SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Dec 12, 2017 13:02:27 GMT -5
Excited for Jabari Blash to hit 41 homers when either Judge or Stanton get hurt. Only half joking about that - Blash isn't really "good" per se, but his power is legit. Think a taller Bryce Brentz. To be fair, part of the trade can be for all of the Blash/Bash/Blast wordplay. And possibly Flash.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2017 13:19:10 GMT -5
Maybe only two about power, but there has to be 20 plus post calling Stanton Generational in some form over the last 3-4 months. Which is the point, it just keeps happening. We could argue about the definition of "generational" all day but why bother? It doesn't change the type of player that Stanton is. Which, namely, is a guy who is not only a top ten-ish player in baseball but one who achieves that greatness through a unique and impressive skill set. He's the type of a guy a franchise is lucky to develop once in a generation. Assign whatever word you'd like to that. It works if you think 2017 is his normal type of season and don't look at 2015 and 2016. He has averaged a little over 4 fWAR per season in his career. Great player, but definitely not a guy I'm counting on to be worth his contract.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 12, 2017 13:25:32 GMT -5
What's your point about Pedroia? The HOF is filled with players that weren't generational talents. So... if Stanton is merely a Hall of Famer rather than a GENERATIONAL TALENT does the analysis of the trade change? If not, then this is seriously just like four pages of you arguing about what GENERATIONAL TALENT means with everyone on the forum for no goddamn reason other than for the sake of parsing language that was intended to be more descriptive than analytical in the first place. Also, too: www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/slugging_perc_active.shtml
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2017 13:26:37 GMT -5
What's your point about Pedroia? The HOF is filled with players that weren't generational talents. So... if Stanton is merely a Hall of Famer rather than a GENERATIONAL TALENT does the analysis of the trade change? If not, then this is seriously just like four pages of you arguing about what GENERATIONAL TALENT means with everyone on the forum for no goddamn reason other than for the sake of parsing language that was intended to be more descriptive than analytical in the first place. Also, too: www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/slugging_perc_active.shtmlOver the last 5 years, he has 1.0 more fWAR than Lorenzo Cain.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 12, 2017 13:27:40 GMT -5
As I said, I searched the entire board and only found, in total, two mentions of Stanton being generational (and they mostly referred to his power being generational - not him as a player). Maybe the other posters are using a different word, but almost no one is calling Stanton generational much less 20 plus times. I just searched another thread and got like 8 hits on the word generational. No offense but you didn't search the entire board. Then the search function on mobile is broken....but at this point it doesn't matter. Enough has been said about the phrase.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 12, 2017 13:30:28 GMT -5
So... if Stanton is merely a Hall of Famer rather than a GENERATIONAL TALENT does the analysis of the trade change? If not, then this is seriously just like four pages of you arguing about what GENERATIONAL TALENT means with everyone on the forum for no goddamn reason other than for the sake of parsing language that was intended to be more descriptive than analytical in the first place. Also, too: www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/slugging_perc_active.shtmlOver the last 5 years, he has 1.0 more fWAR than Lorenzo Cain. Okay, let's do it this way. Lorenzo Cain was the best player on a team that won the World Series, and Giancarlo Stanton has been better than him over the last five years despite being younger and also hurt for a good portion of two of those seasons.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 12, 2017 13:31:02 GMT -5
We could argue about the definition of "generational" all day but why bother? It doesn't change the type of player that Stanton is. Which, namely, is a guy who is not only a top ten-ish player in baseball but one who achieves that greatness through a unique and impressive skill set. He's the type of a guy a franchise is lucky to develop once in a generation. Assign whatever word you'd like to that. He's a guy that has had top 10 seasons, but overall he averages 4.4 bwar a season over the last 8 years. That is not a top 10 player over the last 8 years. Maybe he can be that going forward for the next 3-5 years, but that's a big maybe. He has been a very good player, that can be great at times. Over the last 8 years he ranks 17th in fwar. Pedroia has a higher war total over that time. I have never once heard anyone call Pedroia a generational talent. www.fangraphs.com/projections.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&type=steamer&team=0&lg=all&players=0&sort=27,d He’s got the sixth best projected WAR in baseball and I don’t care to discuss this further.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2017 13:31:52 GMT -5
