Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

Warning: if you dislike Richard Griffin-bashing, you'd best move on to another thread.

In today's Star, happy-go-lucky Griff examines the plethora of ex-Jays who are setting the major leagues on fire, contrasting them with the sorry lot of current Blue Jays who have been so putrid thus far. The implication, as always, is that it's only ever been about dumping salary, cutting loose valued veterans for little in return. If he has a point beyond that, it's difficult to tell, since the column simply tapers off at the end.

Fine as far as it goes, in theory: JP isn't immune from criticism for his player moves, in these or other parts. But Griff, as usual, doesn't seem interested in telling the whole story: he fails to characterize unusually hot starts as exactly what they are, and doesn't provide enough context to the impugned transactions. These are the former Blue Jays identified by Griffin as thriving cast-offs: Jose Cruz Jr., Raul Mondesi, Tony Batista, Brad Fullmer, Alex Gonzalez, Esteban Loiaza, Brandon Lyon, Dan Plesac, Billy Koch, Paul Quantrill and David Wells. Let's take a closer look at each of these ex-Jays.

1. Jose Cruz Jr.

Here are Junior's statlines for the past four seasons:

1999: .241/.358/.433 (349 AB)
2000: .242/.323/.466 (603 AB)
2001: .274/.326/.530 (577 AB)
2002: .245/.317/.438 (466 AB)
2003: .312/.441/.587 (109 AB)

Now, call me a zombie-like cult member, but I'm pretty sure I can spot the outlier there, both in terms of performance and sample size. Add to this the fact that Jose plays in one of the most extreme pitcher's parks in baseball, and that NL pitchers are going to learn pretty soon to throw him breaking stuff in the dirt, and I think you can see where his season is heading. Indeed, after 6 HRs in his first 8 games, Junior has hit just 2 in the 22 since.

There's nothing inherently wrong with Jose Cruz Jr., of course -- he's fine defensively, he has power to spare and he used to take a walk once in a while (as he's been doing so far this season, a 26/28 BB/K ratio). But he's an established 780 OPS player, and he was going to make $5 million plus this season to do that again; Frank Catalanotto is an established 820 OPS player making one-fifth of that. Even figuring in the huge defensive difference, it's a no-brainer. When Jose is back down in the .260s in June or July, you think we'll hear about him then?

JP 1, Richard 0

2. Raul Mondesi

Raul's off to a great start with the Yankees, .367/.466/.717 in 60 ABs. Does anyone remember how Raul played for the Yanks after the trade last season? Try .241/.315/.430 in 270 ABs. Now the truth is, Mondesi's a bit better than that: you can usually count on him for around an 800 OPS. But his numbers have been in a steady decline since 1997, he's 32, and he had a price tag only George Steinbrenner can afford (not that he wants to -- all reports indicated the Yanks spent the off-season peddling the Buffalo, even considering a straight salary dump with the Pirates). The Mondesi dump was the best part of 2002 for Toronto -- Scott Wiggins is Triple-A bullpen filler, nothing more -- and it strains credulity to imply that Toronto would be better off with him today. But then, according to Griff''s logic, the Jays should have kept Mondesi, Cruz, Shannon Stewart and Vernon Wells, and wasn't that where we were last spring?

JP 2, Richard 0

3. Tony Batista

I'm in agreement with Griffin up to a point: Batista's loss on waivers in 2001 was completely unnecessary. Despite his horrific slump at the time, he was less than half a year removed from a 41-HR season, and a lot of teams would value that without looking too closely at his background numbers. The Orioles did, and they've been rewarded with an OPS that hasn't cracked .773 since he arrived. But let's also face facts: his trade value was very low, few teams had shown much interest in him before that, he couldn't (and didn't) pass through waivers, and what did the Orioles have to offer Toronto anyway? Add to this the fact it was on Gord Ash's dying watch, and you wonder what the Batista loss is doing on this list, except for purposes of piling on. Griffin's not wrong, but JP wasn't involved with this, so call it a draw.

