Comments on: Oooh, Shiny Book Cover http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html Blogging the San Diego Padres baseball club. Established 1997. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:21:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Tom Waits http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130228 Tom Waits Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:16:14 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130228 52: Oh, the image was funnier. Christopher Lloyd standing in front of a white background in regular clothes is funny, at least to those of us of a certain age. I was more talking about the time expenditure. As for 53 in particular, and the general "Let it be" draft talk in general, it was only a few months ago that some people (not necessarily anyone in these set of comments) were still defending the Bush pick and even Bush himself as a prospect. Some folks are operating under the misapprehension that the Padres have radically changed the way they run the draft, which is largely not true. Under those conditions it's totally sensible to continue discussing what's gone wrong in the immediate and not-so-distant past.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-130228">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 52: Oh, the image was funnier. Christopher Lloyd standing in front of a white background in regular clothes is funny, at least to those of us of a certain age. I was more talking about the time expenditure.

As for 53 in particular, and the general “Let it be” draft talk in general, it was only a few months ago that some people (not necessarily anyone in these set of comments) were still defending the Bush pick and even Bush himself as a prospect. Some folks are operating under the misapprehension that the Padres have radically changed the way they run the draft, which is largely not true. Under those conditions it’s totally sensible to continue discussing what’s gone wrong in the immediate and not-so-distant past.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: SDSUBaseball http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130128 SDSUBaseball Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:16:30 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130128 245/310/370 is a HUGE exaggeration.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-130128">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 245/310/370 is a HUGE exaggeration.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Kevin http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130125 Kevin Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:01:25 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130125 Bill James projections for Edmonds: 19 homers, 62 RBIs, 268/372/496 in 351 at-bats, 110 games.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-130125">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> Bill James projections for Edmonds:

19 homers, 62 RBIs, 268/372/496 in 351 at-bats, 110 games.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Kevin http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130097 Kevin Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:28:26 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130097 60: No problem. Alderson's comments made it closed for me more than what was said here.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-130097">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 60: No problem. Alderson’s comments made it closed for me more than what was said here.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Schlom http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130096 Schlom Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:18:01 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130096 Edmonds' numbers have declined every year since 2004 but I don't think that people realize how good he was during his peak run with the Cardinals from 2000 to 2004. There probably aren't too many CF'ers in history who could match up with him over those 5 years. If he could just rebound a little from the past few years he would be a great addition. The problem is that it seems unlikely that he will considering his age, past three year performance and injury history. If his numbers decline like they the past few years, we are looking at a 245/310/370 season (and that's not even taking into account the Petco effect). That won't be good.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-130096">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> Edmonds’ numbers have declined every year since 2004 but I don’t think that people realize how good he was during his peak run with the Cardinals from 2000 to 2004. There probably aren’t too many CF’ers in history who could match up with him over those 5 years. If he could just rebound a little from the past few years he would be a great addition. The problem is that it seems unlikely that he will considering his age, past three year performance and injury history. If his numbers decline like they the past few years, we are looking at a 245/310/370 season (and that’s not even taking into account the Petco effect). That won’t be good.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Sam http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130093 Sam Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:07:20 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130093 re:56 my b, i must have missed that day.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-130093">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> re:56
my b, i must have missed that day.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Field39 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130092 Field39 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:06:56 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130092 58: I am more interested in the Cameron/ Edmonds comparison, and I find that less than comforting. If Edmunds fails to reverse the effects of time, the Padres will have to find that missing production elsewhere.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-130092">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 58:

I am more interested in the Cameron/ Edmonds comparison, and I find that less than comforting. If Edmunds fails to reverse the effects of time, the Padres will have to find that missing production elsewhere.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Phantom http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130090 Phantom Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:51:32 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130090 55: Even given their difference in playing time in 2007, Edmonds had 1 Win Share Above Bench, compared to 4 Win Shares Above Bench for Jones. According to THT, WSAB is a refined approach to Win Shares, in which each player's total Win Shares are compared to the Win Shares an average bench player would have received, given that player's time at bat, on the mound or in the field. Jones had 16 total win shares for 2007, while Edmonds had 9. This is a difference of 7 win shares, which equates to approximately 2 1/3 more wins from Jones. The important thing to remember is that Win Shares is essentially a counting stat, so in 248 more plate appearances, Jones was only worth 7 more win shares. If we extrapolate Edmonds' PAs to match Jones', he would have accumulated 14.4 win shares. This equates to less than a full Win of difference between Jones and Edmonds. Obviously this extrapolation is imprecise and assumes that Edmonds would have posted similar production had he accumulated as many PAs as Jones, but I think it clearly shows that the difference between the two of them is not as great as you would think. For reference purposes, in 2007, Cameron had 22 total win shares in 651 PAs. Cameron posted a Win Share Above Bench of 9.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-130090">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 55: Even given their difference in playing time in 2007, Edmonds had 1 Win Share Above Bench, compared to 4 Win Shares Above Bench for Jones. According to THT, WSAB is a refined approach to Win Shares, in which each player’s total Win Shares are compared to the Win Shares an average bench player would have received, given that player’s time at bat, on the mound or in the field.

Jones had 16 total win shares for 2007, while Edmonds had 9. This is a difference of 7 win shares, which equates to approximately 2 1/3 more wins from Jones. The important thing to remember is that Win Shares is essentially a counting stat, so in 248 more plate appearances, Jones was only worth 7 more win shares. If we extrapolate Edmonds’ PAs to match Jones’, he would have accumulated 14.4 win shares. This equates to less than a full Win of difference between Jones and Edmonds. Obviously this extrapolation is imprecise and assumes that Edmonds would have posted similar production had he accumulated as many PAs as Jones, but I think it clearly shows that the difference between the two of them is not as great as you would think.

For reference purposes, in 2007, Cameron had 22 total win shares in 651 PAs. Cameron posted a Win Share Above Bench of 9.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Schlom http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130088 Schlom Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:32:41 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130088 I stand corrected, the Cardinals payroll was pretty close to the median. The Mets, Astros, Braves, Cubs, Dodgers and Giants all had higher payrolls while the Phillies had nearly the same. However, they were well above the mean of $69.2m. The salary numbers are staggering, the National League's total payroll was $1.108b! That certainly is a lot of money.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-130088">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> I stand corrected, the Cardinals payroll was pretty close to the median. The Mets, Astros, Braves, Cubs, Dodgers and Giants all had higher payrolls while the Phillies had nearly the same. However, they were well above the mean of $69.2m. The salary numbers are staggering, the National League’s total payroll was $1.108b! That certainly is a lot of money.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Kevin http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130085 Kevin Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:21:17 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/12/oooh-shiny-book-cover.html#comment-130085 54: That's already been discussed on this blog, plus Alderson has said it will not happen. No offense, but I don't think there's much to say after that.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-130085">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> 54:

That’s already been discussed on this blog, plus Alderson has said it will not happen. No offense, but I don’t think there’s much to say after that.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]>