why thank you.
I agree iaf, for a few years, lofton was the best there was...he's holding up pretty well too...nice pickup
2007 MLB Thread
- Thread starter Iamforever
- Start date
I agree iaf, for a few years, lofton was the best there was...he's holding up pretty well too...nice pickup
Iamforever
Banned
yes he was. he had some pop. but homeruns are for incompetent fans. lofton knew how to play the game. so did griffey though. lofton is top two. if not one.
did you guys all hear about emil brown of KC shooting a reporter in the face with a pellet-gun: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/royals/2007-07-27-reporter-pellet_N.htm
He's really struggling this season too after a couple nice seasons in the last two years. The guy got out of Pittsburgh after failing to show his worth there...then was absent from MLB for three years before establishing himself as a fine, well-rounded player. But this incident...this is stupid.:lame:
Emil Brown career stats
He's really struggling this season too after a couple nice seasons in the last two years. The guy got out of Pittsburgh after failing to show his worth there...then was absent from MLB for three years before establishing himself as a fine, well-rounded player. But this incident...this is stupid.:lame:
Emil Brown career stats
It wasn't just homeruns. Lofton never really had any power of note, not even with doubles. He was good at getting on base, and he played a defensively important position well at the same time and played good at it. That's nothing to sneeze at. Even though it's overrated in baseball, he had a stretch of 5 or so years where he was a good base stealer. With the exception of the base stealing though Griffy was better than him in almost every other aspect of the game. I think Lofton was a very good player for a long time. I would say he’s somewhere a little under Hall of Fame quality.
You're probably right. I always felt Lofton was the better CF defensively although it's gotta be close either way. You got me looking up the stats: Lofton did have 15 HR one year, but then again he always got alot of AB. I feel the doubles critique was a little harsh, since lots of his typical "doubles" hits became triples. Also with the stolen bases, his stretch was more like 6 or 7 years of being the premiere SB man in the majors. His one off season in his prime in that category was when he was with Atlanta the one year he only stole 27. Lofton also has a higher career BA than Griffey, but it's only .300/.290. Lofton has also been hitting at or over .300 most seasons recently. When he was with LA he still stole bases and hit loads of triples. Griffey will always have the big HR numbers and I think the more valuable player all depends on how you view HR and SB...all that said...you still probably are right...Griffey's HR totals are just too much to overcome...you got me thinkin' though
You're probably right. I always felt Lofton was the better CF defensively although it's gotta be close either way. You got me looking up the stats: Lofton did have 15 HR one year, but then again he always got alot of AB. I feel the doubles critique was a little harsh, since lots of his typical "doubles" hits became triples. Also with the stolen bases, his stretch was more like 6 or 7 years of being the premiere SB man in the majors. His one off season in his prime in that category was when he was with Atlanta the one year he only stole 27. Lofton also has a higher career BA than Griffey, but it's only .300/.290. Lofton has also been hitting at or over .300 most seasons recently. When he was with LA he still stole bases and hit loads of triples. Griffey will always have the big HR numbers and I think the more valuable player all depends on how you view HR and SB...all that said...you still probably are right...Griffey's HR totals are just too much to overcome...you got me thinkin' though
Defensively I see Griffy as a little better or equal to Lofton. Steals are overrated but I counted basically all the years he had a high amount of steals at a high enough success rate. It might have been longer then 5 years but that seemed to be his peek. A player needs about a 70+% success rate otherwise he actually hurts his team by stealing. At 70% they more or less break even with gaining equal potential runs by the steal over the ones they loose by getting tossed out. That goes to show how stealing is overrated also because even if they steal most of the time and get a lot of them they are still only adding a few runs above that 70% mark a year more than you otherwise would. It only adds up to a fraction of the total offensive production most players put out. Batting average isn't that good indicator of performance level. Griffy has more walks (ironically for the power threat he was he wasn't a walk producing machine either in the mold of others like Bonds, McGwire, and Frank Thomas were) and a better on base percentage. That means Griffy even beats Lofton in his strong point, getting on base a lot. Even counting batting average it's only higher if you count the last years of both's career when neither was the player they once were. Griffy's average looks better before his move to Cincinnati where he fell off a cliff after he seemed to be a lock as an inner circle hall of famer. I would still say Griffy is a middle of the pack hall of famer though.
Lofton has had some good years, but it's difficult to compare Lofton (essentially a lifetime lead-off hitter) to Griffey (essentially a 3 or 4 hitter for most of his career) IMO. Lofton was at his peak a 4 tool player, whereas Griffey was always 5. :2 cents:
I'll be honest, I actually laughed when I heard that the Indians traded for Lofton again, because it seems like since about '97 the Indians have multiple times had him, and then let him go, only to get him back in the next couple of years in exchange for players, as opposed to just locking him up.
