Comments on: Vultured

By: seamus

seamus — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:59:03 +0000

[40] “Like the fact that teams that don’t have power in the outfield don’t tend to win championships.” That isn’t a fact. That is a debatable opinion. Lineups require slugging, not particular positions. Fielding positions are defensive not offensive positions.

By: monkeypants

monkeypants — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:51:05 +0000

[40] Swisher has had an isolated patience over .100 every year. I’d be willing to take my chances.

By: Bum Rush

Bum Rush — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:35:37 +0000

@ 34

Facts are useful.

Yup, they are. Like the fact that teams that don’t have power in the outfield don’t tend to win championships.

Why?

Because slugging outfielders are where you usually find power if you’re going to find it at all. Just because the Yankees have it in the infield is not a reason to ignore it in the outfield.

Damon and Swisher have performed really well. But there can’t be expectation of that going forward because it’s not in their histories, especially Damon. Swisher may peak late, as Cliff notes, but he also could get really cold. Of course, there’s also what happened in 2008. They lost just one of their significant infield bats and they lost all hope of a playoff spot because they were thin where they could easily be strong. The lesson of 2008 was Not Enough Offense. And yet they signed just one bat.

The outfield is the place to rack up cheap runs (see the contracts in this past off-season). For instance, with the Yankee resources, they could have easily afforded Dunn. It’s a dumb mistake that could cost them this year and next year too. When Damon is the best value in the outfield, there should have been more forethought.

@ 38

I agree with everything you’ve said. If Swisher finds some consistency over this year and next, he’s that guy. But who wants to bet on it?

With how cheap offense is, the Yankees should have an overabundance. We’ve already seen what happens to the offense when they lose Jorge or A-Rod for significant stretches. They’ve gotten lucky with Jeter. With $200 million spent, they shouldn’t have an offense that’s feast or famine.

By: Cliff Corcoran

Cliff Corcoran — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:18:18 +0000

[36] great minds . . .

By: monkeypants

monkeypants — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:15:58 +0000

I am sensitive to the argument that the Yankees should not squander unusual production at one position (e.g. SS and C) by signing players who underperform at another position (e.g. corner OF). At the same time, the offense and roster have to be looked at corporately, as well. More importantly, it is a mistake to fixate on SLG. Rather, one should look at the offensive performance as a whole, of which SLG is but one (albeit important) component. I don’t care so much if a player slugs .450, so long as his (for example) his OPS is .850. Of course, OPS is an imperfect measure of offensive ability, but it does combine the two more important factors of offensive production–the ability not to make outs and the ability to get bases. Of course, straight OPS (OBP + SLG) undervalues the more important of the two, OBP, which is valued at something like 1.4 times that of SLG. So, if there is any single stat to focus on, it’s OBP rather than SLG.

That was my main beef with Nady: not that his career SLG was about .460, but rather that his career OBP was only around .335.

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:18:59 +0000

Yeah the slugging outfield argument really should take a rest. Of course I say that as a proponent of, if possible, getting more speed – and thus probably less slugging – in the OF. I’d like to have one burner on the team that doesn’t need to be monitored a la Gardner – in other words a dependable player. And even if Gardner becomes consistently decent, I’d like another.

By: Diane Firstman

Diane Firstman — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:44:51 +0000

[0]

Hey, someone stole my line

http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/06/30/seattle-mariners-3/?cp=10#comment-218957

By: The Mick536

The Mick536 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:10:12 +0000

Looked at the ad before reading the recap of the game. Drained my brain for a few minutes. Not fair, but berry, berry smart.

Left the Sox winning 9-1. Great joy to see their final too, especially with Paps second blown save in a row. Sorry for Lowell, though.

By: seamus

seamus — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:11:20 +0000

[31] are you still complaining about slugging? THis team has the most outfielders slugging .500 in the AL, the #4 slugger in the AL, the highest slugging shortstop in the AL, the third highest slugging 2B, the highest slugging Catcher, etc… A-Rod’s slugging is 100 points below his normal level and even if you assume that Damon and Swisher will go back to the .450+ slugging they are used to, and then you’ve gotta assume A-Rod will be back above .500, the Yankees will still be tied for most .500 slugging players in their lineup. And we will most likely still lead the majors in slugging. Facts are useful.

