Bonds was 21-23 when he put those numbers up, while McLouth was 25-27. He has peaked. Bonds was better in Year 4 when he was 24, than McLouth will be when he is 28, this coming season. Bonds was also stealing 39+ a year and knocking in an average of 111 runs a game from 25-27.
Another way I look at it, is last season was McLouth's real first season in the majors. Pitcher's showed they knew how to beat him as he rapidly declined the last half of last season, and it might take him until the All-Star game this year to readjust.
Bonds @ 28 INFLATED BY STEROIDS
McLouth @ 28 DEFLATED BY UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
.276, 16 hr, 78 rbi, 22 sb, 1 regretful Ryan Kearney
My money is on Adam LaRoche having a much better season, and getting traded after the Break to the Angels/DBacks/Giants/Red Sox for 3 minor leaguers and a bag o' shit.
I would like to see the statistical proof of players peaking at the age of 27. From what I understand, if you are a bonefied major leaguer you better be producing into your 30's and beyond, especially if there's any shot at making the HOF.
Look at the numbers of Hank Aaron, babe ruth, lou gehrig, cal ripken jr., paul molitor, derek jeter, nolan ryan, randy johnson, mike schmidt, reggie jackson, willie mays, craig biggio, willie stargell, roberto clemente, jimmy rollins, carlos delgado, mike piazza, trevor hoffman, mariano rivera, john smoltz, kirby puckett, chipper jones, JAMIE MOYER, and I would add barry bonds, A-rod, palmeiro, sammy sosa, mark mcgwire and the like if not for the whole steroids thing.
Great major leaguers earn their reputation through longevity and consistency. We've only seen the very beginning of Nate McLouth and his development in the Majors. Yes, pitchers had adjusted and his numbes declined in the second half, but he still has plenty of baseball in his career. If he has adjusted right back, this argument is moot and as usual with our sports arguments completely speculative with a bunch of "what if's"
For more numbers, by the age of 27 barry bonds played in 870 games. Nate, 436. Twice the amount of major league experience by that age. Barry Bonds didn't go through the whole "developmental" stages that pretty much all ball players have to go through these days as Nate did, but then again Nate wasn't as hightly touted as Barry was coming into the majors.
I guess we'll have to see what Nate does to see otherwise. Your predicted numbers are probably more accurate for what nate will average throughout his career, but me...i'm an optimist.
.285 31hrs. 105rbis 100runs 25sbs
lol okay agree to disagree. By "peak" at 27, I mean they have their best season statistically. There is no way I'm going to go a study with 30+ (# necessary for statistical validity) random players and look at their stats and prove statistically that 27 is the best season on average. That is just too much work...unless I got paid.
That said, even if you don't buy that argument, there are a lot more to show Nate isn't and never will be as good as Bonds during his Pirates' years. I'll just leave it at that though because I am convinced enough that I don't need to argue it.
Anyway, I finally started my season in Front Office, and I am 3-3 so far. I managed the opener and won 5-4 in a great game in which Ad. LaRoche hit 2 hrs and had 4 rbis. Maholm pitched well both starts and is 1-0, the rest of the games I simmed and the only other pitching standout was Karstens who threw 6 shutout innings. Gorzo pitched okay but the offense didn't help him out, and Snell and Barthmeier didn't make it to the 5th. A funny thing happened in the game I managed - Down by 1, the Cards had no outs and a man on first with Pujols up. Uh oh, right? Well..no. He bunted. LOL. So unrealistic...Also, my 5th trade attempt to get Hunter Pence off the Astros, who signed Manny Ramirez and have an extra OF, failed. They sited "No Reason" for the rejection...Whatever. I can live with the platoon of Morgan and Pearce for now considering they have been the best hitters other than LaRoche. McLouth and Sanchez are both under .200...awesome.
Offord, never try to use statistics to argue with Kern. If he does not understand them, he says they are not real. I am surprised he will even allow OPS into the discussion.
As for this debate, I am in the middle for once. I agree with Offord that Nate is nowhere near Bonds (as a Pirate, I love that you both keep making that distinction, like we could mistakenly think you meant when Bonds was hitting 73 HRs with a neck bigger than my, well you get the point...)
But, I also think that Nate can continue to put up power numbers. 25-30 HRs does not seem like a stretch, but something tells me he might lose some average along the way...
The idea that players peak at 27 is nothing new Kern. Obviously the handful of players you named are the exception. If you look at the 1000s of players who have come and gone, with relative mediocre careers, you would probably see a peak at 27. Using the elite of baseball to make a point is really not fair to everyone else in the middle...
