Wednesday, March 3, 2010

16 comments An Interview With the Worst MLB Scout Ever

I have started a NCAA Tournament Bracket Pick 'Em in a Yahoo league if anyone is interested in joining. The ID is "8624" and the password is "eckstein." Feel free to join and of course we won't be able to make the picks until the brackets are announced.

Gene Wojciechowski has an interview he did with "Scout X" who is apparently a great and successful scout in Major League Baseball. Maybe Scout X isn't the worst scout in the history of MLB, but he at least has to be the most obvious. 85% of what this guy says is completely obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of baseball and the players who play the game. He's not really telling us anything new or revealing. Gene barely even writes this article, he just lets Scout X make obvious statements and give his opinion. I was originally going to ignore this article because it didn't sound interesting but then I ended up reading it and realizing nearly every insight this Scout X has is an incredibly obvious insight. So I had to post it.

(As I finished writing this, I happened to notice "Fire Rick Reilly" has posted something on the very same article on February 28. I hate doing the same thing other blogs do, but he did a good job so read his as well. I didn't erase mine because I worked hard at it and I am sick and don't feel like starting over. So I hope you enjoy them both.)

Enough introduction, let's let Scout X dig his own hole.

Call him Scout X.

Big league lifer. One of the best in the business. Has forgotten more about baseball than you and I will ever know.

Born in a dugout. Immediately after he was born, he had a radar gun in his hand. Convinced the Yankees to sign Mickey Mantle and raced Jackie Robinson around the bases one time. He lost, but got Jackie's respect. Has smoked for 67 years. Doctor is amazed his lungs look fine. Has never used a computer.

This "forgotten more about baseball part..." will come up fairly soon in this post. Like he forgets some things that happened last year in baseball.

Opening Day is April 4. Scout X is way ahead of you.

As you will see, Scout X is actually right...along with everyone else. Though some of his observations are debatable, others are just plain obvious.

Take it away Scout X...

Can anybody beat the Yankees? I don't see how. I really don't see how.

Other teams in the American League could have better pitching or better hitting than the Yankees do, the Yankees could have injuries, or perhaps any of 1,000 other reasons that could encompass a 162 game season. These are all reasons some teams may be able to beat the Yankees.

You're talking about CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, Andy Pettitte and Vazquez. It's hard to compete with that.

I hate to say this, but Pettitte was not a bad pitcher last year, but he was barely above average. AJ Burnett wasn't a bad pitcher but he also wasn't completely stellar last year. Burnett and Pettitte were actually good pitchers, but it is not like this is a staff full of aces. The fact the Yankees can hit the ball very well had a little bit to do with the success of the team and the pitching staff.

Look the Yankees are going to be fine, but 2nd best team in the division, the Red Sox, can compete fairly well with their rotation. In fact, if you forced me to choose the best staff in the AL East, I don't know if I would go with the Yankees staff.

I also think the Yankees hitting has a lot to do with their success...but what do I know, I am not a baseball lifer.

For me, Phil Hughes would probably be the fifth starter. Joba Chamberlain would be the set-up guy. I don't think Joba has the intellectual capacity to go through a lineup three times.

Phil Hughes on the other hand is figuring out quadratic equations and determining the actual value of Pi sometimes on the mound...completely forgetting that he is actually pitching in a major league baseball game. His ERA last year was -2.34. Yes, he actually is so smart, he found a way to take away runs from the other team.

Joba Chamberlain = Midwest retard
Phil Hughes = California genius

A lesser scout would use these two player's actual record as starters to determine who should be the 5th starter, but a lesser scout doesn't know everything Scout X knows. A lesser scout would compare Chamberlain and Hughes numbers as starters...but a lesser scout wouldn't factor in that Joba Chamberlain is an idiot. Scout X knows this and gives his opinion accordingly.

People are talking about Tampa, but I just don't think, at the end of the game, they can compete with the Yankees and Red Sox. Not yet, anyway.

