Scout's view of the A's
by jfletcher on Jan 15, 2009 9:56 AM PST
Email
Printhttp://www.baybridgebaseball.com/2009/01/scouts-view-of-as.html
This is Jeff Fletcher, former A's beat writer for the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. I've started a new blog of my own dedicated to the A's and Giants (although you can filter out the Giants stuff if you'd like). Please check it out.
I will be covering the A's for two weeks in spring training, so there is sure to be some good original content here in the weeks to come.
Thanks AN!
93 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I can't wait to read the reaction to this
“I don’t think you trade a guy like Street who has makeup, intensity, presence.”
The unnamed scout also values Crosby’s “presence and leadership”.
I think most would agree
That we would definitely value Crosby’s absence much more than his presence.
I'd value Crosby if he brought me presents.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, I think I wanna have a little talk with this scout:
“I think they’ve made themselves better. A guy like Holliday helps on the field and in the clubhouse. He’s a relentless worker. Maybe it’s a three-month deal and Billy trades him and gets 19 guys again, but they are better. You get Giambi and him in the same lineup… Chavez, if he’s healthy… Sweeney… Suzuki. You’ve got some threats. Some more things happening.”
Yeah, sure, omit the name of the best hitter on the team last year.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 10:37 AM PST reply actions
Come ON, he doesn't look good in jeans at ALL
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
i love jack cust as much as the next man
but a part of me doesn’t mind if he’s undervalued / under the radar – makes it easier to keep him signed to an affordable contract, no? it’s not as if the A’s are looking to trade him, really.
when did we stop using adverbs proper?
by alea iacta est on Jan 15, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
good point
but reading about how “jack kust’s strickouts!!!!11 are really hurting the team. his fat baseclogging ass is slowing down everyone. and his 230 average is one of the worst in the league, this guy is useless” really makes me want to kill someone
"My group runs some frogloks down the hall to finish them off and POP! RASTER! If there was a way to scream louder than caps in EQ I was doing it. Man I am straight panicking because I know I have NO CHANCE soloing and the party has run off. I'm in my hotel room; it's like 5am, and I am straight hollering, in EQ and in real life. Bottom line is the group comes back, heals me, and kills Raster! WOOT!" -Curt Schilling on his favorite memories in the video game "EverQuest"
Not me. I want Cust overrated to the point that he's rated higher than Hanley Ramirez. Then
we carefully drop hints that a trade is possible because we stupidly hate strickouts.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 15, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions
Bobby Crosby is the bestestest shortstop EVER
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
Not best hitter...
‘Person who manages to Homer or get On-Base more often that the rest of the team’ would be Jack Cust’s title.
It clarifies that he still has trouble hitting the broad-side of the barn, yet serves a good purpose. I’m a big Cust fan, although not as big as his waistline. (per PT’s opinion)
Walking is not hitting, its good… but I cannot agree with the statement that he was our best hitter. Most Valuable Offensive Player, yep.
The Stockton Ports pitching staff is better than the Orioles.
paging grover, grover please report to the semantics desk ...
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
got your helmet on?
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
Or the pleasure!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 12:51 AM PST up reply actions
in theory crosby....
should have been a stud. we all know this. he showed flashes, and hes still young enough to get it together…. but yeah. he is the epitomy of a scouts wet dream that doesnt translate. Something the A’s have actually done a good job of avoiding
i’d agree a’s need a 1-2 year pitcher who is proven, Then 2011, the rotation of cahill, anderson gallagher should (and i stress SHOULD) rival the hudson, mulder, zito days. It’d be sweet if we could get that new park too.
eitherway if it were up to me i’d rather get sheets for 2 years than orlando cabrera…. we cant move crosby, oh well. The markets really dropping on sheets… 2 years 25 mil could get him. And if our young guys come up early…. a frontline starting pitcher is always in high demand at trade deadline
Actually...
I think Sheets value probably just went up with the Lowe deal. Sheets will get 80-90% of what Lowe got, not 50-60%.
The comments on the bullpen are interesting
Because the scout sorta sets himself up to not be wrong unless Ziggy and Devine both have ERAs in the 1s again, and it’s silly to project that. Of course those guys were “one-year wonders” in the sense that they’re not actually quite that awesome. And if Ziggy’s ERA jumps to 3.25, you could say hitters figured him out. And what does “Joey Devine is overrated” actually mean? Overrated by whom? And by how much? And what makes him overrated? His injury history? Is it pitching in a pitcher’s park? Is he just not very talented?
