Author Topic: Oswalt: 36th most valuable MLB player (Read 6762 times)

Holly · « **on:** May 08, 2007, 12:13:17 pm »

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/05/07/bp.ufd.second/index.html

Berkman is #32 (right behind Jeter... woddafock?)

That's it for the Astros. Interesting that they focussed on Roy's K ratio decline. Strikeouts are fascist anyhow, right? Not much in there to emphasize the importance of defense (the two highest-ranking shortstops on the list have their offensive abilities covered, but not their fielding abilities, and likewise for the Braves' young catcher).

ValpoCory · « **Reply #1 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:16:39 pm »

"The Wizard of Oz still has plenty of tricks up his sleeve, but it's going to be hard for him to sustain ERAs in the high 2's or low 3's when he's striking out fewer batters than the league average."

Oh ok. Whatever.

Foghorn · « **Reply #2 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:22:39 pm »

Quote from: ValpoCory on May 08, 2007, 12:16:39 pm

"The Wizard of Oz still has plenty of tricks up his sleeve, but it's going to be hard for him to sustain ERAs in the high 2's or low 3's when he's striking out fewer batters than the league average."

Oh ok. Whatever.

Hard? Maybe. But I betcha he still gets it done.

Gizzmonic · « **Reply #3 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:22:49 pm »

The best pitcher in the National League this year (besides maybe Hudson) is not in the top ten of most valuable players?

WTFF? This ranking piles copious amounts of shit on its plate and begs for second helpings.

Quote from: Holly on May 08, 2007, 12:13:17 pm

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/05/07/bp.ufd.second/index.html

Berkman is #32 (right behind Jeter... woddafock?)

That's it for the Astros. Interesting that they focussed on Roy's K ratio decline. Strikeouts are fascist anyhow, right? Not much in there to emphasize the importance of defense (the two highest-ranking shortstops on the list have their offensive abilities covered, but not their fielding abilities, and likewise for the Braves' young catcher).

WulawHorn · « **Reply #4 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:24:51 pm »

Ridiculous.

I'd take maybe 5 pitchers before Roy:

Santana and Doc Holliday for sure. Maybe King Felix for a 5 year term- but not for today. A healthy Chris Carpenter. Maybe Hudson. That's about it- did I miss anyone?

matadorph · « **Reply #5 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:29:40 pm »

Santana is the only one I'd take over Roy. Halladay? No way. Roy's better and he has the stats to prove it.

tophfar · « **Reply #6 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:30:26 pm »

Quote from: Gizzmonic on May 08, 2007, 12:22:49 pm

WTFF? This ranking piles copious amounts of shit on its plate and begs for second helpings.

that's because it's not actually a list of the most valuable players.

"In concept, the Ultimate Fantasy Draft is pretty simple: "

it's a list of the players that get the most fantasy points.

Foghorn · « **Reply #7 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:30:42 pm »

Fuck. Nate Silver.. Shouldn't have even bothered.

Oswalt versus CC Sabathia?

Oswalt versus Scott Kazmir?

Oswalt versus Dice K?

Oswalt versus Carlos Zambrano?

Horseshit.

Gizzmonic · « **Reply #8 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:34:20 pm »

Players that will give you the most fantasy points over the next few years, right?

I don't know much about fantasy baseball, but I guess ERA and innings pitched aren't important to winning?

Quote from: tophfar on May 08, 2007, 12:30:26 pm

that's because it's not actually a list of the most valuable players.

"In concept, the Ultimate Fantasy Draft is pretty simple: "

it's a list of the players that get the most fantasy points.

matadorph · « **Reply #9 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:34:40 pm »

Quote

No. 25. Roy Halladay, P, Blue Jays, Age 30 (26)
In some ways Halladay is similar to namesake Roy Oswalt. They're about the same age and have great command but a strikeout rate that isn't a whole lot better than the league average. But Halladay does one important thing to distinguish himself: leveraging the natural sink that his big frame gives him into lots of groundball outs. That means fewer home runs and more double plays, and Halladay can trust his defense while taming his pitch counts in the process. There's been no deterioration in his stuff, and Halladay can reach back and get a strikeout when he needs one, but he's smart enough to know that he has eight guys on the field behind him.

Hey Nate Silver, pull your head out of your fucking ass. That's exactly what Roy is doing.

homer · « **Reply #10 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:37:38 pm »

Quote from: ValpoCory on May 08, 2007, 12:16:39 pm

"The Wizard of Oz still has plenty of tricks up his sleeve, but it's going to be hard for him to sustain ERAs in the high 2's or low 3's when he's striking out fewer batters than the league average."

Oh ok. Whatever.

Brownie (I think) was saying last night that Roy and the Astros began working on controlling his pitch count so that he could go deeper into games after the 2004 season. The K/9 decline begins there. The goal was to start going 7 innings instead of 6. This year he is averaging over 7 innings a game, but the strikeout rate has fallen accordingly.

His changeup that he is throwing regularly this year is specifically to get 1 pitch outs.

WulawHorn · « **Reply #11 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:39:20 pm »

I don't like Zambrano from a personal level- but the dude is really good- I'd at least think about that.

Doc Holliday plays in a tougher league and a tougher division- I'd certianly consider him. The point is the list of people you could even attempt to make a legit argument that are as good, or better, than Roy is very freaking small. You damn sure don't get to 36 players in MLB.

austro · « **Reply #12 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:41:19 pm »

Quote from: homer on May 08, 2007, 12:37:38 pm

Brownie (I think) was saying last night that Roy and the Astros began working on controlling his pitch count so that he could go deeper into games after the 2004 season. The K/9 decline begins there. The goal was to start going 7 innings instead of 6. This year he is averaging over 7 innings a game, but the strikeout rate has fallen accordingly.

His changeup that he is throwing regularly this year is specifically to get 1 pitch outs.

He might have gone 8 last night if not for the Berkman E that lengthened the 6th (?) by about a dozen pitches. Prior to that he 2 or 3 8-pitch innings.

strobum · « **Reply #13 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:43:38 pm »

After throwing just 95 pitches over 8 innings in a 3-1 win over the Reds last Tuesday, Oswalt opined:

"I'm going to throw the ball over the plate and make them swing at it. A lot of guys try to nibble there and waste a few pitches. I'm trying to get guys out on (as few) pitches as possible. It's tough to get strikeouts that way, but you can go deep into games that way."

Why would anyone in his right mind concentrate on racking up innnings at the expense of strikeouts?

One of these years, the national media might wake up to the fact that Roy's .678 career winning percentage is pretty damn outstanding. In fact, it's the 10th highest winning percentage in the history of the game.

Astroholic · « **Reply #14 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:44:48 pm »

Quote from: austro on May 08, 2007, 12:41:19 pm

He might have gone 8 last night if not for the Berkman E that lengthened the 6th (?) by about a dozen pitches. Prior to that he 2 or 3 8-pitch innings.

If I were building a team today and could choose anyone (real life not fantacrap) it would be Oswalt or Santana as my first pick. king albert would be the first position player.

WulawHorn · « **Reply #15 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:58:46 pm »

Quote from: Astroholic on May 08, 2007, 12:44:48 pm

If I were building a team today and could choose anyone (real life not fantacrap) it would be Oswalt or Santana as my first pick. king albert would be the first position player.

Don't necessarily disagree with any of it. If I just needed one AB, or one game or strech it still might be Bonds though- that guy, steroids or not, is amazing still at 42 or whatever. Pujols over the course of the year, easily, as he is way more durable. Bonds still might be the scariest one time batter though- to me at least. But it isn't like poo holes has many holes in his swing.

Astroholic · « **Reply #16 on:** May 08, 2007, 01:00:20 pm »

Quote from: WulawHorn on May 08, 2007, 12:58:46 pm

Don't necessarily disagree with any of it. If I just needed one AB, or one game or strech it still might be Bonds though- that guy, steroids or not, is amazing still at 42 or whatever. Pujols over the course of the year, easily, as he is way more durable. Bonds still might be the scariest one time batter though- to me at least. But it isn't like poo holes has many holes in his swing.

Said I was building a team. I would not want Bonds on my "team".

JackAstro · « **Reply #17 on:** May 08, 2007, 01:04:38 pm »

Quote from: Astroholic on May 08, 2007, 01:00:20 pm

Said I was building a team. I would not want Bonds on my "team".

You're absolutely right. Bonds doesn't do the little things like manage the stadium lighting, measure the batter's box, deliver babies between innings, etc, etc.

Astroholic · « **Reply #18 on:** May 08, 2007, 01:07:51 pm »

Quote from: JackAstro on May 08, 2007, 01:04:38 pm

You're absolutely right. Bonds doesn't do the little things like manage the stadium lighting, measure the batter's box, deliver babies between innings, etc, etc.

Run out a fly ball, get along with his peers,etc. Just a general jackass all around.

Just got your king albert reference..slow today.

WulawHorn · « **Reply #19 on:** May 08, 2007, 01:24:13 pm »

Quote from: Astroholic on May 08, 2007, 01:07:51 pm

Run out a fly ball, get along with his peers,etc. Just a general jackass all around.

Just got your king albert reference..slow today.

I can't stand pujols either. Was just talking about on field stuff. Bonds might still be the scariest hitter in MLB. He's not durable enough to take for a season over pujols though. 1 AB I think I still take him. I understand that wasn't what you were saying, just going off on a bit of a tangent. I'd take AROD and play him at SS (ducking now about defense at SS postion) over Pujols b/c I can come closer to replacing his bat at 1st then AROD's at SS, and he's not imo, horrible enough defensively to not be able to adequately field the position.

Astroholic · « **Reply #20 on:** May 08, 2007, 01:29:14 pm »

Quote from: WulawHorn on May 08, 2007, 01:24:13 pm

I can't stand pujols either. Was just talking about on field stuff. Bonds might still be the scariest hitter in MLB. He's not durable enough to take for a season over pujols though. 1 AB I think I still take him. I understand that wasn't what you were saying, just going off on a bit of a tangent. I'd take AROD and play him at SS (ducking now about defense at SS postion) over Pujols b/c I can come closer to replacing his bat at 1st then AROD's at SS, and he's not imo, horrible enough defensively to not be able to adequately field the position.

I don't think arod is a great team player, either. This is speculation on my part and he did change positions when he moved over to the Yankemees. Yep, he would be on the short list. Albert appears to be an ass, but there is no doubt about bonds.

And if I were taking a player for one AB, it would be Big Papy (sp)

Houston · « **Reply #21 on:** May 08, 2007, 01:36:26 pm »

Quote from: matadorph on May 08, 2007, 12:34:40 pm

Hey Nate Silver, pull your head out of your fucking ass. That's exactly what Roy is doing.

In some ways Halladay is similar to namesake Roy Oswalt.

Not only what you said, Matadorph, but Nate Silver apparently doesn't know what a namesake is. Roy Halladay's namesake would have to be named Roy Halladay, by definition.

There may be two Roy's, but there's only one Oswalt!

Trey · « **Reply #22 on:** May 08, 2007, 01:56:30 pm »

Quote from: WulawHorn on May 08, 2007, 01:24:13 pm

I can't stand pujols either. Was just talking about on field stuff. Bonds might still be the scariest hitter in MLB. He's not durable enough to take for a season over pujols though. 1 AB I think I still take him. I understand that wasn't what you were saying, just going off on a bit of a tangent. I'd take AROD and play him at SS (ducking now about defense at SS postion) over Pujols b/c I can come closer to replacing his bat at 1st then AROD's at SS, and he's not imo, horrible enough defensively to not be able to adequately field the position.

Am I crazy? I thought I remembered A-Rod being a pretty decent, if not very good defensive SS.

Astroholic · « **Reply #23 on:** May 08, 2007, 02:01:59 pm »

Quote from: Trey on May 08, 2007, 01:56:30 pm

Am I crazy? I thought I remembered A-Rod being a pretty decent, if not very good defensive SS.

Better that Jeter (IMHO), of coarse Who isnt?

WulawHorn · « **Reply #24 on:** May 08, 2007, 02:28:47 pm »

Quote from: Trey on May 08, 2007, 01:56:30 pm

Am I crazy? I thought I remembered A-Rod being a pretty decent, if not very good defensive SS.

He was a lot smaller and more limber when he was a pretty decent SS. He was no adam everett with the glove, but he wasn't a derek jeter (bad) either.

SI's article talked about how he dropped weight, lost some fat and became less thick through the middle this offseason- perhaps less muscle bound as well. I don't think the guy playing 3b last year for the Yankees would have been a particularly effective SS, but I also don't think he would have butchered the position. This year, who knows.

You are also talking about an Alex Rodriguez today who is 3 or 4 years older than the ARod who last played SS, and 6 or 7 years older than the guy who played it, more or less excellently (based more on heresay than my actually watching him- but that's the way I remember hearing it) up in Sea

Houston · « **Reply #25 on:** May 08, 2007, 02:44:35 pm »

Didn't A-Rod win two Gold Gloves at SS in Texas?

Astroholic · « **Reply #26 on:** May 08, 2007, 03:23:53 pm »

Quote from: Houston on May 08, 2007, 02:44:35 pm

Didn't A-Rod win two Gold Gloves at SS in Texas?

That really means alot.

WulawHorn · « **Reply #27 on:** May 08, 2007, 03:27:04 pm »

Quote from: Houston on May 08, 2007, 02:44:35 pm

Didn't A-Rod win two Gold Gloves at SS in Texas?

Raffy Palmero won a gold glove when he was with the Rangers, for his play at 1b. The only problem is he played only 18 games there. I figure Gold Gloves in Arlington get passed around out of sympathy for having to play for the Rangers.

TheWizard · « **Reply #28 on:** May 08, 2007, 04:27:10 pm »

Quote from: Astroholic on May 08, 2007, 03:23:53 pm

That really means alot.

Exactly, the Gold Glove award is sometimes regulated to a popularity contest now.

Plus, how many years ago was that now? A-Rod probably couldn't play SS at that level anymore.

jaklewein · « **Reply #29 on:** May 08, 2007, 05:23:32 pm »

Quote from: strobum on May 08, 2007, 12:43:38 pm

One of these years, the national media might wake up to the fact that Roy's .678 career winning percentage is pretty damn outstanding. In fact, it's the 10th highest winning percentage in the history of the game.

Exactly. I know it's a ways down the road...but that will be the stat that makes or breaks Roy's HOF chances should he stay around long enough to be considered.

strobum · « **Reply #30 on:** May 09, 2007, 09:08:47 am »

Quote from: jaklewein on May 08, 2007, 05:23:32 pm

Exactly. I know it's a ways down the road...but that will be the stat that makes or breaks Roy's HOF chances should he stay around long enough to be considered.

I remember him saying he planned to hang up his spikes after 10 years.

Hopefully, Drayton will be able to lure him out of retirememt with $44.1 million dollars and a backhoe.