I am not 100% sure I know exactly what this means. This could be an indictment of the Rays bullpen. I am pretty sure they have Rafael Soriano closing for them this year. As a viewer over the past couple of seasons of Soriano, I will say I find him to be a decent closer. Not as good as Rivera or Papelbon, but how many closers are?

But starting-pitching-wise, this kid Jeff Niemann, they rave about him.

They rave about him huh, Scout X? What's your opinion of Jeff Niemann, Scout X? Completely ignoring that we already know he went 13-6 with a 3.94 ERA and 1.351 WHIP in his rookie year last year of course...

Scout X????

I'll give you a hint, he moves on and doesn't indicate the fact Niemann had a great rookie season may indicate Niemann could be a good pitcher. Great observation by Scout X, picking a guy who was fourth in the Rookie of the Year voting last year as a pitcher who could be a good pitcher.

I like how Scout X says "they rave about him" giving the indication he has never seen Niemann pitch...which isn't very scout-like in my mind. Scout X has a full season of Niemann pitching to determine whether or why "they" rave about him. Did he not ever see Niemann pitch?

But if you give me the choice between Lincecum and Cain, I'll take Cain for the next six, seven years.

I mean this is a tough call, let's see Scout X's reasoning because I would love to know it.

Cain can really pitch, man.

So can Lincecum. He can really pitch too, man.

Lincecum, he's a freak. He weighs 160 or so pounds. He's a max-effort guy with a bad delivery.

A bad delivery that has never affected Lincecum's durability in any fashion. Carry on...

Don't get me wrong -- he punched out 261 guys last year and he might pitch forever. But it's just that Cain pitches with such ease.

Cain pitches with ease, versus the fact Lincecum is actually a better pitcher right now...but Cain does have that whole ease thing going for him, which apparently means a lot.

He won 14 games last year with a 2.89 ERA. Lincecum won 15 with a 2.48. See what I'm saying?

No, not at all. I don't see what you are saying at all. Cain pitches with ease, even though Lincecum is a better pitcher, but Cain looks better throwing the ball so that's the guy you want for the long-term? Cain won less games with a slightly worse ERA, so that makes him a better pitcher? I need someone to fill me in on this one...ideally that would be Scout X, but he has moved on to his next earth-shattering statement.

And as much as I hate to say it, I'd pay to watch Manny Ramirez. I'd pay to watch him hit.

BUT DOES HE HIT WITH EASE? IF NOT, FUCK HIM.

Play left field? No. In a playoff game about three years ago, he's going toward the line -- there's a line drive -- he kind of stumbles and his hat falls off and it goes past the ball's path and the ball rolls into his hat. He's looking around for the ball. I thought I was going to die. That was at Fenway Park.

Whoa, whoa, whoa Scout X. Please don't throw too much information at me all at once.

So Manny Ramirez is bad at playing left field? You have to be kidding me, I thought he was like Willie Mays out there. Don't ruin my perception of the world by telling me Manny Ramirez isn't a Gold Glove fielder because that is just wrong.

Manny Ramirez does not field with ease. See what I am saying?

But the guy can hit.

So Manny Ramirez is a good hitter? I am glad Scout X is here to tell me this stuff or else I would be lost.

A-Rod is hard to watch. He's such a phony. Hard to stomach. But he's a great player. A great player.

I want everyone to know that Scout X gets paid by a team in Major League Baseball to make these observations. So far he has told us that Manny Ramirez can't field, is a good hitter and Alex Rodriguez is a good hitter, but a huge fake. Does Scout X think he is telling these little tidbits to people who have never watched a game of baseball before? How is this insight?

I think Scout X is a 15 year old boy who just got done reading "The Yankee Years" and spent 20 minutes before the interview with Gene perusing the league leaders in MLB last year.

As far as the younger players, that's easy: Evan Longoria of the Rays. I like the way he plays the game.

You mean you like how he plays the game, in that he plays the game really well? I like that too.

And Andrew Bailey, the closer for Oakland, has no fear. He's aggressive, works fast and throws strikes. I like his game very much.

Justin Upton of the D-backs is so talented. And everyone knows about Zack Greinke of the Royals.

Again, this is not insight. This was merely naming a short list of the best young players in the American and National League.

