Cano for Kemp?

I kid, I kid.

we still have Wang, Joba, Cody, Angel and Sergio

Does omission mean no more Shelley Duncan complaints ?

Plus, I reserve the right to complain if Cervello isn’t the BUC out of ST.

Plus his name makes him sound like the guy in that Defoe novel.

It sometimes seems as if Cano has so much confidence in his tremendous plate coverage that he thinks that he doesn’t need plate discipline.

Is the off season that long that you can cover ever single Yankee player in this fashion?

Off days/weeks/months suck.

[4] Doesn’t make any sense.  So it’s probably right. 

I.e. everyone could be improved by plate discipline.  Great plate coverage + great discipline = Manny.

Cano really doesn’t seem to understand the point of/have the ability to working counts to one’s advantage.  Thus he takes a first pitch strike (there was an article about that recently . . .  THT?) and then goes back to hacking.

That said, he was fun to watch this year.

[6] everyone could be improved by plate discipline.

Absolutely.

Kevin Long attempted to work on it with him over the last offseason:

While Cano works on his body, Long attacked the head with the hope the free swinger can develop early-count plate discipline.

“If he is going to be a third- or fifth-place hitter, which we need him to be, he has to learn about the strike zone and taking a lot more often than not,” Long said of Cano, who drew 26 walks last year. Only 11 players with at least 477 at-bats drew fewer walks than Cano.

“He can do that, because he hits as well as anybody with two strikes.”

Maybe it’s still a work in progress…

Maybe Cano doesn’t have great strike zone recognition, not because of indiscipline, but because of a limit to his talent, so it makes sense for him to swing as soon as he likes.  IIRC his stats on first-pitch swings are extraordinary.

Does Manny have great discipline?  I thought I’d seen a quote from him or someone who knows/coaches him claiming that he doesn’t pay attention to the count.

[8] Does that surprise you? Manny barely pays attention to the ball.

I see some reportage on the web praising Manny’s ability to recognize strikes and saying that he often won’t swing even at borderline pitches.  Surely the former’s at least an important part of plate discipline, but I may understand the phrase to mean something broader.

I guess I would call plate discipline the ability to recognize strikes (and not swing at balls), while I would call “working the count” the ability to take a strike because you are hoping that you will get a pitch that you are better able to hit.  But those terms aren’t precisely defined anywhere, of course.

I don’t know how often you read fangraphs, but there was an interesting article about Scutaro and how often/when he swings.

[11] Then I would say that Cano lacks both plate discipline and ability to work the count. He is still able to overcome that with whatever ability him and Vlad share.

On a more positive note, Cano just turned 27 so he is just entering his prime and the next 4 years of Cano (he is signed for 4 more years at $9M/$10M/$14M club option with $2M buyout/$15M club option with $2M buyout) should be quite enjoyable.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; I think Cano has a decent grasp of the strike-zone.  I just don’t think he cares.  That is, he can tell if a pitch is 3-4 inches off the plate away, but if he feels he can drive the ball to LF he’ll go for it.  And the thing is, when he’s on, he’s getting doubles (or greater) in the gap on those.

The problem is when he’s *off*, he’s getting weak grounders and popups, and frustrating the hell out of Yankee fans everywhere.  Interestingly, my impression is he’s more likely to swing at pitches just out of the zone when he’s going poorly than when he’s on.  All POOMA of course, but I think he wants to hit his way out of a slump. 

I think that’s the thing separating Cano from being an MVP type player (well, that and getting back to good-defense Robbie) - if he can learn that just b/c he *can* drive that pitch it doesn’t mean he should swing at it.  I have no problem him swinging at the first strike he sees, b/c chances are it will be a line-drive.  Just those ones a little off the plate where it *could* be a line-drive, or a weak ground-out.

In a Heyman column (if you really want to read it there’s a link on Lohud), I noticed this line in a discussion about Montero (bolding mine):

The Yankees also have several catching prospects to entice the Blue Jays, including Jesus Montero, who is still only 19 but is said by one scout to be “off the charts” as a hitting prospect and “better than he’s given credit for as a catcher.”

