Fangraphs: Posey for ROY
"Break it down this way, then: Heyward and Posey are similar offensively, but the latter plays a much tougher position and plays it very well; the gap in time difference isn't something he could have controlled. Overall, Posey is the most valuable NL rookie of 2010."-Jack Moore
over 1 year ago
sam23
70 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Posey has done a lot to close the WAR gap. When it’s less than 1, I think you can make a pretty good argument either way.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"Out, out, Fred Lewis!" - JCTillam Gamerspeare
It's quite possible
that Posey has been more valuable with his glove than WAR gives him credit for..
Because they haven’t adequately found a way to statistically evaluate catchers defense.
So the WAR numbers could be a little skewed in this particular instance.
At this point I really don’t think there’s much of a difference in value between Heyward and Posey.. It all just comes down to personal preference.
by AmorVincitOmnia on Sep 27, 2010 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions
The flip side of “they haven’t adequately found a way to statistically evaluate catchers defense” is that it’s also quite possible Posey has been less valuable with his glove than WAR gives him credit for.
I find it curious that UZR has Heyward’s UZR/150 at 3.1, yet he’s only getting .9 runs in UZR for the season, despite 1140 innings and 130 starts (134 games played). How does that math work out?
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree about Posey possibly being less valuable...
Just forgot to mention it.
But I stand by my main point being that I don’t think there’s much of a difference in their value.
by AmorVincitOmnia on Sep 27, 2010 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, if we just want to base it on fWAR – we get Heyward at .5 higher than Posey. Now, run runs is well within the margin of error knowing that fWAR uses single season UZR and only has limited components of catcher D, so we might not be able to say Heyward has been more valuable with a huge amount of confident, but even with the uncertainty that Heyward’s mean is higher says he’s been more valuable with over 50% confidence….
So that kinda fits your narrative, depending on exactly what you mean by “much of a difference”….
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions
It really comes down to whether you want to define ROY as most valuable rookie or best rookie.
If it’s the former, ten the difference in PT give Heyward the clear and virtually unassailable lead. If it’s the latter, then Posey being similarly productive in less PT and at a more difficult position closes the gap or even gives him an edge. I’m personally more inclined to go with the latter definition (within reason, I wouldn’t give it to a player whose exceptional performance came in a relatively absurd sample).
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
And on the latter, as my later comment says, you have to regress towards the mean.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Why use regressed numbers when he has 200 PA’s worth of MLEs? I get the value of regression, don’t get me wrong, but his minor league numbers are actual data.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
If we’re talking about determining a true talent level, I’m definitely ok adding in MLE’s (you still regress your number, you just have a bigger sample so you regress less), but you have to do it for both players. If we’re talking about rookie of the year as being based off performance in whatever way you want to judge performance, I don’t really think including minor league stats is right, since that wasn’t MLB performance….
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions
You can’t do it for Heyward since he didn’t play in the minor leagues this year.
Buster Posey’s 2010 with MLEs included: .310/.373/.496 (21 HR)
Jason Heyward’s 2010: .279/.393/.460 (18 HR)
Fun fact: "Mota" is Bengali for "fat".
But why limit it to “this year”? I mean, on the one hand, it’s the Rookie of the Year award, sure, but on the other hand, I could bold Rookie as well, to highlight how it means both in Major League baseball, and under the service time deadline they set to call someone a rookie…..
I’m not seeing how it makes sense to include MLE’s for Posey but not Heyward…..
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions
If you’re going to use regressed numbers to fill in the gap in playing time, you’ve already married yourself to the “year” concept. Since MLE’s are actual data, it makes sense to use them instead.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
I wasn’t really thinking of regressed numbers to fill in the gap in playing time. It’s more just to make the point that when Jack Moore says “they’re similar offensively”….well, not so much. Putting up the same rate stats in a larger sample is a better performance than doing it in a smaller sample.
If you want my own take on the award, I’d do it based on value (so no need to regress numbers other than UZR) with a side of scouting/prospecthood/expected future performance.
by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2010 6:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Personally I think annual awards should be performance-based, rather than potential-based. Thus scouting/prospecthood/expected future performance should play no part in the decision. Purely actual performance and value. We’re talking about the top rookie, not the top prospect. In short, you should be ordering that value a la carte.
by BestHyperboleEver on Sep 29, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s certainly one way to look at it. I’d suggest that the younger a player is, the more impressive their actual performance is. So when one guy comes in and tears up the league at age 21 with very little minor league seasoning and no college seasoning, and another guy comes in having spent years in the minors (think the Ryan Howard route) and does well…..I’d give a significant boost to the younger guy, because what he’s doing is a whole lot more impressive. His performance, with the added context of age, is wayyyyyyyyyyyy better. That’s my way of looking at it.
by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
LOL@ESPN insider
The first thing that I thought of was a reluctant-to-leave turd.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
- Robert Heinlein
by Sabean's_Folly on Sep 27, 2010 12:42 PM PDT reply actions
Don’t agree with the authors take. First point – a guy playing more time is doing more to help his team, and should be credited for it. Now, I realize that’s a matter of personal preference, so I won’t argue it too strongly because other opinions are just as valid as mine. Second point, I can’t actually read the article, so I could be way off base here, but I suspect the author forgets about the concept of regression towards the mean. Posey and Heyward have been almost equal at the plate, in terms of wRC+ (so basically they have the same output per PA). That said, Heyward’s done it in ~600 PA’s v ~400 for Posey. So if you look at it as an indicator of true talent, Heyward’s performance says he’s a better hitter, simply because it needs to be regressed towards the mean less (because of the larger sample size). This point is not debatable or a matter of opinion.
Regression is part of a statistical average of all players. You just can’t assume that Posey would regress like the average batter. Did other great rookies regress in their last 200 ABs at the same rate as the league? I don’t have the time to verify that, but I would bet that the majority of them did not. OTOH, we don’t have to take averages into account for Heyward, because we already know what Heyward’s results were in his last 200 ABs.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
You always regress towards the mean. If you’re doing proper statistical analysis, you have to, because it yields the best results. Yes, you DO just assume Posey regresses towards the mean, because if you take the entire group of samples of the same performances over the same sample, they DO regress towards the mean as a population. Same thing with Heyward. ALWAYS regress towards the mean. It’s because of the limits of sample size.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
(And regression towards the mean doesn’t have to assume Posey, or Player X, regresses like the league average)
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
+1
Rooting for Jose Casilla to take his K- and GB-inducing skills to the majors and join his brother.
Regression is meaningless in determining value provided, because you don’t care what the players might have done in 100 or 300 more PAs, you care about what they have done in the chances they have had..
co-dad w/AfDC of
Ishikawa, the Topps Rookie All Star Team's First baseman. Does he get a chance in 2010?
"Because I don’t know what it means anymore, in the PCL. It’s almost like years ago."
"That’s not to say Buster isn’t fully committed or all-in. He is. He’s smart and he’s got the advance reports. Anybody who said he’s not ready to catch in the big leagues is crazy because he’s a pretty good catcher, especially throwing." - Sabean 7/11/10
Well, if you’ll notice, the author of the article isn’t talking about value.
the gap in time difference isn’t something he could have controlled
So….not concerned with value because that’s “out of their control”.
Heyward and Posey are similar offensively
Forgetting regression towards the mean.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions
hmm, I don’t think we can say what the author is trying to say, since neither of us have read the article. But he is talking about value for sure:
Overall, Posey is the most valuable NL rookie of 2010How he understands that is an open question.
Also his use of the semi-colon before “the gap” there is problematic for me. Definitely there is more going on in his article than is present in the snippet.
co-dad w/AfDC of
Ishikawa, the Topps Rookie All Star Team's First baseman. Does he get a chance in 2010?
"Because I don’t know what it means anymore, in the PCL. It’s almost like years ago."
"That’s not to say Buster isn’t fully committed or all-in. He is. He’s smart and he’s got the advance reports. Anybody who said he’s not ready to catch in the big leagues is crazy because he’s a pretty good catcher, especially throwing." - Sabean 7/11/10
I think that Posey has done enough now that whichever player performs the best in this last week of the season will win the award. If Heyward hits well and the Braves make the playoffs then he’ll most likely win. If Buster hits well, the Giants make the playoffs, and the Braves don’t make the playoffs then Posey will most likely win. If either guy does something(s) truly dramatic to lift their respective teams into the playoffs then that guy will win.
IMHO, I think Buster has already done enough to win the award hands-down. The fact that he’s the starting catcher on a team that has had a truly historic pitching run in the month of September was the clincher. All of the historic stats that you see quoted for Heyward are based on the fact that he’s so young (still only 21). For example, there’s one that has been widely puclicised showing how only a handful of hitters in the history of the game have slugged and OBP’d as high as Heyward has at the age of 21 or younger. But that’s a red herring. The award is for the “Rookie” of the Year, not the “Best Youngest Player” of the Year. You can’t penalize Posey and reward Heyward just because Posey is 2 years older, because they are both rookies and that’s the only thing to consider.
There are at least 15 rookie outfielders in the history of the game that have matched or beaten Heyward’s OBP and SLG numbers over 300 ABs, but, besides Posey there are only 2 other rookie catchers in the history of baseball that have ever matched Posey’s OBP and SLG numbers.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
The award is for the "Rookie" of the Year, not the "Best Youngest Player" of the Year. You can’t penalize Posey and reward Heyward just because Posey is 2 years older, because they are both rookies and that’s the only thing to consider.
I’m pretty sure the award is not strictly defined like that…
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
This
The fact that he’s a catcher really seals it, and the fact that he’s caught so well for a team with such an impressive staff just kicks Heyward in the nuts. Posey’s posted a .376 wOBA, Heyward’s got a .378. Posey’s defense is better, which lessens the playing time difference. Posey is a catcher, which negates it pretty much entirely. Posey is the starting catcher for the team with the best ERA in the majors, which pushes him ahead of Heyward. Jason Heyward is great and will be better, but Buster Posey has simply been a better all-around player.
Ain't no Posey like a Buster Posey cause a Buster Posey don't stop...hitting.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to do that (TM)
I meant
Better than he is now, not better than Posey, though that’s certainly possible and maybe even likely.
Ain't no Posey like a Buster Posey cause a Buster Posey don't stop...hitting.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to do that (TM)
I don’t like the idea of giving Posey credit for the talent of our staff. I believe you’re really stretching it to say he’s had a role in that. I’m also not sure if Posey’s D is better, and if so, by how much? Plus regression towards the mean! If you’re comparing who’s been “better”, as opposed to more valuable, you have to regress towards the mean. Heyward’s extra PA’s make his offensive performance better.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not saying Tim Lincecum would be Derek Lowe without Posey, but I believe that Posey has a positive influence in his performance. I believe this is true with all the starters. Catchers call games, and that affects how a pitcher throws a game. He also has a role in calming down pitchers when they get into trouble, and making sure they don’t lose it. Maybe he’s only 5-10% responsible for the performance of the pitching, but even so, that’s a pretty considerable influence.
Catcher defense isn’t well understood, but then again, defense in general isn’t particularly well understood. Posey’s defense passes the eyeball test; he’s excellent at blocking balls, he’s got a fantastic arm, and solid instincts. I haven’t really seen Heyward play, but even if he were a much better defensive player than UZR is willing to give him credit for (it says slightly above average), playing right field isn’t very hard when compared with playing catcher. Posey plays possibly the most difficult position very well, so I’m inclined to believe that it would be hard for Heyward to make the argument that he is a better defensive player. Presumably, if he were able to play a more valuable position, he would.
I don’t have to regress anything I don’t want to. Heyward has 150 more PA. So what? Joe Mauer missed the first month and a half of the season last year, and still won the AL MVP because he was a better player than anyone else in the American League. Ben Zobrist had a higher WAR, but only because he played more games. And if we can regress to the mean, why can’t we extrapolate? Posey’s got similar counting stats when compared to Heyward, but put them up in fewer PAs. Maybe we give him 600 PAs this year and he gets 180 hits and 25 homers. Let’s do that instead?