Everyone knows about Zack Greinke since he won the Cy Young last year, but everyone also knows about Bailey, Upton and Longoria. They aren't new to many baseball fans.

Now if you're asking me my favorite guy to watch, it's the Kung-Fu Panda -- Pablo Sandoval of the Giants. Oh, is he funny.

Oh he's so funny! Look at the fat man with the baseball bat! He is so comical! The fat man shouldn't be able to swing the bat because he is fat! Unlike that skinny stud Babe Ruth.

But he can rake. He can hit. He's so fat and he's so unorthodox.

Pedro Sandoval is a good hitter even though he is fat? Someone get this Scout X guy a massive raise immediately! What's his take on Hanley Ramirez? Is he a good hitter or not, because I really can't tell. How about Felix Hernandez? Does he pitch with ease? Would you pay to watch him pitch? Does his overwhelming Dominican-ism affect his pitching? More importantly, is anyone raving about him?

But he gets the barrel of the bat to the ball. You cannot teach somebody to hit like that.

Actually I am 85% sure you can teach somebody to hit the ball off the barrel of the bat like that.

Seattle had the best offseason, but I still think the Angels are the class of the AL West.

You mean the same Anaheim team that has won the AL West three straight years is still the best team in the AL West? Be careful with these provocative statements Scout X.

I wonder why Scout X believe this? Let's delve into his analysis of the AL West division race...if we dare.

The Mariners had a lot of money to spend, but I'm not absolutely convinced about their offense.

Well if you aren't convinced about their offense then there is no way they can win the division. If only Seattle had good pitching to offset this hypothetical offensive problem.

Even though I think the Angels are going to win that division, I don't see them getting past the wild card. They've got to play Boston every year.

Last year the Angels beat the Red Sox 3 games to 0 in the Divisional playoffs. Apparently Scout X doesn't remember this.

So the Angels are going to win the division because the Mariners offense is going to stink and the Angels are destined to lose to the Wild Card, even though they beat the Wild Card last year.

In the NL East, Philly wins, but I'm worried about Brad Lidge.

I like how he says he is worried about Brad Lidge like this is a revolutionary statement of some sort. Lidge was 0-8 last year with a 7.21 ERA and a 1.80 WHIP and 11 blown saves. Does it really count as analysis that Brad Lidge should worry some people? I don't think you can watch baseball and not be worried a little bit about Lidge.

The Mets are a poorly put-together team.

That's it. We get nothing else.

Scout X's idea of analysis: "The A's don't spend a lot of money on players." (Then smiles at himself for producing such insights)

And the Nationals need to be careful with Stephen Strasburg. He's got a fresh arm because he hasn't pitched a whole lot. But pitching is fragile, especially power pitchers like that.

So the Nationals shouldn't have Strasburg pitch 300 innings this year? Let's just be thankful Dusty Baker isn't the manager of the Nationals or else this could happen.

Best player in the National League is Albert Pujols. Best player in the American League is Joe Mauer. Not too hard there.

It's not hard unless you don't have access to the MVP results from the 2009 baseball season.

Roy Halladay is right up there. The Phillies will love him.

I am honestly laughing right now. The idea the baseball-following public needs a scout to tell us that Roy Halladay is up there as one of the best pitchers in baseball is laughable. Of course the Phillies are going to love him, he is going to a less top-heavy division that doesn't have the DH when he was a bad-ass in a tougher division with 9 actual hitters in the lineup.

And like I said, I really like Lincecum and Cain. Cain has four pitches he can command, and he's big -- 6-3, 230.

He pitches with ease too! We can not forget that.

When I look for breakout players, I look for good, young players who have some experience who are on good clubs, with good players around them.

You don't look for shitty, old players that have never played in the majors before to be breakout players? But...why not?

You mean like Pablo Sandoval? Wait, that doesn't fit Scout X's criteria.

You mean like Mark Reynolds? Wait, the D-backs weren't a great team last year so that doesn't fit the criteria either.

You mean like Aaron Hill? Wait, he wasn't on a good team nor did he have good players around him.

All sarcasm aside, isn't this too narrow of a criteria for a breakout player? Of course they are generally young and good players to be considered breakout players, that goes without saying really.

I think the Cubs have a chance in that division. They've got some underachieving guys who have had great years in the past.

I think he is talking about Alfonso Soriano and he must be ignoring the downward trending of Soriano's numbers. I could be wrong, but I don't his numbers are just going to magically start getting better.

Randy Wells pitched really well for the Cubs. I guess he found out this spring he needed glasses. I wouldn't give them to him. I wouldn't change a thing.

Apparently Scout X hasn't ever heard that as humans get older their eyesight can get progressively worse, which means Wells could have trouble seeing this year. Who cares though? If Wells pitched well last year without glasses, those glasses will only screw him up this year. It's science. Everyone knows baseball players only get worse as their vision gets better.

So that car you see swerving down the streets of Chicago and forcing pedestrians off the sidewalks into the street is Randy Wells taking Scout X's advice.

Detroit's starting rotation has some question marks, but I like Max Scherzer. People don't like his delivery, but I like his stuff.

From a 2008 scouting report on Scherzer:

-Scherzer works from a three-quarters arm slot, and he gets a slight drop and drive action with his legs during his delivery. He creates deception for the batter with his shoulder turn.

-Under "Strengths"...Deceptive motion; he hides the ball well.

-He has solid mechanics and is able to repeat his release point. He does have a slight drop and drive action, but he does a good job of using his lower half. Although his hands break late at times, he gets away with it because he has a quick arm swing. He hides the ball well from the hitter, and that makes him that much more effective.

John Sickels also seems to have few concerns about Scherzer's delivery, but he also doesn't think it should affect Scherzer in the majors. I just thought I would mention this since Scout X seemed to indicate he was in the minority among those who liked Scherzer's delivery.

Justin Verlander is a guy I should have mentioned before. One of the class pitchers of the league.

This is obvious to anyone who follows Major League Baseball. The fact Verlander is a class pitcher really goes without saying.

Rick Porcello is 21 years old.

That's it. That's all he says about Rick Porcello. I feel terrible for whichever team pays Scout X to come back with a report on a player and it has just one sentence that states the player's age and perhaps the color of his hair. If the team's lucky, the scouting report will include what position the player plays and whether Scout X laughed while watching him play the field.

And Miguel Cabrera is a monster.

Yes he is. I guess I have high standards for scouts. I expect more actual scouting than something anyone with the ability to do an Internet search and rudimentary knowledge of baseball would be able to do.

Jeremy Bonderman is coming off an injury.

Thanks for looking that up for us. Of course this knowledge doesn't really count as "scouting" but I have lowered my expectations at this point anyway. I feel like I am reading a children's book right now.

I think Orlando Hudson is going to bring a lot to the Twins. He's probably the best defensive second baseman in baseball.

He could be the best defensive second baseman in baseball if you want to discount what Fangraphs think when comparing other second basemen to Hudson. His UZR for 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. Those stats "probably" show that Scout X is "probably" wrong.

You can tell Scout X is one of those old school guys who doesn't pay attention to statistics and just prefers to base his scouting on observations that are extremely helpful. Observations like "Rick Porcello is 21 years old" that really tell us nothing and his comment that Orlando Hudson may be the best defensive second baseman in baseball, which doesn't have a lot of evidence to support it.

This is the type of scout who doesn't let statistics or any other type of evidential proof discourage him from making a statement that he believe is true based on his own observations. I am not a fan of these type people.

Phillies in the NL East, Dodgers in NL West, Cardinals in the NL Central. NL wild card is Colorado.

Or in other words, the exact same playoff participants we saw in 2009.

In the American League you've got the usual suspects:

As opposed to the National League, which was a wild and crazy dose of exactly the same as last year.

Yankees in the East, Twins in the Central, Angels in the West, Boston as the wild card.

So Scout X just picked the exact same teams to make the playoffs in 2010 as made it in 2009. I don't know if I even need to say anything about this.

In the NLCS, I'll take the Cardinals and the Dodgers. I can't take the Phillies because Lidge scares the hell out of me.

Lidge had an absolutely terrible year last year and he scared the hell out of everyone. This didn't stop the Phillies from winning the National League pennant and making the World Series for the 2nd straight year. So to say Lidge being shaky is the reason you can't pick the Phillies seems to have a shaky historical precedent from all the way back to last year.

Because of his inconsistency, they're vulnerable late in the game. In a playoff situation, the closer is in there every night.

Again, I am not disagreeing with this. I am just saying Scout X is ignoring the fact Lidge had a terrible year last year and it didn't hurt the Phillies from making the World Series in any fashion. Also, last year wasn't the first year Lidge has struggled. Remember 2006 and 2007 (to a lesser extent) Brad Lidge? He followed that up with a perfect year in 2008. So he has a history of up-and-down years in regards to performance.

He has bounced back very well before and could do it again this year. I think I am doing more analysis than Scout X does at this point.

I think Broxton, even though he blew a lot of saves last year, has a chance to be special.

Broxton blew 6 saves last year and never blew back-to-back saves. Also, everyone pretty much knows Broxton has a chance to be special. Hitters hit .165 against him last year, so this is kind of an obvious statement that he could be good. He already is special.

Yankees win the World Series.

I notice that Scout X likes to pick for 2010 the exact same things that happened in 2009.

When the season's over, show me my picks again. I want to see how I did.

When it comes to telling us what happened last year and predicting it again for this year, telling his audience the obvious, and not really giving any great scouting insights Scout X has no peer.

If scouting only involved making statements that everyone already knew was true, telling the public the current MVP winners are good baseball players, and reciting statistics any Google search could find...I think I could be a MLB scout.

16 comments:

The Casey said...

"Scout X, affectionately known as 'The Peter King of MLB'...."

Dylan said...

This only would have been better had it been a video interview, and he shouted every response to make his points more emphatic, Stephen A. Smith style.

ivn said...

if Scout X isn't Gene's alter ego than I'm guessing he's either unemployed or working for the Pirates. Or maybe he's that one guy Bill Plaschke is always slobbering about. "Yeah CC Sabathia is one heck of a pitcher. Boy ain't Albert Pujols something?" What a waste of space.

By the way, King Felix is Venezuelan, not Dominican.

Anonymous said...

First things first, I don't think Scout X is actually Gene. Gene would never say such nice things about the Yankees without going on about payroll and whatnot. That said, Scout X is clearly a moron. The whole "everything will be the same as last year" is dumb, and the players he goes on about... it's like, Albert Pujols is a good player. OMG I WOULD HAVE NEVER GUESSED!

I agree that the Yankees' pitching staff is not necessarily as good as, say, the Red Sox, but they have very good depth. Their strength is definitely their offense, not their pitching, though CC is certainly better than pretty much anything we had the past bunch of years. Andy was practically ace-like in the second half of the season (3.31 ERA, .622 OPSA, a very good 2.44 K/BB). Of course, AJ was a mess for a decent part of the second half of the season, so it all evens out.

I'm not even gonna touch the Hughes/Joba bullshit.

The Rays bullpen was really bad last year, at least by memory. It doesn't look that bad when you look at ERA+ but it seemed like every time they came in a game they would barf up the lead. It wasn't just their closer. Soriano is solid and will help, but he can't make up for how bad that bullpen was. Of course, bullpen guys are generally so volatile, maybe they all have an awesome year this year. We don't know.

As far as Lincecum's delivery, Lincecum is only 25 and he's only pitched in the majors for three seasons (two whole seasons). His delivery freaks me out. Not saying he's DOOOOOMED to fall apart, but I think it could be a possibility. The "see what I'm saying" thing makes ABSOLUTELY NO GODDAMN SENSE though.

The "phony" thing with A-Rod? Who is he, Holden Caufield?

Seattle has good top-end pitching but their offense and the non-top-end of their pitching staff is totally suspect. It's not wrong to point this out. The Angels got weakened, but they won 97 games last year and 100 the year before that (granted, they were highly outperforming their Pythag, but Seattle should have been a sub-.500 team by Pythag last year!). I am not on the Seattle bandwagon at all. I'm not on any AL West team's bandwagon, that division seems pretty wide open.

