Grady Sizemore: Breakout Year?

disagree

while his OBP jumped 25 points and his slugging 37 points his strikeouts increased even more dramatically. I know some people only care about OPS and strikeouts don't really matter to them but IMO his second half was no better than his first half.

I think the Indians would be thrilled if he didn't take a step back but just repeated last year. And then in a couple of years start to improve even more.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 7, 2007 11:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I guess...

that you have to look at the context involved in his rising strikeout count. His walks went up drastically as well, likely because he was getting deeper into the count and waiting for a pitch to drive--as evidenced by the fact that 55% of his hits went for extra bases after the break.

I'd definitely like it better if Sizemore wasn't striking out in 1/4 of his PA's, but the fact that his power (and walk) output increases as his K's go up eases my mind.

by DrunkIrish on Jan 7, 2007 11:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

question

How many 180 or 200 strikeout hitters are considered superstars? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Don't you think he will try to reduce the K's and by doing this may reduce those walk and power numbers at the same time?

I would take 130 K's and his first half performance over 180 K's and a few points spike in the second half.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 8, 2007 12:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lots

Howard, Bay, Soriano, Bill Hall, Dunn and Sexson all had over 150.

Howard and Dunn had over 180

by Galt on Jan 8, 2007 12:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

um

Billy Hall is considered a superstar?

by BobbyMac on Jan 8, 2007 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no

hes not

and neither is sexson...or dunn for that matter or else someone would have actually tried to obtain him these last few years

and soriano is a VERY unique player-type; you don't see many lines like his ever so you can't really use him as a point of comparison...leaving you with 2 guys, one of which (bay) who is a definite fringe star let alone superstar

by robcast23 on Jan 8, 2007 1:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm....

The guy put up a OBP like .020 in the second half, and SLG over .040 higher and his first half and second half were the same?
He's not "elite" or superstar potential becauseof strike outs. Some guy named Ryan Howard looks like he's doing OK, and considering the time he played in Babe Ruth K'd a ton also.
He's a 23 year old good defensive CFer who hit over 50 2Bs and almost 30 HRs and his strikeouts are going to kill him? Doubtful.

I'm not seeing the logic at all. K's CAN be bad, but he walks, he hits for power, plays a premium defensive position, and he's 23.

How is he not elite already?

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

seriously?

Howard avg 313 OBP 425 Slg 659 OPS 1084
Sizemore avg 290 OBP 375 Slg 533 OPS 908

not much to compare.

If you read his post he isn't 'dissing' Sizemore. Just that the increase in one set of numbers is offset by the decrease in another.

We all like Sizemore ok? He is just not a top 3 player. And his second half doesn't exactly scream huge improvement for next year. I personally think Grady would do better going back to more plate discipline and allowing the power to come naturally. The offence will be improved adding Barfield to the 1 or 2 spot helping him out. I would like to see Grady hit 2nd, and then eventually put in the #3 hole.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 8, 2007 2:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

1B with OPS over .900:

8

CF with OPS over .900:

2

3 if you want to toss in V. Wells and his .899 OPS.

I personally think Grady would do better going back to more plate discipline and allowing the power to come naturally.>>>>

Does this even make sense to you?

The power seems to be coming just fine, and since when was a .375 OPB bad for a 23 year old?

I'm not annointing him a top 5 player, but he's being hugely underrated by people who nitpick strikeouts.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 2:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Plus...

I was replying more to your post than his post, I just hit the button for his.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 2:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I hate doing this...

3 posts in a row.

Actually, rereading his post I think I replied to both of you.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 2:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hahaha

Lefty, let's not play games with statistics.

Just because they both have OPS over 900 it doesn't mean they have similar OPS. 909 or whatever doesn't come close to 1084.

Why don't you compare CF with OPS of 909 or better with 1B with OPS of 1084 or better?

Who is saying his numbers are bad for a 23 year old? I think he is a stud player, just not at the level you think he is.

ps: I am not stupid, you don't need the "does that even make sense to you" comments.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 8, 2007 2:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I realize....

1.000 crushes .900, ny original point was that it's pretty dumb to lower a player simply because of K's.

Fact is, thats what you guys were originally doing. The idea that a 23 year old who just hit 52 2Bs, 28 HRs, and plays good CF defense isn't elite or even going to be elite because of K's is a little iffy to me.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 2:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with your argument...

that was being pointed out is that plate discipline isn't Grady's issue. You say he needs to "go back to more plate discipline" and claim he's no Ryan Howard, and yet his 2nd half was on pace for 100 walks and a K:BB ratio almost identical to Howard's.

Sizemore may not have had Howard's '06, but he WAS a 23 year old with 92 XBH's (8 more than the NL MVP). At 23, Ryan Howard was having a decent year in the Florida State League.

There's no reason not to project Sizemore as an elite power hitter in the future. Not many 23 year olds hit 50 doubles.

Top 10 Age 23 seasons, XBHs:

Hank Greenberg, Hal Trotsky 96
Albert Pujols 95
Grady Sizemore 92
Willie Mays 87
Ken Griffey, Reggie Jackson 86
Nomar Garciaparra 85
Vlad Guerrero 84

Not exactly a group of slap hitters.

by DrunkIrish on Jan 8, 2007 2:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is that...

QED yet?

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 3:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ryan Howard comps

I'm saying he doesn't have the 58 homers that Howard did to make the 180 K's seem trivial. He had the same high K's without the 58 HR's. Howard had 176 points higher OPS, that is huge. Sizemore is more of a complete hitter and with a complete hitter I would like to see lower K's.

I also predict/project Sizemore to be an elite player. I just don't think he is right now. Lets see a consolidation year. Remember people thought Peralta might be elite as well but look what happened to him.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 8, 2007 3:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hm...

I'm saying he doesn't have the 58 homers that Howard did to make the 180 K's seem trivial. He had the same high K's without the 58 HR's. Howard had 176 points higher OPS, that is huge. Sizemore is more of a complete hitter and with a complete hitter I would like to see lower K's.>>>>

So you're problem with the 23 year old CFer who hit 52 2Bs and 28 HRs is that he didn't hit 58 HRs so he isn't elite?

Considering that he posted a .375 OBP and hit for a shitload of power, what is wrong with 153 K's? Thats not even excessive in todays game, hell I probably would never have known he K'd 153 times without this thread. K'ing never hurt Jim Edmonds, or Howard, or Giambi, or the tons of other guys who have K'd alot and still managed to be amongst the elite.

Fact is, he was amongst the big leagues elite this year. It's pretty easy to say that with his age and position he was one of the top 5 OFers in the game.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 3:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

still disagree

If you look at the players I listed as elite none of them hit 58 HR's. I'm not sure you have really read what I've been saying.

He is not elite yet because of the combination of

a) his strikeouts are very high for his OPS
b) this is first year hitting for this power
c) I would like to see a consolidation year from him
d) high K's sometimes are an outlier for future problems when pitchers adjust

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 8, 2007 3:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK...

a) his strikeouts are very high for his OPS>>>>

Could you prove there is any kind of correlation to high K's and OPS? Cause thats the first I've ever heard of it. Thats a blanket statement with nothing but gut feeling to back it up.

b) this is first year hitting for this power>>>>

Which is why the 52 2Bs are a good sign. Hitters, especially young guys, who hit alot of doubles tend to 1. have more room to grow with power and 2. be less fluky with power numbers.

d) high K's sometimes are an outlier for future problems when pitchers adjust>>>>

Not when he's showing he has a good eye at the plate, and 78 walks show that. Plus, he's always shown a good eye in the minors.

Whatever you wanna call it...nitpicking...overblowing minute flaws...you're doing it.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 3:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

still disagree

It's his first year with OPS over 900 (barely) with a ton of K's - and I just want to see another year out of him. But I'm somehow nitpicking? Just because I disagree with you, you don't have to attempt to trivialize my concerns. I have a different opinion than you. That doesn't mean it's of less value or even wrong.

I see no point to continue this since we are not discussing anything. It's more of an argument and arguments are a waste of time.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 8, 2007 4:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

pedrophile is right

you other guys are wrong

mainly because you're saying "oh look at all those xbh's" when you compare sizemore to howard...well theres a BIG difference between a double and a hr and sizemore is NOT the kind of player, like howard is, who is going to explode one year and hit 50hrs...in fact, i'd say grady's game is all about doubles and while hey're nice, they're not hrs

and for the record, i was saying BILL HALL wasn't elite, not grady

by robcast23 on Jan 8, 2007 10:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Again....

horrible logic.

You don't take age, position, or anything important in this at all. All you're saying is "he strikes out alot" as if its a serious worry. It's obviously not, and there have been tons of players who are productive and K alot.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sizemore

is not ryan howard and there is NO evidence that anyone can point to that says he will be. PERIOD.

the best case you can make is that in the best case scenario grady MIGHT become carlos beltran and even beltran is probably not as valuable as howard (and i LOVE beltran)

by robcast23 on Jan 8, 2007 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

At this point...

the only people comparing Sizemore to Howard is you.

The only reason Howard is even in this thread is because you guys seem to believe that high K's matter alot.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

idk

a very simple explanation for all this is that with a lot less travis hafner in their 2nd half lineup and victor martinez taking about 10 steps backward in the power department, sizemore may have felt the need to be more of a run producer rather than a table setter, leading him to hit for more power but also to strike out more

i don't think those #'s are indicative of any huge potential for '07...not saying he can't breakout even moreso because personally i do think his #'s are going to improve this season but not because of what i see in that second half

by robcast23 on Jan 8, 2007 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no

sorry, i consider myself a pretty big sizemore fan but you're making a mountain out of a molehill

the difference between those halves is negligible...its the kind of variation you see between most players' halves throughout almost every year of their careers, because they're not all robots and they slump and surge leading to one half surpassing the other

now if you wanna talk about a budding superstar who actually did flash breakout potential based on what he showed in a single half look at david wright's first half of '06 and extrapolate that one...

by robcast23 on Jan 7, 2007 11:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Of course...

we have to keep randomnness in mind when trying to find a trend. The question is: Is the fact that Sizemore started walking drastically more a result of variation?

Batting average is greatly affected by randomness, while walks and power numbers are much less luck-driven, wouldn't you say?

by DrunkIrish on Jan 8, 2007 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no

because the increases in power and walks aren't that huge...his OBP barely went up by .025pts and his slugging not even .040pts...honestly with these slight bumps theres just as good a chance that he faced worse pitchers in the 2nd half as any sort of actual power/patience improvement on his part

by robcast23 on Jan 8, 2007 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow...

how is .025 and .037 insignificant?

Please try backing up your argument with some actual data or logic.

Theres a good chance he faced lesser pitchers? Prove it.

Not a significant improvement?

The average AL hitter hit .275/.339/.437.

If he does what Sizemore did he becomes a .275/.364/.474 hitter. Thats a huge improvement.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well

I think he means in the span of 200 or so ABs it's fairly insignificant. If you did a t-test on hist first vs. his second half I bet you'd find the difference is not statistically significant.

by limozeen on Jan 8, 2007 11:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and actually

Chi-square might be an easier test to do, though I have forgotten statistics class rather nicely.

After some browsing of the interents, I think the way to go would be to compare Sizemore's first and second half with a chi-square test.

Chi-square is calculated as X(squared)=sum of (observed frequencies-expected frequencies)^2 / expected frequencies.

For Sizemore, if we use his first half as the expected, we'd expect a .363 OBP and a .516 SLG. Since this is an average, we must calculate how many times Sizemore was on base in the second half, and compare that to the expected times he should have been on base given his first-half stats.

Sizemore had 341 (approximate, I estimated sacrifices) plate appearances in the second half. Given his first-half OBP, we'd expect Sizemore to get on base 124 times. He actually got on base 132 times.

X^2 = (132 - 124)^2 / 124 = .51

I believe this test has one degree of freedom. This falls easily within the range of statistical insignificance on the chi-square distribution.

Sizemore's first-half slugging was .516. Given his ABs in the second half, he should have had 150 TB. He actually had 161.

X^2 = (161 - 150)^2 / 150 = .81

Again, this falls easily within the range of statistical insignificance.