Ain't no Posey like a Buster Posey cause a Buster Posey don't stop...hitting.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to do that (TM)
And if we can regress to the mean, why can’t we extrapolate? Posey’s got similar counting stats when compared to Heyward, but put them up in fewer PAs.
Because when you regress to the mean, you’re going to be right more times than not. When you extrapolate, you’re going to be wrong more times than not. That’s how the distribution works – if a guy is performing above average, he’s going to be overperfoming his talent level more often than he’s underperfoming it, and vice versa if he’s performing below average. It’s because the distributions in this case (and in many, many cases in statistics in general) get skinnier the closer you get to the tail – more opportunities to be closer to the tail than farther.
Sound statistical principles says Heyward’s MLB performance this year indicates a higher talent level, when it comes to hitting. There’s just no getting around that.
On to the rest of the post…..
I believe that Posey has a positive influence in his performance
Why? And I’m being completely serious, in all situations there is going to be a catcher calling the game, we’ve seen success out of the entire pitching staff without Posey, it’s not like Posey is experienced here…..what about Posey makes you think he has a positive effect, beyond “well, they’ve been good, and he catches and catchers call the game”? Especially given the lack of evidence in support of catchers having any meaningful game calling skill (whether that means they don’t have the skill or the skill just does not vary in a meaningful amount among MLB catchers, which ultimately is irrelevant because the important point is people still haven’t found anything)? I really am not coming up with a single reason to think Posey is doing anything meaningful that whatever other C would be playing if we didn’t have Posey wouldn’t be doing….
Posey’s defense passes the eyeball test; he’s excellent at blocking balls, he’s got a fantastic arm, and solid instincts
Well, a couple of things. Posey has all the natural skills, but he’s still inexperienced. He still doesn’t always make the right fundamental play, he still doesn’t always react right, he still doesn’t always handle the ball as well as he should in the future….I’m not really sure he does pass the “eyeball test” in terms of being above average in a meaningful way. I’d really feel a lot more comfortable talking to a scout about that, as I don’t trust my own scouting instincts (or lack thereof) a whole lot (nor do I trust strangers on the internet!)….
As for his arm, it is fantastic, and it’s also credited in catcher defense in fWAR.
I haven’t really seen Heyward play, but even if he were a much better defensive player than UZR is willing to give him credit for (it says slightly above average), playing right field isn’t very hard when compared with playing catcher. Posey plays possibly the most difficult position very well, so I’m inclined to believe that it would be hard for Heyward to make the argument that he is a better defensive player.
This is where the WAR framework comes in handy. The positional adjustment accounts for the difference between RF and C. So that’s already built into the equation and not something we need to worry about, because we’re already including it elsewhere. So it’s just a matter of who’s better compared to their positional peers, in which case Heyward very well could be, as he’s athletic and his peers tend to suck defensively. I’d definitely say jury’s still out, and right now if I had to guess I wouldn’t say there’s a meaningful difference. Not a confident guess, but I think it’s the best one we (we being us fans who generally have 0 scouting skills) can make…..
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Regress towards the mean, not to the mean, that is.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions
More opportunities to be closer to the MEAN than farther
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions
“they’ve been good, and he catches and catchers call the game” seems like a good enough reason to me. Catchers have a pretty big influence when it comes to what gets thrown and where it gets thrown, and I think he should get some credit if the pitchers are doing well, and some blame if they’re doing badly. Again, it’s mostly them, but the fact that they like to credit Posey when they throw well means something to me. I don’t think I’ve heard too many people go “Yeah, I did well tonight because I knew Heyward was out there in right; man, having a guy like that out there just makes me a better hitter/fielder/pitcher”. Maybe it’s BS, maybe not, but we don’t know it’s not, so I’ll think what I want.
And of course he doesn’t do everything right (no one will), and he’s got some areas he can improve on, but that’s pretty generally true of every player, and I find it hard to consider “experience” in deciding a ROY.
Yes, FanGraphs takes into account positional adjustment, but I think that’s more for rarity than fielding. They don’t weight fielding by positional difficulty, they weight the entire player by positional difficulty, considering offensive stats relative to position as well as defensive stats. So saying that WAR’s positional adjustment takes care of the fielding difference isn’t really fair, as Player A could have a higher WAR than Player B with the same number of PAs, same offensive stats, lower fielding numbers (i.e. be a worse defender), and still come out with a higher WAR because of positional adjustment. Posey’s fielding numbers relative to his position are better than Heyward’s are relative to his position.
Ain't no Posey like a Buster Posey cause a Buster Posey don't stop...hitting.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to do that (TM)
Again, it’s mostly them, but the fact that they like to credit Posey when they throw well means something to me.
It doesn’t to me, because I’ve got not idea if they mean it. My standard rule with media quotes is “the less often you here the opposite statement, the less weight the comment has”. I’ve never heard any pitcher say “my rookie catcher is awful man. He’s ruining my game”.
Pitchers are always going to credit the catcher – it’s just the done thing – and that’s before you take into account that Buster is a rookie, popular, hard working and a productive hitter. There’s no way he gets thrown under the bus under any circumstances.
And for the record, nobody in the Giants organisation had anything but good things to say about Molina.
I don’t get your objection to the fairness of WAR. If (hypothetically) Posey and Heyward had identical batting lines, but Posey was a slightly below average fielder and Heyward was a slightly above average fielder, WAR would say Posey was more valuable. How is that unfair? And how does that justify giving Posey an additional boost to compensate? I don’t get it.
by sarf_london_niner on Sep 28, 2010 5:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, FanGraphs takes into account positional adjustment, but I think that’s more for rarity than fielding. They don’t weight fielding by positional difficulty, they weight the entire player by positional difficulty, considering offensive stats relative to position as well as defensive stats. So saying that WAR’s positional adjustment takes care of the fielding difference isn’t really fair
Actually, this is incorrect. The entire positional adjustment comes from the difference in defense between positions. It has nothing to do with rarity, and nothing to do with offensive prowess. It’s completely calculated from the difference in difficulty playing each position.
I find it hard to consider "experience" in deciding a ROY.
My point in bringing experience up was just to talk about his current skill level – he still has quite a bit more polishing to do on his defensive skills. I agree that it’s not a relevant point in any other context.
As for the first point…..well, you could say that about ALL the Giants catchers. Our pitchers have performed well for all of them, and have only positive things to say about all of them. It’s because our pitchers are good. I just don’t see any evidence are pitchers are performing above their talent level beacuse of the C. If they’re performing right at their talent level….well, then the C isn’t having any positive effect on them. So that’s the question, is there any reason to believe it’s anything other than just the pitchers being good? Is there even any evidence they do better for Posey than for other C’s we’ve played? I’m extremely, extremely skeptical. Giving guys credit for their teammates talents is something I really, really don’t like to do, and it’s one of the big focuses of “advanced stats” – to actually figure out the individuals contribution rather than crediting him with his teammates accomplishments….
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Clearly, all our catches sucked at game-calling in August.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Example:
Posey called the Curveball to Giambi and Matt Cain threw it to get the called strike. I’m positive Giambi was sitting fastball and Cain completely threw him off and froze him. It took a lot of balls to call the curve but Cain trusted Posey enough to throw it and it worked.
"He knocks a stake through the heart of the Cardinals! The Cardinals are dead! The Giants are going to the World Series!!!" -Jon Miller
t's Posey time!!
Screw you Flannery.
Anecdotes aren’t evidence. If you did nothing but roll a dice to determine what pitch to call, that would happen every once in a while, too. The question is whether Posey is better at it than other MLB catchers.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
besides Posey there are only 2 other rookie catchers in the history of baseball that have ever matched Posey’s OBP and SLG numbers
Just wondering, but who are you referring to with that statement? Posey’s currently at .368 (OBP) and .513 (SLG). Just leafing through the ROY winners I see Fisk (.370/.538), Piazza (.370/.561), and I think you’d have to say Soto matches pretty well, too (.364/.504). And without going too in depth, I happen to know that Tom Haller hit .384/.515 his rookie year, and Bill James’ personal favorite forgotten man Mike Grady hit .363/.427/.516 as a rookie (though it only a little more than 200 PA). Brian McCann hit .388/.572 in his first full year, but I believe he’d used his rookie eligibility up the previous year.