That comment about Rick Porcello is pretty hysterical.

I like how Scout X goes on about how Brad Lidge cannot be trusted because he blew so many saves, whereas Broxton could be something special, even though he... blew a decent number of saves, and they both had times when they came through and times when they failed in the 2009 playoffs. And yeah, I think people recognize Broxton as ALREADY special. Dude had a .479 OPSA and 114 Ks in 76 innings, gross. He gave up nine extra base hit all year. Again, gross.

Overall, though, yeah, this article is very dumb.

FormerPhD said...

If scout X think Hughes will be the fifth starter for the Yankees, he's an idiot. As a starter last year, Hughes was pretty terrible, but as a reliever he posted like a 1.4 ERA or something around there.

Joba might not have the intellect to be a starter, Hughes doesn't have the talent.

People are talking about Tampa, but I just don't think, at the end of the game, they can compete with the Yankees and Red Sox. Not yet, anyway.

Right, the team that won the division with largely the same group of (still developing) players two seasons ago...ya, they can't compete.

A-Rod is hard to watch. He's such a phony. Hard to stomach. But he's a great player. A great player.

Scout X has to work for KC or Pitt. Seriously, who is he trying to convince? "Hey folks, don't watch those great baseball players, they're phony! Come watch Yuniesky Betancourt stumble around the bases! It's hilarious!"

I think the Cubs have a chance in that division. They've got some underachieving guys who have had great years in the past.

Here's my question, when does it stop being "underachieving" and start being the normal expectation? Maybe those great seasons were them overachieving? It seems like the past 3-4 seasons, they've "underachieved"... at this point, I think they're just not that good.

People don't like his delivery, but I like his stuff.

As opposed to Lincecum... who has great stuff, "bad mechanics" and therefore is a worse pitcher than Matt Cain... The Casey was right scout X is Peter King...

Bengoodfella said...

Casey, I don't know if he is affectionately called that around here.

Dylan, I think I would like to do a video response to it, but it poses three problems.

1. I don't know how to do this.
2. I don't know how to put it up on the web.
3. It would take me forever because I would constantly be laughing.

Ivn, I don't think Scout X is Gene either, but I do think he may be unemployed. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on what happened last year in MLB.

Ivn, I did a Google search on King Felix with the worst possible search terms possible...it was "Felix Hernandez" and "Dominican" rather than just looking at his biography. Of course it was going to come back wrong. I blame the bad Google search and my lack of common sense. The one time I don't go to Wikipedia for all my information it bites me in the ass.

Anon, I think this guy really believed he was telling us important information. I know Pujols is the best player in the NL. Everyone knows that.

I didn't like how Scout X used the Yankees pitching as its strength when it is clearly the hitting. The whole Joba/Phil thing is just really tired at this point, I agree.

I think Scout X was referring to the Rays pen when he talked about losing at the end of the game, but his comparison ending with "See what I am saying" was nonsense to me. I would have probably ignored his Lincecum/Cain comparison if I didn't completely get confused about what he was trying to say.

You know who else is a phony? A lot of other players...it doesn't matter if they can hit.

I can't wait to get to the Seattle Mariners and Angels preview this year in my preview of the major league teams. I haven't looked at them yet, but I was trying to make the point that he was just saying for this year exactly what happened last year.

The difference in Broxton and Lidge is that Lidge blew a few more saves, but Broxton did have some blowups. He is a filthy pitcher though. Scout X is a year behind on the "special" statement.

Rich, I agree with this statement:

"Joba might not have the intellect to be a starter, Hughes doesn't have the talent."

I LOVE Hughes in the pen. He should stay there.

I think the answer to your Cubs "underachieving" question is we get the answer this year. If they hitters still do what they have done for this year, I think it becomes the norm.

I don't like Lincecum's mechanics but he hasn't broken down yet. Besides, it is hard to go wrong with either pitcher. I would probably rather have Lincecum at this point.