Since I've been out of stats for a while, I probably did something wrong in these tests, so BobbyMac and Eric Van can feel free to correct my methodology here.

by limozeen on Jan 8, 2007 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Chi-Sq test

Maong other things, it has lower power to detect a difference. It's not really what you'd want to use here, and even when it rolls up insigniciant....it carries a greater likelihood that the inability to detect a difference was due to shortcomings of the method than would another test (say, a t-test).

Nevertheless, someone had it right above, when they asked "even if the difference between the two halves is significant statistically, is a meaningful in the real world?" (paraphrasing there).

by siddfynch on Jan 9, 2007 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

question

quote:is a meaningful in the real world?

who cares about the real world, what I want to know is whether it's meaningful in roto-world where we live and breathe!

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 10, 2007 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

unpaired t-tests

I didn't really want to do that because t-tests require you to calculate s^2 which is hard :(

But in lieu of a life, I did it anyway.

Sizemore's OBP difference yields an unpaired t-test value of -.82, which corresponds to a p-value of .28 and is not statistically significant at most common confidence intervals.

Sizemore's SLG difference yields an unpaired t-test value of -.52, which corresponds to a p-value of .34 and is not statistically significant at most common confidence intervals.

Woohoo stats! Also, I have developed an unpaired t-test splits spreadsheet if anyone wants it. Want to know if Jacque Jones' lefty-righty batting average splits are statistically significant? Drop me a line, my email's in my profile.

by limozeen on Jan 10, 2007 2:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Chi-Sq

Here's a perfect application of Chi-Sq for hitting purposes, Limo:

It's a great test for seeing whether test sample conforms to an expected rate or distribution - say, whether a distribution of balls in play is even, or whether a disproportionate number are line drives (or GB, or whatever).

If there are 4 outcomes to a ball in play (GB, LD, Fly, PU - are there others? I feel like I'm missing something), then you would expect each to be hit 25% of the time. Your Chi-Sq would be used to test whether Sizemore's observed percentages were significantly different from the expected.

Of course, this is pretty obvious - it's kind of a no-brainer to say that most batters have some kind of tendency towards FB, GB, or whatever. So by extension, you could come up with the average proportion of all batters in the league (say, 33% GB, 40 FB, 20% LD, 7% PU), and use THESE as your proportions - then test to see whether Sizemore's LD rate was significantly higher than the league-normal LD rate.

This sort of thing is pretty much exactly what the Chi Sq excels at.

by siddfynch on Jan 10, 2007 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

instead

I think instead of league average proportions you would do better to classify different types of hitters with their proportions then put Sizemore in his grouping and see how he fits. Power hitters, line drive hitters, slap hitters, speed players, etc.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 10, 2007 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i don't need logic or data

this is plain old common sense type stuff...over the course of 200+ more ab's .025 is not a significant difference, its just not and i hate to say it but if you think it is you're wrong

i wasn't even trying to say sizemore faced worse pitching, my point is that just the fact that worse pitching could have accounted for jumps of those magnitude makes the jumps themselves too insignificant to chalk up to bigtime development...thats really the only logic i can impart because this is such a fundamental concept...though if you do need more statistical proof see limozeens post above

by robcast23 on Jan 8, 2007 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You are making a good point...

so you shouldn't abase it by fudging the numbers. Grady had ~340 PAs after the break, that's 291 ABs. Of course we all know that a portion of ABs that size has to be viewed with regard to sample size. We've all heard the 'sample size' refrain that statheads like to sing--I do it quite often myself.

The tough question is--can anything be gathered from a 340 PA sample? It's easy to say no, but it's also foolish.

Sizemore's walk rate increased 47% after the break. You say, "he had 8 more walks, big deal", but aren't straightforward enough to say that those 8 additional walks came in 70 fewer PAs. The argument of "random fluctuation" is also less applicable when it comes to walk rate, as it is much more stable than other rate stats such as batting average and power.