Anyway, just wondering who you were referring to specifically.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Specifically, I was referring to:
Mike Piazza >> SLG=.561, OBP=.370 for the Fodgers in 1994
Bill Salkeld >> SLG=.547, OBP=.420 for the Pirates in 1945 (a 28 year old rookie and named MVP, but tainted due to it being a war year)
You’re right about Fisk and Haller, though. I missed Fisk’s rookie year because I was screening for only a player’s 1st 2 years and Fisk was still a rookie in his 3rd pro year. I missed Haller’s rookie year, because I was originally screening for at least a .310 average (Haller only hit .261 his rookie year), but then removed that requirement to more closely mirror Heyward’s stats and Haller’s year got lost in the shuffle.
As for Soto, he only hit .364/.504, as you noted, and Posey has put up a .368/.513 (so far), so Soto’s close to, but not better than Posey. McCann only hit .345/.400 in 59 games and 204 PAs in his rookie year of 2005 – in 2006 he hit .388/.572. Finally, Mike Grady also is disqualified because he only had 213 PAs – well below the 300 PA level that is usually set to weed out the part-timers.
So, as far as I can tell right now, the all-time OBP/SLG list for rookie catchers with at least 300 PAs is:
Mike Piazza >> .370/561
Bill Salkeld >> .420/.547
Carlton Fisk >> .370/.528
Tom Haller >> .384/.515
Buster Posey >> .368/.513
Geov. Soto >> .364/.504
Heyward is well down on the much longer list that I generated for rookie outfielders.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
Pretty impressive! Whether or not he wins ROY, he’s in good company and gotten his career off to a great start.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Every once in a while it’s nice to take a step back and just reflect on how awesome this NL crop of rookies is. That a guy like Mike Stanton isn’t even close to the conversation for ROY shows how tremendous they’ve been. This is a once in a [insert long time period here] type class…..
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions
That Posey is clearly one of the top 3 (I’m including Strasburg in the Top 3 despite the injury taking him out of the running for ROY) is awesome.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Logan Morrison reached base in 42 straight games and barely rates a mention in this class. It really is awesome.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
I think that some really compelling cases could be built for either Heyward or Posey (my pick would be Heyward). But in the end, I think the voters will pick the guy whose team makes the playoffs. And that makes me just a little bit sad.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
+1
With the added sadness that if both teams make the playoffs then Heyward wins it, because:
1. Inerita. Heyward has been hyped as a once-in-a-generation megastar phenom since before the season started.
2. Bias. Heyward plays in Eastern time zone, and in the NL East. Most voters rarely stay up late enough to ever see over half of Posey’s games.
3. Ignorance. Most voters have no clue how historically significant it is for a rookie catcher to take his team into the playoffs – much less be the best hitter on the team.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
Well, Huff’s been the best hitter on the team. I also think it’s not part of productive conversation to say Posey took his team into the playoffs…..he contributed, no doubt, but so did many other players. He was merely one part of our success thus far.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, that’s the takeaway you should have. Rather than thinking I care about doing analysis properly and/or being accurate, it’s definitely just that I hate Posey.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Why you be drinkin’ haterade?
I though WTF was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong.
As far as my opinion on the awards, I think the playing time puts Heyward in front (blame Sabean!), but that either choice is good at this point.
I feel prickishly demanding!
I couldn't be prouder of my recent adoptee - Tim Lincecum's dealer. He provides the secret fuel behind both Cy Youngs. Also, he taught Timmy the change-up.
by giantsfansince1981 on Sep 27, 2010 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, I was kinda leaning towards him being sarcastic, too (hence my sarcastic reply!)….it’s always hard to tell on the interwebz, though.
by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2010 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Why you be hatin’ on my haterade?
I feel prickishly demanding!
I couldn't be prouder of my recent adoptee - Tim Lincecum's dealer. He provides the secret fuel behind both Cy Youngs. Also, he taught Timmy the change-up.
by giantsfansince1981 on Sep 28, 2010 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions
You need a pie chart like Xanthan.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
You need to be a pie chart, like Xanthan.
by Monkeyking42 on Sep 27, 2010 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Gerald Demp Posey.
Suck it Atlanta!
Quietly hoping Brandon Belt develops into John Olerud, circa 1993.
by AndOnTheDrums... on Sep 27, 2010 2:16 PM PDT reply actions
+1
I feel prickishly demanding!
I couldn't be prouder of my recent adoptee - Tim Lincecum's dealer. He provides the secret fuel behind both Cy Youngs. Also, he taught Timmy the change-up.
by giantsfansince1981 on Sep 27, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Buster Posey plays for the San Francisco Giants.
The other guy doesn’t.
Therefore, Buster Posey should win this award.
Oh man, I was so excited that this was going to be a haiku.
And then it wasn’t.
Rooting for Jose Casilla to take his K- and GB-inducing skills to the majors and join his brother.
Well, ESPN still doesn't think Posey should win...
Here’s Jerry Crasnick’s article from yesterday about who is the current favorite for the award races: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=5621726
In NL ROY, he puts Heyward number one, his primary arguments being that Heyward has played the full season and that he’s a great baserunner and defender. Number 2 is Posey, and number 3 is Neil Walker.
He doesn’t even mention Gaby Sanchez or Jaime Garcia (2 people I think are more deserving of ROY than Heyward). At least some of the other sports sites are starting to come around – SI has Posey at the top of their most recent awards race article, and includes some good numbers to back up why: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/cliff_corcoran/09/27/mvp.cy.roy/2.html
He doesn’t even mention Gaby Sanchez or Jaime Garcia (2 people I think are more deserving of ROY than Heyward)
Wow! I’d really like to see your arguments for that, especially for Sanchez. Sanchez’ OBP, SLG, wOBA, wRC+, WAR are all lower than Heyward’s and most of them are much lower than Heyward’s. Add into all that Sanchez plays 1B. In fact, new stats or old (RBIs!) it’s hard to find anything that Sanchez is better at than Heyward. He’s hit 1 more HR and he’s done it in a more difficult stadium, but that hardly makes up for the many things that Heyward has done better than Sanchez, all at 20 years old!
Sanchez has had a very very good rookie year (like his teammate Logan Morrison), but I don’t see how he gets in the top 5 in this rookie class.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Roger, I really don’t care all that much about it, but the reason I like Sanchez more is because he’s got better numbers in some important categories that aren’t abbreviations.
He leads all NL rookies in doubles, RBI, and total bases. He’s also third in homers and second in hits. Someone’s age doesn’t determine the ROY award, it’s how they play during their rookie year. If Sanchez was 30 and putting up the same numbers, I’d support him.
However, Heyward is definitely better at getting on base (his OBP is significantly better), so, he does probably deserve the award more. I still think Sanchez is more deserving than Walker, though, but not as deserving as Garcia.
After your little lecture, I’ll update my list to being Posey, Garcia, Heyward. Still, though, I definitely think Sanchez deserves to be in the top five.
Like I said, though, I could really give a fuck.
Sorry. Didn’t mean it to sound like a lecture. I’m not the biggest awards person in the world either, and ROY is the least important. That said, RBI is sort of an abbreviation.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Oh, crap, sorry ‘bout that. I had second thoughts about posting that after I wrote it and thought I’d clicked the “x” on the page before it had been posted. I’ve been posting too much on sfgate and there’s a lot of “you’re wrong, I’m right” going on, but I think I was just kinda butt-hurt because you called me on saying Sanchez was more worthy than Heyward, and when I looked closely at their stats next to each other, it was pretty hard to make that argument (especially the OBP). There’s an article on foxsports.com that’s trying to make a case for him, too, but I don’t think many people are taking it too seriously.
But, again, I’m sorry for sounding like a prick there. That last sentence was a pure 13-year-old-ism on my part and even on the internet I try not to act like that. :(
De nada.
I actually screwed up the stats, too. Got the RBIs backwards and thought Heyward was leading in those, too.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Roger, you really need to keep up with advanced stats. Gaby Sanchez is dominating everyone in the one stat that matters- NONMC.
Number of Nyjer Morgan’s Clotheslined.
by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2010 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
