Prospect Insider - Damon too good to say no to

Damon too good to say no to

By Chris Crawford

By 01-27-2010

Joel Sherman is reporting that Randy Winn has agreed to a one-year deal with the New York Yankees for around $2 million. With an outfield of Winn, Curtis Granderson, Nick Swisher and Brett Gardner, this all but shuts the door on Johnny Damon returning to the Evil Empire.

It's probably time for the Mariners to open said door.

Damon is not an ideal fit. He is another left handed hitter in a lineup full of them, though he isn't incompetent vs left-hand pitching (.776 OPS). His power numbers may have been inflated playing in the softball field that is the new Yankee Stadium, but he wasn't bad on the road either (.795 OPS). A lot of people have made a big deal out of his arm, and yes -- its one of the worst among outfielders, and he had easily his worst UZR (-9.2) of his career.

But Damon is too good of a hitter for the Mariners to say no to now, if the asking price really is the $5 million dollar range. If the Mariners can get 140 games out of Damon's bat, playing mostly DH with some LF, the M's can probably expect to add around two and a half to three wins to the roster.

The M's aren't good enough right now to say no to that. Not with what's left on the market.

damon-too-good-to-say-no-to

Comments
The following 115 comment(s) for this article are shown below:

1. By: Hammy47 on 01-27-2010 15:47:37
Damon just doesn't seem like like a Jack Z kinda guy. I hope the Mariner's dont even get close to signing him. We already have anough guys like Damon on offense (I don't think he would bring that much more to our lineup) and his defense is atrocious. I wouldn't be able to stand watching almost every player on the opposite team getting from first to third on a ball hit to Damon in left field. If you watch when he was with the Yankees and Red Sox, runners contstantly got an extra base off of him, because even if he makes an accurate through (which he never does), it's going ot take forever and a day to get there.

2. By: universalguru on 01-27-2010 15:48:45
I completely agree. He'd switch off w/ Bradley in LF and at DH. And with Langerhans filling in during the late innings we'd be just fine. Truth is we won't find anyone for that value elsewhere, through trade or free agency. best part is it still (likely) leaves some room for pitching.

3. By: FWBrodie on 01-27-2010 15:57:09
If only Jack Zduriencik (or his boss) was smart enough to let Junior walk off into the sunset. Do they have the discipline to make him strictly a pinch-hitter?

4. By: jgstecker on 01-27-2010 15:57:25
I don't understand this: "He is another left handed hitter in a lineup full of them"

Why is this common thinking around Marinerland? Ichiro and Kotchman are the only lefty bats in the everyday lineup (no, Griffey doesn't count). Why do we want another right-handed bat when Moore/Johnson, Lopez, Wilson, and Gutierrez are already sucking up ABs vs. RHP?

5. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-27-2010 15:59:21
Those are some bold words, Hammy47. Damon, at his worst, would be the M's 3rd or fourth best hitter. And if his throwing arm in the problem, that just means you play Saunders/Bradley in left more often that not, and especially late in games.

That arm of his sure didn't hurt those World Series title-winning teams -- plural -- he was on the past six years. he can hit, and is a fit because of it. Not a perfect fit, but nobody available is a perfect fit.

6. By: acqb1424 on 01-27-2010 16:00:11
While I'm not a huge fan of Damon defensively, I would love to add him for one year at about five million. I think that would upgrade the offense and like others have said, a top four of Ichiro-Figgins-Damon-Bradley wouldn't be half bad. Or you could put Guti in there to break up the lefties.

Jgstecker: I think people are considering that against a righty we'd also have Figgins, Bradley and at this moment either Griffey/Langerhans/Saunders in the lineup all batting left handed.

7. By: Hammy47 on 01-27-2010 16:03:08
jgstecker - Ichiro is LH, Figgins is Switch, Bradley is LH, Griffey is LH, Kotchman is LH, and Saunders is LH. Potentially our lineup will have 5 lefties and 4 righties. Adding Damon to that doesn't really make sense. Plus, I just can't get over how bad his defense is and with Jack Z putting this team together around run prevention, having a guy in left field that runners could easily take another base off of once or twice a game just doesn't sound like what the Mariners are trying to do.

8. By: jgstecker on 01-27-2010 16:04:51
acqb~ that lineup vs. RHP still screams for another lefty bat. Replace Griffey/Langerhans/Saunders with Damon and we're getting somewhere.

9. By: Hammy47 on 01-27-2010 16:08:25
Also, Damon would be going from a complete hitters park to a complete pitchers park. Plus, he doesn't have the lineup around him that he had with New York and Boston. If you could get him at a cheap deal, then maybe I could understand it, if you make him agree to play DH at least 75% of the time. However, if we overpay for him and start him in LF a majority of the time, I would hate that move.

10. By: mazono on 01-27-2010 16:09:05
What price are we looking at JAC? 4.5mil?

11. By: universalguru on 01-27-2010 16:10:57
Jason have you heard as to whether the M's are actually pursuing him? The Rays are apparently one of the teams going for him as well. It seems like none of his suitors have much to spend (Reds, As, Rays, Braves). In that case I'm hoping that the M's could win a relatively low bidding war.

12. By: mazono on 01-27-2010 16:11:07
Also Hammy- Bradely is a switch hitter.

13. By: jkcmason on 01-27-2010 16:11:29
Hammy,
Your comment doesn't make very much sense.

Going from:
"Damon just doesn't seem like like a Jack Z kinda guy"

to:
"We already have anough guys like Damon on offense."

within two sentences?

I realize what you are saying likely goes with defense, but the guy brings great value with his bat for little money. We would likely be playing Milton Bradley in LF for the majority of the season in this scenario. He fits the mold of a high OBP guy to add to the lineup. Think about what Ichiro, Figgins, Damon, and Bradley at the top of our lineup would provide. 4 guys that can get on base at over a .355 clip. Ichiro was the only starter on our team that was able to accomplish that last year.

This lineup would wear starting pitchers down quickly forcing teams to go to their bullpens. Two questions for you:

Who has a better bat out there in Free Agency?

Does he not improve our team?

14. By: FWBrodie on 01-27-2010 16:11:33
"We already have anough guys like Damon on offense"

You mean quality hitters who get on base and don't clog the basepaths? How can you have enough of those? Damon would be in the running for best offensive player on the team.

15. By: littlelinny6 on 01-27-2010 16:13:43
If he can be had for 1 year and $5 million, they should make it happen. This way Damon/Bradley always play either LF/DH and this relegates Griffey to a Jack Wilson pinch hitter/clubhouse guy--like he should be.