JP 2, Richard 0

4. Brad Fullmer

I'm feeling generous, so I'll give this one to Griffin. Fullmer is a perfectly fine right-handed first baseman/DH: he has a .298 BA, 872 OPS against righties lifetime, and posted a solid .289/.357/.531 for the Angels last year. The trade return for Fullmer, Brian Cooper, got slapped around in Toronto and Syracuse last year and was released soon afterwards. The reasons for the trade are, of course, obvious: Fullmer had a too-generous contract (courtesy of Gord Ash) and no position, and with four outfielders already fighting for playing time, Ricciardi had to make room. It was a talent and salary dump both, and even at the time there were questions about the quality of the return (though anyone who thought the Jays were getting John Lackey or Francisco Rodriguez are dreaming in technicolour). And if Fullmer were with the Jays today, where would he play? A $4 million pinch-hitter? But as I say, I'm feeling generous, and I certainly wouldn't want it said I have it in for Griffin or anything.

JP 2, Richard 1

5. Alex Gonzalez

OK, you've got to be joking. Gonzalez was Toronto's answer to Rey Ordonez: fine glove, terrible bat, way overrated and way overpaid. His last season with the Blue Jays: .253/.303/.388, 17 HR, 18 SB, 43 BB, 149 K. His first season with the Cubs: .248/.312/.425, 18 HR, 5 SB, 46 BB, 136 K. His career line: .247/.308/.394. He continually insisted that 150 Ks and a .240 average were an acceptable price to pay for 15 HRs a season. He was wrong. Gonzalez's departure opened the door to Felipe Lopez, and eventually to Chris Woodward; Lopez brought Jason Arnold and John-Ford Griffin in trade; and $4 million was saved. And this was a bad move for JP? The GM should get bonus points for this silliness, but instead the score simply goes to:

JP 3, Richard 1

6. Esteban Loaiza

This won't take long. Loiaza in April, career: 2.85 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, .223 opponents' BA, .72 K/IP. Loaiza in full-season, career: 4.80 ERA, 1.44 WHIP, .265 opponents' BA, .61 K/IP. Loaiza in April 2003: 1.25 ERA, 0.67 WHIP, .142 opponents' BA, .97 K/IP. Anyone care to fill in the last blank? Oh yeah, Esteban's first May start: 3 2/3 IP, 5 ER, 9 H, 3 BB, 2 K. And let's not forget his reportedly terrible impact on the clubhouse in 2002. Yeah, the Jays really should've kept this metronome of mediocrity around.

JP 4, Richard 1

7. Brandon Lyon

I'm tempted to give Richard this one as well. I do agree that Lyon was cut loose too soon, that the Jays' front office exercised a rush to judgment in clearing him out of the organization. But let's be serious here: he's pitched exactly 10 innings for Boston this season, and has allowed 14 baserunners and struck out 7; his 2.70 ERA in those 10 IP contrasts vividly with the 6.53 mark he threw up in 62 Toronto innings in '02. Maybe he will come back to haunt his former team someday, but the jury hasn't even ordered their coffee yet. For drawing conclusions on the most spurious of sample sizes, Griffin loses this one.

JP 5, Richard 1

8. Dan Plesac

Yeah, right. Acquiring the team's new minimum-wage closer in exchange for a 40ish setup guy making ten times his salary was a bad idea.

JP 6, Richard 1

9. Billy Koch

Griff has the cojones to actually record this transaction in his column as "Billy Koch (1-1, 8.56 ERA, 3 saves), traded to the A's for two players." Yes, Rich -- one of whom was rookie of the year and is now the starting third baseman. And an 8.56 ERA is a good thing? Koch has now benefitted both teams who traded him away (the A's cleaned up on the White Sox deal), and Billy has temporarily lost his closer's job to Damaso Marte. Then again, where closer-killer Jerry Manuel is concerned, maybe Koch is destined for long relief all year long.

JP 7, Richard 1

10. Paul Quantrill

Richard can have this one. Quantrill was overpaid for a setup man, but he was also pretty highly valued around the league, as was Cesar Izturis. Chad Ricketts and Luke Prokopec both turned up lame after their arrival and both are now out of the organization. Tough luck, but this was easily JP's least successful trade, and he should be held accountable for it.

JP 7, Richard 2

11. David Wells

Taking another page from his Bash Ash book, Griffin resurrects the ugly spectre of Boomer Wells, dealt for sore-armed Mike Sirotka and overhyped Brian Simmons. Sure it was a dog of a trade, even considering that Wells had pushed Ash into a corner. But how far back, exactly, are we going to go to cast aspersions on the current Jays administration? Shall we discuss the Collins-and-Griffin-for-Caudill deal as well? I should penalize Griff for going back to the Wells once too often, but I am a gentle soul, so the final score is:

JP 7, Richard 2

So what was the point of all this? After all, I know I'm largely preaching to the choir here. But I just can't stand it when a prominent columnist, the baseball beat writer in Toronto's flagship paper, authors negative and one-sided copy as part of an ongoing effort to complain about whoever occupies the GM position at Skydome. A lot of people are going to read Griff's column today and buy it completely, not knowing any better that there's more to the story. This rant was penned in the hopes that at least one of them might read it.

Posted by Jordan on Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 11:14 AM EDT.

Doublespeak | 27 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

_Baseball Player - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 12:46 PM EDT (#102606) #

http://economics.about.com/library/weekly/aa021903a.htm
However, despite the fact of having only Politte and Hinske, active, in return for 11 players still performing at their peak for other teams, it could be argued that the Jays saved a total of $48.6 million (U.S.) when adding up those veterans' `02 salaries.

Of course, the Jays also have *9* roster spots that they didn't before (11 - 2) = 9, which allowed them to sign players like Cat, Sturtze, and trade for Lidle.

By GriffinLogic(TM) the Yankees should have kept Tino Martinez, because all they have to show for it is a few million dollars.

Griffin's article would have made a lot more sense if he read my article first, IMHO. And I'm the first one to admit that I'm a hack.

MP

Gitz - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 01:03 PM EDT (#102607) #

A lot of people are going to read Griff's column today and buy it completely ...

The important thing, and I understand you didn't mean it this way, Coach, is that people are going to "buy" it. Griffin's not out to make people happy, especially his readers. He's out to sell papers. You don't do that by sucking up to the GM. If you don't want to get ticked off by Griffin, don't read him.

The only thing that will convince Toronto fans JP is doing the right thing is if the Blue Jays win. The average fan doesn't give a hoot about Rule 5 steals, opportunity costs or scouring the minors for free talent. They care about their team winning.

_M.P. Moffatt - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 01:17 PM EDT (#102608) #

http://economics.about.com
What strikes me odd is Griffin's use of the 2000 cutoff. I mean, why 2000? I could see *just* looking at the JP period. But if you're going to include pre-JP transactions, why not look at them all?

Then he could have complained about Olerud, Green, Jeff Kent, Jay Gibbons, Fred McGriff, Woody Williams, Roger Clemens, Al Leiter, and a bunch of other guys.

Also, what did the 2nd last and 3rd last paragraphs have to do with his point? It's like a snippet from another article got placed at the end of this one. You can say, "Well, it's his job to sell papers", but writing articles like that isn't going to do it. He should have ended it:

"In fact, the Jays are just about where they should be in the standings. Even their mediocre five-year streak of third-place finishes in the Al East is in jeopardy."

Also, it should be AL East.

Generally I think we rag on Griffin too much, but this article was just putrid.

MP

Pistol - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 01:18 PM EDT (#102609) #

I still think the Prokopec trade was a good move by the Jays. The end result was bad, but that doesn't make it a bad decision. Even if you go with the odds it doesn't mean it will work out. In the long run, however, if you play the percentages you'll come out ahead.

Coach - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 01:22 PM EDT (#102610) #

Griffin says, "it could be argued that the Jays saved a total of $48.6 million (U.S.) when adding up those veterans' `02 salaries." Why is this fact arguable? Rich is back to his agenda (vendetta?) instead of reporting. Lumping pre-Ricciardi moves into this column serves his purpose.

