MLB Offseason 2014-15: Wait, pitchers and catchers report WHEN?

[Timby]

But someone trying to prove he can hit batting .175 against spring training pitching? That's revealing...

In seventeen at-bats. He's had the equivalent of four games at the plate. Do you have any understanding of the concept of "small sample size?"

Or, put another way, Michael Cuddyer hit .188 in spring training last year. He then proceeded to put up a 149 OPS+ in the regular season before he got hurt. Evan Gattis hit .204 in spring, then socked 22 home runs on his way to a 125 OPS+. Werth hit .206, then .292 / .394 / .455.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Kris Bryant is hitting .450 w/6 homers in 20 AB's. Aside from the high average, he's about right.

 

[Yanks]

But someone trying to prove he can hit batting .175 against spring training pitching? That's revealing...

In seventeen at-bats. He's had the equivalent of four games at the plate. Do you have any understanding of the concept of "small sample size?"

Or, put another way, Michael Cuddyer hit .188 in spring training last year. He then proceeded to put up a 149 OPS+ in the regular season before he got hurt. Evan Gattis hit .204 in spring, then socked 22 home runs on his way to a 125 OPS+. Werth hit .206, then .292 / .394 / .455.

Cud wasn't proving anything... or attempting to. He can hit. Same with the others.

In 183 games in the pros he's demonstrated one thing... he's getting worse not better.

But hey, keep defending the indefensible...

Go Yankees.

 

[Timby]

But hey, keep defending the indefensible...

Yep, a seventeen-at-bat performance in spring sure tells you what to expect. I guess you think the season is won or lost in the first four games of April...

 

[Jedi_Master]

What exactly does it reveal, Yanks? That he's rusty after a long break? That he is getting much needed practice in during, you know, the spring training period?

 

[Scout101]

How about small sample size? 17 at bats, don't freak out. Means if he hit exactly TWO more balls, he's batting about .300. 3 more hits means he's batting like .353. Right now, he's doing better than:
Drew, Beltran, Gardner, Teixiera, and McCann. You know, just for perspective. So he's 4th out of your 9 projected regular starters. But you're right, miserable failure. Especially after Jeter's noodle bat in recent years. Who's going to replicate those big "Grounded into the Double Play" hits you've become accustomed to?

I mean, I WANT him to be a failure, but 17 ABs doesn't tell us that yet.

 

[Scout101]

On the plus side for your argument, he'd be one of the worst players in the Red Sox spring training so far. of their starters, he'd be beating Vic (if he really is the starter. If not, Betts is batting .435 so far), and Bogaerts (3 for 18 so far, but at least the two were HRs)

But Swihart is as unlikely to keep hitting .538 as the Yankees' noodle bat is to hit .176 for the season.

Thankfully, we've learned that over a small sample size, Ortiz still has a chance to hit around .700 for a stretch, though (2013 WS, not spring training. 267 so far there, which is pretty much right on target these days)

 

[Yanks]

But hey, keep defending the indefensible...

Yep, a seventeen-at-bat performance in spring sure tells you what to expect. I guess you think the season is won or lost in the first four games of April...

What part of 180+ games don't you understand?

What exactly does it reveal, Yanks? That he's rusty after a long break? That he is getting much needed practice in during, you know, the spring training period?

He can afford to be rusty.

 

[Timby]

But hey, keep defending the indefensible...

Yep, a seventeen-at-bat performance in spring sure tells you what to expect. I guess you think the season is won or lost in the first four games of April...

What part of 180+ games don't you understand?

After his first 180 games in his career, Mark Teixeira's batting average was around .255. What part of "small sample size" don't you understand?

 

[Yanks]

How about small sample size? 17 at bats, don't freak out. Means if he hit exactly TWO more balls, he's batting about .300. 3 more hits means he's batting like .353. Right now, he's doing better than:
Drew, Beltran, Gardner, Teixiera, and McCann. You know, just for perspective. So he's 4th out of your 9 projected regular starters. But you're right, miserable failure. Especially after Jeter's noodle bat in recent years. Who's going to replicate those big "Grounded into the Double Play" hits you've become accustomed to?