Of course, we have no idea who this scout is or if he’s the least bit competent in evaluating catcher defense.  But I’ll take encouragement anywhere I can get it.

While I wouldn’t disregard any player’s ability to improve their plate discipline, I’ve often felt that it’s more of a physical skill than a mental one.  It’s not a question of deciding to be more selective then implementing it.  You have to:

a) Have the visual acuity to recognize whether or not to swing at a pitch pretty soon after it leaves the pitcher’s hand.  Jason Giambi used to talk about reading the spin as the ball left the pitcher’s hand a lot, but I think he had freakishly good eye sight so that’s not a fair comparison.

But you do have to be able to read the type of pitch and then try to extrapolate location in a split second.

b) Having the mind-body control to listen to what your visual acuity tells you.  Maybe you can actually read the pitch and location, but you first impulse is always going to be to swing at anything close and you can’t control that impulse as well as some others?

Anyway, I think it can be improved, but I would not expect Cano to ever walk even 50 times in a season.  What I’d hate to see is the Shea Hillebrand plate discipline plan, which was the ridiculous idea that he had to take the first pitch every time, just because.  He’d take a pitch then go right back to hacking at everything, except now he was doing it from an 0-1 whole most of the time.

If the first pitch is a good hitter’s pitch, I don’t want Cano taking it all the time.

With the exception of 2008, Cano has been a useful and valuable player.  He is what he is at this point and that’s fine - especially while he’s signed to a reasonable deal.

Anyway, I think it can be improved, but I would not expect Cano to ever walk even 50 times in a season.

If you exclude intentional walks, I agree.  If not, I think he can, if only barely.  I think his power will continue to grow for a few more years, and then his patience/discipline/plate-recognition only needs to improve a little for him to be a 40-45 walk guy (39 is his high right?)  So can he then get 5-10 IBB per year?  Sure.  Or not.  IBB I think would be real hard to predict b/c it is situational as much as anything.  But I’d feel comfortable putting an upper-cap of 60 BB total on him, even if he had an odd season w/ 15 IBB.

Okay, his high for unintentional walks is 34, and high for intentional walks is 5 (same year).  So if he hads 8 unintentional BB’s and 3 intentional he’s at 50.  Very possible, though I wouldn’t go so far as saying likely.

hads = adds

Cano is a very good player, not a star, but one notch below.  I’m glad he’s on the Yankees.

That said, he is my least favorite Yankee to watch hit.  His approach at the plate drives me insane.  Watch a FB down the middle, and then hack at a low outside pitch.

He and Swisher are roughly equivalent hitters, but I enjoy Swisher’s at bats much, much more.

[14] That excerpt about Montero may be the first positive quote I have read about his ability to remain a catcher (at least part-time) that wasn’t attributed to a Yankee official (if that scout works for the Yankees, I would hope that Heyman would have identified him as such). Virtually everything that’s written about Montero on Fangraphs and other sites treats his move from the catching position as a fait accompli, even though most, if not all, of these people have probably never seen him catch. So yes, it does provide at least some reason to be encouraged.

He and Swisher are roughly equivalent hitters, but I enjoy Swisher’s at bats much, much more.

I disagree.  I find both of their at bats insanely frustrating to watch.  Cano for the reasons you mentioned and Swisher b/c he takes so many good pitches and the swing he uses when he misses is often so poor and so unnecessarily long that you wonder how he can miss by that much when his plate discipline is so good.

[21] Yeah, would certainly be nice to know more about the scout.  For example, if he’s a major-league scout with an NL team, sent to evaluate pitchers to generate scouting reports, it doesn’t mean that much.  Not nothing, but not much.  He may have only seen Montero once, and though he has an idea about what looks like a good catcher his eye probably isn’t trained for, “the little things”.

If however he’s the minor-league scout for a team w/ a AA affiliate in the Eastern League, and his primary responsibility is to evaluate catchers, it means a lot more.  He’s probably watched Montero catch on several occasions, and knows the things to look for that indicate talent/skill beyond results.  But again, take any positive we can.

“If the first pitch is a good hitter’s pitch, I don’t want Cano taking it all the time.”

Seems like he was doing this in the playoffs.

I find both of their at bats insanely frustrating to watch.

You could say that about any player.  Pretty sure during the season there were complaints about Jeter swing at pitches early in the count, Damon looking silly on breaking-balls, Teix on change-ups, ARod getting jammed, Matsui hitting weak grounders to 2B, etc, etc.  I’m sure there are Cardinals fans who have complaints about Pujols’s swing.

When a player looks bad, their flaws are magnified.  But often those same flaws are what makes them the good hitters they are.  Swisher’s patience looks horrible when he’s K’ing on 3-2 breaking balls…but isn’t a problem when he has an 8-pitch AB and gets a walk, or gets a 3-1 meatball and puts in in the stands.  Cano’s impatience is infuriating, *except* when he’s hitting 0-0 ropes into the gaps.  And 20 years from now, we’ll be complaining that some 2B for the Yanks needs to be more aggressive, like Robbie used to be…

You could say that about any player.

Well sure.  But on a general basis, watching the at bats of those two is generally more frustrating than watching say Posada and Jeter or Jeter and ARod or even Melky (whose at bats make sense, its just that he’s not that good of a hitter).
Damon I discount b/c his swing makes no sense to me whether he’s on fire or slumping.

In his ESPN chat yesterday, Jim Callis was asked specifically about that Montero quote.

He replied:

I’ve never heard anyone outside the Yankees express optimism that Montero can stay behind the plate. I love the bat but don’t expect him to catch in the majors.

By the by, I know fans are stupid when it comes to thinking of realistic trade proposals, but someone asked Callis if the Braves would consider a package built around Andre Ethier and George Sherrill for Tommy Hansen.

Fuck the heck, people?!?

Heyman should be asked to provide more information on his source.

even though most, if not all, of these people have probably never seen him catch

The view from Mom’s basement does not include Trenton Thunder games.

Kevin Goldstein in response to a Montero question during a chat yesterday:

Kevin Goldstein: You know, as good as Montero was with the bat this year, the defense made great strides as well. Not that he’s good back there or even average, but more and more people think he can at least stick there, which makes his bat that much more valuable. I talked to a scout the other day who thought he was a better defensive catcher than Austin Romine.”

That sort of raises red flags about Romine, but OTOH it’s good to hear about Montero. And its not like the Yankees have become accustomed to sparkling defense at C during the Posado tenure. They’ll essentially be replacing mostly a bat with mostly a bat.

So what’s the general consensus, at least around these parts these days, on Cano? Clearly he is somewhat of a polarizing figure among many of us (that is to say, A-Rod generated a lot of arguments revolving around “I just don’t like him” and crap like that, whereas with Cano it seems to stick just to his actual baseball skills). So is he back in our good graces?

To me, he’s just entering his prime and should be due for 4 years or so of potentially All Star seasons at the least. I don’t see any reason he won’t build on this season (except of course, for 2008) or at least reproduce it. Put him on pretty much any other team, and I would bet he already IS an AS. For this season, there were Utley, Zobriest (at least this season for the time he spent at 2B), Kinsler, Pedrioa, and Hill (again, this season). I think you could probably say that only Utley is clearly better than Cano, right?

So is he back in our good graces?

Only if he improves his pitch recognition/plate discipline/count working.

That has to be something that can be worked on, to a degree. Lots of players improve in those areas. Like Mattingly or Soriano, or someone else.

So what’s the general consensus, at least around these parts these days, on Cano?

Like Parcells said, after a while, you are what your record says you are.  Cano is what his stats says he is.

That said, I’m now comfortable living with Cano’s at bats, because as others have pointed out, the probability of Cano turning into a Giambi in terms of plate discipline is very low.  Of course, that doesn’t mean I won’t be frustrated with his offensive slumps or his predilection to swing freely during those slumps.

