Jump to content

Hank Chinaski

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hank Chinaski

  1. Oh gotcha…I don’t know what the %s are, I thought we meant that 1-3% of active players at any given point in time are HOFers. That sounds about right to me, but I didn’t look at the numbers to determine what that actually means or use it to imply any sort of precision. In sum, I was talking out of my ass. Truth be told, I’m probably a “medium hall” guy.
  2. This award lost all meaning in 2005.
  3. I mean, Javier is already there. 200 K in 150 IP and a 2.54 ERA (152 ERA+). Then was untouchable in the postseason.
  4. I’m not a big Hall guy at all. I think top 1-3% is about right. I think we have enough statistical/evaluative savvy at this point to determine player value and set soft thresholds that can serve as a general guide (Jaffe’s is good IMO). Of the guys mentioned here, I’d say no to Mattingly (only 4 very good seasons) or Murphy (good peak but not much value outside of 5/6 seasons). I could be talked into Kent, Pettite, Wagner, Sweet Lou and Andruw (would put McGriff in this group). I’d say yes to Lofton, Helton. On the PED guys, that just seems like a different conversation because it isn’t about the numbers anymore. I’d say yes to Bonds and Clemens (because they never actually failed a test and were light years better than their peers) and no to Palmeiro and Manny (because they failed tests and weren’t light years better than their peers). I’d say no to Schilling because he is a petulant, unlikable dipshit that doesn’t know how to shut the fuck up. (I’d actually vote for him, begrudgingly.)
  5. I always liked McGriff. I’m on the fence as to whether I think he actually belongs in the HOF (though I’m glad he got in), but it’s not like a Harold Baines situation or anything. I guess if he’d hit a few more HRs and gotten to 500, he would have been in years ago; and he’s obviously not any less of a player because of a handful of HRs he didn’t hit. So good for him.
  6. I think TCU still gets in. I don’t think they’re as good as Bama or maybe even Clemson or Tennessee or USC, but they probably still get in.
  7. Well they got Musgrove, they just decided to flip him to SD. That’s kinda on them.
  8. I mean I know he was also an OF but Lance Berkman?
  9. What am I missing - it seems like Yuli would used in a utility role, where he figures to be a liability at every position except 1B (where we just paid $60 million for a new guy) and his offense fell off a cliff, and he’s 39. Why is this someone we want?
  10. To me, it’s more a horrible use of a roster spot than money. Yuli at age 39 isn’t a utility guy. He’s a 1B only. I get that the guy is popular and you’d rather have him around than not. But he’s not Bagwell/Biggio status where you keep him on the roster as long as he wants to be (Altuve is that guy, we’ll have that discussion in a few years).
  11. Well I’ve never been accused of being fun.
  12. Yeah I think this is right, and a reasonable way of looking at it. I still wouldn’t do it though. I wouldn’t give a mid-30s pitcher, who has started 26 games in 2 years, that many years and that much money, in hopes in one of those 5 years that he has a single CY caliber season. Y’all would hate me, I’d run a team like the Rays do. Paying deGrom $40mm for valueless years at the end of this deal would drive me nuts, particularly if he doesn’t figure to be the difference in winning a pennant or not in the years he’s most likely to be best (‘23 and ‘24). like I said, I doubt this will be a disaster for them; just wouldn’t be my approach; I’d rather invest that in player development, front office talent, players who give more bang for the buck, etc.
  13. ZiPS projects him at about +14 WAR over the 5 years. So, over $13mm/win. That seems steep. I get that in the expanded playoff era, 3 wins/year May be more valuable than they used to be. It’ll probably be a reasonably Ok deal for the rangers. Wouldn’t be my course of action if I were them, but I’m not.
  14. Sure, but I’d counter with guys like Akina, G Robinson, Muschamp, etc. I think once his honeymoon was over (after the 03 holiday bowl) he figured this part out a bit. As others have stated, maybe Herman’s biggest screwup was his staff that he brought in.
  15. Exactly. Going back to the Mack years, people have maintained this idea of “coach X isn’t a good coach, he just attracts really good talent, hires great assistants, keeps everyone happy, etc.” That’s most of the goddamn job. Was Mack a genius Xs and Os guy? No, but he was elite at the above (for his first dozen years here anyway). (Also, Herman never really seemed to be much of a schematic genius either.)
  16. This is the thing - you’d pay a premium for him because he’s the rare catcher that can hit…then you wouldn’t even play him at catcher for 1/2 of the season? So not only are you getting less value than you paid for by not playing him at catcher 75% of the time, but you probably have to expect a further decline in value based on his (probable) bad LF defense.
  17. Yeah, and playing Contreras in LF would not help there. That (potential) move doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. He’s played 39 games in the OF in his career, and just 15 since 2016 (23 total innings in the OF since 2017). He’s a good (not great) hitter. If we are keeping Maldy around, I’d probably just try to bring back Vazquez, a better defensive C than Contreras, and sing an actual OF (I like the idea of Conforto).
  18. Maybe, but goddamnit the level of buy-in should be commensurate with the level of data support!
  19. It irrationally drives me crazy. In my mind, there is no reason not to play the numbers and maximize potential run production, ever. I understand that it doesn’t matter that much, big picture. But again, why wouldn’t you always try to maximize your odds? And if Dubon goes 2/4 while hitting second IT WAS STILL THE WRONG DECISION.
  20. I hope this is correct and he doesn’t have an outsized voice in the FO.
  21. I generally do trust that Crane will not abandon the approach that has been so successful, but things like this concern me. I love Bagwell. I love him in the booth. But the way that he doesn’t seem to understand the analytics - for example, he mocks exit velo and other metrics that have real meaning - makes me nervous if he is having real input into roster management. The “baseball isn’t played by numbers” sentiment is all too reminiscent of the “computers don’t play the games” tropes that indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of what the data are actually used for.
×
×
  • Create New...