I mean, I WANT him to be a failure, but 17 ABs doesn't tell us that yet.

See a above. At jeters worst he hit what, 270? 300+ in 2012. I never said I'm impressed with the others performances so referencing the doesn't make any sense at all. None of them are in the same situation that Did I is in.

On the plus side for your argument, he'd be one of the worst players in the Red Sox spring training so far. of their starters, he'd be beating Vic (if he really is the starter. If not, Betts is batting .435 so far), and Bogaerts (3 for 18 so far, but at least the two were HRs)

But Swihart is as unlikely to keep hitting .538 as the Yankees' noodle bat is to hit .176 for the season.

Thankfully, we've learned that over a small sample size, Ortiz still has a chance to hit around .700 for a stretch, though (2013 WS, not spring training. 267 so far there, which is pretty much right on target these days)

There's nothing to learn about that line-up. You're blab substantiates nothing.

 

[Yanks]

Tell you what, the kid has a canon...

 

[Scout101]

See a above. At jeters worst he hit what, 270? 300+ in 2012.

.256 last year. .190 in 2013, albeit in a small sample size (get it?)

So yeah, your new SS is on pace for what Captain Intangibles hit in a season. So he's Jeter with an actual glove. Unless small sample sizes don't count, in which case neither set of numbers matters yet. Jeter did that over 73 ABs though, so that does kinda suck. On the plus side, Pedroia had a terrible April his first year, hit like .125 or something. Won RoY that year, as I recall, so it's possible to turn it around.

I never said I'm impressed with the others performances so referencing the doesn't make any sense at all. None of them are in the same situation that Did I is in.

Well, can't drill in on one set of numbers and yet completely ignore the rest, can you? If he's terrible, then your lineup is a dumpster fire, as he's hitting 4th best of your starting 9 right now. Or the first couple ABs of spring training don't mean much. Definitely one of those two (I'm hoping both, but that's the Red Sox fan in me talking).

On the plus side for your argument, he'd be one of the worst players in the Red Sox spring training so far. of their starters, he'd be beating Vic (if he really is the starter. If not, Betts is batting .435 so far), and Bogaerts (3 for 18 so far, but at least the two were HRs)

But Swihart is as unlikely to keep hitting .538 as the Yankees' noodle bat is to hit .176 for the season.

Thankfully, we've learned that over a small sample size, Ortiz still has a chance to hit around .700 for a stretch, though (2013 WS, not spring training. 267 so far there, which is pretty much right on target these days)

There's nothing to learn about that line-up. You're blab substantiates nothing.

I am blab what? Also, there was stuff to learn, you just choose to continue to push your agenda and ignore the rest, so whatever. Continue to single out one player as sucking, even after 17 ABs. Even though he's outhitting all the people you think are great.

And who cares if he has nothing to prove? He's only 'proving' it to people in pinstriped footie-pajamas right now, no one in the front office is stupid enough to make decisions based upon 17 ABs. Unfortunately. I wish they'd just grant your wish and cut him, Drew could move back to SS full time. Of course, he ALSO has something to prove, and is hitting worse, so...?

So your lineup sucks, but at least your pitching...oh. Nevermind. Maybe you'll get a month out of Tanaka before you lose him to TJ surgery, though. That'll be fun. CC is fat again, maybe that's where he gets his strength from? Really looking for a positive here, I swear...

 

[Timby]

Pete Rose has officially applied to Manfred for reinstatement.

Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

[Scout101]

what's he giving for odds that he'll get in?

 

[Yanks]

Pete Rose has officially applied to Manfred for reinstatement.

Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

... but he didn't bet against the Reds and he's 74 years old....

so says all the TV spots....

He's gonna get in.

 

[Timby]

Pete Rose has officially applied to Manfred for reinstatement.

Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

... but he didn't bet against the Reds and he's 74 years old....

so says all the TV spots....

He's gonna get in.

"Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List.