16. By: jkcmason on 01-27-2010 16:23:29
Yah,
Dave Cameron wrote about this yesterday.

http://ussmariner.com/2010/01/26/reacting-to-the-market/

Definately a good topic, and should be taken advantage of. "there are a lot of similarities between Damon this year and Bobby Abreu a year ago"

17. By: PositivePaul on 01-27-2010 16:23:29
As Dave Cameron posted on Twitter yesterday -- one of the comments on USSM's discussion of Damon as an option pointed this out (summarizing):

Damon is Ibanez's equivalent with the stick, but not nearly as dreadful with the glove.

Damon for $5-6 million for one season? In Safeco field that doesn't kill lefties? Why hasn't this been done already???

18. By: MarinersFan on 01-27-2010 16:25:32
Adding Damon would be a smart move if the price is right.

"Sherman's sources believe Damon would be willing to play for $7MM, partially deferred."

The 5.5M Ibanez made in 2008 sounds like a fair price for Damon's services in 2010.

19. By: JohnMcD on 01-27-2010 16:27:21
Ya why would you not want Damon for 1 year at 5 mil? I would rather have Damon at 5 than sheets at 10

20. By: PositivePaul on 01-27-2010 16:27:32
According to the going FA market rate, currently, 2 wins is ~$7 million. I'd even feel fine giving him that much.

21. By: Stormton on 01-27-2010 16:39:18
Hammy, in what possible lineup would we have Ichiro, Figgins, Bradley (who's a switch hitter, by the way), Griffey, Kotchman, Saunders, and Damon? I'd say at most we have Ichiro, Kotchman, Damon, and maybe Griffey as our only straight lefties in the lineup at once. That's not insane.

I'm all aboard the Damon train, by the way.

22. By: Lamda on 01-27-2010 16:41:01
I know dave lives in some fantasy world where Ibanez is the anti-christ but Damon is NOT his equivalent with the bat. If you asked people who's bat they would rather have in the lineup - they won't say its a toss-up, unless you are dave irrational when it comes to people you don't like cameron.

23. By: bohawk on 01-27-2010 16:54:06
At that price, we should jump all over him. Definite upgrade, IMO.

24. By: shortstop9 on 01-27-2010 16:59:40
Johnny Damon is a winner.He has killed us over the years and he was not regulated to DH last year.He played defense all year on the W.S. champs.He has no arm yes,but he can still track a ball and has plenty of speed.I think if you got him for a 1yr 5 mil. deal it would be a steal. I think we would have to lose Langerhans though if we sign him.

25. By: baseballman on 01-27-2010 17:07:32
At that price, Damon should be a part of our lineup. But someone please correct me if Im wrong, but I seem to remember Jack Z saying that he wanted to get another RH bat...Damon certainly doesnt fit that criteria.

JAC, do you know of any actual contact with Damon? What about Dye? I know he should never ever play OF again but his bat seems maybe fit more with what Jack Z wants to do, add a RHB with power. But I guess where would he fit? DH only? How much would Dye cost though?

26. By: universalguru on 01-27-2010 17:12:15
It's not so much that we need a RHB as that we need someone that can hit lefties (who are typically right handed bats). Damon had a .776 OPS versus lefties (granted partly in Yankee Stadium). That's not bad at all and certainly not bad enough to ignore his incredible .889 OPS versus righties. He's a HUGE upgrade if we can get him for less than $7 million.

27. By: Rudolf on 01-27-2010 17:12:33
Lamda, sounds like your beef with dave is making you irrational. Look at Ibanez's stats and Damon's stats, compare and write back.

28. By: baseballman on 01-27-2010 17:16:33
JAC on a side note (I dont want to hijack this thread) but I just Laws 2010 organizational rankings. What did you think of where he put the Ms? Also I found this kind of odd: "I would say acquiring Cliff Lee and pushing for a pennant run qualify as good reasons to gut a farm system." Gut the our farm? hardly. Just looking for your input on this, thanks.

29. By: universalguru on 01-27-2010 17:19:20
baseballman it seems to me that a lot of national writers seem to still project Aumont as a starter, which would make him an elite prospect. However we know about his hip issues and are a bit more hesitant to consider him anything more than a reliever. The term "selling the farm" has a lot to do with how you project Aumont.

30. By: Edman on 01-27-2010 17:47:42
Rudolf, I suggest that you do the same as you suggest in #27.

Damon is a good hitter, but Ibanez 87 HR with a .853 OPS, while Damon has 53 HR, with a .813 OPS, over the last three years.

Keep in mind that Damon also hit 17 HR in new Yankee Stadium, compared to 7 in away games, so that HR total was skewed.

Dave is completely wrong to call Damon, Ibanez with a glove.

There are two major blindspots for Dave, Ibanez and Washburn. He should learn to shut-up about them and stop trying to justify a position that frankly, few care about.

On Brock and Salk, all he could do was go on about why signing Washburn would be a big mistake. He said that signing Washburn procludes the M's from improving for the playoffs. Wrong, Dave, if they weren't comfortable with Wash, they could trade for a better pitcher around the deadline. If Washburn can pitch well enough in the first half of the season to put you in a position to get into the playoffs, at the right price, it's not a bad move.

31. By: Rudolf on 01-27-2010 18:24:57
You're going to blow the whole comparison over 40 points of OPS? Career-wise, Ibanez has a 30 point advantage in OPS. That's over 12 years. Raul is trending slightly better than Damon, to the tune of 10 OPS points over the last three years, but let's not forget to mention Raul's career year in Citizen Bank either. Batting average, OBP and SLG are all very similar, 3-year and career.

The only significant difference in the production, other than Ibanez's marginal advantage in home runs, is that Damon has done it over an additional 3000 ABs. I'd say that makes him the superior player, not to mention the defensive advantage he clearly wields over Ibanez.

32. By: FWBrodie on 01-27-2010 18:27:23
Here's an idea if the M's sign Damon:

Langerhan's contract isn't guaranteed right? Why not cut Langerhans and sign Reed Johnson instead? Johnson is a plus defensive left fiedler only he's right handed and has an excellent split against left-handed pitching. He could handle CF for stretches if needed. I just think with Damon on the roster and Saunders at least ready defensively Langerhans would become semi-redundant and Reed might offer a little more flexibility.

33. By: universalguru on 01-27-2010 18:29:51
Wow I'm pretty sure his major league contract is guaranteed but even if it wasn't (if that's possible?) that would set some awfully troubling precendent.

34. By: ARock on 01-27-2010 18:38:04
The Mariners have a 525k contract with Langerhans. There isnt goign to be any cutting of Langerhans.

Anyway, there is still value in having Langerhans on the team even if you sign Damon. He plays strong defense and backs up any outfield position. He is the center fielder if Gutierrez is out for any reason.

35. By: FWBrodie on 01-27-2010 18:38:50
I'm pretty sure Zduriencik has done his good deed for the offseason by bringing Junior back.