When looking at the concurrent rise in his walk rate (47%), his XBH rate (19%), and even his K rate (20%), it's hard to argue that his improvement was solely fluctuation and not a change in ability or hitting approach. I'd love to see the before/after splits on his P/PA, but I can't find a site that lists that stat for anything but a full season. The only data we have to go on is that Sizemore increased his P/PA by 6% from '05-'06, moving him from "average" to one of the top 30 hitters in baseball in that category. Groundbreaking? Maybe not. Interesting? Definitely.

Fun Sizemore fact gathered while looking at stats: He grounded into 2 double plays in '06.

by DrunkIrish on Jan 8, 2007 6:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Grady

I love Sizemore's game. You could make an arguement that he is one of the top 3 all around players in the game. Hits for average,gets on base, hits for power, great speed, very good defense at a premier position. I am not sure of his arm, probably at least average? I think I have a man crush on him.

by yankee1 on Jan 8, 2007 1:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Top 3?

I'd probably take Beltran, ARod, Miguel Cabrera, Mauer, David Wright, Pujols, A.Ramirez, Utley before Grady. And then I still less rounded players like Papi, Howard, Hafner more.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 8, 2007 1:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Most

I'd agree with most of those, except probably Utley and Aramis Ramirez. But the kid is going to be a stud for sure.

Rios is the next Juan Gonzales, thats right, I said it.

by KaoticKlown on Jan 8, 2007 2:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When he hits...

his prime these are the guys who I think will have the same or more value:

M. Cabrera
D. Wright
J. Mauer

I'm sorry but power hitting CFers who can actually play CF are as rare as it can get.

He could end up being the new Jim Edmonds, except I'll like him alot more and I think his cieling could exceed even that.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 2:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

more

I just did it off the top of my head. But lets add to that list for 3 years from now.

Pujols - come on, how could you omit him?
Beltran
M.Cabrera
Mauer
Wright
Delmon
G.Matthews Jr. - Joking
ARod - still will be better
Reyes
Crawford - probably around the same level

Other possibilities
Gordon
McCann
H.Ramirez
Zimmerman

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 8, 2007 2:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Whoa...

He's done ALOT more than half those guys, though my most glaring omission is Jose Reyes. I'd throw McCann out there if he is close to the hitter he was last year.

Can't believe I forgot Pujols. Then again, as a Cubs fan I hope this year we find out he's really 33.

After that I see those guys hoping to become as good as Sizemore just was.

And believe me this is coming from a big Gordon/Zimmerman fan.

Hanley COULD be, but I would like to see what he does next year. Delmon just hasn't shown the skillset I like in hitters, though I do think he'll be a very good player.

ARod in 5 years will be 36. Considering this guy at 23 just put up a .900 OPS in CF, in 5 years I think he'll be far more valuable than ARod.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 3:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ok ok

slow down...you're SO willing to buy into his development and you keep saying its because he had a .900+ OPS in his age 23 season

well i can think of a certain cleveland indian who did that very same thing and you don't seem to be hyping him...i'm talking about jhonny peralta and in his age 23 season his OPS was like 20 pts lower than gradys...so does that mean that in a few years hes going to be better than arod? probably not because that is NOT a guarantee of some sort of amazing development to come...in fact, that case would worry me a little because sizemore, like peralta, seems to have a problem with strikeouts

also, i take sizemore over anyone on that 2nd list but he said those were just maybes...on the definite list theres no one who sizemore has an edge on...in fact you should probably throw howard on that list since he'll still only be 29 in 3 yrs

by robcast23 on Jan 8, 2007 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

lefty splits

Anyone else concerned that he hasn't hit lefties in two years? He's young and might correct that and he destroys righties but might this hold him back eventually?

by Team Moneyball on Jan 8, 2007 1:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well...

one idea I've heard is that since you're much more likely to see a RH pitcher than a lefty it takes a left handed hitter a little bit longer.

See, you see very few good left handed pitchers in the low minors or really before maybe AA. Thats going to lengthen the amount of time it takes to get used to seeing pitches thrown from that side.

Not directed at you:

Seriously, would no one take that kind of sick production from their 23 year old CFer?

Seems like little nitpicks are dragging down one of the games best young players on this site.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 2:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

stud

Grady is a stud. The only CF I'd take before him is Beltran.

by doublestix on Jan 8, 2007 2:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

we all know hes great and i agree he is, the only CF i take over him is beltran...but theres a difference between "dragging down" a player and tempering completely unjustified expectations of him becoming the best player in baseball...especially when his potential development is being cited on a 2nd half that was not all that the poster is cracking it up to be

by robcast23 on Jan 8, 2007 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Again I ask....

why is the improvement in the second half not a big deal?

More walks and more power, but more K's so not really?

Again, that doesn't fit.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

because

its such a small difference that you can't automatically call it improvement...so he had 8 more walks, big deal, maybe he faced danny cabrera a couple more times in the 2nd half

his SLG didn't even go up by .040 pts...that is NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL...maybe he faced sidney ponson a couple times in he second half...its not like theres this HUGE difference between first and second halves

and lets say fine those very slight bumps in his numbers do mean he improved...fine, his walks go up, thats good, but then the strikeouts go down, thats bad...his power goes up, thats good, his total hits goes way down, thats bad...theres no 1 huge factor that you can point to in that 2nd half and say "WOW hes going blow up even more next year"

look at someone like nick markakis for a player who may breakout based only on the numbers in his 2nd half...but sizemores halves are relatively the same which is why you can't say hes going to dwarf his '06 numbers in '07...not saying hes not a stud because all hes got to do is match those numbers and hes approaching the top 10 players in the league but thers nothing you can point to and say that hes going to explode even more

by robcast23 on Jan 8, 2007 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Grady v. Ray Ray

Obviously, Grady looks like he's on the way up, but he's always sort of reminded me of Ray Lankford, in that they both hit lefty, play outstanding defense in CF, steal bases (Lankford more, obviously), and are very strong offensive players despite their strikeouts. Grady looks to be ahead of him in power, but Lankford a) was constantly missing time with little injuries, and b) started his career in what has to be considered another era, in a tough park in which to hit. Unlike Ray Lankford, I don't think Sizemore will be lacking for notoriety!

We'll see if Sizemore leaves Lankford in his "dust". It could happen. But if so, that's almost certainly a HOF-type career.

by BobbyMac on Jan 8, 2007 5:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sizemore

Sizemore is just about the most valuable position player in the AL right now, if you ask me. At perhaps the 4th rarest position, he plays excellent defense, gets on base, hits for power and average, and runs extremely well on the basepaths. Oh yeah, he's 24 and controllable. Obviously you have to consider other young guys like Mauer, Morneau, and Teixeira, but Sizemore's definately in the conversation.

I am always a little leery of players with high strikeout totals and high AVGs, and like pedrophile I think I need another season to truly believe in Grady's batting average. But the 55% XBH/H% in the second half shows that he drives the ball HARD. Some guys strike out a lot and still have high averages, there is no doubt about that. Not to mention he's still in his early 20s, and I have no problem believing that he will cut down on his strikeouts at least a little as he matures, if he wants to take that approach.

Not to mention he's an underrated roto player, even in leagues without a CF position.

by limozeen on Jan 8, 2007 9:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well...

he did have a .342 BABIP, which helped his average alot.

But thats offset by the fact that he hits the ball very hard when he makes contact, increasing the likelihood for hits.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 8, 2007 10:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

I believe in exceptional players at the MLB level more than at the minor league level. Ex: Josh Fields or Cam Maybin has a .342+ BABIP and I'm worried. Grady Sizemore has a .342 BABIP (and a similarly high one of .335 the year before) and I'm thinking he's an exceptional player with great ball-driving ability. And this is backed up by his exceptional XBH/H% and LD%.

I still need another year to truly believe in Sizemore's .290 average though. There's a good chance he might be more of a .270-.280 hitter if he keeps striking out 22-25% of the time.

by limozeen on Jan 8, 2007 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jumping on

I know that many here are heavy on K/BB, OPS, XBH %, LD %, etc and with good reason.

But one thing that gets over looked is Grady's ability to score runs. He had 134 in 06, and 111 in 05. Yes, I realize that runs are determinate of many different factors but some guys have the ability to cross the plate at a higher rate than others.

While scoring runs doesn't create a superstar, I'd have to up Grady's stock if he can continue crossing the plate at a rate of 120 times per season.

Mop Up Duty

3 writers & daily updates on a wide range of baseball topics, including prospects.

by TheK on Jan 8, 2007 2:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

hmm

You have to wonder if his Runs are more a product of having two of baseball's best hitter close behind him in the order.

by limozeen on Jan 8, 2007 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but

Yes, but in the years Damon played with the Red Sox and even last season with the Yankees (115), he hasn't scored as many as 134 runs.

Mop Up Duty

3 writers & daily updates on a wide range of baseball topics, including prospects.

by TheK on Jan 8, 2007 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

By this logic

Someone should create a team of 9 leadoff hitters. Just think of all the runs they'd score! ;-)

by Yakker on Jan 8, 2007 7:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

they would have 1500 runs scored and 400 rbis. Somehow this is possible.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 8, 2007 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

how

how you ask? they will have 1100 steals of home. It's possible.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 8, 2007 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

High K's

Lefty, why don't you think high K's matter?
quote:The only reason Howard is even in this thread is because you guys seem to believe that high K's matter alot.

I can give two examples why they matter.

A strikeout doesn't advance the runner. A groundout, lineout, or flyout can advance the runner. Not just to score runs but to move runners along. Obviously stats would have a difficult time showing this but we all know it matters. Why is it so important to have high K setup men? Because they can go into situations with inherited runners and strand them. Bases loaded, man on third, no outs - who do you bring in? The guy who gets k's, not necessarily the guy with the flashy ERA. And you would rather face 3 Grady Sizemores than 3 Polancos. You have a chance to strikeout the Sizemores, with the Polancos a run will be scored. Every time.
They can be a warning or future indicator. If Grady continues to put the same numbers up with the same K's but the same other numbers I would be comfortable calling him an elite player.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 8, 2007 6:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Reason #3

A strikeout by definition does not put the ball in play, so the hitter has fewer potential hits.

by limozeen on Jan 8, 2007 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reason #4

I don't have stats but have a gut feeling that strikeout hitters do worse against the better pitchers than non-strikeout hitters.

The reason I guess this is that the pitchers that actually strike guys out are typically the best pitchers. Which would lead me to think when a guy strikes out 160 times they are getting eaten up by the better pitchers.

Which is why you hear of guys like Sheffield as one of the most feared hitters. He doesn't get 50 homers or the most RBIs. But he strikes out so little and the best pitchers are afraid of him. Look at Barry also.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 8, 2007 7:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That is true I'm sure

Just watch Granderson hit.

by limozeen on Jan 8, 2007 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I've done a lot of thinking on this exact topic...

over the years, and I would advise a little caution in the conclusion that high-K pitchers are less effective against good pitchers.

The very-low-K strikeout batters are MUCH more likely to make something happen on a good pitch (I believe Placido Polanco is a lot more valuable than most people think, for this reason). It's so important because anywhere in a sequence, he can swing and be almost equally likely to make something happen than at any other time in the sequence
But there are several general keys to pitching, from what I can tell - how often a pitcher makes good pitches, and how good those good pitches are when they are "made", and then finally, how bad the "non-made" pitches are. There are some pitchers without good stuff (in the scouting sense of the word), that Ichiro could pretty much play tennis with, stroking every pitch the mediocre pitcher can make wherever Ichiro wants it to go. (I see that Ichiro's highest BA's with 15+ PA against are: Kevin Gregg, Aaron Sele, Sidney Ponson - I think they qualify as not having "great stuff").
Meanwhile, when a "guess" hitter (as most high-K batters are) guesses right, and the pitcher - no matter how good - doesn't make "his pitch", bad things can happen, even to a very good pitcher. So, looking at Preston Wilson, who's a lesser version of the stars we're talking about here, but has some offensive value despite huge K rates... his top 5 sluggings against are: B.H.Kim (which almost has to be something about him in specific, as PW's hit .706 against him career), Andy Benes, Steve Trachsel, Woody Williams, Brad Penny. I would dare say that 4 of those guys have nasty "stuff" (if you include Trachsel's curve).

I haven't ever really figured out how to frame a good study on this, and I just picked Ichiro and Wilson off the top of my head, so they may not be at all representative. But I really think it's true that super-high K hitters don't get destroyed by the better pitchers any more than anyone else (or at least not too much worse). If they did, I think that the stats-minded teams would have tried harder to get low-K hitters to help with playoff success.

by BobbyMac on Jan 9, 2007 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well....

they also decrease the possibility of a double play.

The fact is a strikeout is only an out, just another way to make an out. Considering he had a very strong K:BB ratio, which tells you far more about a hitter, I don't see the significance.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 9, 2007 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Too simple

What you're failing to grasp is that an out on a ball put in play had a .280-.350 chance of becoming a hit (depending on the hitter) while a strikeout had NO chance of becoming a hit. Or an error for that matter.

Linear weights (and all other legitimate measures) show that the negative value of a strikeout is worse than outs on balls in play regardless of that -- in other words, the advantages of putting the ball in play (advancing runners) outweigh the disadvantages (double plays).

For these reasons, a strikeout is not just "any other out." Strikeouts aren't as big for hitters as they are for pitchers, but they do have a correlation to lower batting averages and they are more detrimental than other types of outs.

by limozeen on Jan 9, 2007 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

plus

gradys got the speed to naturally avoid dp's as is evidenced by the 2 he grounded into last season...so really theres little to no value in that 'avoiding the DP' argument for strikeouts

by robcast23 on Jan 9, 2007 8:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

more Grady

The whole topic is about the 2nd half an outlier to a breakout.

What trend do you see here?

Month 2B HR OBP SLG
April 7 1 361 798
May 5 8 397 1023
June 11 6 387 996
July 10 1 387 812
August 13 4 344 862
September 7 8 386 983

The trends I see:

The OBP actually went down in the second half. You probably used the all-star instead of the actual halfway point.
HR rate had no real trend other than being very streaky. More homers in the first half but not a big deal to me because of streaky behaviour.
2B rate had a 3 month stretch where it was high, just happened that one of those 3 months was in first half and two in the second.
SLG actually went down in the second half!
picking your halfway point as the all-star break gives the trend of him doing better in the 2nd half. Picking the halfway point as the actual halfway shows him doing worse in the 2nd half.

Do you need any more proof that those numbers are now useless and show actually no trend at all?

He was NOT better in the 2nd half. And he was a streaky player so you really need to look at him over a longer period. Especially more than one year.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 8, 2007 7:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Please...

realize this is true of ANY hitter.

It's a 162 game season.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 9, 2007 12:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

By that I mean...

you can nitpick little "flaws" like that all the time.

Joe Mauer hit .378 in the first half, and .311 in the second half (using the All Star).

All hitters can be considered "streaky" because no one is going to ALWAYS be at their best.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 9, 2007 12:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What are you talking about?

You again mention nitpick. You also mention flaw or no flaw. My post has nothing to do with supposed flaws.

The topic is 100% about Grady breaking out based on a stronger second half. By showing the month by month statistics I actually show his second half is weaker.

This completely proves the premise wrong.

End of story.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 9, 2007 2:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What...

exactly does the second half have to do with him breaking out? His season as a whole says alot. 52 2Bs are a sign there is more growth for HR power, the increase in walks from 2005 is a good sign, his high LD% and growing paitence at the plate also help him hit for good average. His K's are a SMALL worry, but hardly something to actually be worried about.

And how is the fact that he made himself a top 2 CFer in all of baseball not considered "breakout" anyway?

The fact that Duke Snider is listed as his closest comp. on baseballreference says alot about this guys future.

by SenorGato88 on Jan 9, 2007 3:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well

the original poster himself wrote this diary as a focus on sizemore's 2nd half "improvements" leading to a possible breakout in '07

yes, it was a great year by grady and i would DEFINITELY say he broke out this year...but the poster (and you too) were arguing that he was going to blow up even more based just on what he did in that 2nd half and i think just about every post to this point has proven you and him wrong

nobodys saying hes not great...maybe he is the next duke snider, i'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt because i'm a huge grady fan...but we're all saying that his 2nd half isn't an indicator of anything, not improvement, not decline...accept it

by robcast23 on Jan 9, 2007 8:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs