The Offseason Baseball Thread

[Imran Siddiqui]

All stats from:

http://www.baseballreference.com

cabrera played all 162 games

Wrong. He played in 161 in 2004. Perhaps a game fell by the wayside during the trade.

cabrera had 11 RBIs in the postseason

Correct. Renteria had 7, which isn't bad at all, especially in the WS, no one in front of him got on base (he did hit .333 in that series).

cabrera batted over .300 with the sox

Wrong! He batted .294 with a .320 OBP with Boston. And that was in a Batter's Park (Park Factors - 106/105). Renteria hit .284 but with a .327 OBP in a Pitcher's Park (Park Factors - 97/97)

cabrera turned more double plays

Actually both had 92 DPs last year. If you take Cabrera's DP numbers in Boston and extrapolate them over a 162 game schedule ([23 DP/57 Games] * 162 Games) you get 65.3 Double Plays. MUCH worse.

cabrera had a higher FP

Wrong! Renteria had a .983 Fielding %, Cabrera had a .966 Fielding % in Boston and a year long FP of .978.

Ie, he played MUCH better defense in Montreal than in Boston.

cabrera had higher OBP after park adjustment

Renteria had .007 higher OBP playing in a pitchers park, while Cabrera was in a hitters park.

cabrera had higher SLUG after park adjustment.

Correct! But only when Cabrera was in Boston.

no one knew how good cabrera was until he came to the sox.

Cabrera may have had a 97 OPS+ with Boston last year, but with Montreal last year he had a 68 OPS+. The year before he had a 95 OBP+ and the year before 84 OPS+. Hardly All-Star totals.

Last year Renteria had an off year with an OPS+ of only 90. BUT in 2003, he had an OPS+ of 131 and in 2002, an OPS+ of 116.

And in WinShares (from www.hardballtimes.com), Renteria had 17 last year. Cabrera had 5 in Boston for 57 games. Extrapolating out to 162 games, that's a total of 14 for Cabrera's best streach compared to Renteria's off year.

Face it. Renteria is a better player.

PWNED

[BustaMike]

You and your so called 'evidence'. Stop using stats and facts. It's not fair to LoA.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Ming]

Originally posted by BustaMike
Stop using stats and facts. It's not fair to LoA.

But he's right... Renteria is the better player. I'd take him any time over Cabrera

Just watching them through the season, it was obvious... and the facts and stats just prove it

[-Jrabbit]

Re the Nationals -- If they want to move them to Las Vegas, there's a problem. Vegas does not have anything remotely approaching a ML ballpark. They'd have to build one almost overnight. (Of course, Vegas is probably the one town where that could happen.)

More likely scenario is a year in RFK with the DC govt wising up and getting on board. If they don't, it triggers MLB's ability to contract -- 2 teams could be disappeared in 2006, with the MLBPA having no say in the matter.

[Arrian]

Cabrera is a good player, by the way. But one gets the impression that if the Boston Red Sox employed Rey Ordonez as their SS, LoA would claim he's a great hitter, and clearly a superior player to [insert any other SS here].

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, that's the funny part. I can understand saying you'd rather have Cabrera because he'd cost less (not by much, he's asking $7 Mil a year) or because of his age (but Renteria is a year younger), but saying he's better outright? What?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

stats are only 1/10 of the equation. the other nine parts are what i say.

still bitter imran, that im right on college football?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're wrong on college football and you're wrong on baseball. I wonder if you've ever been right on anything?

[monkspider]

Vegas has a AAA stadium they could use until they had a proper one built.

[Arrian]

Why can't the Nationals just play at RFK? Seriously. I know it's old (sorta) and I know it's not a baseball-only stadium. SO ****ING WHAT!?

By the way, in general I'm totally on the side of the city. Teams should *not* get public funding for their stadiums.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

By the way, in general I'm totally on the side of the city. Teams should *not* get public funding for their stadiums.

Then they have to right to go somewhere else.

People buy teams. They shouldn't have to buy the package of a stadium in order to own a team.

[monkspider]

I think it has more to do with breaking the agreement that they had with the MLB than anything. MLB doesn't take kindly to such things.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well that doesn't help . I'm sure that is the main reason that Selig and co are pissed. If the council doesn't hold another vote, the Washington Nationals are dead. They've stopped all operations already.

[Ming]

MLB telling the Nationals to stop all promotional activities is the "shot across the bow" for Washington DC. The message has been sent... approve what you said you would, or you lose. It's that simple.

[Arrian]

If they made a deal and backed out, hey, it's on them. I just don't think they should have made such a deal in the first place.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

But they did... and that's why MLB picked Washington over other sites. If you think about it, what Washington did right now was unfair to Northern Virginia, Portland, and the other sites.

[Arrian]

Like I said, they made the deal and backed up, and that's BS. Shouldn't have made it in the first place, but once done, stick to it or face the consecuences.

MLB can put the team somewhere else, sure. Not that the other markets are all that good...

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well other markets seem like they are more committed to baseball.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Then they have to right to go somewhere else.

People buy teams. They shouldn't have to buy the package of a stadium in order to own a team.

Wait, "people buy teams" but the public needs to be responsible for building the infrastructure so that a private entity can use its purchase??

Well, I want to move to buy a theater company-the City better pay to build the new theater for me

[Arrian]

Meh. What a cluster****!

Well, the upside is that dirty bloodsucker over in Baltimore won't get all those concessions now.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

"people buy teams" but the public needs to be responsible for building the infrastructure so that a private entity can use its purchase??

When other cities are willing to build an infrastructure that the team can use? Yeah, if they want to keep the team.

I want to move to buy a theater company-the City better pay to build the new theater for me

And are there other communities that will entirely finance your new theater that you can move to if the city says no?


There are plenty of cities out there that want a professional baseball team so bad that in order to entice one, you need to have the same level of committment. Keep up with the Joneses, so to speak.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well other markets seem like they are more committed to baseball.

That's a tough call. If basketball and hockey are analagous (and for these purposes, they seem to be), there are many instances of cities bending over backwards to get relocating franchises only to have little real support. Classic examples include Vancouver first getting the Grizzlies, then the move of that team to Memphis and the Hartford Whalers moving to Carolina.

[GePap]

Well, good for DC is no wasting their money on silly stadiums. Let some other city be a sucker.

I just hope said lesson is applied here in NYC. We have better things to spend 600 Million on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

NYC is most definitely going to build a new stadium, or two. They won't let Steinny go to New Jersey or Long Island with his park. It benefits the town too much.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kontiki
That's a tough call. If basketball and hockey are analagous (and for these purposes, they seem to be), there are many instances of cities bending over backwards to get relocating franchises only to have little real support. Classic examples include Vancouver first getting the Grizzlies, then the move of that team to Memphis and the Hartford Whalers moving to Carolina.

I'd actually say the other sites may have had more fan support than Washington. Washington, for one, was a symphathetic choice, being the capital and a place where baseball was twice before. I would think Northern Virginia would have been a much better choice, personally. Same general metro area, but more support from the suburbanites in North Virginia.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I'd actually say the other sites may have had more fan support than Washington. Washington, for one, was a symphathetic choice, being the capital and a place where baseball was twice before. I would think Northern Virginia would have been a much better choice, personally. Same general metro area, but more support from the suburbanites in North Virginia.

I'd agree with you about Northern Virginia. I always had reservations about Portland, though. Never struck me as a baseball city.

[Arrian]

Despite Rob Neyer's campaigning, eh?

Not that I read his stuff anymore, now that it's not free

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Does Portland has a minor league team?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Does Portland has a minor league team?

I'm pretty sure they do. But so does Vancouver. The two cities are pretty similar when it comes to professional sports, from what I can tell. Very laid back, outdoorsy cities that are almost identical in size. Both do a good job supporting one major league team (Canucks and 'Blazers, respectively) but probably not alot of serious interest in another, especially one that looks at stadium-sized draws instead of arena-sized ones.

Just my opinion, anyway.