36. By: DKulich44 on 01-27-2010 18:40:42
30 - Key words "If Washburn can pitch well enough in the first half of the season", are a big IF. He's league average or worse, no better than RRS is now. Sure he's an upgrade over the spaghetti at the back of the rotation, but you could say that about a lot of pitchers, that would likely come cheaper than Washburn. What Dave would rather see is the organization get creative and get a real option worth the money that can help us all year and we wouldn't need to replace. Washburn should be a escape plan, in case talks with others don't work out.

37. By: marinermanmatt on 01-27-2010 18:44:41
30- Comparing hitters through home runs is pointless and serves only to justify your position. That is why it is better to use a stat like wOBA which takes into account EVERYTHING a batter does to create runs. Ichiro will never hit 30 homers,I doubt 20 for that matter, but he is still a much better hitter than a Jose Lopez for example. Yeah home runs are pretty, but if that's all you can do you are not a good hitter.

And I don't think the only point Dave was trying to make about Washburn is that he would flop in the playoffs. Spending 6-7 mil on Washburn (he already turned down 5 from the twins) takes money away to improve the team elsewhere in a much more cost efficient way.

P.S. If anyone out there hasn't taken the time to educate themselves on wOBA I highly recommend this article to you.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-wOBA?urn=mlb,208135

38. By: baseballman on 01-27-2010 18:49:25
rudolph, nice job ignoring the 34 HR difference...

39. By: baseballman on 01-27-2010 18:53:54
37, you clearly missed the point edman was making...no one said HR were the end-all be-all. so your scenario using ichiro and lopez is laughable because edman never said HR were the only thing that mattered

40. By: JohnMcD on 01-27-2010 18:55:42
Rosenthal just said on mlbnetwork that the M's are overhyped this year...Man I didn't realize how small he was

41. By: FWBrodie on 01-27-2010 19:07:02
Rosenthal said that the Mariners weren't the favorite in the division yet, which is a valid comment. He also said the Angels have fallen back to the pack and the Mariners are in the discussion.

42. By: randallball on 01-27-2010 19:07:51
I personally am not a fan of Damon, but he would constitute an upgrade.

43. By: Edman on 01-27-2010 19:18:28
At least baseballman gets it. Both Damon and Ibanez are good hitters, but Dave said they are alike. They aren't. If he wanted to make a comparison, it would be more like the most recent years or Abreu. That's a more reasonable comparison.

Even mentioning Ibanez in the context of Damon, is silly.

matt, it was EXACTLY Dave's thoughts on Washburn. Paraphrasing....."If you sign Washburn, it prevents you from making other moves. Do you really want to take Washburn into the playoffs as your third starter? I don't"

He completely ignored that Washburn could be replaced before the playoffs began. His whole argument was that that we'd be stuck with him, unable to do anything else. He was wrong, plain and simple.

Dave would rather see an organization that is creative? How much more creative could they be? I'd have to think that they'd look at everything possible. I doubt that Jack has any man-love for Washburn, such that he'd ignore other opportunities.

44. By: DKulich44 on 01-27-2010 19:32:23
Edman,
If you want the M's to check out other options and use Washburn as a last resort, then I'm with you. Dave's completely correct in asserting that Washburn just isn't very good. Paying Washburn 6-7 million dollars would keep the M's from doing much of anything else. Sure they can overpay for an arm at the deadline, but that's putting a lot of eggs in a unknown type of basket. I'd rather get a pitcher that's actually good, for a decent price, for the whole season than overpay for a bad one. (Which is Dave's point)

As for comparing Ibanez and Damon, I wouldn't say the comparison is their styles, but the fact they offer almost the exact same value. Ibanez making up for not being as good as Damon at getting on base by hitting with a little more pop. Two paths to close to the same destination.

45. By: marinermanmatt on 01-27-2010 19:33:37
Edman, I never argued that Washburn in the playoffs wasn't part of Dave's point, just not the whole picture. You even mentioned it yourself in that quote, "it prevents you from making other moves." Why would we want to pay Washburn so much money on the slight chance that he would be able to reproduce a fluky ERA?

And what makes you think Washburn can be moved so easily? Even if he had a repeat of last year I doubt anyone would make the same mistake Detroit did last year by giving up something of value for him. And if we were just planning on dumping Washburn if we were close to the playoffs, then why bother signing him at all?

46. By: CrustyJuggler on 01-27-2010 19:34:49
I'd accept a Damon signing on one condition and one condition only..

....

He grows back the hair and beard.

47. By: Faceplant on 01-27-2010 19:39:30
"Dave is completely wrong to call Damon, Ibanez with a glove."

It depends on what statistics you have more faith in. Ibanez has the edge in HR's, and OPS. But, wOBA and runs created above average has Damon and Ibanez being virutally identical for their career, for the 2009 seson, and for their 2010 CHONE projections.

48. By: Faceplant on 01-27-2010 19:42:36
39,

I think you clearly missed the point that marinermatt was making. I don't think he was accusing edman of claiming HR's were the be all end all. He was simply saying that if you are going to use statistics, a statistic that attempts to look a the bigger picture, like wOBA, could be a better indicator of someones true talent level.

49. By: baseballman on 01-27-2010 19:45:12
48 "Comparing hitters through home runs is pointless and serves only to justify your position" ya im pretty sure i got what he was sayin...thanks though...

50. By: Faceplant on 01-27-2010 19:56:01
"Even mentioning Ibanez in the context of Damon, is silly."

Dave was comparing their levels of production, not their respective skillsets.

"He completely ignored that Washburn could be replaced before the playoffs began. His whole argument was that that we'd be stuck with him, unable to do anything else. He was wrong, plain and simple."

I think this hinges on how valuable you think Washburn is to other teams. If this offseason is any indication of how other teams view him, I think we can say it's probably not very highly.

That said,

I agree with CrustyJuggler. We need more "Unfrozen Caveman" Baseball Players in this town!

51. By: Lamda on 01-27-2010 19:56:15
ok - look at the stats - there a few where they are similar but ONLY a few - otherwise Ibanez has him beat in just about every one of them.

52. By: Faceplant on 01-27-2010 19:59:07
48 "Comparing hitters through home runs is pointless and serves only to justify your position" ya im pretty sure i got what he was sayin...thanks though..."

Clearly you didn't, since saying that "comparing hitters through home runs is pointless" is not even close to the same thing as accusing someone of thinking home runs are the "be all end all".

53. By: Galway on 01-27-2010 20:00:14
The quest for the single metric is dangerous and often leads to the misuse of the stats. They are a tools, its the application of the tool that can unlock their usefulness. So how does Damon fit the context of the existing club? Forget the perceived answers but what questions do the stats force you to ask? Unless Ibanez is an option or on the roster his comparison is a masturbatory exercise.

