Comments on: Average First Baseman

By: RichardRich

RichardRich — Tue, 17 May 2011 04:46:17 +0000

He is getting pitched around big time right now he has 2 IBB this week.

By: Hugecardsfan

Hugecardsfan — Tue, 17 May 2011 04:36:09 +0000

My goodness, the guy who refuses to walk just did 3 times tonight. His walk average is now probably above career norm. Horrors.

By: Hugecardsfan

Hugecardsfan — Sat, 14 May 2011 15:13:15 +0000

Pardon me but our numbers don’t match up. In 1916 Ruth had 136 AB’s. 10 BB’s vs 8 BB’s in 126 at bats for Adams is not a 50% higher rate… In fact IT IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

By: Cardinals645

Cardinals645 — Sat, 14 May 2011 02:33:50 +0000

Maybe Hamilton could be some sort of 2nd division starter if he was platooned to protect him against lefties, but I’m not sure how that helps the Cardinals. It’s not like we need a new first baseman at the moment. Maybe if Pujols doesn’t re-sign, Hamilton could be platooned with Craig at first, but it’s not a situation I’d be overly excited about.

By: rangerick1234

rangerick1234 — Fri, 13 May 2011 18:13:45 +0000

No. The human element.

By: Gruntosaurus

Gruntosaurus — Fri, 13 May 2011 16:52:51 +0000

Beer.

Apology accepted, but as far as I am concerned, this conversation is closed. The facts are out there. They are supported by history, statistics, observation, all three.

By: cariocacardinal

cariocacardinal — Fri, 13 May 2011 16:33:03 +0000

Ruth’s BB rates were over 50% higher than Adams is this year. That is not “statistically aberrant.” ???? And of course we could talk sample size for Ruth (<60 PA each of those years.) And there is fact he was 2 levels higher at a younger age. Yes, Ruth improved his walk rate. He was still better than Adams in his early and worst years.

For the record, I've never said that Adams can't improve his walk rate. Just that it is something I think he needs to do, something that keeps him from being the top prospect that Andrew dreams he is, and something I'd hope he would work on in the minors.

By: rangerick1234

rangerick1234 — Fri, 13 May 2011 16:17:37 +0000

Ok that was below the belt. I apologize. However, you just made my case. Ortiz was less patient when he made the jump to a higher level. Look at his Midwest League numbers in ’96 at 20, then when he made the jump to High A, AA and AAA in 97. He was 21. Matt Adams is 22. Who by the way had similiar numbers in the same league at 21. But according to you that doesn’t matter because hitters don’t improve their plate discipline the older they get or the more they see it. Matt Adams is in his 1st 30 some odd games and you’re already putting him down and making jugdement based on stats of other players. You fail to factor in the biggest element of all in the game of baseball. Do you know what that is Grunt?

By: Hugecardsfan

Hugecardsfan — Fri, 13 May 2011 13:44:38 +0000

Every comp conversation is ridiculous. Every ballplayer has different background, different work ethic, different approach to the game and different abilities to adapt. Every player experiences differing health issues and has a differing physical make up.

Comp is fodder for discussion with no probative value.

By: Hugecardsfan

Hugecardsfan — Fri, 13 May 2011 13:41:01 +0000

Nice obfuscation. The year before his OPS was .952 and the year after it was .857. His walk rate was statistically in the ballpark those four years. And not statistically aberrant to Adams.

It is a joke to make excuses that it was before the minor league system…a red herring argument… He learned how to take BB in the majors. It was done. It can be done. It is done.