He’s the best option the Yanks have at 2B and there doesn’t seem to be anyone on the farm who’s better, at least in the next few years.  If a great 2B can be had in a trade and you can flip Cano, great.  But I don’t see that happening.

I hope as you do that he’s entering his prime and can continue the production we saw in 2009 for the length of his contract.

“Better than he’s given credit for” is an awfully low bar when no one has ever given him any credit at all.

So what’s the general consensus, at least around these parts these days, on Cano?

My thought is he is an (well) above average hitter and slightly below average fielder.  I think he has the skills to improve the fielding to be a positive, and has the skills to be an elite hitter.  I think 2008 was clearly a blip.  At the least, he’s going to be a 4-5 WAR player (All Star caliber) for the next 4-6 years.  At best, I think he can be an elite player (7-9 WAR) for a few years in there.  Chances of that are low, as very few players can do that, but I’m certainly not going to complain about him being our starter going into next decade.  Especially as their best 2nd baseman in the minors (Russo) is probably a super-utility man, maybe an average starter for a few years.

To me, he’s just entering his prime and should be due for 4 years or so of potentially All Star seasons at the least. I don’t see any reason he won’t build on this season (except of course, for 2008) or at least reproduce it.

The problem with this is that going back a few years, it looks like he really hasn’t changed that much. He added some power this year, which is a big plus, but other than that, Cano is going to be limited by BA. When he hits .330, he’s an all-star, when he hits .270, he’s barely above replacement level, and he can’t control which one it will be from year to year. On the whole, I think he’s a very useful, but limited player. That being said, he’s still among the better 2B in the game, so I can’t complain too much.

When he hits .330, he’s an all-star, when he hits .270, he’s barely above replacement level, and he can’t control which one it will be from year to year.

He’s hit .270 once.  He’s hit over .300 three times and hit .297 his rookie year.  Hitting for average is often over-rated, but it is a skill.  And Cano has it.  Only striking out in 11% of your PAs is a pretty good start toward hitting for a high average.

If Cano manages to harness his defensive ability, rather then flashing it for periods his value shoots way up. As has been noted his offense seems unlikely to drastically change, but I don’t see any reason why he couldn’t improve his consistency on defense. According to RZR he makes a pretty good number of out of zone plays (44 this year and 53 in 2007) so the ability is clearly there.

Interestingly enough, Cano has had the same fielding percentage for the last 4 years, .984.

Good season for Cano, that did nothing to eliminate my knock on the guy, he is a highly volatile guy from a performance standpoint. When the balls are falling in, he looks elite, when they aren’t he sucks like no other.

There was a pretty significant swing in his BABIP from 08 to 09. Granted he was pretty unlucky from a BABIP POV in 08, but it just highlights how luck dependant the guy is.

Being so dependant on luck/BA is the reason I’ll never really trust him or put a lot of faith in him. If he hits 270 next season his OBP will be somewhere around .300 -.310 and he will be a giant out machine like he was in 08.

Love his arm, love him when he’s hitting, but I’ll never feel comfortable with him until he starts walking more than 5% of the time (at least.)

The happiness of a sports fan is defined by the delta between expectation and performance. I have very low expectations for Cano, it’s easier that way.

The happiness of a sports fan is defined by the delta between expectation and performance. I have very low expectations for Cano, it’s easier that way.

Depending on the off season, the expectations might have to be adjusted. I mean, high expectations would be 3-5 hitter type production and consistency. So far, Cano has been nurtured in the 6-7 spots in the lineup, which helps to smooth out some of the down streaks, and makes his hot streaks that much more potent.

Via MLB Trade Rumors.

Bob Nigthengale tweets:

The Yankees, ever so quietly, are letting teams know that RF Nick Swisher is available.

Being so dependant on luck/BA is the reason I’ll never really trust him or put a lot of faith in him. If he hits 270 next season his OBP will be somewhere around .300 -.310 and he will be a giant out machine like he was in 08.

He hits .270 when absolutely everything goes just about as wrong as it possibly could for a month.  Take out April, and he hit .297/.326/.448.  Besides, 2008 would have been a disappointing season for Cano even with twice as many walks.  There’s no reasonable basis for thinking that he’ll ever have another year where his BABIP is that low.

Booo.  I enjoy Swisher, probably over and above his value on the field.

[43] Yeah, I saw that.  The question is why?

[43] Yeah, I saw that.  The question is why?

Probably as part of a larger package?

[46] <u>If</u> the report is accurate, the only reason I can think of is that it would give them more payroll flexibility in 2011, and they may view moving him now as selling high.

and there are enough free agent outfielders available for the moment that he is expendable.

[49] - But that also means that his value isn’t that high.  He’s signed to a reasonable contract, but it’s not dirt-cheap.  I guess I’d rather have Swisher than almost any of the FA outfielders out there (other than Holliday).

Swisher is a pretty good hitter and an average fielder. He seems like an adventurous baserunner, although on two occasions was victimized by bad umpire calls.

I think that is pretty good, underpaid player when you look at his salary. And it is not like he had a flukishly good year that makes his perceived value higher than actual.

So, Nightengale seems to have this POOHA (is this a verb? Can we use this as a verb?).

Can we use this as a verb?

Why not?  Just get the tense right.  POOHAed.

[43] doesn’t make any sense to me. The Yankees already have one hole in the OF, why make another?

So, Nightengale seems to have this POOHA (is this a verb? Can we use this as a verb?).

Sure.

Well if they trade Swisher I think it is about a guarantee they sign Holliday.  So what would they trade Swisher for?  Pieces to make a run at Felix maybe?  Free up $$ to get Holliday *and* Lackey?  Chances are if they’re making him “available” it is just b/c he is one of the few established players they *can* trade.  I think the only other one is Cano.  So probably not that they’re *looking* to trade him, just trying to see what he’d fetch.  Which is smart; you never know when a team would overwhelm you w/ a can’t-miss SS or CF or something, just because they overvalue a veteran, or want to make a RIGHT NOW run at it.

Why not?  Just get the tense right.  POOHAed.

I though it was an irregular verb?  PedOOHA?

So probably not that they’re *looking* to trade him, just trying to see what he’d fetch.

That makes a lot of sense, and it’s what any smart GM would do.

Linceum wins the CYA.

I was just about to post, Rich, that ESPN.com did not have the Lincecum news on their front page, but it was available on the sideline to their Jason Bay story.

Oddly slow.

Congrats to Lincecum.

Good pick.

Holy crap, only ten points separated the top THREE!

Lincecum had 100 points, Carpenter 94 and Wainwright 90.

Cuh-ray-zee.

Wainwright had the most first place votes!

Trading Swisher would anger me.  He’s already one of my favorite Yankees.

If something stupid happened like Swisher, Hughes and Montero for Halladay, I wouldn’t watch the team next year.

This has happened to me twice before.  In 1997 when they let Wetteland and Key go, I stopped watching, and in 2004 when they let Pettitte, Wells and Clemens go, I stopped watching.

I can’t just root for the laundry.

[57] Most epic arbitration hearing ever!

@43. I’m trying to remember the last time MLBTR had good scoop on something. I think they should rename that site “MLBMakeShitUp”

If something stupid happened like Swisher, Hughes and Montero for Halladay, I wouldn’t watch the team next year.

The Yankees aren’t that stupid.

[62] I doubt they make it up, they just post EVERY rumor as if equally true.  E.g. some GM mentioned to Cashman, “I need a corner OF” and Cashman said, “Well, all we’ve got is Swisher and Melky”.  Bingo!  Yankees rumored to be shopping Swisher.

Basically they use the same criteria George Mitchell used to include someone on his steriods-list.