By: Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO

Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:31:21 +0000

I hate button-fly jeans, but would gladly switch at the request of that bar maiden…

Too happy and excited to read or contribute to the above discussion. Go Team!!

By: Bum Rush

Bum Rush — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:22:18 +0000

Of course, if Montero keeps this up he could split a DH/C role with Jorge next year. They won’t promote him that aggressively, but folks seem to think his bat is ready for The Show. It’s crazy but let him DH 70% of the time and work with Pena every day.

By: Bum Rush

Bum Rush — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:09:32 +0000

will you complain about Jackson’s lack of power as well?

Not if they recognize the problem and acquire someone like Dunn to DH and pop homers out to rightfield.

But if they go into the season with an outfield of Damon, two of Jackson/Melky/Gardner, and Swisher with a revolving DH, then yes, yes I will. But re-signing Damon for two or, if necessary – at most, three years is much better than an outfield of Jackson, Gardner/Melky, and Swisher. The latter puts loads of offensive weight on the infield when sooner or later the ages will catch up to them for longer stretches than a month or two.

By: Bum Rush

Bum Rush — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:58:08 +0000

@ 28

We could work out other arrangements. I hear you’re a great editor…

All great points on Swisher. I like him and his game. He’s a great 8 or 9 hitter, or even 2. But next year he could easily be the number 5. They shouldn’t have to rely on him for that much offense, esp. with how his 2008 went. He’s a nice bonus for an offense, not a backbone.

@ 29

Did I say there was a problem? I think there might be a problem with rotation depth in 2010 if they let Pettitte walk, but that’s more the combination of Hughes, Burnett, and Wang.

By: Cliff Corcoran

Cliff Corcoran — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:48:47 +0000

We all see 100 IP as the marker for Hughes.

So what’s the problem?

Of course, I have no idea if that’s the team or him or him just talking.

Exactly. Move along . . .

By: Cliff Corcoran

Cliff Corcoran — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:47:43 +0000

If I had any sort of cash flow at all, I’d take your Swisher bet, not necessarily because I think he’s a good bet to finish above .500, but just for the fun of it. For what it’s worth, his line this year looks a lot like 2006, when he slugged .493 playing his home games in Oakland’s pitchers’ park. If he warms up at home, he’ll beat .500 easy. Remember, he too is just 28, an up-tick in performance (or a spike) at this age is not uncommon.

As for Holliday, don’t criticize people for things they haven’t done. Meanwhile, if they opt to re-up Damon for a year or two and promote Austin Jackson instead of signing Holliday, will you complain about Jackson’s lack of power as well?

By: Bum Rush

Bum Rush — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:43:04 +0000

@ 25

See, that’s where the coincidence is too much. We all see 100 IP as the marker for Hughes. He’s no moron, but it just seems like he’s clued into the same expectation. Of course, I have no idea if that’s the team or him or him just talking. But it wouldn’t surprise me if he knew coming into the season that he was good for 100-120.

By: Bum Rush

Bum Rush — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:40:01 +0000

@ 24

Great, then if you believe that production from Damon is real, they should re-sign him. It’s the best production available on this year’s free agent market. Instead they sign Holliday for more dollars and years.

And Swisher, you want to bet the over on that SLG for $50? I’ll even give you 2-to-1 odds.

By: Cliff Corcoran

Cliff Corcoran — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:37:37 +0000

Hughes cap just might be 100 innings based on the fact that he threw 70 last year and the rule is no more than 30 beyond the previous year for young arms, regardless of previous career high. Of course, you can’t hold a pitcher who missed a year to 30 innings, so that doesn’t always apply. Hughes career high was 146 IP in 2006. He won’t go past that, for sure, where he falls between 100 and 140, however, I can’t say, but if he can throw 150 next year, he’ll be as free as Joba this year, which is working out per PJ’s math above.

By: Cliff Corcoran

Cliff Corcoran — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:34:30 +0000

Nope. Not with Damon slugging .526 and Swisher slugging .500, and not with the best team slugging percentage in the majors (.468). Doesn’t bother me one bit.

By: Bum Rush

Bum Rush — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:31:57 +0000

@ 20

What do you think Hughes’ cap is? How do folks talk about arm development when a year is missed. Is it back to the beginning?