Yankees @ Tampa Bay Rays 4/9-4/11

Sorry, that is a baseless accusation. I pay close attention to numbers AND words.

But if you think this is the case, the proper thing to do is to give me a specific example. At least one. Because I am very careful not to "add little details." I respond specifically to the claims that are made. That's why I quote you and use your own words.

Fine. we will see about that. However, I qualified my statement. By serviceable, I meant he'll be a league average player, and have a positive WAR. And I believe the word I used was "effective," as per the metrics above.

In any case... that is not what you accused me of. You claimed that I was using the first three games of the season as evidence of Gardner's effectiveness. I did no such thing. My opinion is based on all available data and his skill set.

And I've been responding to specific claims you've made. And I enumerated those three points above.

You completely missed the point of the comparison. BABIP is not irrelevant. It was brought up to show that he gets on base at a good clip when he makes contact, despite not always making good contact. This is a product of his speed. And it is a hallmark of faster players who put the ball on the ground more often than not. It was DWalsh who brought up Ichiro's name, incidentally, but if I had to guess, he wasn't comparing their skills as a player, only their BABIP, which is a product of their speed.

And it's not just BABIP that I'm looking at at all levels. You made the claim that his shitty contact is hurting him. The BABIP shows you that when he makes contact, he's still getting on base at a decent clip.

Yeah, you're a Moneyball guy all right.

Who needs objective analysis, anyway, right? Better to only use your eyes, and nothing but your eyes so you never have to challenge what you believe.

Of course you have to let the numbers play out! You're implying that I'm saying otherwise. This is false.

He should be an everyday player right now. His L/R splits aren't that bad.

Of course I find it ironic that you think the numbers should play out, but have already completely written off Thames and Winn.

That is not a given. It could just be that they found someone better. I said Gardner will be an effective player (league average, positive WAR). I did not say he'll be the best LFer the Yanks could possibly have.

If the Yanks had the chance to trade for Joe Mauer, does that mean Posada is not a good player anymore? Or just that Mauer is a better choice?

Of course, you realize the Yankees are not the only team in the league that might be interested in Crawford. Given the choice, they'll trade out of division. If they're going to trade in division, the Yanks would get fleeced, and rightfully so.

I'm not saying it's 100% impossible. I will say this, though, to show you how confident I am. Let's see if you're as confident about your "prediction." I will lay you 100:1 odds that a Crawford trade to the Yankees doesn't happen. But I want you to put up a minimum bet... put up $100. I'll pay you $10,000 if they trade for Crawford. You pay me $100 if they don't.

 

What are you talking about? I never said anything about you thinking Johnson should bat first.

ETA: Here's the post you made that I responded to:

You said you agreed with Alio that you don't like him batting second, and then offered to bat Cano second and possibly Johnson eighth. Those are the points I responded to.

Hey. Chief. I didn't say that! That was DWalsh who used BABIP to bring up Ichiro's name! But he didn't use Gardner's minor league numbers, in any case.

I'm not ignoring what you wrote! I explicitly told you that what you wrote is w-r-o-n-g, wrong! As in not true. A fabrication.

The BABIP stats (.307) I gave you were for his BIG LEAGUE at bats against BIG LEAGUE pitchers in 2008-2010.

No. You're conflating two things I said.

1. Gardner's BABIP is .307 for his big league career.

2. I use all available data to judge a player. I look at how he did in the minors. I look at how it translated to the majors. I consider his skill set and how well it typically transfers. I ask if it makes sense. I try to think about why it wouldn't. Given Gardner's skill set and approach to the game, as well as his history when it comes to adjusting to new levels, I see no reason why you can't expect reasonable production from him.

On another note, you should never have assumed the position that I was only discussing the first three games because in my initial post discussing BABIP, I explicitly said how I came to the .307 number. Here's the quote:

Gardner's BABIP in the majors. It's right there. On the page for you to read.

I'm not giving you 100:1 on that, because like I said, it's not to say that they won't find someone better. I just thought your idea that Crawford will be in pinstripes was ridiculous.

And the Yanks like Crawford plenty. Not at the price it will take to get him via trade this season, though.

I'm not betting that Gardner will remain the LF. Too many possibilities. He could be doing well, but they find someone better. He could get injured.

My claim is this: Gardner will be effective for the Yankees this year. He will be league average (OPS+ of 100 +/- 5) and have a positive WAR. If you disagree, bet me on that.

 

so i see i'm being brought into this "debate" because I mentioned that SPEED guys generally have higher BABIP. Who is the first name you think of in baseball when thinking of speed guys? Ichiro. Thought so. Hence the mention of his name, to PROVE A POINT. In no way was I saying that they are similar players or should be compared as players. I was saying, that in general, speed guys have higher BABIP.

I never mentioned Gardner's actual BABIP percentage (which is .307 for his career in the MLB, NOT MiLB). The numbers that I used for Mauer/Ichiro were their numbers last season.

Yay stubbornness!

 

Because I want my DH to be able to hit the ball hard and drive in runs. Not be on base so our real hitters can drive him in. For that, make Gardner the DH and get someone I can stomach out in left. Actually, dump both of those tools and get me Crawford in left and a power hitter as a DH. Oh, and put Nick Johnson in the damned bottom of the lineup where he belongs. Give me Granderson's speed in the 2 spot as I said from the start of spring training. With Tex and Alex protecting him, he's going to hit even lefties in that spot.

