Longoria/Gordon/Zimmerman

by TexasHeat on Jan 7, 2008 11:52 AM EST Comment 16 comments

Ok guys, I have all 3 of these guys. Is Gordon's potential still as high as Longoria's? Is Zimmerman's ceiling anything like the other 2 guys? If you were trying to win in 09' who would be your guy? Not talking anything with salaries or anything like that, just who would you want? Keep in mind that Zimmerman is 7 mo's younger than Gordon and has had 2 years better already at that age than than Gordon put up last year. I've also heard that the new park in DC wasnt going to be an issue for hitters, meaning pretty average i guess. Thanks for the input, if there is any.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Just FYI

The new DC park should still be pitcher-friendly. It's right on the Anacostia, and that part of town is extremely humid during the summer.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 7, 2008 11:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Humidity

I read that humidity actually increases fly ball distance.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/scientificslugger.html

Turkey for me please. No, I am all set on stuffing.

by Hot Lunch on Jan 7, 2008 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think that's wrong for multiple reasons

First, there would be MORE air resistance if the air is humid (not less as that link assumes) since added water vapor would make the air denser (and thus there would be more resistance; more particles = more resistance, which is why those three factors have an effect). Second, having the balls stored in an area with humid air makes the balls a bit less elastic (the humidor effect). Third, because those balls contain more water, they are heavier and drop sooner (the other part of the humidor effect).

Honestly, that just looks like a typo in the link. Or you might have been being sarcastic and pointing to a link with an obvious dumb mistake.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 7, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the link worked for me...

and i went through quite a bit of what turned out to be a pretty cool website.

the humidity explanation is this. for every molecule of water in the air, you're adding two atoms of hydrogen, which is less dense than the air it displaces (which made it the gas of choice for lighter than air craft until the hindenberg disaster).

the humidity in the air equation is negligible, however, as a the added advantage to the flight of a ball in 80% humidity vs 0% is about a 1% improvement. also, one must remember that this is while the water is in a vaporous state. if it is in liquid form, as rain, then the ball will definitely be impeded.

http://www.simdynasty.com/index.jsp?refer=mychiefs58

by huckleberry on Jan 7, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gotcha, thanks

Still, I think the fact that the balls are stored in someplace so humid will favor pitchers. I guess we'll have a good gauge by midseason. I suspect it will still play to pitchers, just not as heavily as RFK did.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 7, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

humidity

if the balls were identical, the one hit in humid air would indeed go further, because the air would be less dense (H2O weighs 18 g/mol, compared to dry air at 29 g/mol) and therefore air drag would be less. but the issue of balls being stored in humid conditions is a big one. unless the ball is vacuum-sealed until right before the pitcher throws it, it will have time to soak up moisture from the air and thus get heavier and less elastic; that's precisely why they store the balls in a humidor at coors field. this is a significantly bigger effect than the one involving air resistance.

by jpahk on Jan 7, 2008 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ruh Ruh

Someone broke out Avogadro's number. Try calling avogadro's number sometime. I'm sure the recipient of the call will be dumbfounded when you tell them that their phone number is the number of atoms in a mole.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 7, 2008 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gordon's potential

Is higher than Longoria's or Zimmerman's. What Gordon did in AA in 2006 is pretty comparable to what Longoria did between AA and AAA in 2007, the biggest differences being that Longoria was a year younger, but had an extra year of pro experience (Gordon went straight to AA out of college, so his extra year of age shouldn't really be held against him). I think both Longoria and Gordon are ahead of Zimmerman, at least offensively.

Since this is for fantasy purposes, you should also take into account Gordon's baserunning, which should be good for 15-20 steals in his prime.

In 2009, Gordon will have the best season of those three. He has the best tools, and he'll have more experience than Longoria, who will only be playing in his second year in the big leagues. Zimmerman should have a decent year, and I'd rank him second in 2009, but Gordon should be tops pretty easily.

by ajohnst1 on Jan 7, 2008 11:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

IMHO

Gordon=Longoria, with Zim trailing these two slightly. If you have to get rid of 1 or 2 of them, I would suggest:

Do your homework on the new stadium and try to get a handle on how it will affect performance,
Look at trading Zim first because he will probably bring the best results back due to track record, then Longoria because he will be rated at 1 or near 1 prospect and hasn't gone through the nearly universal "bad" first MLB year. I also think that long term, Gordon's team will be the best offensively, because I have a lot of faith in the Royal's GM. As they say "In Dayton We Trust".

Anyway, it's IMHO. You ask 6 people this question and you will get 6 different answers.

by Yoda on Jan 7, 2008 11:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I would

move to a deeper league, myself. Three All-Star quality prospects at one position? That's crazy.

by Flynn Blake on Jan 7, 2008 12:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

well

one of those situations where in our drafts we alomost always go best available, and it just seemed that 3b's feel to us.

by TexasHeat on Jan 7, 2008 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Give me

Zimmerman. I don't see how you could regret him, being that his floor is probably the lowest of the three (I say this because we haven't seen Longoria take a major league swing yet and because Gordon had a disappointing rookie year). Zimmerman has already posted two strong years at a young age. I go with Zimmerman and deal the other two, who should both have very good trade value.

Carlos Gonzalez--I liked him better when it was Gonzales.

by PujolsJunkie on Jan 7, 2008 1:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

re

The Lowest floor would not be a complement. Do you mean Highest Floor?

Low Floor = not so good
High Floor = good for risk averse
Low Ceiling = Limited payoff
High Ceiling = Big payoff

by McLovin on Jan 7, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

I obviously meant highest floor. MY BAAAAAD.

Carlos Gonzalez--I liked him better when it was Gonzales.

by PujolsJunkie on Jan 7, 2008 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Trade Gordon

I would deal Gordon I think...mostly based on the return value you should get. If I remember correctly, Zimm didnt have a great season last year so I think his value would be low.

While Longoria will be a stud...there would be risk for anyone dealing for him if he were looking at next season.

I think dealing Gordon would get you the most return...he is starting his second season...and while he didnt light it up either last year, a lot of that could be written off to adjusting to the big leagues...he is still carrying over the "2nd coming tag".

I would deal Gordon...play Zimmerman and wait until Longoria comes up then reevaluate the two.

by SoCal on Jan 7, 2008 3:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs