Braves Got Their Fair Share of Kotsay Trade
by jasonlbe on Aug 15, 2008 10:43 AM PDT
Email
PrintI was just rolling throught the headlines and saw that Kotsay wnt 5-5 yesterday, hitting for the cycle. He is now hitting .300 with 6 homers and 15 doubles. I wonder if we had kept Kotsay if perhaps his leadership on a young club such as this would have been enough of a stabalizing force after the trades seemed to alter the psyche of the team. Either way looks like despite how the Braves season turned out his trade has worked out fairly well for both teams.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think Kotsay need a change so it was a good trade for both team. And Kotsay would have
been a good leader but again this year he missed a bunch of time with an injury and that wouldnt have helped. Plus him being an A this year would have blocked CarGon and him being up this year was better than the leadership that Kotsay could have brought.
I remember Kotsay's leadership
Not the kind I want. I like Devine just fine. Kotsay was awesome in 2004-05; post surgery his battitude – the combination of bat and attitude – left plenty to be desired.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Agree with you on both counts
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
Plus this ain't THE year that we need "some" help.
We need a lot of help and that comes in the form of developing our young players.
Looking forward to Spring Training and the hope of another World Series title.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 16, 2008 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Wait - this isn't the year we need a decent average, not much power hitting,
good defensive OFer? Oh right, because THAT’S ALL WE HAVE!!! Grrr…
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Before yesterday his OPS+ was 96
Today it’s 107. One flukey great game brought him from his usual meh self to his best season since 2004.
As was said in another thread, Kotsay is healthier this year (though he has been hurt), he’s playing in the inferior league, and in a hitters’ park. I’d rather have Devine on the team and Gonzalez patrolling center right now. If Kotsay were here, we’d all be complaining about how an underperforming veteran was in the way of a young prospect.
The Braves were dumb not to trade him.
by thejd44 on Aug 15, 2008 11:14 AM PDT reply actions
Atlanta is not a hitter's park.
Shea, Atlanta, Florida are all pitcher’s park to certain extents, masked by the fact that the Mets, Braves, and Marlins all have had good offenses the last several years. Philly is a hitter’s park. Too early to tell with Washington. So, 3 of the parks that he hits a lot in are pitcher’s parks.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
mmm, that's probably not quite right, but I'd say it's a pitcher's park by a tad.
The A's colors are green and gold.
I still do Kotsay for Devine+Richmond
Devine’s ERA+ is 406. Second only to Ziggy at 1763!! And yes ERA and ERA+ are bad measures for RP. But those two numbers are amazing.
Congrats to Kots, you were a great A and I’m happy you got to experience playoff baseball here, but your health and salary do not match up with this team. Remember the rumors of Phil Hughes, Cano, + for you a couple years ago? We may have done just as well as that deal by sending you to Atlanta, and I can root for you to do well with Huddy.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Oh yeah, now Ziggy doesn't have an ERA+ of 'inf' on Baseball Reference! ;-)
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Turner Field is not a hitter's park
I agree with most of the posts so far, however, Turner field is not a hitter’s park, it is a pitchers park. There have been many quotes from Chipper Jones over the years lamenting the large dimensions of the field. Just thought I would throw that in.
Actually, it's one of the most hitter friendly parks in baseball
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor
Chipper Jones’ complaining notwithstanding.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
This year
Other than 2008, it has been a terrible hitter’s park anecdotally and statistically except for 2005.
This year
being the year Kotsay has a 107 OPS+ (at least for now)
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
well indeed
I was more responding to the Chipper thing. Though it’s probably helping his big BA year that it’s playing as an offensive park in 2008. I think what’s generally accepted these days is to use a three-year average for park factors since the data is noisy.
From BBREF,
Turner Field:
(multi-year): Batting – 97, Pitching – 96
(one-year): Batting – 98, Pitching – 97
Over 100 favors batters, under 100 favors pitchers.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Question about park factors
How does it change so much each year if the park stays the same? I got curious and clicked the link and noticed that Oakland (as expected) was almost always in the bottom third in terms of runs given up. However, in 2001, it was the third best hitter’s park. What the hell happened in 2001? Changes in weather? Or is the sample size not large enough over a single year?
by Henduland in Texas on Aug 15, 2008 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
bad gravity patch
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
It also helped
That Jason Giambi had a career year, and an OPS of something like 1.300, that Eric Chavez batted .288 along with other 30 HR and 100 RBI, that Tejada had over 30 HR, that Jermaine Dye was spectacular in the half year that he played with the team. Even that Jeremy Giambi had a career year.
On the other hand, all four top pitchers, the big three plus Lidle, had ERAs in the mid- 3.00s, which would be typical for the ballpark.
Sad to consider that 2001’s Jeremy Giambi could well be the best hitter on the 2008 team, Cust’s peculiar talents notwithstanding.
"The Case of Cust's Peculiar Talents"
Wasn’t that a Conan Doyle story?
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
The Curious Case of Jack Cust's Peculiar Talents
A short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Make Cust depressed, and standing in the rain,
and it could just as easily be Hemmingway.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think we have a new nickname for Cust
Benjamin Battin’
There were a lot of stupid, long confusing words that I’m sure normal people don’t use. @('.')@
It's probably a combination of a lot of little things
In terms of actual physical changes rather than effects due to players themselves/team composition and sample size, the factors usually cited are weather, changes in the hitting backdrop, physical changes to the ballpark or structures nearby that cut off/open windstreams, quality of the field (is the infield grass being kept long or short, is the dirt hard as a rock i.e. more ground balls get through).
It changes so much in the park factors linked up top,
because they are crappy park factors. ESPN, as is usual, produces crap.
Here are the park factors for 2001, from BBRef / Sean Forman, who actually knows what he’s doing:
multi-year): Batting – 99, Pitching – 97
(one-year): Batting – 96, Pitching – 93
Over 100 favors batters, under 100 favors pitchers.
As you can see, Oakland was a pitcher’s park in 2001.
ESPN’s crappy formula appears only to use the home team’s home and road runs scored. This is a HORRENDOUS method to calculate park factors. Worthless. Of negative value.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Please do not use ESPN's park factors
it’s not clear from their formula, but it appears that they are using the home team’s home and road stats to calculate the park factors. Which is a VERY bad way of calculating park factors.
You can find good park factors from the same place you find OPS+ and ERA+.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
bbref has way better park factors than espn
but doing it by three years is sort of silly too. It’s been more of a pitcher’s park the last couple years than before that. The park hasn’t changed, and the newer hitter-friendly parks came in around 2004.
The A's colors are green and gold.
Doing it by 3 years is silly?
Is looking at a player’s career over a 3 year sample silly too?
Parks effects aren’t just the park itself, but also the weather of the locale the park is in.
As for the park not having changed? Are you sure? This is a serious question, not snark. Just some subtle changes can seriously change a park’s park factors. For example, Dodger stadium is no longer much of a pitcher’s park since they reconfigured the foul area.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
My complaint is that it's arbitrary and way too rough
The analogy to players is just silly. Players’ performances change a great deal over the course of their careers. Ballparks (that don’t change their dimensions) do not. I think even a 3 year park factors are not a very large sample size for what are not generally huge differences between parks. Also, yes of course weather is important for park factors and is probably even more important than park dimensions. But weather patterns at a particular locale do not change, at least in human time. If some park was unseasonably warm or cold relative to its history in, oh, 2006, why on earth should some player who plays in that park get dinged or benefited in terms of OPS+ for his performance in 2008, if 2006 was a weather-related aberration?
Where this comes from for me is that OPS+ is a great, easy stat to reference, but using 3-year park factors in the A’s case makes yty same-team ops+ comparisons a little silly. The Coliseum park factor used for calculating OPS+ changed dramatically in each of 2005-06-07. But the Coliseum didn’t change one lick! Swisher had a higher OPS+ in 2007 than in 2006 despite opsing 30 points higher in 2006. Most of that was the decline in average AL offense, but to whatever extent it was based on different park factors for 2006 and 2007, it is completely absurd. The effects of park dimensions and weather are very important but also take place on the margins, and I would not trust for a even a second a 3-year park factor done rigorously with no other evidence.
That said, bbref’s park factors are the probably the best we’re going to do, since new parks and changed dimesnsions are common, unless someone puts in a lot of effort every year.
(I am 95% sure that the dimensions of Turner Field haven’t been changed since it was built.):
This guy:
http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball.php
has great current and historical park info, with graphics of changing park dimensions, etc.
The A's colors are green and gold.
Thing is, when park adjusted you're only actually 93% sure
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
or, of course, 104% sure
depending on the year
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Yup, you're 99%-102% right about that.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'm gonna need a 15 year sample before I can agree with you
with more than 91.6542% accuracy
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I'm sorry, I can't pee for quite that long
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
yay
Good for Kotsay. I always liked him and enjoyed watching him play. Congrats to him for a job well done :)
by ilovegregsmith on Aug 15, 2008 11:50 AM PDT reply actions
The Braves could use Devine in the pen.
He’d be their best RP and their closer if he still played for the Braves.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
Over the next few years, Devine will be worth way more than that $5 million
And they won’t have anything to show for it after this year.
by thejd44 on Aug 15, 2008 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
The A's didn's pay all of Kotsay's salary, and I am sure what they are paying Kotsay is still
more than Devine’s and Richmond’s salary combined.
by theblackpearl on Aug 15, 2008 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions
saved 2mill
opened up a spot up for sweeney/gonzalez in cf
got devine/richmond
i’m satisfied with the deal
the only disappointing part…they intended denorfia as their CF early on…i’m not sure where he fits in..he’ll be 30 or so has battled injuries this season…not doing much in AAA…the result of the mcbeth deal
If the deal was done today...
..I’d be just as happy with it as I was when it happened.
In fact, if Kotsay were hitting .320 with 15 dingers, I’d still be a supporter of the deal.
Not like we could have made much use of him, even at his absolute best possible, this season.
Notes From The Nat has a new home: http://www.natnotes.com
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