Agreed to and resolved this 23rd day of August 1989,
(Signature)
Peter Edward Rose"

What part of "he willingly accepted a lifetime ban from baseball in exchange for a halt to the investigation into his transgressions" is difficult to understand? There is very little, not even violent felonies, that is more threatening to the health of the game of baseball than MLB players or managers gambling on games they are involved in. If it became widely known that games, today, in the world we live in now and not the 1800s, were heavily influenced because some players or managers had money riding on them, then why the hell should we watch? What's the point of being a fan and following baseball at that point? That's why Judge Landis banned the Black Sox, and that's why Bart Giamatti brokered the agreement with Rose.

There's a reason Rule 21 is the one and only rule that is posted in every single Major League clubhouse. Gambling on games cannot be tolerated. That is the threat to the integrity of the game, not players shooting Winstrol or whatever into their butts in the hopes that they might suddenly become magic dinger-hitting moon monsters.

If you actually go to the Hall in New York, you'll see that Rose is all over it for his statistical accomplishments. He just doesn't have a plaque. Boohoo for him.

 

[Yanks]

I hate my computer... a response to scouts' rants all typed up, then ... poof....

(headbang)...

To summarize .... apple and oranges, 180 plus games as a pro isn't a "small sample" and his average in ST is not down to .158.

I watched him play last night (MLB channel carried the Yanks v the Blue Jays).

What a frellin cannon this kid has... whew!

...but his average fell to .158...

Not that it's going to be his job to carry anything offensively... but he better eclipse 2 something or the media will eat him alive.

Break.... did anyone see Tex's opposite field HR on a change-up last night?

Yeah, that's right. He's hitting 290 and driving in 130+ ....

lol

While Tex's HR was impressive, I'd say I have to give the nod to Davis' opposite field swat... damn, his swing makes me think of Freddie Couples in golf... wake up man!

 

[Timby]

To summarize .... apple and oranges, 180 plus games as a pro isn't a "small sample"

It is if you know anything about statistical significance and data points. As I said earlier, and you conveniently ignored, 180 games in his career, Mark Teixeira's batting average was around .255. Alfonso Soriano and Nick Swisher were at .240. Essentially one season's worth of stats is in no way a meaningful gauge of a player's lifetime value, unless you're a space alien like Mike Trout who was born with a bat in his hands.

 

[Yanks]

To summarize .... apple and oranges, 180 plus games as a pro isn't a "small sample"

It is if you know anything about statistical significance and data points. As I said earlier, and you conveniently ignored, 180 games in his career, Mark Teixeira's batting average was around .255. Alfonso Soriano and Nick Swisher were at .240. Essentially one season's worth of stats is in no way a meaningful gauge of a player's lifetime value, unless you're a space alien like Mike Trout who was born with a bat in his hands.

Alright Timby, provide statistics that indicate to you that Didi is going to figure this hitting thing out. You seem convinced that he is going to be a good hitter, so the balls in your court.

Don't count his recent time at AAA (you know, when Arizona sent him down to work on his hitting), that's minor league and not relevant.

... and Mike Trout WAS born with a bat in his hands...

 

[Timby]

To summarize .... apple and oranges, 180 plus games as a pro isn't a "small sample"

It is if you know anything about statistical significance and data points. As I said earlier, and you conveniently ignored, 180 games in his career, Mark Teixeira's batting average was around .255. Alfonso Soriano and Nick Swisher were at .240. Essentially one season's worth of stats is in no way a meaningful gauge of a player's lifetime value, unless you're a space alien like Mike Trout who was born with a bat in his hands.

Alright Timby, provide statistics that indicate to you that Didi is going to figure this hitting thing out. You seem convinced that he is going to be a good hitter, so the balls in your court.

I'm not convinced. All I've been saying is that it's far too early to write him off, particularly when he has demonstrated both in the minor and major leagues that he has very good strike zone judgment. Hit tools can develop over time, but plate awareness generally does not.

My point, all this time, is that it's too early to pass judgment because we literally do not have enough data -- whereas you've spent five months crying about the Yankees trading a seventh starter for a world-class glove. As long as Gregorius hits better than Brendan Ryan (which isn't exactly difficult), he's an asset for the Yankees.

that's minor league and not relevant.

Minor league statistics are absolutely relevant when taken in the proper context (league, parks, opposition) -- far more relevant than spring training numbers, which tend to be garbage as far as prediction and reliability go.