I'll be honest, I actually laughed when I heard that the Indians traded for Lofton again, because it seems like since about '97 the Indians have multiple times had him, and then let him go, only to get him back in the next couple of years in exchange for players, as opposed to just locking him up.
I was really really hoping the Cubs would've grabbed Lofton...again. We're going to need to shore up the outfield, and get some pitching help (if possible). Cubs should look at getting Dye from the White Sox.
Iamforever
Banned
since 97, the indians have had him twice. this season being the second time. :thumbsup:
trade you for soriano.
trade you for soriano.
How about for pitching sensation Mark Prior? He's got great pitching mechanics. Just go ahead and check the scouting reports from 4 years ago.
In analytical circles there is an informal term called TINSNIP, (There is no such thing as a pitching prospect) because no matter how good of a prospect one seems to be it seems like there is always something that eventually gets most of them to fail. More often than not that's injury, but sometimes that's mental breakdown also. It sort of makes picking pitching prospects for the future more or less a slightly educated guessing game even if they have good strikeout and walk rates. Beyond them having that you just sort of have to say a prayer. Batters fail to develop also but you can usually tell who the cream of the crop are with them and a good portion of them pan out. I remember years ago how Mark Prior was supposed to be one of the biggest no brainer can't miss prospects in history. They were raving about how his mechanics were so good that there wasn't that big of a risk for continual health issues and how he was going to be a good combination of Maddux and Clemens for years to come. Then again the Cubs have a knack for screwing up pitchers, even more than most teams.
What makes it even worse is the fact with Woods and Prior made you have hope. I could still remember the days where people like Kevin Tapani and Steve Trachsel were in the rotation.
Very true. I always wondered about scouting pitchers. It seems that organizations put so much emphasis on how hard a guy can throw. What if you put your stock in the guys that can throw their curveball, change-up and slider for strikes? Often this winds up being the criteria for major league success. So many hitters just can't adjust to an offspeed pitch when it's thrown in a 3-1 or 3-2 count. I go with the guys who can put the hitters off balance rather than blow them away. The most frustrating thing is when your pitcher is throwing 95-100+ MPH but can't get near the plate with it!
Iamforever
Banned
randy johnson had this problem and he turned out pretty good.
randy johnson had this problem and he turned out pretty good.
Randy Johnson may have had control problems. I'm talking aboutCONTROL PROBLEMS
randy johnson had this problem and he turned out pretty good.
For every Randy Johnson there are probably 200 people that don't pull it all together. Of course they probably aren't left handed and throw triple digits either so they get less of a chance. I think Johnson started pitching heavily when he was 26 so they must have stuck with him a long time.
Even today most people look at "tools" instead of actual skill and they fool themselves into thinking the can couch a player up or develop them from completely raw when they have no idea how well they can really do. Baseball isn't the only sport that does it either, but it's probably the worse.
Speed on a pitch isn't everything. The most important aspect about a pitch is that it has to be able to generate strikes whatever it takes to do that. Movement and the control over the location are probably as important. If a fastball goes 100 mph but is strait as an arrow it's going to get hammered. All good pitches have to have movement and you have to be able to throw it where you want to. Speed still helps a lot though. Not only is it harder to hit all things being equal but the more speed it has the more the other off speed pitches are effective. If somebody's stuff tops out at 90 mph all the rest of their stuff better be excellent.
While were on the issue of Randy Johnson something that always bothers me with him is how everybody always wants to compare any tall left hander that enters the league to him. They don't even have to throw fast, have an overpowering slider, or be good at all. It's like some people think as long as your tall and left handed your going to be the next Randy Johnson.
Iamforever
Banned
i do agree with the rest you said. but, one pitcher who gets compared to randy actually deserves it. cc has become an ace around the same age as randy did. i wonder what that could mean.
i do agree with the rest you said. but, one pitcher who gets compared to randy actually deserves it. cc has become an ace around the same age as randy did. i wonder what that could mean.
You know, another lefty has become an ace at around that age this season: Erik Bedard. He's got like 170 K's in 140 IP Granted he's not tall like cc and randy...makes me wonder...who do you folks think will be the AL Cy this year? Will Dan Haren run away with it? or someone else? I'm pulling for Bedard.
Iamforever
Banned
cc was the front runner two starts ago. now its back to even.
i do agree with the rest you said. but, one pitcher who gets compared to randy actually deserves it. cc has become an ace around the same age as randy did. i wonder what that could mean.
...Actually I don't know. :1orglaugh One big difference between them is the fact that CC started pitching in the majors at a young age and has been doing it for years now. Randy was not an ace before 26 but he was also hardly playing in the majors. That could be good because that means he's got even that much more experience, but I think there is a saturation point to how much experience can help you after a couple of years. Then again it's just that much more wear and tear on him already. He has a high strikeout rate, but it's not quite in the ridiculous range that Johnson's was in.
I was looking at his stats and I never knew Johnson first came up with Montreal.
It makes me wonder how many good pitchers came up from them they let go.