54. By: Faceplant on 01-27-2010 20:01:01
51.

Again, it depends on what statistics you put more faith in.

55. By: Damien on 01-27-2010 20:05:22
Ibanez WAR the last three years: 4.2, 2.2, 0.8 (7.2 total)

Damon WAR the last three years: 3.0, 3.6, 2.3 (8.9 total)

I don't get the point of this argument, but depending on how much you trust defensive metrics, they've been pretty similarly valued over the last three seasons. Raul Ibanez has only been worth more than 3 wins once, last season (although he was close in '04 and '07). Damon has done it four times, including twice in the last two seasons. The other two seasons were 2002 (4.5) and 2004 (4.0).

Both CHONE and Fangraph's fan projections have both players with a similar WAR for 2010. I don't like Damon as a player, because the Yankees suck, but as a 2-3 win player who is a good fit for the stadium, I'd take him in a heartbeat.

56. By: Faceplant on 01-27-2010 20:06:27
53,

Couldn't agree more. The debate over who is better is pretty pointless when it comes to whether Damon can help this club or not.

57. By: Edman on 01-27-2010 20:09:23
No one stat defines how one player compares to another. If everything was that simple, then teams would get rid of scouts, and hire data entry people to let a computer decide what they should do.

I don't care what stats you use or how you weigh them, OBSERVATION alone, would tell you they aren't the same kind of player.

Stats are a reflection of history. History can be an indicator to the future, but stats aren't going to tell you anymore than the narrow scope by which they are used. I have though all my years, never seen any stat that completely tells the story. Players do not play in an antiseptic enviroment. They aren't tested under clinical conditions.

Tell me, if your doctor said that statistically, because of your family background, you're more than twice as likely to have a condition......would you be comfortable if he didn't examine you and declared a diagnosis? No. It's data, but it isn't a conclusion. It still takes observation to be sure.

That said, I hope this game never gets to the point where it's examined and run based too heavily on statistics. If I wanted to do in-depth analysis, I'd have become a Statistcial Engineer.

58. By: baseballman on 01-27-2010 20:09:54
52, read through the comments again, you are clearly confused...maybe next time you shouldnt try to input your opinion without reading ALL the comments about a matter...

59. By: Faceplant on 01-27-2010 20:13:23
"I don't care what stats you use or how you weigh them, OBSERVATION alone, would tell you they aren't the same kind of player."

Because peoples eyes never lie to them? That's silly. Statistics are a tool, just as scouting is a tool. Sometimes the two tools agree, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes your eyes were wrong, and sometimes the advanced statistics are wrong. Your best off utilizing all of the tools available to make the most informed decision possible.

"Players do not play in an antiseptic enviroment. They aren't tested under clinical conditions."

Who disagrees? I've always been baffled by those who continually argue against ideas that nobody has ever put forward. Or at least, nobody who is taken seriously.

60. By: Rudolf on 01-27-2010 20:15:58
What few stats are similar? OBP? AVG? OPS? Okay. What stats aren't similar?

Despite their differences-- which aren't that drastic when comparing a lead-off guy with a "slugger"-- they produce very similar results/percentages. Ibanez does not beat Damon in "just about every one of them". If you're looking at counting stats, consider line-up position.

Take off that big 34 home run season in Philadelphia, in a bandbox, in a weaker league, and the 33 homer season in 2006 is an outlier in a modest home run hitter's career. In fact, Johnny Damon, minus his 24 homer season in NY in 2009, looks almost as powerful. Now look at their slugging pcts. over the last six years. How can you say they are all that different?

Now factor in Damon's speed/run scoring prowess and defense, couple that with his longer career, and there is no question who's career is more distinguished.

Who would I rather have in 2010? Tough call.

61. By: redgum on 01-27-2010 20:16:12
Yep, wOBA is a much better indicator of production, but it's not adjusted for park and league. Fortunately there�s an adjusted version of wOBA, wRC+, which gives the most complete batting picture of all. It�s normalized such that a wRC+ of 100 is average.

Ibanez for the last 3 years:
120, 122, 131; 2007-09 average = 124.
Projection for 2010 = 119 (CHONE).

Damon for the last 3 years:
107, 130, 132; 2007-09 average = 123.
Projection for 2010 = 116.

While their styles may be different, their production with the bat is indeed very similar.

Looking at the whole shebang, including fielding, WAR (Wins Above Replacement) gives the most complete picture.

Ibanez the last 3 years:
0.8, 2.2, 4.2; total = 7.2
Projection for 2010 = 2.2 (CHONE)

Damon for the last 3 years:
2.3, 3.6, 3.0; total = 8.9
Projection for 2010 = 3.2.

So once fielding is included, despite Damon�s arm, he�s been worth 1.7 wins more to his team than Ibanez over the last 3 years. The assertion that Damon = Ibanez + better defense looks valid to me. And even $7m sounds like a bargain.

62. By: Edman on 01-27-2010 20:16:17
Galway, maybe that's the point? Dave mentioned Ibanez and there was no need to. He's not an option. Just stick to why he'd be a good idea, and not why he is better than someone who isn't an option.

63. By: Faceplant on 01-27-2010 20:18:19
baseballman,

This is the last thing I'm going to say on this, as I don't want to totally turn this thread into an argument that is more suited to be carried on in email.

I read all of the comments making any myself. Just to be sure I didn't miss anything I went back and read all of the comments again. Saying that, "comparing hitters through home runs is pointless", STILL doesn't mean he's accusing edman of claiming home runs are the be all end all.

Sorry, but marinermatt just didn't say what you are implying he did.

64. By: Edman on 01-27-2010 20:21:52
Faceplant, you seem like a reasonable guy. The one argument I can't stand, is the one that some hitters don't perform differently depending on situation. I don't totally believe that performance with runners in scoring position is accurate. But, I don't believe as some have tried to prove, that it's basically luck. That a .320 hitter, is a .320 hitter, regardless of circumstance. Some players excel under pressure, some don't.

Why some stat guys don't believe that's true, is beyond me.

65. By: baseballman on 01-27-2010 20:26:34
move along faceplant, move along

66. By: Faceplant on 01-27-2010 20:28:23
"But, I don't believe as some have tried to prove, that it's basically luck. That a .320 hitter, is a .320 hitter, regardless of circumstance. Some players excel under pressure, some don't."

I agree wholeheartedly that there are those who handle pressure better than others. While a lot of the worst "nervous nellies" are weeded out by the time you get to this level, people are still people. And some are going to handle pressure better than others. But I'm not convinced that guys can consciously play better than they otherwise would when they are in high pressure situations. Otherwise, why not play that way in every situation?

That said, there is definitely a luck factor over that small of a sample size that just can't be ignored. Luck plays a large part in the game when it comes to anything, and hitting with RISP is no different IMO.

67. By: Faceplant on 01-27-2010 20:35:08
You know what's funny. Since I started following baseball, I was always curious about the statistical side of it and never paid much attention to the scouting side, until more recently. I've now been following baseball for probably 15 years or so, and I'm more fascinated with the scouting side than I am with the statistical side.

I guess that's one of the things that brought me here.

68. By: Galway on 01-27-2010 20:38:50
Edman the VALUE of the two may be similar (or not) but to perhaps tie in your point of observation, the COMPOSITION of the aggregate value may be different. That can also be discovered with stats which may lead to asking questions when observing that you might not otherwise ask. Its not a stats versus eyes situation, the two can be used together. So does the composition of Damon's value fit well with the M's? Not crazy about another older guy or his Randy Winn arm and his HR power is totally overstated but he hits doubles, is lefty but holds his own against LHP and still has enough speed to NOT glog up the bases so for Abrue like contract he's a good add in my viewpoint. I'd be curious how he and Bradley would mix clubhouse wise.

69. By: dewey on 01-27-2010 21:17:25
Can we go back to having baseball talk here without War,OBP,FIP and all the other crap i agree with Rosenthal we our overhyped all i want to know is who is gonna knock in the runs? Great defense will not win in the American League you have to have guys that can bang the ball around period!

70. By: Rickv25 on 01-27-2010 22:05:13
There is something that I think is being overlooked a bit when people talk about Damon not being a Jack Z type of guy. It seems that Jack, like Pat Gillick when he began as GM, is bringing in guys that have postseason experience, at least with Lee, Figgins and Griffey. I may be way off, but I think there is value in bringing guys who know what it takes to win, and get to the postseason.

71. By: marinermanmatt on 01-27-2010 22:28:14
70- I agree completely, but in a slightly different way. I think Z is targeting players like that is because they are good. Postseason experience and knowing what it takes to win are simply byproducts of that.

GMs like Bavasi (was) on the other hand, I believe target players that have postseason experience and know what it takes to win, hoping that being good will be a byproduct of those two.

72. By: d2ret on 01-27-2010 23:27:28
This whole thread has become constipated. Helllooo people, Jack Z looks at EVERYTHING. Its just what he does. Just listen carefully to some of his interviews. He literally takes everything into account with all moves and prospective moves.

73. By: mymrbig on 01-28-2010 00:26:19
Moderator fail. Seriously, the last couple threads are out of control. I've stopped reading the comments, hopefully I'm not missing anything too interesting or insightful amidst the awful din.

74. By: Faceplant on 01-28-2010 00:48:30
"Moderator fail. Seriously, the last couple threads are out of control. I've stopped reading the comments, hopefully I'm not missing anything too interesting or insightful amidst the awful din."

Wow. I understand that this isn't the ussmariner, or lookoutlanding (that's actually WHY I'm interested in this site, and the points of view people hold here). I didn't realize that ANY mention, or discussion of advanced metrics was frowned upon. Especially considering Chris has used WAR quite extensively.

And I say this, not to cause trouble, but to understand what the "rules of discussion" are, if you will.

75. By: Chris Crawford on 01-28-2010 00:59:51
I don't even get what the heck the argument is these comments are so convoluted. I don't see how anyone can argue that if Johnny Damon is the DH and part time LF at 4 to 5 million is a bad thing. Apparently people do. Huh...interesting.

As for the Raul/Damon comparisions, a couple things

1. I respect the hell out of Dave Cameron

2. Johnny Damon has been pretty equal in terms of value to Raul Ibanez if not better, OPS, WOBA, runs, stolen bases (see, i mixed in a few different arguments so that you can't say im only using advanced metrics)

3. It doesn't matter

Play nice.

76. By: PositivePaul on 01-28-2010 01:00:33
Actually, mymrbig, d2ret - I think the discussion has been quite civil in this thread even if it may seem people are talking past each other at times and others may be missing points. While there's disagreement, it's been tempered and with minimal attacks. And brief, but well-reasoned discussion for the most part.

Keep up the great work!

Makes me just wish someone would tell Edman to shut the hell up for old time's sake. Whoops! (Kidding, of course!)

One thing I want to clear up - Dave wasn't the one that stated Damon = Ibanez with a better glove, he agreed with someone who posted that in the USSM comments. And he was talking about production, value, etc., in the WAR/wOBA sense.

Yes, I agree that Dave's anti-Washburn and anti-Ibanez bias clouds his judgment of those two guys (believe me - I've had a one-on-one conversation over dinner with him on Washburn and I couldn't convince him that Washburn provided any sort of value whatsoever to the team, so...). But he's not skewing stats. The whole point of wOBA and WAR is to look at overall value and production, taking everything into consideration.

I'm of the vein that no stat is perfect, and I'm definitely leery of solid $$$ value assessment given to defensive metrics. But it's not unreasonable to say that overall Damon's bat is about as productive as Ibanez's even if they go about producing that value differently. The improvement in Damon's glove over Ibanez's is significant enough to overcome whatever differences there may be with the bat, value-wise, between the two.

And Damon >>>>> Langerhans. I'm a HUGE Mike Morse fan (probably one of the few left on the planet) but even I recognized the Morse-Langerhans swap was good for the M's. Similarly, adding Damon to the fold at the expense of Langerhans is fine by me.

77. By: Faceplant on 01-28-2010 01:08:21
Positive Paul,

I always liked Morse as well. Seemed like a great guy, and I respected him for admitting his steroid use right away rather than trying to make excuses for his positive test.

I will say however that I reserve my irrational player love for Jeremy Reed, and Bryan Lahair. Reed, because I love the "scrappy" player type, and Lahair because I saw him do something really, really awesome for a young mentally handicapped kid in the stands during one game and it always stuck with me. He just seemed like a really, really awesome person and I hope he finds a ton of success.

78. By: PositivePaul on 01-28-2010 01:08:47
Or what Chris said.

I guess I'm too nice to moderate things :-)

79. By: Gordon on 01-28-2010 01:51:16
I agree that Damon at 5 or so million is excellent value and he'd be a good addition to this team, but I think another point that a lot of people haven't mentioned that kind of makes Damon not such a good idea is that I absolutely can't stand watching the guy play baseball. Sure he's productive, but his girly one-handed swing and throwing arm are beyond frustrating to watch, and I'm not sure I could do it for 162 games. Just thought I'd mention that side of it.

It's strange that although he'd help my team win more games, just his presence on the mariners would make me 10% less of a fan.