This is why I tend to hate scouts. It’s not that they’re wrong, necessarily, but that they make grand statements without offering a shred of evidence to back it up and expect us to believe it “because they’re pro scouts.” I’m sorry, but I stopped accepting “Because I’m your parent and I told you so” as a legitimate reason when I was eight years old.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 10:49 AM PST reply actions
yeah but
it’s the unknown unknowns teams have to worry about.
Save Rajai Davis
by oakinboston on Jan 15, 2009 12:22 PM PST up reply actions
What?
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 15, 2009 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
If we knew what
they wouldn’t be unknown.
by green star oakland on Jan 15, 2009 2:21 PM PST up reply actions
I'm just gonna
hope we’re both thinking of the same thing and walk away
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 15, 2009 9:14 PM PST up reply actions
Personally...
I think the phase, “Because I’m your parent and I told you so”, is more associated with “Stat Guy”, than “Scout Guy”. But that’s just my perspective…
Otherwise, I totally agree with you.
by Colorado Fan on Jan 15, 2009 12:24 PM PST up reply actions
Huh?
Scout says, “Devine is over rated.”
Stat guys says- “Devine has a FIP that is of record proportions for a closer and bested Dennis Eckersley’s record for lowest ERA over the course of the season.”
One has reasons based on reality, one is talking out of his butt like a parent saying “because I said so.” That is pretty obvious I thought. How do you figure that is backwards?
I think it's more in the sense that some people put more stock into certain stats...
…over others and often take a “I’m right and you’re wrong, so that’s that” approach toward others who disagree with them. I’ve done it myself in some cases but I’m working on being better at trying to see where the other side comes from. In some cases, it comes from the kinds of newer stats the so-called “stat geeks” get deeper into, the things like OPS+ or certain range percentages or ratios, etc.
Obviously someone like Jack Cust is an immediate source of the most energetic disputes because of his high K-rate, but also his high OBP and so on.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Excep the "I'm right, you're wrong" is BASED ON INFORMATION
My point isn’t that stats are always right or that scouts are always wrong. It’s that one side actually tries to use real, actual things that happened (whether they use the right tools or not) and the other creates imaginary features and uses cliched statements that don’t actually have any real meaning.
One group is, at least, trying. The other group is led by Joe Morgan.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
It doesn't have to be that bad
I’m much more of a stats guy myself, but there are plenty of useful observations that a scout (or just an average fan with a sharp eye might make). If someone says that a hitter’s swing is long, or that he has trouble with breaking pitches, or that a pitcher’s mechanics are inconsistent, or that hitters will be able to lay off his breaking pitches out of the zone, those are mostly highly subjective claims, but at least they give us something about which we can disagree, and they (at least implicitly) make predictions not only about how those players will do in the future but why.
Unfortunately, this particular scout appears to have absolutely nothing to say of any value whatsoever.
Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough
the A's should invest in a writing tutor for their scouts
I’m not entirely unserious with that suggestion.
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
hey, i need a job!
and i’z kan writ gud
when did we stop using adverbs proper?
by alea iacta est on Jan 17, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
Sigh - it's "gudly"
These unliterate kids 2day.
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 feel it's more that some people have "go to" stats they always...
…say trumps everything else when that’s not always the case. Yes, so-and-so gets on base this much BUT this other stat hurts him more than it does another guy. Things like that.
You can point to certain stats to support why you think a player like Jack Cust is better than others believe he is but I could point to other ones to support why I don’t think he’s as good as you do. Neither of us are 100% right or wrong (well, obviously it depends on what stats we use to support our opinions and how) but not everyone values the same things in all players.
I mean, I’d rather have someone who puts the ball in play more often to the point of saving, say, 100 strikeouts over the course of the season even if it means he hits into 10 more double plays than the other guy because I believe the more you put the ball in play the better chance you have of advancing a runner or scoring him. I’d even take more cases of the ball put in play over some walks that don’t really help in moving a runner or scoring a run. That’s just my personal preference. I like more chances to advance more than one base.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Are those 100 strikeouts replacing 100 generic balls in play, or 100 OUTS on balls in play?
If it’s the former, the fact that fewer strikeouts is better is awfully banal. If it’s the latter, frankly, you’re just wrong. It doesn’t make any difference. I know, I know, aesthetic preferences, etc etc. My answer to that is simple: aesthetic preferences are a form of conspicuous consumption. You pay for them with losses.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
No, it's not replacing 100 of either
Over the course of a full season, one should expect a solid mixture of pretty much everything – homers, singles, doubles, some triples based on the player, some popups, some fly balls, some weak grounders, some line drives, some double plays, etc.
It’s not just going to be 100 generic balls in play or 100 outs.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Uh, that would be precisely replacing 100 generic balls in play
Which is, as I said, really banal. It’s like saying someone would be better if he hit an extra 20 home runs and was otherwise the same player. I mean, no kidding.
A player with all of Jack Cust’s secondary skills, with 100 fewer strikeouts would be a Manny-level hitter. He’d routinely have an OPS in the high 900s to low 1000s.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
What's banal about it?
Even if only 25% of the balls in play led to hits, isn’t that better than all strikeouts? They don’t even have to be all homers. Yes, Cust would be a much different player if he struck out 100 times less and put the ball in play more often. Nobody’s saying otherwise.
This is where I just don’t get the defenses some people make of Cust simply because of his OBP. It doesn’t come from a lot of hits. It’s from a lot of walks. Those walks would be put to better use in a better offense so like I said, hopefully having some better hitters around him will go toward taking advantage of what he can do.
My point has always been pretty simple. Even if a guy gets on base a lot, I don’t care for the excessively high strikeout totals. It’s reached the level here where some people think that’s worth mocking others for and that’s pretty crazy.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I think the point is
that replacing any outs with any not-outs is better pretty much by definition.
by green star oakland on Jan 15, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions
I see that, of course
But I still think some people look past all the strikeouts (and mock the people who don’t) just because Cust gets on base a lot.
I think what I’d rather see is a higher ratio of hits to walks from him. Even a few more singles in place of the walks would be a benefit to the team because it gets people moving more around the bases. He actually has 216 walks to 212 hits with the A’s and that’s pretty abnormal for anyone.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I don't think you can just swap singles for walks, especially with Cust
Yes, in the abstract, 1B>BB.
But in order for Cust to convert BBs to 1Bs would basically necessitate his swinging at more borderline pitches (yes, he has an abnormally broad definition of “borderline pitches”), which would probably mean a few more singles, but a lot more outs.
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
But now you've
(a) removed strikeouts from the argument altogether
(b) again proposed replacing one outcome (walk) with a better one (hit)
by green star oakland on Jan 15, 2009 3:54 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, and I think the reasons I've given are pretty clear
I like how much he gets on base. No question about it. I also don’t like parts of the way he is as a hitter that others are more willing to excuse because he walks so much.
As long as people don’t start calling me ignorant or misinformed or whatever the case may be simply because I prefer something a little different, there’s no issue.
The problem is some people aren’t very good at talking about things like this without resorting to that and that’s the point where it falls apart.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Besides, isn't that the point of this?
You can’t replace a walk with another walk. We’re talking about what we’d rather see:
- a ball in play (out or otherwise) vs. a strikeout
- a hit vs. a walk
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
But again you're asking to replace worse outcomes with better ones
which we’d like to see of any hitter on the A’s – that’s that “banal” option.
I think what you’re really asking for is a different distribution of outcomes from all of his plate appearances such that it includes fewer strikeouts, fewer walks and more hits. But even if you could do that, you would then need to include all the other changes in the distribution of outcomes that would accompany it – for example fewer homers and more outs overall. And that ends up being a less productive hitter than Jack Cust.
by green star oakland on Jan 15, 2009 4:51 PM PST up reply actions
if Cust is putting more balls in play
it means he’s trying to make more contact, which means that he’s probably poking at things rather than letting lose. If anything, I think this tactic would LOWER his HR totals.
In all likelyhood, however, I think that the effect would be minimal. 100 K’s to 100 balls in play means that some DP’s occur, which costs more than a K. Some hits occur, and a lot more simple outs occur. If anything, it might raise his average a bit at the cost of his slugging.
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 15, 2009 6:53 PM PST up reply actions
We look past the strikeouts
because determining the value of different events (walk, single, home run, strikeout) is precisely the kind of thing that can be, and has been, answered pretty definitively.
Jack Cust is a very good offensive player. He isn’t a great one, and he’s lousy defensively, and of course anyone is free to like or dislike him as much as they want, for whatever reasons they want. But his value as a hitter is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.
Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough
I think part of this goes back to the offense around him
That’s pretty undeniable, yes?
I’m not saying he has no value here with a bad offense around him, but his value isn’t maximized that way. I don’t think Cust is someone you should expect to carry an offense and that’s part of what the problem’s been.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
No. A player's value is INDEPENDENT of other players
That’s why RBIs and runs scored are pretty crappy counting stats and not indicative of the player.
What you mean is that on a bad offense, Cust’s walks don’t really lead to lots of runs. That’s true, but it says nothing about Cust’s value and everything about the other guys on the team.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 11:04 PM PST up reply actions
OK
but he would be equally much better if he got 25 more hits and still had 75 of the strikeouts…
This argument is tautological. Jack Cust would be better if he was better. Who cares?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Or maybe
W-L record is a form of conspicuous consumption. You pay for it with aesthetically displeasing baseball.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Winning ugly?
Humm baby!!!
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
That is +10000000000000 to Flashfire's
Even if only 25% of the balls in play led to hits, isn’t that better than all strikeouts? They don’t even have to be all homers. Yes, Cust would be a much different player if he struck out 100 times less and put the ball in play more often. Nobody’s saying otherwise. etc etc.
Why stop at 50 ?
Why stop at singles ?
by green star oakland on Jan 15, 2009 4:16 PM PST up reply actions
Why stop at traffic lights?
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
What I think some are trying to say
is that they would like to see some of Cust’s walks (non-outs) be hits, some of his strickouts (outs), say fly outs, which would mean he was swinging more and thus putting more balls in play whether successfully or unsuccessfully – with the important outcome being that more of his safeties would advance runners.
What I think others are trying to say is that this would involve Cust being a different hitter than he can be, or can best be, and would in fact result in more of a dropoff in walks than an increase in hits (meaning a lower OBP) to the point of being worse overall.
I can agree with both, actually – but the second point kind of trumps the first one by saying, “Cust is Cust – he can’t become Delgado just because that would be preferable.”
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
One thing you don't mention
Is that Cust changing to alter all those other things would pretty severely limit his power.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 11:05 PM PST up reply actions
One more thing
The walks and OBP are good but where a big problem came up was in those walks being wasted because the offense stunk. I’d expect if Cust bats ahead of Holliday and Giambi and walks at the same rate as before he’ll be scoring more runs as a result.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
That's exactly why I want him batting 2nd
Instead of trying to change Cust, put him in a position to score more runs and enjoy the ones he drives in along the way.
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
if you don't understand stats, I guess I could see how that works
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
Not any more insightful...
…than the general observations/unquantified opinions of most everyday fans. He doesn’t even really offer any credible evidence to anything he states. The Ziegler/Devine comments especially add nothing to the conversation. LHB this yr will continue to tee off against Ziggy, RHB not so much. Because of that, his future is as a set-up man, not as a closer, but I don’t think he’ll fall off a cliff next season. To say Devine is overrated is dumb. The guy so far has K’d more than a batter per inning in the Majors, and had 170K in 116IP in the minors. What’s not to like, except possibly health concerns. But this guy doesn’t even point to health for his reasons to diss Devine.
To be fair, it was rather a quick take on things, and maybe he does have concrete reasons for his views if given a chance to state them. Some scouts really do have interesting and rather unique perspectives on guys, but if this guy does, he kept them to himself this time.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
He's basically saying Devine and Ziegler won't be as good as they were last year
To which I say, “No, really?”
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
No, he doesn't say that - he says the bullpen will "implode"
But if Devine posts a 2.70 ERA and Ziggy a 3.00 ERA the bullpen will NOT have imploded.
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
As I posted on the blog itsself...
I hope that guy doesn’t get paid to watch the A’s, because anyone who says, “Eveland throws enough strikes to be a fourth or fifth starter” has obviously never seen Eveland pitch – the guy’s main problem is the walks.
It’s a ridiculous set of comments in any case.
I think that's the guy's point
At Eveland’s current rate, he’s only a fourth or fifth starter because that’s about all he can be with the number of strikes he throws.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
I think
The point is that Eveland is no better than a 4 or 5 starter (which kind of makes me chuckle because I hate the ranking by spot in the rotation thing) because he walks too many guys.
That's not what that sentence means
If he were to say, “Eveland only throws enough strikes to be a 4th or 5th starter,” that would be different, but when you say “Eveland throws enough strikes to be a 4th or 5th starter,” you’re implying that throwing strikes is the part of his game that’s good enough to make him a 4th or 5th starter. Essentially, the scout is saying Eveland is a strike-thrower, pitch to contact guy. Or maybe the scout just has bad grammar.
fixed
A guy like Holliday helps on the field and in the clubhouse. He’s a relentlessworker.
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
You know, this is why scouts are so great
They can tell what a guy is like in the locker room. Derrrrrr, I mean, well you know.
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Jan 15, 2009 7:03 PM PST up reply actions
I especially like
his comments about duke: “He gives innings, throws low-pitch innings, throws strikes. Nothing overpowering. He just pitches” pretty insightful : \
And a good reason to think he's only a #3 starter
After all, he’s not great or anything – all he does is throw strikes and get people out.
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 realistically
Duke is a #2. He’s pretty good, but not 2008 good. That said, our rotation looks strong this year not because we have a bonafide ace in front, but because we have solid league average (at worst) pitchers 1-5, plus another handful waiting in the wings. While the path taken to get to this point is different, our rotation is sort of similar to the Cardinals’ philosophy of building a rotation from the bottom up. Luckily, however, our rotation has TONS more upside.
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 15, 2009 9:06 PM PST up reply actions
I agree - Duke is a #2 and what the rest lacks in front end
it also makes up for somewhat in depth and upside. I think the rotation will be ok – but not great. With Sheets or another solid #2 or #3, it would be pretty good.
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
Then can we just get Billy to sign the man already?
That would be a great early birthday present for me!
This scout, among other problems,
seems to have forgotten that Dallas Braden exists. Or maybe Braden imploded in the whole bullpen saga.
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
when Braden was on the mound.....
it sort of looked like he imploded or are you forgetting how he got himself to the bullpen. He only got to start again after we traded all experienced components of our rotation.
by WhiteElephant on Jan 16, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions
He was the A's most consistent starter in August and September
He actually looked pretty solid.
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
Yeah. That one is hard to admit but true.
I was the most anti-Braden guy from the moment he “arrived” but he was a pleasant surprise. I don’t see him as ever being better than a #5 with a chance to become a #4 as he continues to learn to pitch sans screwball.
Looking forward to Spring Training and the hope of another World Series title.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jan 16, 2009 7:41 PM PST up reply actions
My biggest gripe is the comments made about Ziggy and Devine
Salb did a great analysis on the travel angle of Ziggy’s pitch and I’m not so sure we haven’t found a new invention in pitching. It’s easy to say he’s overrated because he’s somewhat unknown but it’s completely unfair when you compare the angle of his pitches against nearly every other pitcher in the league. Bradford found a nice niche with his submarine style and when he’s hitting his spots he’s still very effective. If Ziggy has pinpoint control than he will be an unbelievable situational ROOGY if not much more. Let’s not forget that the guy has only been throwing this way for a short period of time and he won’t match his scoreless innings streak but will be extremely valuable to this team for years to come.
Devine also looked quite impressive and I don’t see a lot of holes with him either. I don’t think he’ll become the next Dennis Eckersley but he is better than my nickname now and in the future. He may regress compared to ’08 but I feel more confident in our bullpen than I do our hitting at this point. I hope they both surprise everyone in ’09!!
Looking forward to Spring Training and the hope of another World Series title.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Jan 16, 2009 7:50 PM PST reply actions
Also, with someone like Ziggy
the league isn’t really going to “figure him out” because he is the type of pitcher where you know can what’s coming and you still beat it into the ground. It’s more a matter of how consistently he executes his pitches than anything.
Devine throws 95MPH with movement and has a good slider. If he’s healthy, he has closer stuff.
Conclusion: This guy really doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
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 Devine could be Santiago Casilla and Ziggy could be Chad Bradford but then with worse command.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 10:13 PM PST up reply actions
But based on what?
Vaguely similar stuff and release point? The key differences are Devine, unlike Casilla, has good mechanics and more than just velocity on his fastball, and Ziggy, unlike Bradford, has a changeup and the ability to write well for a blog.
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
Hmmm......I'm just not sold on any reliever being a reliable future bet unless it's one of
about three guys — Rivera, Papelbon, maybe Nathan. Everybody else is a crapshoot after the current year.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 9:09 AM PST up reply actions
Personally.....
I think this scout has lost his cranium somewhere up his “….”
Sorry, don’t want to get another “x” by offending someone.
:)
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.
