What Baltimore (whatever that means) feels isn't relevant. What's relevant is reality. Dealing Gibbons offers no net gain, because what you add in pitching you subtract in pitching. In fact, it's probably a net loss, because Gibbons hits better than most people the Orioles would end up replacing his at bats with, while it's unlikely he would bring a pitcher substantially better than they are likely to get from Ainsworth, Dubose, or Riley.
As for Perez, he's had one year where he was a good pitcher. Every other year he's been a much worse than average pitcher in the major leagues. I'm inclined to trust the 3 years he's stunk more than the one year he was good, especially so because the one year he was good occurred when he had an unusually low number of hits off of him, which are much more likely to be partially explained by defense or luck.
Garrett Anderson isn't going to be available. The Angels are going to re-sign him. They have begun contract talks right now and have said they are waiting for GA to get back from his current injury that has kept him out of the entire spring. They said if his injury isn't long term then they will re-sign him. Moreno isn't letting Anderson leave. If anything Glaus will leave next year.
John Bonzo wrote:I think it would be pretty bad. In Baltimore, he is looking at being in a great lineup and a good hitters park. In LA, it would be a terrible lineup and a terrible hitters park. Off the top of my head, I would cut his HR and RBI projections by 33%.
It's not a great hitter's park.
I said it is a good hitters park (not great), but you're right...it is a pretty neutral park. 318 down the right line isnt bad for a lefty like Gibbons, but it does jut out towards center.
I still think that moving to LA would be pretty bad for Gibbons (though like everyone else i seriously doubt it will happen). He would probably hit after Green, and add to that the fact that LA was the least run-producing team in the majors last season (and they havent changed the lineup much this season), and I see Gibbon's RBIs dropping considerably in LA.
b) If it's true that the Dodgers were actually offered Maggs for Jackson and refused then they are even more stupid than I had previously suspected.
Bluto: Over? Did you say over? NOTHING is over until WE decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? HELL, NO!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
John Bonzo wrote:I said it is a good hitters park (not great), but you're right...it is a pretty neutral park. 318 down the right line isnt bad for a lefty like Gibbons, but it does jut out towards center.
I still think that moving to LA would be pretty bad for Gibbons (though like everyone else i seriously doubt it will happen). He would probably hit after Green, and add to that the fact that LA was the least run-producing team in the majors last season (and they havent changed the lineup much this season), and I see Gibbon's RBIs dropping considerably in LA.
It's not even neutral. Camden Yards has generally had a 5-10 precent negative effect on offensive stats, except for HRs, where it tends to boost them. I agree that LA would be even worse, for both ballpark and team offense reasons, but am on a mission to correct the widespread belief that Camden Yards boost offense.
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:What Baltimore (whatever that
means) feels isn't relevant. What's relevant is reality. Dealing Gibbons offers no net gain, because what you add in pitching you subtract in pitching. In fact, it's probably a net loss, because Gibbons hits better than most people the Orioles would end up replacing his at bats with, while it's unlikely he would bring a pitcher substantially better than they are likely to get from Ainsworth, Dubose, or Riley.
I dont think Dubose or Riley have show a lot either
As for Perez, he's had one year where he was a good pitcher. Every other year he's been a much worse than average pitcher in the major leagues. I'm inclined to trust the 3 years he's stunk more than the one year he was good, especially so because the one year he was good occurred when he had an unusually low number of hits off of him, which are much more likely to be partially explained by defense or luck.
Well lets take in consideration that Perez never had a full injury free season with the Braves. So in 2 years with the Dodgers he has been dominant once and irregular the other. He was quite dominant in 2002 and i saw a lot of the games and it wasnt luck. The next year he´´s had very good games followed by disasters. Leads me to believe he ´s better than last year. A good number 3 pitcher
"Nothing is this world worth remembering was ever accomplished without Pasion"-Hegel
Anonymous wrote:it would take TWO Gibbons' to equal the potential of Edwin Jackson.
get ready for a BIG year from Kurt Ainsworth...he'll be the ace of the staff by June.
POTENTIAL.. gibbons has already made it, driven in his 100 RBI's and hit his 25 dingers. Sure jackson may be the next great mound dweller, but hes not even the top pitching prospect in my opinion, Greinke has him beat in my eyes.
KULCAT wrote: Well lets take in consideration that Perez never had a full injury free season with the Braves. So in 2 years with the Dodgers he has been dominant once and irregular the other. He was quite dominant in 2002 and i saw a lot of the games and it wasnt luck. The next year he´´s had very good games followed by disasters. Leads me to believe he ´s better than last year. A good number 3 pitcher
I don't understand why people think that injuries are an excuse rather than a signal. The appropriate response to seeing a player who is only good when healthy and is not often healthy is "Hmm, then it is likely that he will continue to have injuries and not be good," rather than "Hmm, his past injury history is likely to disappear and he'll be healthy and good in the future"
As for his performance, there is very clear evidence already shown that pitchers have only modest ability to control the number of hits (other than homers) that they surrender. Batting average on balls in play (events other than HRs, Ks, and BBs) is not strongly correlated from year to year in pitchers, which is a strong sign that it is heavily dependent on team fielding ability and random events that pitchers can't control. Perez's one good year is marked by markedly lower number of hits surrendered, which the evidence suggests is not likely to repeat itself often. His true talent appears to be more like 5-15% below average. That's consistent with the fact that his K/9 and HR/9 are just barely above average, despite the fact that more than 2/3rds of his innings pitched are in one of the best parks for pitching in the majors.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by GotowarMissAgnes » Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:06 pm 
/charlie3.gif)