While misleading the casual fan who, as Jordan says, doesn't know any better, Griffin is indirectly needling us. It's not an accident -- he wants his editors to see how "provocative" his stuff is. Am I paranoid about, or imagining, his adversarial interest in Da Box? Not at all -- so far, we've been dubbed the ZLC of statistical seamheads, and J.P.-worshippers. The point has been raised before that we're playing into his hands by responding, but this garbage is hard to ignore.

If Griffin's so sure the Orioles will finish ahead of the Blue Jays, perhaps he'd make a little friendly wager -- I'll pledge to praise his vision and wisdom here for 10 straight days in the unlikely event I'm wrong, if he'll give Batter's Box one measly acknowledgement in his column after his ludicrous "warning" about finishing worse than third is exposed as nonsense.

_M.P. Moffatt - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 01:33 PM EDT (#102611) #

http://economics.about.com
I still think the Prokopec trade was a good move by the Jays. The end result was bad, but that doesn't make it a bad decision. Even if you go with the odds it doesn't mean it will work out. In the long run, however, if you play the percentages you'll come out ahead.

Agreed, and it's something a lot of people miss. In technical terms, people use ex-post realizations to value ex-ante gambles. It doesn't make sense.

Suppose I have a fair coin (not weighted or two-headed or anything), and I make you this bet:

HEADS: You pay me $100
TAILS: I pay you $200

You agree, and the coin comes up heads. I win $100.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THE GAMBLE WAS A SMART MOVE!

It just means that I got lucky. On average I'll lose $50 every time we play.

I keep defending the trade on Usenet and people keep asking "Well, what do we have left to show for it?" Like that's at all relevant to determining if it was a good trade. But simple minded people always seem to think TURNS OUT WELL = IT WAS A GOOD IDEA.

MP

Coach: Your wager was like one I tried to make with Paul Godfrey. A year or two ago, Godfrey was on "Off The Record" and he said that baseball is in rough shape, because you already knew which 8 teams were going to make the playoffs before the season even started (or something to that effect).

So I e-mailed OTR and tried to set up a wager where he'd name the 8 teams. I never heard back from OTR or Godfrey.

MP

_Spicol - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 01:34 PM EDT (#102612) #

Like always, the column is written poorly and Griffin overvalues traditional stats but this isn't the scathing critique of JP that you're making this out to be.

Griffin writes: "it could be argued that the Jays saved a total of $48.6 million (U.S.) when adding up those veterans' `02 salaries. And after all, isn't that the reason general manager J.P. Ricciardi was hired back in November of 2001?

And isn't that philosophy of dump-and-rebuild the reason the Jays pinpointed 2004-05 as the period when they would like to become serious contenders again? In fact, the Jays are just about where they should be in the standings."

He's not wrong here. In fact, you could even put a positive spin on the column, as if he's saying to his readership, "don't spaz because some players are having some success elsewhere. The Jays are on plan regardless."

I HATE that I'm defending Griffin but the guy has a point...this time.

Gitz - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 01:40 PM EDT (#102613) #

Doof. My apologies, Jordan. I thought Coach had written this.

_Jordan - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 01:45 PM EDT (#102614) #

Gitz, I'm honoured. :-)

_DS - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 01:52 PM EDT (#102615) #

If you think about all of JP's trades, its not as if he's traded away a commodity that has outperformed expectations. I say all of them have had performances within their expected range. The return hasn't always been pretty (Brian Cooper, anyone?) but I think it's pretty obvious that JP has a fairly good grasp of the players under his watch. Some of the players he got rid of would have been useful (who wouldn't love to have Quantrill in the bullpen right now?), but I don't think any moves he's made have been without completely weighing his options (well maybe not the Tam and Creek signings). The same could not be said about Gord Ash.

_Jurgen - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 01:56 PM EDT (#102616) #

Screw Quantrill... who wouldn't love to have Gagne in the pen right now?

_M.P. Moffatt - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 02:24 PM EDT (#102617) #

http://economics.about.com
If you think about all of JP's trades, its not as if he's traded away a commodity that has outperformed expectations.

That's one reason I didn't share the optimism some had for this team during this off-season.

It's kind of interesting to consider how each player in '02 performed relative to what was predicted for him that season:

EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS
----
Hinske
Wells
Stewart
Woodward
Phelps
Hudson
Halladay

DID LESS THAN EXPECTED
----
Lopez
Cruz
Mondesi
Fletcher
Bush
Lawrence
Carpenter
Prokopec
Lyon
Escobar

Notice a trend? All the people who did *less* than expected were gone except for Escobar (Fletcher retired, Bush, Lawrence, and Lyon dumped, Mondesi and Lopez traded, Cruz left as a free-agent, what category does Prokopec and Lyon fall under?) All the guys who did better than expected were retained.

It'll be interesting to see if JP dumps underperforming players in the future, or if this was just a coincidence. Personally I can't argue with any of the moves... other than maybe keeping one too many of the "Did Less Than Expected" players.

MP

_Shane - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 02:25 PM EDT (#102618) #

Gideon, great stuff. Agreed with those defending the Prokopec and Lyon moves. Unlike a few of Ricciardi's early deals, the Quantrill/Prokopec one was a baseball deal first, that had salary relief benifits. Ricciardi acquired a young, highly sought starting pitcher who ended up suffering maybe the worst injury a pitcher can have. If he didn't suffer the injury, he'd still be here. With Lyon they didn't do anything agregious like release him. They wanted him, and tried to slip him through waivers. The Jays and the Red Sox feel he's a bullpen guy and the Jays needed the roster room to protect Quiroz, Rich, Rios, Rosario, Chulk, and Markwell. If anything you make arguements of why Lyon and not Coco, File, or Wise?

Craig B - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 02:39 PM EDT (#102619) #

Prokopec? What? Trading for the guy with the below-average strikeout rate *and* the 27 HR in 138 innings in *Dodger Stadium* was a _good_ idea? Yuck. Sorry, I was down on Prokopec from the start, I thought he had very little chance of becoming anything. I was encouraged by his decent stuff and encouraged by his strikeout rates in the low minors, but didn't see the statistical profile of a guy who would have any sort of longterm success.

I was mildly surprised at the extent of Prokopec's flameout, but it was obvious from his 2001 season that this guy was a marginal major leaguer.

Craig B - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 02:43 PM EDT (#102620) #

Of course, I should abide by the truth-in-advertising dictum: I didn't think Halladay had much of a chance for longterm success after his 1999, either, though there were encouraging signs there too.

_Nigel - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 02:53 PM EDT (#102621) #

I think JP is given too much of a break on the Lyon situation. While the Quantrill trade worked out badly,at least it had the noted benefits of a salary dump and two prospects (about whom you can debate the merits but they did have some). I think JP went against stated organizational principles with the Lyon situation. I say this believing that Lyon's upside may be Quantrill. But he gave Lyon away for nothing without the benefits of a salary dump. He protected Coco and Wise both of whom had done nothing comparable at the levels that Lyon did and they did them at much older ages. Prior to last year, Lyon had (at relatively young ages) posted impressive bb/k and k/innings ratios at every level. There was just no reason to give up on that ahead of some of the people he did protect. Its not likely to be the end of the world, but it made no sense then and it makes no sense now (given we're seeing the likes of Bowles again).

Gerry - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 03:21 PM EDT (#102622) #

There is an assumption underlying these stats that the player would have the same stats if they were still with the Jays. I disagree.

Cruz, Mondesi and Loaiza were essentially fired. They all have taken, or are looking at, pay decreases, if not the end of their career. Their motivation to perform is large. They are the typical "end of contract" players.

Now if they were with the Jays they would still be end of contract players but they would have their comfort zone that they would find another team/job. Their 'firing' last year has given them a wake-up call, that provides motivation this year, leading to better stats.

For these three at least, good riddance.

_R Billie - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 04:04 PM EDT (#102623) #

The Lyon situation was probably less excusable when you take into account that guys like Tam and Creek were given guaranteed major league contracts coming off very poor years. With the number of major league calibre players that ended up signing minor league deals in the off-season, I really saw no need to offer these two ML contracts.

Of course you could just simply go as far as "why keep Coco protected" and stop right there. Lyon's major league career not withstanding, his minor league numbers suggested he had more potential than he had shown thus far, and considering he made the majors at the ripe age of 21, with more physical/mental maturation due, designating him for assignment was completely unnecessary.

And obviously he either improved him performance through weight training (which should be required of all developing players), or the Red Sox found ways to improve his delivery to get more velocity. Lyon at the very least could be Jeff Tam with fewer walks and probably more strikeouts.

_Nigel - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 04:58 PM EDT (#102624) #

R Billie - agreed on all fronts. Worse yet, Tam and Creek are taking 40-man roster spots that could have gone to Lyon.

If the goal is to be building the next winning Jays team for '04 or '05 then you have to take a look at Lyon and make sure he has no role in that before you let him go. Based upon their ages and careers to date we already knew with near certainty that Tam and Creek were not going to have a role on those teams.

In effect JP "traded" Lyon with his prospect status and minimum major league salary for Tam or Creek with their dirty laundry and guaranteed (higher) major league salaries. When viewed in this light who would have made that trade?

Coach - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 05:24 PM EDT (#102625) #

I thought Coach had written this.

So did I. At least until I got to Quantrill and Prokopec. The budget dictated Q had to go, and Izturis is the antithesis of a New Jay. To get a promising young arm with NL rotation experience and a potential replacement Canadian reliever was a great return. That one didn't work out, like a Vernon Wells rocket an outfielder catches in self-defence. If J.P. keeps making similar swaps, he'll soon have a solid rotation.

Lyon had little value until he reinvented himself after his release. It is doubtful he would have worked out as a starter or accepted a relief role willingly in the Toronto organization. Cruz landed in a perfect situation. Loaiza teases people like this every year. What J.P. hasn't done yet is trade a prospect who blossoms elsewhere, but I'd have to question his Rule 5 loss of lefty Matt Ford, who has been nearly unhittable (.139 AVG, 0.87 ERA) in his first eight appearances for the Brewers. Score that one a rare win for Dr. Evil.

_Spicol - Tuesday, May 06 2003 @ 09:17 PM EDT (#102626) #

Considering that Paul Quantrill was obtained by the Jays for Ricardo Jordan and the ever amazing Howard Battle, or in other words...nothing, it somehow makes it easier to swallow that he was ultimately traded to LA for what amounted to nothing.

Does that make sense to anyone but me?

_Dr B - Wednesday, May 07 2003 @ 12:01 AM EDT (#102627) #

Why were people so high on Prokopec? He was indeed a sought after arm, but by who? There was a lot of positive press at the time, but was there any evidence that he was any good? Did he have good numbers in the minors or in LA? As Craig Points out, his K rate in LA was poor, and he had a weak ERA in a pitcher park.

What we saw when he came to Toronto was a flat fastball and only one decent complementary pitch (his slider). Two pitches don't a starter make. When he finally used two-seam fastball which gave his fastball a bit of movement and he actually started getting hitters out, he blew out his arm.

So, here is a pitcher who hasn't performed in the majors, and looks ill-prepared for a starting role, so what is there to get excited about? Well, he has had erratic success in the minors varying from being great to mediocre.

Check out the following old report from John Sickels who is a pretty sharp judge of talent.

I was also surprised that they gave up on Brandon Lyon; he had good minor league numbers and moreover he was still *so* young. A change of scenery has probably done him good though.

You have to give Richard Griffin some credit; JP has made a few minor mistakes here there and we can't pretend they didn't happen; in my opinion most of the mistakes have been misjudgements of pitchers (Prokopec, Lyon, Eyre, Heredia, Cooper and I also think they have rushed Mike Smith to the point where he could use a change of scenery) but lets face it, pitchers are a big gamble. I wouldn't have gambled better...I would have probably dumped Halladay who was (statistically) nothing special the first time through.

_Jurgen - Wednesday, May 07 2003 @ 03:08 AM EDT (#102628) #

To all the Richard Griffins in the world...

Go check out the May 6 posting on Ben Jacob's Universal Baseball Blog, Inc. Ben is still relatively young, and while he's not yet in Aaron Gleeman's class of baseball blog prodigies (or BBP for short--or maybe not), he's very good.

Plus he's got a link to Batter's Box!

Enjoy, and be happy knowing that while Jays fans are crying over Lyon's success in Beantown, the Boston faithful are agonizing over the resurgence of Tony Clark.

Yes, the grass is always greener...

_Dave - Wednesday, May 07 2003 @ 08:30 AM EDT (#102629) #

http://tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com/thestar/baseball/playerindex.cgi
Prokopec's numbers for his 3 full seasons in minors:

98 A 173K/46BB in 136.1 IP
99 AA 128/46 in 157.2
00 AA 124/23 in 128.2

That to me seems like an indicator that he would have a reasonable chance to put something together at the major league level.

Homepage link is to the player index for The Sports Forecaster where I looked his numbers up. Positive of the site, if a player is currently playing he will have a page there including his minor league numbers.

Negative about it, you can't look up a past player, nor can you look up all promising rookies, and for those they do have, you can't look up this year's minor numbers.

Coach - Wednesday, May 07 2003 @ 09:58 AM EDT (#102630) #

Prokopec began 2001 in the L.A. rotation, going 6-1 in his first 8 starts, allowing opponents a .207 average, striking out 37 and walking 10 in 51.1 IP. Not bad for a 23-year-old who was still learning how to pitch; I still contend that trading overpaid 30-something middle relievers for such talent is an excellent plan. Luke's subsequent struggles in his rookie year were attributed to fatigue and inexperience, but might have foreshadowed his arm trouble. You could call him J.P.'s Sirotka, though I'm sure he was given a clean bill of health before injuring himself in spring training and foolishly continuing to pitch.

_Mick - Wednesday, May 07 2003 @ 11:55 AM EDT (#102631) #

So I e-mailed OTR and tried to set up a wager where he'd name the 8 teams. I never heard back from OTR or Godfrey.

He should've taken you up on it. Following the coin-flip example, but from the other end, let's say he provides you the list of his eight teams and you take "the field."

For every team he gets right, you give him $100. For every "field" team that gets into the playoffs, he gives you $200.

Who comes out ahead?

Remember the Predictions Contest run in late March? Only 19 of the 30 teams -- granted, one was NOT the Royals, but let's see how that plays out -- even received mention as a playoff team. Only 11 teams received double-digit votes:

New York Yankees 27
Oakland A's 27
San Francisco Giants 26
Boston Red Sox 23
Minnesota Twins 20
Houston Astros 18
Philadelphia Phillies 18
St. Louis Cardinals 18
Arizona Diamondbacks 16
Chicago White Sox 13
Atlanta Braves 12

So, granting him a little PR hyperbole on knowing "exactly which eight teams" would make the playoffs, can we agree that predicting which, oh 8+/-3 is a no-brainer?

_M.P. Moffatt - Wednesday, May 07 2003 @ 06:42 PM EDT (#102632) #

http://economics.about.com
So, granting him a little PR hyperbole on knowing "exactly which eight teams" would make the playoffs, can we agree that predicting which, oh 8+/-3 is a no-brainer?

Yes, but 5 is completely different than 8.

Why should I grant him a little PR hyperbole? If Don Cherry says that the Leafs will win the cup and the Senators do, does that still make him right because they play in the same province, making it "close enough".

IIRC, I made the payoffs assymetric, so he'd only have to be right 30% of the time to break-even. I think allowing his "sure thing" to be right only 3 times out of 10 for him to break even is granting enough leeway.

If he had said, "I can name 8 teams, and I'm sure atleast 5 of them will make the playoffs", I'd have left it alone.

MP

Doublespeak | 27 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.