80. By: Lamda on 01-28-2010 03:02:51
chris is doing just fine not stopping the convo - as another person said - the last thing marinerville needs is another moronic site that deletes comments left/right if it doesn't fit into their ideology. The only thing i'd give him negative marks on is his respect for cameron, lol. I don't share it obviously, never tried to hide it. I just feel he uses stats too much to push his opinion rather than let them speak for themselves which is a danger for anyone to do.
I still stand by my original point - if you gave 30 GM's a choice of Ibanez/Damon for the exact same money, etc - 3 outta 4 would choose Ibanez easily.

81. By: Hammy47 on 01-28-2010 06:50:47
# 79 - I completely agree with what Gordon said. Would Damon even agree to be our DH at least 75% of the time and only come here for 5 million dollars? IF he agreed to those terms, which I think that would be the last thing he wanted to do, then it wouldn't be a bad signing for the Mariners. If he turns into just a DH, his value could go way down (since he is playing this year to try to get one more good contract after 2010), unless he has a great statistical season, which he very well might not do going from hitting in Yankee Stadium to hitting at Safeco Field. If you look at Damon's home/road stats last year, he only hit 7 HRs away from Yankee Stadium, while hitting 17 HRs at Yankee Stadium. He also only attempted 12 steals last year, so it doesn't seem like speed is one of his assets anymore. Again, IF we can get him at no more than 5 million dollars AND he agrees with being a DH a majority of the time, then I can understand the move. However, if we pay more than that and play him in LF a majority of the time, that would be a horrible move.

82. By: DKulich44 on 01-28-2010 09:19:44
I think the reason the Damon/Ibanez comparison came up was because the same people who say no to Damon in left field may very well be the same people who would invite Ibanez to play there with open arms and no reservations. That's just flat out wrong, Damon isn't nearly as hopeless out there. His bat outweighs his defensive weakness, but he still plays a decently passable LF. In fact, many were advocating the addition of Willingham, and he's clearly inferior to Damon defensively. Worrying about what Damon's swing looks like, who he played for, among other things is clouding the judgement that Damon is still a heck of a player. I'm sure most people would have loved getting him after his tenure with the A's and Red Sox, and he isn't much different of a player now than he was then, even with his age. On a one year deal at a good price, there's not much of an argument for not getting Damon other than bias.

83. By: mymrbig on 01-28-2010 10:06:23
Just to be clear, I don't think the moderators should have been deleting comments or anything. The discussion was civil enough and I hate it when comments get deleted (that's why I've basically given up on commenting over at USSM). I just feel like everyone articulated their points long ago and that trying to read through so many comments on the merits of WAR, wOBA, UZR, etc. isn't necessarily the purpose of the past few threads. Those discussions have been hashed out on other sites millions of times. If people don't find value in them by now and don't want to research it themselevs, they probably won't be convinced here.

And careless mistakes like not remembering that Bradley is a switch hitter are just lazy. If you are going to make an argument, at least try not to make glaring errors.

Off my soapbox, I just get annoyed by glaring mistakes or repetitive bickering. Not my site and it won't drive me away, so I'm fine wading through whatever the proprietors allow:-)

84. By: Hammy47 on 01-28-2010 10:14:38
Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning mymrbig? Did the wife not give you any last night or something? Calm down man.

BTW...I was referring to the lineup facing RH pitchers, therefore had Bradley hitting left handed. I was trying to point out how many lefties we would have in the lineup againt RH pitching.

85. By: JHamlin22 on 01-28-2010 10:26:37
Sorry if I am being a nuisance, but I just suscribed and when I click on the "here" button to e-mail Jason my User ID nothing happens. What do I do now?

86. By: JHamlin22 on 01-28-2010 10:38:53
I believe it all depends on what GM Jack Z thinks of Saunders in LF, because if he signs Damon, that will make a log jam of players in the LF/DH slots. With Saunders, Damon, and Bradley splitting time in LF along with Damon, Bradley and Griffey splitting time at DH, that just seems like too many decisions on a nightly basis. I wouldn't mind seeing the Mariners sign Damon and letting Saunders play at Tacoma for one more year, I just don't want to see Saunders on the big league team getting a minimal amount of playing time. I think he should be our starting left fielder (splitting time with Bradley) or if we sign Damon to the 5 Million dollar deal, then let him play everyday in AAA for one more year.

87. By: mymrbig on 01-28-2010 10:58:44
"Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning mymrbig? Did the wife not give you any last night or something? Calm down man."

So much for being civil. J/k. Wife wasn't the problem, though my daughter decided that after 18 months of being the best sleeping child ever born, she would spend the entire night screaming.

I like Damon as an upgrade and I'm not concerned about the LF/DH "logjam". 324 starts between LF & DH.

Pencil in Damon for 140, Bradley for 125, Griffey for 40, others for 19. That is the best case scenario if Damon and Bradley and Griffey stay healthy and productive all year. But obviously Bradley's health is precarious, Griffey's health (despite staying relatively healthy last year) is no guarantee, and despite a being pretty healthy, Damon is aging and will probably start needing more time off eventually. Having Langerhans as a capable 4th OF and Saunders getting a little more development time in AAA isn't such a bad thing.

88. By: JHamlin22 on 01-28-2010 11:44:08
I don't know if this was discussed before, but isn't Johnny Damon a Scott Boras client? I don't like our chances of signing Damon to a cheap deal and have him agree to play DH a lot if that's the case.

89. By: Chris Crawford on 01-28-2010 12:06:10
Jhamlin....email Jason @churchill@prospectinsider.com....then we can get you all set up.

90. By: PositivePaul on 01-28-2010 12:25:23
Yeah - Damon's indeed a Boras client. Might be hurting him moreso than helping him here.

Seriously, I'd have NO problem giving Damon a 1-year $7 million deal. At this point, that may be his best offer.

91. By: DMac33 on 01-28-2010 12:54:55
I'm sure that I'll get skewered by this ... but going back to what I said a while back regarding why I have such a problem with how some people use stats is illustrated here.

Why would people compare Damon to Ibanez? They aren't the same player and don't fill the same roles. Damon is a top of the order kind of hitter (3rd hitter is a stretch IMO but reasonable based on what the Mariners would be trying to do) while Ibanez is a 3-6 hitter in a lineup (ideally suited to the 5 or 6 spots). It's comparing an apple and an orange.

Same thing for trying to compare Ichiro and Lopez (even though obviously Ichiro is a far better hitter - we all know that). But the point remains ... Ichiro's responsibilities in the lineup are far different than Lopez's.

Trust me, I understand the stats that people are throwing out ... but you have to use some logic in them as well and use your eyes. Would the Mariners be a tremendous offense if they had 9 Ichiro's in the lineup? There's just so much to consider in putting together a good lineup that goes beyond using stats.

92. By: Mackie on 01-28-2010 14:17:59
Thanks much for all the commentary re. Damon and Ibanez! It is very interesting stuff, and while most of the WAR, UZR etc. is stuff I don't understand fully. Actually, I have only gotten past BA and into stuff like OBP and OPS in the last few years... but this provides a very good learning experience.

As for whether or not to sign Damon, I think he is an efficient-enough hitter. Like someone was saying before, if the Mariners want guys who can get on base and who won't clog the basepaths, he may be one of the better options available at this point. Unless they could swing a trade for someone who might fit in better, why not go for Damon if the price is right? As long as they don't have to count on him playing the field too much, he would probably fit in just fine.

But there are probably still a lot more options out there with FAs and trade possibilities than any of us know. I keep thinking that the reason the M's aren't going after some of these guys like Sheets and maybe Damon is because they might be working on other things. I'm waiting for the next surprise from Zduriencik, anyway.

93. By: Edman on 01-28-2010 14:27:22
DMac, I agree. That's why I try to get people to put as much effort into observation, as they do digging up stats.

Damon is a good player, but honestly, I would prefer someone with more power for LF. But, as long as we kept Lopez for the power side of things, I'd be happy with Damon.

But, not recognizing that someone like Hudson isn't like having a power bat like Lopez in the lineup, gets hard for me to understand. Yes, I know Hudson has better OBP and is a better hitter. But, I also recognize that he provides more extra-base hits that can drive in more than one run at a time.

Ideally, I'd rather not worry so much about Lopez, and concentrate on filling LF with a reliable power bat. It doesn't have to be a 35 HR a year guy. But, it needs to be someone who can provide 20+ HR. Who is that? I don't know. But, until you do, can you really move Lopez yet? I don't think so, until you answer how you're going to add another bat to the lineup.

94. By: PositivePaul on 01-28-2010 14:46:59
A run scored is a run scored. If it takes you 4 batters to get a run as opposed to 1 then so be it -- it can actually be more taxing on a pitcher to have to face more batters. So in that sense, while I'm not discounting the value of XBH's, you can't overstate the importance of managing your outs. I'd much rather have a team full of .400 OBP/.400 SLG guys than a team full of .300 OBP/.500 SLG guys.

The key to understanding stats stuff is that the fundamental conclusion reached is that a run is a run is a run. Whether it's saved on defense or gained on offense, scored by the #2 hitter, driven in by the #4 or scored by #7, driven in by #9, it has the same value. Now, clearly, you can't win a game 0 to -1, and I still have tons of issues with hard-and-fast defensive run value assignments, but I have no problem accepting that a hitter like Ichiro can be just as valuable as a guy like Pujols (not to say, of course, this is the case) at the plate.

I'm certainly no saber-dweeb, but it is important to understand that side of the coin at least a little.

95. By: VikingArthur on 01-28-2010 15:23:47
DMac33... You would not want 9 Ichiros in a lineup? Are you serious? That would be a terrifying lineup to face.

96. By: jgstecker on 01-28-2010 15:53:49
Keith Law loves Ackley and Triunfel:

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=law_keith&id=4856310&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb%2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dlaw_keith%26id%3d4856310

97. By: Stormton on 01-28-2010 15:55:34
Rosenthal mentioned us in a tweet about Melvin Mora, you guys interested at all?

http://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/8326817523

98. By: universalguru on 01-28-2010 16:14:10
Mora fills our need for versatility but he's not at all the impact bat we could use. I love Griffey but I really wish we could have both Damon and Mora. The truth is if we're looking at Mora I'd have wished we'd have signed Tatis instead.

99. By: ARock on 01-28-2010 16:20:19
This thread seems to have devolved into a scouting vs statistics argument. I think the whole argument is a fallacy. In reality, a team will do worse if it ignores good statistical analysis, and a team will do worse if it does not utilize good scouts.

I appreciate both which is why I love reading both Jason Churchill and Dave Cameron. We are baseball fans and we should want to know as much as we can about how Baseball works, and its players. Teams should want to know as much as they can about the abilities of a player.

To answer a question like: "Would the Mariners be a tremendous offense if they had 9 Ichiros in the lineup?", one should do a lineup analysis on 9 Ichiros and see how many runs it would produce. And then you could replace certain of those Ichiros with a low OBP/high SLG player and see how it effects run scoring. Then you would get a real answer to the question, instead of just making claims that pure OBP is better or that you need a power hitter.

100. By: DMac33 on 01-28-2010 16:20:21
Before I get going to much, keep in mind that I'm certainly not knocking the power of numbers because I have a degree in mathematics and analyze things for a living. I respect what numbers tell us.

However, while I do think that in principle that a "run is a run" and that a preventing a run holds value just like scoring a run does, I do think that there comes a point where the economic concept of diminishing utility can be related to the equation. Ultimately, the goal is to find the optimal balance between runs scored and runs allowed.

Ultimately, the ability to get on base is not all equal - we all know that. The benefit of a single can be greater than a walk (with runners on base). The benefit of an extra base hit is greater than a single. And moreover, against the more elite pitchers, the ability to get multiple positive events offensively is reduced. You have to maximize your opportunities.

I'm not advocating that you need HR power. What I'm advocating is that there are ideal situations of what you are looking for in guys across a lineup. There is a reason that there are "rules of thumb" in setting lineups that have stood the test of time. There are some things I read that are great in theory, but ultimately are not reflective of reality.

101. By: ARock on 01-28-2010 16:23:43
"97. By: Stormton on 01-28-2010 15:55:34
Rosenthal mentioned us in a tweet about Melvin Mora, you guys interested at all? "

He's ok as a relatively cheap backup, but I'd rather see the Mariners add someone better instead.

102. By: DMac33 on 01-28-2010 16:24:31
Regarding my comments on 9 Ichiro's:

Ichiro is a tremendous leadoff hitter. He can work the count when he chooses. He has tremendous speed. He can get infield hits. Lots of different ways to get on base.

Now consider the situation where is he up with 2 runners on base. The ability for him to get an infield hit is reduced because of the likelihood of a forceout. If you were to track a typical Ichiro out, would that out be beneficial to the situation? In other words, if there were runners on 1st and 3rd, if Ichiro hits a flyball to the OF, does the flyball have the required depth necessary to get the run home?

And ultimately, it's questions like those that matter when you are looking at spacing your lineup correctly. It's why having the ability to have some power component in an order is desired.

My best guess is that if Ichiro was a middle of the order hitter, you'd see him have a slightly different approach at the plate compared to what he currently has.

103. By: Chris Crawford on 01-28-2010 17:13:41
How did a conversation about Johnny Damon become a thread about having 9 Ichiro's or 7 Pujol's and 2 Ichiros or 2 Ichiro F=MA times pi.

Secondly, the comments about peoples wives will just flat out STOP. NOW. Will ban if I see a personal attack like that. Don't care.

104. By: DMac33 on 01-28-2010 17:14:50
I agree with a lot of what ARock is saying ...

I think statistical analysis is great ... TO A POINT.