Anonymous said...

If scout X think Hughes will be the fifth starter for the Yankees, he's an idiot. As a starter last year, Hughes was pretty terrible, but as a reliever he posted like a 1.4 ERA or something around there.

Joba might not have the intellect to be a starter, Hughes doesn't have the talent.


http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?n1=hugheph01&t=p&year=2009

He had a bunch of mediocre starts against meh teams, and a TERRIBLE start against Baltimore. He also had a 6 IP, 0 ER start against Detroit and an 8 IP, 0 ER start against Texas. He has a lot to learn and lefties beat him up, but saying he doesn't have the talent is silly. Look at his 2007, as well. He had a no-hitter going in this game before he got removed... I think he strained his leg throwing to Teixeira IIRC.

He's only 23. He's a young guy, he is going to struggle. Not everyone can be Lincecum and dominate as soon as they come up. It's a lot to say he doesn't have the talent and should just go to the bullpen.

I don't think he should be the fifth starter this year - that should be Joba, because otherwise, what did the Yankees go through all that "Joba rules" stuff for - but to say he doesn't have the talent to start? That's not true.

Of course, he was better in the bullpen. All pitchers are better in the bullpen, but a league-average starter that gives you 200 innings is more valuable than a stud reliever in any given year.

The Cubs didn't really underachieve when they won the division in 2007 and won 97 games in 2008. Derrek Lee has had a couple of meh-ish years because he was coming of a wrist injury IIRC, but look what he did in 2009. Soriano is just helpless.

Not trying to attack you/your opinion.

FormerPhD said...

Anon,

Those are fair points, but if you look at where he was last year as a starter, he had 7 starts and had a 5.45 ERA in those starts. He also only went 6 innings or beyond in 2 of those games and one of those he went exactly 6 innings. He's not really an inning eater.

He's a 5IP, 3-4ER guy... which is okay for a 5th starter, but he's much more valuable out of the bullpen where he's lights out. Essentially, Hughes is the fifth starter who gives you mediocre results and forces your bp to throw 4 innings.

He is only 23 and he can certainly improve, but considering the Yankees have the money to go out and get a fifth starter who can replicate his performances (there's a ton of those out there), why would you also sacrifice a dominant relief pitcher to do that?

Starters are generally more valuable, but again, is taking a great relief pitcher (in a relatively thin bullpen) and getting 150-160 innings of 4.5-5.0 ERA worth it? In my opinion it would be counterproductive to do so.

ivn said...

Yeah its gonna get interesting when you get to the Seattle preview...if people are worrying about Boston's lineup wait til they see the Mariners'. Some combo of Jose Lopez, Griffey, Milton Bradley, and Franklyn Guttierez is going to make up the heart of the order. Yikes. I hope they don't end up having to rush Ackeley to the bigs.

Still trying to wrap my mind around "Joba doesn't have the intellect." I wasn't aware major league pitchers spent their time on the mound analyzing Tolstoy or mulling over the effects of a global economy.

FormerPhD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

rich - I agree that right now, he's not quite there. He obviously wasn't an innings eater. I also think it's best for the Yankees' future to raise him to be a starter, just because starting pitchers - yes, even mediocre ones - are very expensive. The Yankees haven't had a homegrown starter (CMW aside) since Andy Pettitte. I love him to death and all, but his rookie year was 1995. I think they're looking to change that. Hughes was a first-round pick for the Yankees, and I think putting him in the bullpen for good at the age of 23/24, while going out and buying a #5 starter, would basically be giving up on him.

The Yankee bullpen isn't particularly thin, either, even without Hughes or Joba (injuries aside). It would definitely be BETTER with one of them in there, but it's pretty good without them.

Seattle is ALL (top-end) pitching and defense. It worked for them last year, but again, they outperformed their Pythag by a lot. It'll be interesting to see how they do this year.

FormerPhD said...

One last thing, my initial statement wasn't intended to put Hughes down as a bad pitcher, but was to highlight that if Hughes' intellect makes him the likely 5th starter, that you have to consider that Joba has more talent than Hughes.

As for the Cubs, in 2007 they had 85 wins; in 2008 they had 94. So one year they were slightly above average, the other they were really good.

However, my question is: are the Cubs a mediocre team capable of having one great season or are they a great team that underachieved one year and slightly underachieved another year.

I spent last year in Chicago so I got to watch a good number of Cubs games and they seemed to fall more under "mediocre" than great team underachieving.

Lee was hurt, but as much as I like Lee, he's 34. Soriano is, as you put it, helpless; but look at their lineup. Other than Soto, Lee (if he's completely healthy and staves off aging) and Ramirez, is anyone else on that team can provide offense (Theriot)?

Anonymous said...

rich - Like I said, fair. It seemed like you were putting down Hughes to me, but if that wasn't really your intent, it wasn't your intent. I've misinterpreted stuff before.

I don't know that much about the Cubs and I haven't watched that many Cubs games, but I do know that, in 2008, they won 97 games. They had the best record in the NL by, I think, 5 games. I think the Cardinals are the class of the division, though, but at the same time their entire pitching staff seems to be a very large injury risk. So who knows.

I agree, their offense is... uhhh... but what other teams in that division have particularly good offense? Brewers have a pretty darn good offense, but incredibly crappy pitching. Cardinals have Pujols and Holliday and no one else. Astros, Reds, Pirates... no. I said in Fred's preview of the Cubs that I wouldn't be surprised if they won that division with 90+ wins and I wouldn't be surprised if they were below .500, and I'll stick with that.

Bengoodfella said...

Anon, personally I like Hughes better in the pen and Joba better in the rotation but really it is a luxury to have. I say let them both pitch in spring training as starters and then the loser is the set up guy. I do like Chamberlain better as the starter, but like you said Hughes had some good starts last year too.

Your opinion that stud relievers aren't worth as much as a starter who can give you 200 innings is really the crux of the Joba argument. I agree with you, but there are those who think a stud reliever is worth a lot too. I see Joba as the 200 inning guy but I do think Hughes has the talent to start as well.

I am personally referring to the rest of the Cubs lineup, other than Lee and Ramirez, saying they underachieved. Soriano, Soto, Fukudome, and others. I don't know if they underachieved more than I am not sure they are as good as they have looked in the past.

Rich, I think if there is a competition in spring training it will decide between Joba and Hughes, but either way the Yankees are going to end up with a good set up guy...barring any injuries.

Ivn, I have barely looked at the Mariners lineup and that is the biggest question I have about the team. It's built for defense and I think we are going to see if defense does win championships. They shouldn't rush Ackeley...but he could be ready at some point this season...maybe. Anon and Rich have me ready to jump ahead to my Mariners preview...but I will have patience.

I don't get the Joba is not smart thing either. It's one of many things that went over my head that Scout X said.

Rich, I think you hit the nail on the head with the Cubs. It is an already explosive situation and add in the fact I see the problems you see and that is why I bought low on the Cubs. Though if they get their shit together they could win 90+ games.

The Central division certainly doesn't have the strongest lineup but I do see the Reds playing pretty well this year in that division and I haven't given up on the Brewers yet.

I am posting my picks on the side of the blog so we know who I picked to win each division once my previews are all over.

Unknown said...

If I recall correctly, Lincecum's delivery is based on actually not hurting his arm. His father used some applied leverage theory or some such and helped develope the delivery to maximize result and minimize stress. It may look whacky as hell, but they always said Pedro was too slight to last long, and damned if eventually he didn't get injured, after as dominant a 6 year run as we'll probably ever see. course it was followed by two excellent, one good, and one very good year, so ten out of eleven years, I'll take that from Lincecum.

Ben! Baseball Reference my friend, not Google or Wikipedia!

Bengoodfella said...

Martin, you do recall correctly. I read a story about that in SI a year or so ago. It's not like Lincecum is going to completely avoid injuries i his career. I don't know how many pitchers can never get injured, but if Pedro is a comparison then that is a comparison I bet the Giants like.

I know, I know...I love Baseball Reference so much. I just dropped the ball on that one.