“In 1997 when they let Wetteland and Key go, I stopped watching, and in 2004 when they let Pettitte, Wells and Clemens go, I stopped watching”

Really, snapper, I hadn’t noticed you missing.  Just kidding.  Actually, I told myself the same thing when Gabe Paul traded my favorite at the time Bobby Murcer straight up for Bobby Bonds after the 74 season. I was really peeved. Come spring there I was following both the Yankees and Murcer out in SF.

As to Cano, how much really can we complain about with his over 200 hits, .300+ average and 25 homers. I mean how many second basemen have the Yanks had that come close to his production? I know his post season was pretty poor, but he did have a great year on the whole.

As to Swisher, I have to agree with Mike that its a guarantee that someone big may be coming back, otherwise it makes little sense. BTW, Cano outranks Swisher as more productive/consistent IMO. Remember Swisher was pretty invisible in the postseason too until the second to last game.  I can’t fall in love with Swisher due to his anemic batting average. He seems to have a hard time making adjustments to change of speeds, but on the balance he did a very servicable job and if he sticks around thats ok to me, but unlike some of you, I see him as certainly replaceable under the right scenario. I won’t complain though too much about the guy as he did play on a team that just won it all. Ditto Robbie.

They don’t make shit up, but I remember someone totally making something up and feeding it to them as a prank. It was pretty funny.

[64] To be fair they are called MLB Trade Rumors.

Agree with [54] about the Swisher stuff.  Due diligence, potential to “sell high” and set up other, big moves, etc.

RE: Cano, I think the disappointing thing is that the lack of plate discipline and clutch hitting, small sample size on the clutch hitting notwithstanding, seem to be keeping him from making the transition to a reliable, center of the lineup, offensive leader.  He couldn’t even stick in the 5 hole this year.  I know that those lineup slots don’t mean much sabermetrically, and I’m not saying I don’t appreciate what he brings to the team.  I just feel like he should be pushing for a higher slot in the lineup instead of hacking away comfortably in the 7th slot.

“I’m trying to remember the last time MLBTR had good scoop on something.”

Last December, right before Christmas, on the day Tex committed to the Yankees, I first saw the story break on that site that something was going on serious with the Yankees. Up to that very morning it was mostly still a foregone conclusion that he was bound for Boston. I followed it all morning and I recall that they provided additional commentary long before any announcement was made by ESPN and other sources.

The Yankees, ever so quietly, are letting teams know that RF Nick Swisher is available.

I guess it is not so quiet anymore.

[67] Yeah, but I guess I’d want to know a little more what the rumor is based on.  Seems that sometimes it is closer to “MLBTradeMyths” (myths have basis in fact too), since they’ll take a shred of info, not fact-check, and blow it up into a huge story.

He couldn’t even stick in the 5 hole this year.

Careful w/ that one.  IIRC, he was inserted into the 5-hole, and then proceeded to slump.  Not long after, he was put in the 7th spot, and started hitting well.  I think it is purely coincidence that the slump coincided w/ him being in the 5 hole.

Personally, if Damon doesn’t come back, I think the ideal spot for Cano is #2.  Behind Jeter (and maybe Gardner at 9), Cano is a lefty hitter who can take advantage of the hole, rarely strikes out, and can put a ball in play even if it is OOZ.  Great guy to hit-and-run with.  Though sabrmetrics generally doesn’t acknowledge anything to having “protection” in the lineup, it certainly won’t *hurt* Cano if Teix and ARod are coming up after him.

I like Cano, though he frustrates me.  He’s known as Hackinson in our house.  I say it with love.  I think you’ve basically got a .300/.335/.480 hitter, with BA-driven fluctuations around that.  Couple that with so-so defense and baserunning.  Add it all up and you have one of the best 2B in the league. 

I don’t want the Yankees to trade Swish, but I trust Cashman.  Cash is a good trader, IMO.

Jason Giambi used to talk about reading the spin as the ball left the pitcher’s hand a lot, but I think he had freakishly good eye sight so that’s not a fair comparison.

Some scientists talk about HGH improving eyesight. I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’...

“Cash is a good trader”

unlike Mr. Damon who Boston fans consider a bad trader, eh?