Thank you for your voice of reason Josh. I knew at some point you'd jump in with a compromise between Kern and I's opposite views...
I still don't think McLouth puts up 30 hrs ever. He's like barely bigger than me...
OPS is a stupid statistic. As long as OPS is atleast .900 he's considered a good player? A dominant force? His slugging could be .600 with his on base being .300 and people think that's good? You have no plate discipline but as long as you hit the ball a long way you can play for me? Ridiculous.
Then there's the rest of your statistics you guys consider relevant. Like the amount of pitches he sees compared to the amount of balls he puts in play versus how many pigeons die throughout the course of the season by his hard hit balls. Ridiculous. How much time do math nerds have on their hands that they felt they needed to add MORE statistical categories to the sport of statistics?
Its not that i don't understand the statistics you guys bring up, it's that I don't care to. Maybe that shows me as ignorant, but i see it as ignoring the irrelevant part of the debate of who is a productive ball player and who isn't through obsolete statistical analysis, which will never come into play when a person is up for the HOF.
Why did they even need to add OPS? If a guy has an OBP of .350 or better he's competent at the plate. IF he slugs for better than .500, you want him on your team because he hits the ball hard and "where they ain't"...oh wait i know how to make that better...lets add those 2 stats together so we can make all the players feel better about having a stat on the back of their baseball card that has atleast a high triple digit number! Dumb.
You're absolutely right. I would take Doug Mientkiewicz (OBP .374) over Ryan Howard (OBP .339) any day of the week. What was I thinking?
And what fancy statistics are you talking about? All I mentioned was OPS, which might not be a perfect statistic, but it is a good one because it balances slugging and on base percentage. How can you not say slugging percentage is important? RBI's are directly related...and I will not prove that with statistics because it's blatantly obvious.
Well, slugging and rbi's aren't THAT important in the big scheme of things you say? Well, the Braves were 5th in the league with a .345 OBP, but only scored 779 runs, while the White Sox were 15th and scored 811 runs, and won their division.
So, a player's OBP isn't useful if he doesn't slug as well, and a team doesn't score a lot of runs or necessarily win a lot of games just because of a high OBP. Enough said?
no no no offord, I was making reference to josh's comment, nothing against yours. I know how important slugging is to the success of a ball player, yet alone the team he plays for, I was just trying to stress the fact that over analyzing statistics is a waste of time.
Josh was referencing our debate on the MVP of last season I believe, when I brought up Ryan Howard as a leading candidate before he crushed like 20 home runs in the last month of the season. When you guys starting throwing some obscure statistics towards me to try to prove adam dunn being a better candidate at the time or some nonsense.
Did i say anything about RBI's not being important? No. Did I correlate slugging with RBI's? No. I was making an argument about the uselessness of OPS. All you have to do is look at a players OBP, then look at his slugging and decide if he had a good season, why do you need another stat to add them together? That is just pointless.
Geez, I sense a lot of hostility towards me Offord. Do you want to talk about it next time your in town? I have no doubt you could prove how important slugging is to RBI's, you apparently have a lot of time on your hands at work. If I wanted to, i could probably do the same on the opposite side of the spectrum. I just don't care to. But, I never made any kind of argument saying that slugging and RBI's weren't important to a players statistics or his team, and I never made an argument saying that OBP is more important that slugging. You are taking this way out of context.
Take a breath little man, have some fun with some more numbers so we can have another debate in the future and enjoy each others writing, and possibly company in the future. Love ya bro!
Oh by the way! I got a job! Though...its only serving tables at the lone star steak house and saloon...but i also have an interview at pnc bank next week, so things could be looking up? It's just a means to an end, so i can some day afford to go back to school.
Catch ya'll later!
Ummm Ryan you need to lighten up. Neither me or Josh are ever serious about this stuff...it's just fun to rag on each other. I obviously respect everyone's opinions..it's just more fun to disagree and make fun of people.
Actually Ryan, I was referring to the time (I cannot remember what bar we were at) I tried to explain VORP and you thought it was complete nonsense.
My only point in this whole thing is, if we have better stats to use than BA, RBIs, Wins, then we should use them. Why do people get all upset about "nerds" using numbers to analyze players? 10-15 years ago, most baseball people thought OBP was a waste of time, and only for the "nerds." Then Billy Beane started using it to find players who were under the radar in the draft...
It's also funny to me how many people who mock baseball "nerds", watch the NFL Combine. They get excited by reading scroll bars about an DE's bench press score or a Tackle's broad jump.
Oh, and going back to last year's debate. At the time we started arguing the Howard/Dunn thing, they were having similar seasons. Who could have predicted the September surge of Howard. I would still never give him the MVP.
Post a Comment