Plain and simple, without both Gardner and Johnson suddenly turning into 30+ HR hitters, they were doomed to be disliked by me when we didn't bring back Damon and Matsui. (And I wasn't a big Matsui fan, but I'd take him over Nick Johnson any day.) And I don't need any sort of statistical reference to fortify my dislike for either of them. That doesn't mean I can't find fault with their statistics though.
-------------

Anyway, at least for once it's not me involved in these epic "conversations." Sorry GQ, but it's your problem now. :smile:

But I do have to say, using Posada and Mauer to equate to Gardner and say, Crawford is utterly ridiculous. If the Yankees acquired Mauer, Posada becomes a DH. If the Yankees acquire Crawford, Bubba Crosb--I mean, Brett Gardner--is lucky to not be sent to Scranton. (I won't get roped into the argument though, so don't bother. I get the point, but the physical example chosen is simply laughable.)

 

Johnny Damon: 24 HR in 2009
Hideki Matsui: 28 HR in 2009

looks like neither of them were 30+ HR hitters either, why do you want them back?

 

i do mind....prick

 

Of course you don't need statistical references to dislike them. What you do need, though, if you are going to try to find fault with the statistics, is to be able to correctly identify the faults.

Of course it's laughable, but I'm not sure you do get the point if you felt a need to make that point and apply the analogy beyond its intent.

GQ postulated that if Gardner is not playing LF, or if the Yankees trade for someone else to play the position, it must be because Gardner has shown himself to be ineffective. That is fallacious. A player can have an objectively positive value to a team, and still be relatively less valuable than another player. My (admittedly ridiculous) scenario shows such a case. If the Yanks were capable of trading for oh, say, Matt Kemp mid-season (I know it won't happen), it doesn't necessarily mean that Gardner wasn't helping the team. It just means that Kemp is better.

And I have said several times over that I am making no claims that the Yanks won't try to improve their team, at any position. LF is currently the easiest position for them to improve. The claim I am making is that they're not going to improve it with Crawford mid-season. I also believe that Gardner will show himself to be a league-average player, and will provide value to the team. He is not going to be the shitty, worthless player that some are claiming.

:lol:

There was a line, there was a formula
Sharp as a knife, facts cut a hole in us

 

You might not have mentioned Johnson's lack of speed specifically, but Alio did, and you had said you agreed with him.

 

If you're going to nitpick, the word I had used was "effective," not "serviceable." You told me that I was kidding myself if I thought Gardner would be effective. That's when I told you that I meant league-average and contributing positively to the team (positive WAR).

Okay. That's nice.

So what's your complaint? That I combined your argument with Alio's in my generalization?

Actually, you did. You're holding up the idea that if the Yanks trade for a LF and Gardner gets shuffled to the bench, it will be conclusive proof that he wasn't effective. And that's not necessarily the case.

Look, you keep going round and round with me on this stuff. I'm going to re-post what I said before. If you have an issue with any of these three things, fine. We can talk about that. But when you start to stray from these three points, you're moving the goalposts. These are the three claims I make:

_____________________________________________

1. I don't think Gardner is as bad as you think he is because of how he "looks" as a player. You've already said you hate him and that nothing will change your mind about this, including facts, so that's fine. But your perception of him is out of line with his value to the team.

2. Bunting more will not improve his performance or increase his value to the team. It will in all likelihood significantly decrease it.

3. Trading intra-divisionally for Crawford mid-season is monumentally stupid and will never happen. Think about it. Tampa is likely to be hotly contesting the wild card, if not the division title. Why are they going to trade one of their better players to a team that could prevent them from making the postseason. The only way that trade happens is if it's so one-sided that Tampa makes out like a bandit. And - despite what the voices in Don's head tell him - Cashman is not that stupid.

Don't conflate these three arguments, and please try to address them directly if you take issue with any of them. Because I've noticed that you avoid addressing my points directly. It makes it difficult to discuss any particular topic if you're just going to hop around from point to point and claim to claim. (For example, my last post was correcting your misunderstandings about BABIP. You just brushed right past that.)
___________________________________

 

And I said, of course we need to let the numbers play out.

But I think it's funny just how down people are on him, considering he hasn't performed that badly. As you've said, it's not based on facts with you. It's based on what you "see."

For example, people have compared Gardner to Bubba Crosby. That's almost as ludicrous as comparing him to Ichiro. (There's almost as much difference between the performance of Gardner and Crosby as there is between Ichiro and Gardner.) Crosby's career OPS+ was 46, and his highest in any one season was 70. Gardner's career OPS+ is 81, topping out at 93. And I expect him to be able to perform as well or better than last year, if he stays healthy.

I know, I know, you don't care about stats (despite being a Moneyball guy). So I'll put it in non-statistical terms. When he was starting and playing every day, Gardner did pretty well last year. Not great, but pretty well. He was league average. He didn't do so hot when he came back from the injury, possibly because he wasn't playing as often. But however you slice it, he's not Bubba Crosby.

Yes, we will. Care to take me up on a friendly wager at the terms I outlined above?

 

Nick Johnson's best home run total was 23, in the year he played more games than any other season.

Brett Gardner hit 3.

The "30 home runs" comment was simply to illustrate my point that it's near impossible for me to ever give a shit about either of them. I want both off the roster.

 

update: I still cant mutli quote

 

wow dude, you are just hating on the Nicky JOhnson eh? Why so pissed already?