Travis Snider Pirate perfomance thread

[Jimcanuck]

The problem with any type of Snider/Melky comparison is that it's tough to know how Snider would have developed in this organization. After seeing what Lind has been able to do so far this season, I'd like to think that Snider could have similar success, but you never know.

 

Such a shame that they couldn't have given the Fred Lewis, Corey Patterson, Eric Thames and Juan Rivera ABs to Snider.

 

+1000

[Nox]

Such a shame that they couldn't have given the Fred Lewis, Corey Patterson, Eric Thames and Juan Rivera ABs to Snider.

 

FFS this just about induced an aneurysm.

[Nox]

This FO is awesome. Stoeten told me so.

 

I mean, with bulletproof analysis like "baseball is hard", it's really hard to argue with this impressive mind.

[Olerud363]

I guess what I'm saying is that Melky is likely better than Snider even if he hits .270. As someone noted, Pitt is hiding Snider vs LHers, and he's not even really tearing up the RHers he's facing.

 

also, I dont think it's very reasonable to expect Snider to go on a power tear, his power has dried up considerably

 

I doubt Melky is better then Snider if he hits .270. If they both hit .27 a .270 hitting left fielder with 10 homers isn't a good player. A .320 hitting left fielder is probably a good player. It's a huge difference. 50 points in batting average is huge. Utterly huge. Especially for a player who's best skill is hitting for average.

 

And who cares if Snider is being hidden against lefties. Then you have to look at what Snider's platoon mate is doing. Say it's Rajai Davis. Rajai Davis hits lefties better then Melky.

 

A Snider Rajai Davis platoon is better then Melky hitting .270/.280.

[oakville69]

The fat kid hits another triple...

 

He's doing OK right now. Nothing special. But as it stands now we'd be better off having a Snider/Sierra platoon in left, and 16 million more towards the Yu Darvish posting fee, or the Chapman signing bonus or something...

 

It's a long season this could all change, but so far underwelmed by the Snider/Lincoln/Melky roster shake.

 

This all changes if Melky gets the average up to .320... it also all change if Snider goes an a power tear. Just something to keep an eye on.

 

Very true. Here's what drives me nuts. AA had no intention of competing for a playoff spot in 2010, 2011 & 2012 ( at least since June 2012 when 3 starters went down).

 

Thus, he had 3 years to find out what Snider could do. Snider was the golden position player prospect.

 

Snider would get off to slow starts & did get hurt after he started heating up. This is a fair criticism of him, but why not see what he could do insted of letting Juan Rivera,Corey Patterson, & Eric Thames play there?

[crrr]

I doubt Melky is better then Snider if he hits .270. If they both hit .27 a .270 hitting left fielder with 10 homers isn't a good player. A .320 hitting left fielder is probably a good player. It's a huge difference. 50 points in batting average is huge. Utterly huge. Especially for a player who's best skill is hitting for average.

 

And who cares if Snider is being hidden against lefties. Then you have to look at what Snider's platoon mate is doing. Say it's Rajai Davis. Rajai Davis hits lefties better then Melky.

 

A Snider Rajai Davis platoon is better then Melky hitting .270/.280.

 

That's what I'm saying, a .320 hitter is huge, Snider isn't huge so we can go very far down before we hit where Snider is, which seems to be a maximum of .270 hitter when played only versus RHers.

 

Also, the notion that a .320 hitting left fielder is 'probably a good player' is a substantial understatement. I won't look through the history, but I doubt too many outfielders have hit .320 and had a bad year.

 

A Snider/Rajai platoon is almost certainly worse than a .280 Melky.

[Olerud363]

That's what I'm saying, a .320 hitter is huge, Snider isn't huge so we can go very far down before we hit where Snider is, which seems to be a maximum of .270 hitter when played only versus RHers.

 

Also, the notion that a .320 hitting left fielder is 'probably a good player' is a substantial understatement. I won't look through the history, but I doubt too many outfielders have hit .320 and had a bad year.

 

A Snider/Rajai platoon is almost certainly worse than a .280 Melky.

 

If Snider and Rajai hit at their career rates vs. righties/lefties they would beat a .280 hitting Melky.

 

They would combine for .270 20 80 rbis, 20 sb, based on their career rates. Melky would be .280 15 80 or so.

 

It would be close. This isn't even considering that half the argument with Snider is that he still has upside.

[Olerud363]

That's what I'm saying, a .320 hitter is huge, Snider isn't huge so we can go very far down before we hit where Snider is, which seems to be a maximum of .270 hitter when played only versus RHers.

 

Also, the notion that a .320 hitting left fielder is 'probably a good player' is a substantial understatement. I won't look through the history, but I doubt too many outfielders have hit .320 and had a bad year.

 

A Snider/Rajai platoon is almost certainly worse than a .280 Melky.

 

It's pretty hard to hit .320 and not be good. However it's possible. It would be rare but 2013 Melky has the characteristics necessary to hit .320 and not be good.

 

To hit .320 and not be good, a player would have to...

 

1. Have almost no power.

2. Draw no walks.

3. Play left field or first base and play it badly or dh.

4. Be a bad baserunner.

5. Play in a good hitters park where .320 doesn't mean as much.

 

If Melky hits .320 with 7 homers, 25 walks, negative defensive value (because of the hamstrings) and negative baserunning (hamstring again) he could end up having a mediocre .320 season.

 

I'm not saying this is going to happen... I think if Melky hits .320 he ends up being a good player... but if the defense and baserunning is effected by the hamstring he could hit .320 and not be that good.

[Deadpool]

A .320 hitting left fielder is probably a good player. It's a huge difference. 50 points in batting average is huge. Utterly huge.

 

Assuming 500 abs (for the sake of simplicity) the difference between .270 and .320 is 25 hits.

 

25 hits over 162 games works out to an extra 0.15 hits per game, or an extra hit every 6.6 games. (rounding all over the place...)

 

So the difference between a great hitter and a decent hitter is about 1 hit a week.

 

MATH! Ruining baseball fun since like, forever!

 

Edit: 500 abs is picked arbitrarily, but to pick a player that is generally an "every day" guy, Robinson Cano, he had 627 abs last year, so the difference for someone who plays every day is a bit more than 1 hit a week, the point stands and this way the math was easier for me.)

[Olerud363]

Assuming 500 abs (for the sake of simplicity) the difference between .270 and .320 is 25 hits.

 

25 hits over 162 games works out to an extra 0.15 hits per game, or an extra hit every 6.6 games. (rounding all over the place...)

 

So the difference between a great hitter and a decent hitter is about 1 hit a week.

 

MATH! Ruining baseball fun since like, forever!

 

Edit: 500 abs is picked arbitrarily, but to pick a player that is generally an "every day" guy, Robinson Cano, he had 627 abs last year, so the difference for someone who plays every day is a bit more than 1 hit a week, the point stands and this way the math was easier for me.)

 

MATH. Being abused by idiots who don't understand it since like FOREVER. Don't use math bud. You don't know it.

 

1 hit a week from one player is huge. For 9 players that's 9 hits a week. You have no understanding of how the math works. Let's take a look at last years blue jays vs. the highest scoring blue jays team in history, 2003,

 

hits homers walks runs

2003 1580 190 546 894

2012 1346 198 473 716

 

The main difference is 236 hits and 73 walks. Per position that is 26 hits and 8 walks. 1 hit and a fraction of a walk per week per position. 1 hit a week per position is HUGE. It is the difference between a mediocre offense and a championship caliber offense.

 

Math. Never use it again. Apolagize to your family for the shame you have caused them.

[Deadpool]

MATH. Being abused by idiots who don't understand it since like FOREVER. Don't use math bud. You don't know it.

 

1 hit a week from one player is huge. For 9 players that's 9 hits a week. You have no understanding of how the math works. Let's take a look at last years blue jays vs. the highest scoring blue jays team in history, 2003,

 

hits homers walks runs

2003 1580 190 546 894

2012 1346 198 473 716

 

The main difference is 236 hits and 73 walks. Per position that is 26 hits and 8 walks. 1 hit and a fraction of a walk per week per position. 1 hit a week per position is HUGE. It is the difference between a mediocre offense and a championship caliber offense.

 

Math. Never use it again. Apolagize to your family for the shame you have caused them.

 

Context is hard.

 

You should MAYBE consider it, however, since the context in which I mathed all over your face was entirely about the difference between a .270 hitter and a .320 hitter, not a TEAM of .270 hitters and a TEAM of .320 hitters.

 

The math is no different, the math doesn't "work" differently. The math is contextually different, and the difference between having one player on your team hit .050 points higher is about 1 hit per week, which is statistically insignificant.

[Olerud363]

Context is hard.

 

You should MAYBE consider it, however, since the context in which I mathed all over your face was entirely about the difference between a .270 hitter and a .320 hitter, not a TEAM of .270 hitters and a TEAM of .320 hitters.

 

The math is no different, the math doesn't "work" differently. The math is contextually different, and the difference between having one player on your team hit .050 points higher is about 1 hit per week, which is statistically insignificant.

 

Great logic bud. By that logic almost any baseball move is statistically insignificant.

 

So you are saying that the logic that applies to an entire team doesn't apply to individuals?? Any individual move will always be insignificant using your logic.

 

This is how bad baseball teams are constructed. By people who think like you.

 

So I am guessing if you are a contractor, and you have 9 jobs over the year, and someone offerrs you 10% more for 1 of the 9 jobs, you will reject that offer because it's not significant?? You will say

 

"Thank you sir for your offer of 10% more for this job. However this job represents only 1/9 of the total number of jobs I will do this year and the slight 10% increase in wage will be insignifigant. Thus as a master mathematician I must reject your kind offer.

 

Yours in math - Mr. Deadpool"

[crrr]

It's pretty hard to hit .320 and not be good. However it's possible. It would be rare but 2013 Melky has the characteristics necessary to hit .320 and not be good.

 

To hit .320 and not be good, a player would have to...

 

1. Have almost no power.

2. Draw no walks.

3. Play left field or first base and play it badly or dh.

4. Be a bad baserunner.

5. Play in a good hitters park where .320 doesn't mean as much.

 

If Melky hits .320 with 7 homers, 25 walks, negative defensive value (because of the hamstrings) and negative baserunning (hamstring again) he could end up having a mediocre .320 season.

 

I'm not saying this is going to happen... I think if Melky hits .320 he ends up being a good player... but if the defense and baserunning is effected by the hamstring he could hit .320 and not be that good.

 

Typically in this sort of analysis one attempts to weigh more recent statistics more. I'm not even sure how you got to .270 given that that's the maximum of their career averages. Assuming you broke it down in splits, you completely neglected the fact that there are many more RHers than LHers in the league, and so you should weigh the stats towards the .250 of Snider, who would be playing more.

 

Using recent statistics more, Rajai hasn't hit his career average vs LHers in a few years, and Snider has hovered around his. But, to remove some of the stupidity of this argument, one should also note over the last several years, the OBP of Melky has been much better than both Snider and Rajai, and if we use statistics from the last 3 years, which one could reasonably argue are much more indicative compared to their career rates, Melky is simply an incomparably better than a Snider/Rajai platoon, given Snider would get many more ABs.

[Deadpool]

Great logic bud. By that logic almost any baseball move is statistically insignificant.

 

So you are saying that the logic that applies to an entire team doesn't apply to individuals?? Any individual move will always be insignificant using your logic.

 

This is how bad baseball teams are constructed. By people who think like you.

 

So I am guessing if you are a contractor, and you have 9 jobs over the year, and someone offerrs you 10% more for 1 of the 9 jobs, you will reject that offer because it's not significant?? You will say

 

"Thank you sir for your offer of 10% more for this job. However this job represents only 1/9 of the total number of jobs I will do this year and the slight 10% increase in wage will be insignifigant. Thus as a master mathematician I must reject your kind offer.

 

Yours in math - Mr. Deadpool"

 

And your attitude is what breeds the kind of move that resulted in the R.A. Dickey trade. "If we just get this ONE guy, then we're set!"

 

I'm not even going to reply to the rest of your straw-man, because f*** your logical fallacy.

[crrr]

Also, another questionable assumption in your analysis is that either Snider or Davis are good fielders. They are not.

[TheHurl]

If Snider and Rajai hit at their career rates vs. righties/lefties they would beat a .280 hitting Melky.

 

They would combine for .270 20 80 rbis, 20 sb, based on their career rates. Melky would be .280 15 80 or so.

 

It would be close. This isn't even considering that half the argument with Snider is that he still has upside.

 

That's completely ignoring the huge fact that it's two roster spots. Having a straight Rajai/Snider platoon would mean that Rasmus plays against all lefties. Believe me I love the platoon but to say that a Rajai/Snider platoon is equal to Cabrera is a big argument against that as a viable option.

[Olerud363]

Typically in this sort of analysis one attempts to weigh more recent statistics more. I'm not even sure how you got to .270 given that that's the maximum of their career averages. Assuming you broke it down in splits, you completely neglected the fact that there are many more RHers than LHers in the league, and so you should weigh the stats towards the .250 of Snider, who would be playing more.

 

Using recent statistics more, Rajai hasn't hit his career average vs LHers in a few years, and Snider has hovered around his. But, to remove some of the stupidity of this argument, one should also note over the last several years, the OBP of Melky has been much better than both Snider and Rajai, and if we use statistics from the last 3 years, which one could reasonably argue are much more indicative compared to their career rates, Melky is simply an incomparably better than a Snider/Rajai platoon, given Snider would get many more ABs.

 

Your correct. Given their career rates it is actually .260. Sniders career rates against righties are nothing special. Neither are Melky's career rates.

 

Melky 2011/2012 is incredibly better because he hits .320. I've conceded that point. If Melky hits .320 that's great. That's what started this whole argument.

 

If Melky hits .280 it's a different story. Especially if he only hits 6 homers. .320 with 15 homers is way different then .280 with 6 homers. It just seems that people on this thread don't get that.

 

Snider is fat and bad so far in his career-- point conceded.

 

Melky is fat and bad until 2011 -- ?? Not sure people concede this point.

 

Melky 2013 is fat with bad hamstrings and so/so ?? Not sure if people have condeded this either.

 

Rajai is often bad - but Rajai 2013 is OK --

 

Snider 2013 is OK to.

 

Snider + Rajai 2013 is not much different then Melky 2013.

 

2013 is not over. It is 1/3 over.

 

This is just something worth watching. I stand by my previous commentary. Neither is successful right now given what we expect from a corner outfielder. Both are about the same. This can change. Melky's path to be better is to hit for a higher average, Snider's path is to show the power we always dreamed on. Will either of these happen?? I don't know we will have to see. Just things to watch.

[crrr]

Your correct. Given their career rates it is actually .260. Sniders career rates against righties are nothing special. Neither are Melky's career rates.

 

Melky 2011/2012 is incredibly better because he hits .320. I've conceded that point. If Melky hits .320 that's great. That's what started this whole argument.

 

If Melky hits .280 it's a different story. Especially if he only hits 6 homers. .320 with 15 homers is way different then .280 with 6 homers. It just seems that people on this thread don't get that.

 

Snider is fat and bad so far in his career-- point conceded.

 

Melky is fat and bad until 2011 -- ?? Not sure people concede this point.

 

Melky 2013 is fat with bad hamstrings and so/so ?? Not sure if people have condeded this either.

 

Rajai is often bad - but Rajai 2013 is OK --

 

Snider 2013 is OK to.

 

Snider + Rajai 2013 is not much different then Melky 2013.

 

2013 is not over. It is 1/3 over.

 

This is just something worth watching. I stand by my previous commentary. Neither is successful right now given what we expect from a corner outfielder. Both are about the same. This can change. Melky's path to be better is to hit for a higher average, Snider's path is to show the power we always dreamed on. Will either of these happen?? I don't know we will have to see. Just things to watch.

 

Citing Rajai's 80 PA's in 2013 and neglecting his bad 2011 and 2012 is very misguided. Melky was about what Snider was until 2011, where there seems to be a structural change in his statistics/performance. Ignoring the existence of structural change is a major statistical faux-pas.

 

Also, continually citing Melky's hamstring issues, and ignoring those of Rajai's isn't very honest. One is playing, the other is not.

 

"I stand by my previous commentary. Neither is successful right now given what we expect from a corner outfielder. Both are about the same"

 

Under your scenario, right now we would be using Snider versus everyone. Even Pitt won't do that. Also your 'what if' scenarios are not the same. Snider has not shown power for some time, and Melky has shown to be a top tier average hitter for two years now. To pretend these two situations are equally likely - Snider hitting for power and Melky hitting for average, is just completely unfounded.

 

So, I respect your "gut feeling" that the platoon may be better. I see no reason why going into the year one should have expected it would be.

[crrr]

It's almost like when you look at statistics, you completely ignore the trend.

[Olerud363]

That's completely ignoring the huge fact that it's two roster spots. Having a straight Rajai/Snider platoon would mean that Rasmus plays against all lefties. Believe me I love the platoon but to say that a Rajai/Snider platoon is equal to Cabrera is a big argument against that as a viable option.

 

When I first started following baseball in the late 80s there were 5 men bullpens and platoons all over the place. So I have seen teams where this would of been a viable option.

 

But even on this team you could use Boni in center to spell Rasmus.

 

I still believe teams could use a smaller bullpen effectively, even as a means to bring along young pitchers successfully with a lot of middle relief innings (50 appearances 100 innings type seasons), another topic I guess.

[G-Snarls]

When I first started following baseball in the late 80s there were 5 men bullpens and platoons all over the place. So I have seen teams where this would of been a viable option.

 

But even on this team you could use Boni in center to spell Rasmus.

 

I still believe teams could use a smaller bullpen effectively, even as a means to bring along young pitchers successfully with a lot of middle relief innings (50 appearances 100 innings type seasons), another topic I guess.

 

The babying of starting pitchers has resulted in the need for bigger bullpens

[Olerud363]

Citing Rajai's 80 PA's in 2013 and neglecting his bad 2011 and 2012 is very misguided. Melky was about what Snider was until 2011, where there seems to be a structural change in his statistics/performance. Ignoring the existence of structural change is a major statistical faux-pas.

 

Also, continually citing Melky's hamstring issues, and ignoring those of Rajai's isn't very honest. One is playing, the other is not.

 

"I stand by my previous commentary. Neither is successful right now given what we expect from a corner outfielder. Both are about the same"

 

Under your scenario, right now we would be using Snider versus everyone. Even Pitt won't do that. Also your 'what if' scenarios are not the same. Snider has not shown power for some time, and Melky has shown to be a top tier average hitter for two years now. To pretend these two situations are equally likely - Snider hitting for power and Melky hitting for average, is just completely unfounded.

 

So, I respect your "gut feeling" that the platoon may be better. I see no reason why going into the year one should have expected it would be.

 

Keep in mind that the "structural change" coincided with a period of steroid use and we don't know yet how resilient the structural change will be to the (presumed) discontinuation of the steroid use.

[Olerud363]

The babying of starting pitchers has resulted in the need for bigger bullpens

 

You could actually baby AND have a smaller bullpen. It would require having a starter go 5, and a reliever go 3, and having a manager not obsess about matchups.

 

So if you had a boatload of young pitchers, which before the trades we would of been looking at in 2014/15, you could probably do this.

 

Mark Eichorn once went 14-6 and almost won an era title as a reliever. Missed by a couple innings. Would be very interesting to see a young pitcher brought along like that. Maybe not worked quite as hard, but 50 outings, a few starts, 120 innings seems reasonable.

[crrr]

I was also referring to Snider's power disappearing and Rajai's skills eroding.

 

I agree that if you use their whole careers in conjuction with an improvement on Snider's skills, then your analysis is ok. If you look at more recent data, then it simply holds no water - a Snider/Rajai platoon over the last 3 years would be the worst LF situation in the majors.

[CHRIS]

The babying of starting pitchers has resulted in the need for bigger bullpens

 

I think having specialized roles has also made a difference: closer, setup man, LOOGY, etc. It seems like bullpen guys are more geared to pitch a single inning or less these days.

 

On one hand, it seems like playing to matchups with your bullpen is an advantage, but I wonder how much difference it really makes when you think of the reduced flexibility that a shorter bench allows both in terms of being able to PH for someone, and in bringing guys in for defence.

[Olerud363]

?? I am confused how R.A. Dickey got into this ?? Not sure I said anything about him. If Dickey could perform at a 2010-2012 level he would help a team.

 

But according to your philosaphy even if Dickey performed well it shouldn't of matterred. I mean if we average it out the difference between Dickey 2012 and Dickey 2013 is what... about a walk or two and 1/2 a homer a week? That's nothing.

 

The Dickey trade was meaningless in your logical system, because like any other move when you look at it on a weekly basis the small differences are insignificant. Dickey or Yu Darvish, or Ubalda Jiminez, or Kyle Lohse. The difference between these guys are a hit or two, an extra base or two a week. It's nothing.

 

When you look at it on a weekly basis none of it matters, the differences are so small.

[Olerud363]

And your attitude is what breeds the kind of move that resulted in the R.A. Dickey trade. "If we just get this ONE guy, then we're set!"

 

I'm not even going to reply to the rest of your straw-man, because f*** your logical fallacy.

 

I am fascinated by this... you make a snarky over-confident math comment and you really should apolagize to society for it.. but of course you won't. So you'll never give up. This is funny. You are now forever destined to make stupider and stupider comments because there is no way out of this for you without losing face.

 

I actually kind of suspect you're a reasonably intelligent kid who just screwed up. You realize your mistake but now you can't get out of it. Kindof funny.

 

You state 50 points of batting average doesn't matter.

There is no difference between .320 and .270 on a weekly basis.

 

logically then

 

There is no difference between .270 and .220 on a weekly basis.

 

So

 

There is no difference between .320 and .220 on a weekly basis. Is that correct?? Or at some point to the differences actually become significant??

 

At what point?? If not 50 points of batting average then 75?? 100?? 200?? Using your math skills please let me know.

[Candy Maldonado]

apolagize

[TheHurl]

 

Mark Eichorn once went 14-6 and almost won an era title as a reliever. Missed by a couple innings. Would be very interesting to see a young pitcher brought along like that. Maybe not worked quite as hard, but 50 outings, a few starts, 120 innings seems reasonable.

 

Ah the last 5 WAR reliever we'll probably ever see. You do have to keep in mind that there were 60 less pitchers in the majors back then and the assets were in the $100K range not $10M. I still don't know how he'd pitch for the 3rd time in 4 days and go more than 3 innings but in this social media age managers would be torn apart. It's not going to go back to that direction though, in the same way Starters aren't going to go 300 innings ever again.

[Deadpool]

I am fascinated by this... you make a snarky over-confident math comment and you really should apolagize to society for it.. but of course you won't. So you'll never give up. This is funny. You are now forever destined to make stupider and stupider comments because there is no way out of this for you without losing face.

 

I actually kind of suspect you're a reasonably intelligent kid who just screwed up. You realize your mistake but now you can't get out of it. Kindof funny.

 

You state 50 points of batting average doesn't matter.

There is no difference between .320 and .270 on a weekly basis.

 

logically then

 

There is no difference between .270 and .220 on a weekly basis.

 

So

 

There is no difference between .320 and .220 on a weekly basis. Is that correct?? Or at some point to the differences actually become significant??

 

At what point?? If not 50 points of batting average then 75?? 100?? 200?? Using your math skills please let me know.

 

There's not much difference between .270 and .220 over a weekly basis, and therein is the uniqueness of baseball. Failure is the only option, but those who fail the least are revered as superstars. If a goalie in any sport with a goalie had a save percentage of .320, they wouldn't make it out of junior A, but in baseball, a success rate of 32% is the stuff of heroes.

 

What I'm saying is this: a single player getting a hit 5% more often is not statistically significant. What you're saying is "well, if 5% doesn't matter for one player, then 5% doesn't matter cumulatively across the whole team or a 20% improvement for that player doesn't matter" which is ANOTHER logical fallacy on your part (argument ad absurdum). This is not, nor has it ever been the argument I've put forward.

 

At no point in my completely non-controversial statement did I say that "no percentage of anything matters." But please, feel free to feel superior because all numbers are essentially the same anyway, right?

Edited May 29, 2013 by Deadpool