Over the last 5 years, he has 1.0 more fWAR than Lorenzo Cain. Okay, let's do it this way. Lorenzo Cain was the best player on a team that won the World Series, and Giancarlo Stanton has been better than him over the last five years despite being younger and also hurt for a good portion of two of those seasons. Cain is hurt a lot also. But Stanton is way closer to the player that Cain is than he is to Trout, Bryant, Seager, Donaldson, Machado, Harper, Betts, Votto, or Altuve.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 12, 2017 13:34:32 GMT -5
What's your point about Pedroia? The HOF is filled with players that weren't generational talents. So... if Stanton is merely a Hall of Famer rather than a GENERATIONAL TALENT does the analysis of the trade change? If not, then this is seriously just like four pages of you arguing about what GENERATIONAL TALENT means with everyone on the forum for no goddamn reason other than for the sake of parsing language that was intended to be more descriptive than analytical in the first place. Also, too: www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/slugging_perc_active.shtmlThank you! My God, arguing about generational talent. My God, who gives a crap?! The guy, if he keeps doing what he's been doing over his career, and stays reasonably healthy, will be a HOFer. Not a bad player to have on your team. I honestly can't think of any player I'd rather have batting cleanup. How many players are better? Trout. Harper. Altuve all around. Goldschmidt has been excellent. Votto has been amazing. It's a relatively small list.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2017 13:37:10 GMT -5
Over the last 3 seasons, Stanton has 0.2 more fWAR than Bogaerts.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 12, 2017 13:45:31 GMT -5
Over the last 3 seasons, Stanton has 0.2 more fWAR than Bogaerts. You keep posting these random WAR factoids, but every one of them comes down to Stanton not being healthy in 2016 and it affecting his play. If you think that's predictive, then I guess you should be wary. If you don't, then he slugged over .600 in both 2015 and 2017 and he's 28 and the Yankees didn't give up anyone particularly useful for him. WAR is a useful tool, but your usage of it in the last couple pages is egregiously reductive.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 12, 2017 13:47:29 GMT -5
He's a guy that has had top 10 seasons, but overall he averages 4.4 bwar a season over the last 8 years. That is not a top 10 player over the last 8 years. Maybe he can be that going forward for the next 3-5 years, but that's a big maybe. He has been a very good player, that can be great at times. Over the last 8 years he ranks 17th in fwar. Pedroia has a higher war total over that time. I have never once heard anyone call Pedroia a generational talent. This parsing of "generational" is ridiculous and provides no insight, your use of 8-year as the qualifier to include Stanton's rookie half-season is intentionally misleading, and "is Dustin Pedroia a Hall of Famer" is a legitimate question that people have started asking: www.google.com/search?q=dustin+pedroia+hall+of+fame&oq=Dustin+Pedroia+Hall+of+Fame&aqs=chrome.0.0l3.3543j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8Anyway, my scouting eye tells me affirmatively that Jabari Blash is taller than Dustin Pedroia. As the person who initially described Stanton as “generational” I can assure you that I am now so sick of the term that I will probably never use it again, so mission accomplished I guess.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 12, 2017 13:51:41 GMT -5
Over the last 3 seasons, Stanton has 0.2 more fWAR than Bogaerts. You keep posting these random WAR factoids, but every one of them comes down to Stanton not being healthy in 2016 and it affecting his play. If you think that's predictive, then I guess you should be wary. If you don't, then he slugged over .600 in both 2015 and 2017 and he's 28 and the Yankees didn't give up anyone particularly useful for him. WAR is a useful tool, but your usage of it in the last couple pages is egregiously reductive. Stanton’s bad seasons are mostly attributable to injury, and he’s headed to the DH league as well as a team that almost certainly has a better training staff than the Marlins so... yeah, he totally sucks, QED.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 12, 2017 13:53:45 GMT -5
Over the last 3 seasons, Stanton has 0.2 more fWAR than Bogaerts. Who would you rather have going forward? Bogaerts or Stanton? For me it's really not that close. And I do think Bogaerts is better than he showed last season. He was injured and it impacted his numbers adversely, just like Stanton's were impacted in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 12, 2017 13:55:34 GMT -5
Honestly, if it had been the Sox who acquired him I doubt we'd be having these conversations about how he's not generational or he's not closer to Lorenzo Cain caliber than Mike Trout caliber.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 12, 2017 13:56:07 GMT -5
What's your point about Pedroia? The HOF is filled with players that weren't generational talents. So... if Stanton is merely a Hall of Famer rather than a GENERATIONAL TALENT does the analysis of the trade change? If not, then this is seriously just like four pages of you arguing about what GENERATIONAL TALENT means with everyone on the forum for no goddamn reason other than for the sake of parsing language that was intended to be more descriptive than analytical in the first place. Also, too: www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/slugging_perc_active.shtmlIf the Red Sox let money get in the way of a team basically giving away a generational talent, they deserve to be destroyed by their fans. Those are the type of players you do everything you can to acquire. Hence my reaction to a bunch of people calling Stanton generational or a once in a generation type player. If he is merely a HOF does it change things? Yea I think it does. On average that would mean he produces another 35 war over his career, to get to the 70 average number for hitters. That would be a very bad look for the Red Sox if that happend. It would mean he stays relative healthy and doesn't decline much. Ihave to believe the Red Sox don't think that happens. I sure hope that doesn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2017 13:58:40 GMT -5
Over the last 3 seasons, Stanton has 0.2 more fWAR than Bogaerts. You keep posting these random WAR factoids, but every one of them comes down to Stanton not being healthy in 2016 and it affecting his play. If you think that's predictive, then I guess you should be wary. If you don't, then he slugged over .600 in both 2015 and 2017 and he's 28 and the Yankees didn't give up anyone particularly useful for him. WAR is a useful tool, but your usage of it in the last couple pages is egregiously reductive. Health is a skill. I guess you think that slugging percentage is a better indication of player value than WAR? The debate was caused by the people who are completely overrating how great of a player Stanton is. I never said it wasn't a bad trade for the Yankees. But for some people, every player the Yankees get automatically becomes better when they acquire them and that's why it's time to panic.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2017 14:01:48 GMT -5
Over the last 3 seasons, Stanton has 0.2 more fWAR than Bogaerts. Who would you rather have going forward? Bogaerts or Stanton? For me it's really not that close. And I do think Bogaerts is better than he showed last season. He was injured and it impacted his numbers adversely, just like Stanton's were impacted in 2016. The comparison is for the people who are overreacting. If Stanton has a 2.5 win year next year like he's had in 2 of the last 3 seasons, will people get over it?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 12, 2017 14:02:55 GMT -5
So... if Stanton is merely a Hall of Famer rather than a GENERATIONAL TALENT does the analysis of the trade change? If not, then this is seriously just like four pages of you arguing about what GENERATIONAL TALENT means with everyone on the forum for no goddamn reason other than for the sake of parsing language that was intended to be more descriptive than analytical in the first place. Also, too: www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/slugging_perc_active.shtmlIf the Red Sox let money get in the way of a team basically giving away a generational talent, they deserve to be destroyed by their fans. Those are the type of players you do everything you can to acquire. Hence my reaction to a bunch of people calling Stanton generational or a once in a generation type player. If he is merely a HOF does it change things? Yea I think it does. On average that would mean he produces another 35 war over his career, to get to the 70 average number for hitters. That would be a very bad look for the Red Sox if that happend. It would mean he stays relative healthy and doesn't decline much. Ihave to believe the Red Sox don't think that happens. I sure hope that doesn't happen. Stanton's steep decline will most likely happen well into his contract, or at least likely beyond his 2020 season. It wouldn't be surprising at all to see him opt out and look for bigger $, especially once the market gets reset. So I do think you a strong HOF performance over the next 3 years barring impactful injuries, which is a caveat for all players. I think the WAR projections beyond those three years could be absolutely meaningless if he opts out for the team that has him now.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 12, 2017 14:07:37 GMT -5
Over the last 3 seasons, Stanton has 0.2 more fWAR than Bogaerts. You keep posting these random WAR factoids, but every one of them comes down to Stanton not being healthy in 2016 and it affecting his play. If you think that's predictive, then I guess you should be wary. If you don't, then he slugged over .600 in both 2015 and 2017 and he's 28 and the Yankees didn't give up anyone particularly useful for him. WAR is a useful tool, but your usage of it in the last couple pages is egregiously reductive. That's the whole point, he has been injured a ton when he is young. Usually players don't get healthier as they get older, they get more injuries. Played in 150 games only twice in career and only one season has he played over 150 games. You can't produce huge war totals if you are injured all the time.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 12, 2017 14:07:42 GMT -5
You keep posting these random WAR factoids, but every one of them comes down to Stanton not being healthy in 2016 and it affecting his play. If you think that's predictive, then I guess you should be wary. If you don't, then he slugged over .600 in both 2015 and 2017 and he's 28 and the Yankees didn't give up anyone particularly useful for him. WAR is a useful tool, but your usage of it in the last couple pages is egregiously reductive. Health is a skill. I guess you think that slugging percentage is a better indication of player value than WAR? The debate was caused by the people who are completely overrating how great of a player Stanton is. I never said it wasn't a bad trade for the Yankees. But for some people, every player the Yankees get automatically becomes better when they acquire them and that's why it's time to panic. I sort of agree and disagree with healty being a skill. While Tom Brady might think it's unavoidable I don't really think that's the case. You get hit in the face by a pitch does that mean you lack the skill of not getting hit in the face with a pitch or is it bad luck? I don't anticipate Stanton his 59 homers again although in that park and with the strike zone change that further benefits the hitters, it wouldn't shock me. I'd pencil him in with 35 homers conservatively and do the same with Judge (along with a BA drop), and I'd guess that Bird will pick up the slack and that Torres could have a Devers like impact, and that if Frazier isn't traded for a pitcher he could be quite productive, and that Sanchez will probably do what he did last year again. It reminds me of when the 1998 Yankees, off 125 wins for the previous year, added Roger Clemens to the rotation. They didn't win more games in 1999, but it certainly didn't hurt the team.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 12, 2017 14:11:16 GMT -5
If the Red Sox let money get in the way of a team basically giving away a generational talent, they deserve to be destroyed by their fans. Those are the type of players you do everything you can to acquire. Hence my reaction to a bunch of people calling Stanton generational or a once in a generation type player. If he is merely a HOF does it change things? Yea I think it does. On average that would mean he produces another 35 war over his career, to get to the 70 average number for hitters. That would be a very bad look for the Red Sox if that happend. It would mean he stays relative healthy and doesn't decline much. Ihave to believe the Red Sox don't think that happens. I sure hope that doesn't happen. Stanton's steep decline will most likely happen well into his contract, or at least likely beyond his 2020 season. It wouldn't be surprising at all to see him opt out and look for bigger $, especially once the market gets reset. So I do think you a strong HOF performance over the next 3 years barring impactful injuries, which is a caveat for all players. I think the WAR projections beyond those three years could be absolutely meaningless if he opts out for the team that has him now. You seem to keep overlooking the fact he gets injured more often than an average player. You just expect 3 great years in a row, when he has never come close to doing that.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 12, 2017 14:13:18 GMT -5
Who would you rather have going forward? Bogaerts or Stanton? For me it's really not that close. And I do think Bogaerts is better than he showed last season. He was injured and it impacted his numbers adversely, just like Stanton's were impacted in 2016. The comparison is for the people who are overreacting. If Stanton has a 2.5 win year next year like he's had in 2 of the last 3 seasons, will people get over it? Over the last three seasons his median season was 3.7 bWAR and his mean was 4.56. If you extend that to four years, his median is 5.1 and his mean is 5.075. Describing him as a 2.5-win player is batty.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 12, 2017 14:35:55 GMT -5
Stanton's steep decline will most likely happen well into his contract, or at least likely beyond his 2020 season. It wouldn't be surprising at all to see him opt out and look for bigger $, especially once the market gets reset. So I do think you a strong HOF performance over the next 3 years barring impactful injuries, which is a caveat for all players. I think the WAR projections beyond those three years could be absolutely meaningless if he opts out for the team that has him now. You seem to keep overlooking the fact he gets injured more often than an average player. You just expect 3 great years in a row, when he has never come close to doing that. One of his injuries was getting hit in the face. Can you make the case that he is more prone than other players to get hit in the face again with a baseball?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 12, 2017 14:41:41 GMT -5
You seem to keep overlooking the fact he gets injured more often than an average player. You just expect 3 great years in a row, when he has never come close to doing that. One of his injuries was getting hit in the face. Can you make the case that he is more prone than other players to get hit in the face again with a baseball? You would have a point if that injury was the cause of a massive amount of his missed games. It is not. That season is the third highest total of games played in a year for his career. It happened September 11th, he missed a little over two weeks.
|
|
|