And I think traditional scouting and using your eyes to confirm what you are seeing is great ... TO A POINT.

You ultimately have to use both to be successful.

The reality is that an ideal lineup has a good mix of speed, power, contact guys, guys that work counts, etc.

I seem to recall an experiment that was done by the A's when they used Jeremy Giambi as a leadoff hitter - he got on base a ton supposedly - shouldn't that have worked out well? It didn't really ...

105. By: ARock on 01-28-2010 17:41:40
"I think statistical analysis is great ... TO A POINT.

And I think traditional scouting and using your eyes to confirm what you are seeing is great ... TO A POINT."

To me, the big advantage of scouting is that is can tell us things without requiring a large sample size. You cant exactly apply these major league stats to an A ball player, or even to a rookie with half a year's experience.
If a player has been injured, you cant tell if he is still good using stats until you give him a bunch of playing time. Something you do NOT want to do if he has lost his abilities. It might take you multiple years to tell if a player is 'done' or has 'broken out' using stats. A good scout would be able to see this much sooner.

The advantage of statistical analysis is that given the large sample size, it will tell us the answer more accurately. We can actually calculate the value, in runs, that Ichiro will produce for us over a year. We can calculate how much value a certain player is worth to the team. Humans arent good at accurately summing up all of the data. We would overvalue a key play, we ignore a bunch of data that doesnt fit our pre-conceptions, we find patterns in data where there is none, etc.

106. By: DKulich44 on 01-28-2010 17:58:39
There's a way to use statistics and a way to use scouting to get ahead. Blending these is the only way to compete now. There's weaknesses in statistics, like most of you have pointed out. But there's also many weaknesses in scouting. How many of anyone's top 100 lists ever become great players? How many don't even make it to the majors? It's far from an exact science, just as stats are.

And yeah, the comments section here makes me feel like I'm reading some of Baker's comments, not usually what I'm used to from PI. And I'm one who supports and understands why USSM do what they do. Their website isn't an open forum, its more of a classroom. If you can argue your point of view logically and effectively, it definitely gets heard. I would not at all be turned off of PI if Jason and Chris started doing some more of the same at all.

107. By: Edman on 01-28-2010 19:00:44
I wouldn't describe USSM as a classroom. It's more like an auditorium where you can listen to a professor speak, and better be damn sure of what you say, when you answer.

Doesn't really matter. I find people who only want what they say, parroted back to them, uninteresting. Debate is how you find enlightenment.

I don't like the atmosphere, because it's like a gang, IMHO. If you're with the cool kids, all is well. If you question what you're told, you're soon an outcast.

I love stats, it's one of the joys of baseball....breaking down the numbers. But, nothing is better than watching a great defensive play. I don't get nearly the same thrill, looking at a zone rating....LOL.

108. By: DKulich44 on 01-28-2010 19:06:41
Dave is definitely close minded and confident, but he does know his stuff. I learn something there every day, and my criticisms, questions, comments, etc. have been more than well tolerated and they've been open to hearing people out, in my opinion. Its no surprise that Dave is where he is, working with FanGraphs (and making that place amazing). I frequent all of the M's major blogs, tend to read over most of the comments, but a lot of USSM's used to be awful and distracting (like Baker's are now), and the censoring has made that place much better.

As for watching an amazing defensive play, it doesn't lose any of its thrill to me just because I can statistically quantify it. Why are defensive stats called unreliable and useless when hitting stats (like RBI, HR, even wOBA) vary as well? If Ichiro would have hit .280, we'd say it was a bad year, but if he had a UZR of -10 we'd say the stat was flawed. All in all, I like watching baseball as much as I like thinking about it, and it's that marriage of two things that keeps me interested.

109. By: Rudolf on 01-28-2010 20:29:42
Top Ten boring things to comment on:

10. Adrian Gonzalez trade proposals
9. Which blog is run the worst
8. How many ABs Griffey will get at DH
7. I love Jack Z!!! I can't wait to see what he does next!!! Boy he's gonna surprise us!!!
6. Repeating verbatim what you read on another website
- mlbtraderumor updates excluded
5. Repeating verbatim what the guy right above you wrote
4. stats vs. scouting-- really, we're still here? They're both good. both good.
3. Tim Lincecum
2. Bill Bavasi
1. complaining about threads and the moderator's job.

It is not beyond me that I am complaining about threads.

As far as this guy is concerned, staying on topic is good, but don't let that stop us from working into something worth talking about, even if there is no answer. Fans thinking and proposing their ideas for group consideration is a beautiful thing. It's an added bonus when we articulate ourselves well and use stats to back our statements. This was a perfectly good thread until people started bitching and turned it into nonsense. Go with the flow, redirect the flow, or stay out of the road.

110. By: JHamlin22 on 01-29-2010 06:55:25
I know it might not mean much, but there is a nice article on ESPN about how Griffey's knee surgery went really well and how he has lost weight this offseason. Trainer Rick Griffin said that Griffey's knee is already in better shape than it was at any point last year. Good to hear.

111. By: Mr. Durden on 01-29-2010 10:21:46
Damon would be a fine addition, but he is LH. Considering the M's need for some RH pop, what about Pat Burrell? Yes, Safeco would have a negative effect on his production. Yes, he is poor defensively. Yes, he costs more than he should. There are several drawbacks to him. If there weren't he would not be available. But, perhaps the Rays' desire to move him and his $9M salary would be enough for them to include someone like Brignac? Lopez to the Rays would allow them to move Zobrist into RF...

112. By: jgstecker on 01-29-2010 10:46:34
After listening to Wakamatsu on the radio yesterday, I don't think we should get our hopes up too much. He basically said Griffey is his DH. If Griffey feels good, he's in there. Hard to go back on those words with a guy like Griffey.

The Tatis/Mora/Callaspo types that we keep hearing about make some sense. Bench guys who can hit lefties and move around the field. I've been pushing for Callaspo for years and if he can be had, he should be at the top of the list for this type of player.

113. By: MarinersFan on 01-29-2010 11:34:16
Jason,

Is there anything the Mariners can do with Doug Fister to get more velocity out of that 6'8" frame? Thanks!

114. By: masonb on 01-29-2010 11:42:36
Just wondering,

what might it take to get Callaspo from the Royals? It seems like he would be a better solution at 2b if Lopez were traded for pitching.

115. By: jgstecker on 01-29-2010 12:37:38
Callaspo probably won't cost much. Nothing that would be too painful. They just replaced him with Chris Getz, so that gives you some indication of his value.

Callaspo is nice because he can be a valuable utility guy or take over at 2B for Lopez if the right opportunity presents itself.

You are not currently logged in. If you'd like to comment on this report, please log in.
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!