I think Cash’s record on trades is mixed, but having won the WS and with a number of teams looking to shed payroll, he is dealing more from a position of strength than he has in years. That’s why, for example, there is no reason to overpay for Halladay.

I like Swisher and his > .371 OBP in 3 of the last four seasons, and > 20 HR in five straight seasons. He is only 28, and his contract is very reasonable and has him signed through his prime. I just don’t see better options out there for RF, and can’t see his $6.75M salary next season precluding them from signing or trading for someone.

Granted they would certainly be selling higher than they bought for, but are they going to find a better fit for this lineup than a high OBP, high P/PA, switch-hitter with 35 HR ability?

That said, no one is untouchable for the right package, except Pujols.

“Some scientists talk about HGH improving eyesight.”

I talk about the moon being made of cheese.  I say that the claim is false.

When was the last time a Yankee pitcher won a Cy Young? Clemens in 2001, although it should have been Mussina, but either way it was a Yankee winning.

Other than that, it was Guidry in 1978.

So we can safely assume that at this rate, the next Yankee to win a Cy Young will come in 2024.

I don’t think the Yankees trade Swisher unless they have ideas about how to replace him already in the works.  If they do though, figure it as:

Betemit/Jeff Marquez/Jhonny Nunez = Swisher’s 2009.
Swisher = ????

So they would have essentially traded Betemit/Marquez/Nunez for what they got out of Swisher in 2009 + ????.  That’s just about a guaranteed positive trade regardless of what ???? ends up being (as long as it’s not a conjoined twin version of Cody Ransom and Angel Berroa or a Kyle Farnsworth who can stink with both his right and left arm or something).

I like Swisher too, but there may be reasons to think he’s a risk long-term.  According to Dan Szymborski, who has done a ton of work with looking at similarities among players, ZiPS is skeptical about Swisher going forward (post # 67).  Of course, as we all should know, individual players should not necessarily be expected to perform in the same way as their predecessors, and projection systems are inherently limited so we need to be careful about how much we read into them.

So we can safely assume that at this rate, the next Yankee to win a Cy Young will come in 2024.

Roland Emmerich, and improper understanding of the Mayan calendar, doesn’t think New York will exist then.

Personally, if Damon doesn’t come back, I think the ideal spot for Cano is #2

Are you that sure Jeter ain’t going to get into scoring position?

That’s why I suggest Cano lead off.

Are you that sure Jeter ain’t going to get into scoring position?

They can tell Jeter to stop at first on any non-HR and to not try to steal while Cano is up.

I remember when Cano was coming up in the minors and everyone—everyone—said he was no kind of prospect and had nothing and would never make it in the majors.

I’m just hoping those are the same guys who say that Montero won’t ever catch in the majors.

FWIW, our own Fabian was always big on Cano.  But yeah, pretty much everyone else shit on him, as they do most Yankee prospects.

Some <strikethrough>scientists</strikethrough>bodybuilders other assorted low-lifes talking out their butts talk about HGH improving eyesight.

Last time I checked, there was no reputable scientific research that would even suggest that hGH improves eyesight in healthy humans.

“Fabian”

I miss the MiL blogging here.

[79] I personally believe “similarities among players” concept is a rather poor indicator. This has the potential to do poorly when it comes to applying the age curve. One huge reason is change in medical sciences and how players condition for the game. Therefore the age-curve in the Mike Schmidt era may not be particularly informative for the age-curve in Alex Rodriguez era.

Second, Alex Rodriguez is not Mike Schmidt. His own history should inform more about his progress forward than Schmidt’s. Of course, the average MLB age curve should still be useful, but Rodriguez’s deviation from that average aging curve so far in his career should also be meaningful in projecting his age curve going forward.

Or what I really mean is fixed-effects panel data techniques should be used for these projections.

I don’t think I will worry too much about Swisher’s projections. Or Posada’s. I think his SLG is probably in the right ballpark, but I am willing to bet 10 dollars he blows that OBP projection away if he is healthy. Easily.

Can we still talk about cano now that Andy is topic du jour (nuit)?

It seems that most people are in the “Cano is who he is and while it can be annoying at times, I recognize who he is is a really good thing” camp, with some outliers. I’m with [38] in thinking that 2008 was the odd man out and not expecting another total stinker like that again. If you take out 2008, there is a nice HR progression he’s showed, and a remarkably consistent 40+ double mark that Cano shows. His power has generally been on the up (I think the dip in 2007 might mostly be an AB issue?). If Cano continues that, and entering his prime I don’t see why not, hitting 50 double and 30 HRs with a .300 BA is certainly possible. He was at 48 and 25 this year. If you took away the fact that we know its Cano and he can look so bad at times, having a 2B who gives you an ops+ close to .900 is pretty darn rare.

I personally believe “similarities among players” concept is a rather poor indicator.

Sure, that’s why I said “Of course, as we all should know, individual players should not necessarily be expected to perform in the same way as their predecessors, and projection systems are inherently limited so we need to be careful about how much we read into them. “

His own history should inform more about his progress forward than Schmidt’s.

There is no projection system worth looking at where the bulk of the projection is NOT based on a weighted average of the player’s prior performance.  The number of years and the weights will differ, but they should still be the most important part of any projetion.

I don’t think you’ll find a system where that weighted average performance is not at least 2/3 of the projection of any player, particularly for a full-time player.

Or what I really mean is fixed-effects panel data techniques should be used for these projections.

I don’t know what this is and don’t know if any of the other systems use it, but I’ll investigate and see if it’s worth incorporating into CAIRO.

Can we still talk about cano now that Andy is topic du jour (nuit)?

You didn’t wait for our answer before talking about Cano anyway.

More seriously though, I think Cano should continue to add some power, as most players do through age 30.  Batting average actually tends to start going down at this point, but I don’t think it’s crazy to pencil Cano in for some .320/.360/.540 type seasons in his late 20s.

And maybe Long really has fundamentally improved Cano’s swing, which would mean he ought to outperform his projections.

I don’t know what this is and don’t know if any of the other systems use it, but I’ll investigate and see if it’s worth incorporating into CAIRO.

SG, that would be awesome if you would investigate the applicability of these methods to MLB data. Essentially, what this does is to apply basic multivariate regressions to situations where you have data over a time period for each individual. I.e., every period is a cross section, and the same cross section is repeated over time. Because you can follow individual subjects over a period of time, you can estimate individual specific factors from the data.

I am not sure if this would be helpful, but please give it a look to see if it can be. I will try to find more references. If you use any statistical software like SAS, they can implement these very easily to get the regression coefficients, which should probably be a primary input to simulations. I personally prefer Stata which I have, and if you just need to run a regression, upload the data somewhere, and I will get back to you with the results ASAP.

[91] Wait, isn’t that how its done? At least, so TV tells me. You start with a rhetorical question or erotesis, then you yell over the person as they try to answer it and just keep talking until they stop, or never even let them speak in the first place.

Must I wait for your reply to speak of Cano???

“erotesis”

Wow, new-to-me, conceivably-useful word.  Except approximately no one will know what it means, like several dozen other words from rhetoric.

[96] Yeah, rhetoric isn’t exactly climbing the college major charts.

Poets still have to be aware of it a bit (I think I can use “synecdoche” and “metonymy” correctly, though not e.g. “prolepsis”), and of course if one studies Latin it’s hard to avoid.  But the decline in familiarity means, I guess, that fancy written English is duller than it used to be.

Does that surprise you? Manny barely pays attention to the ball.

Strangely, I seem to remember him standing and admiring it far, far too many times.

According to RZR he makes a pretty good number of out of zone plays (44 this year and 53 in 2007) so the ability is clearly there.

That, Clay, is really interesting.  Thanks!

[98] Good point.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that you are very familiar with prolepsis, which isn’t a particular difficult concept, even if you aren’t entirely sure of its connection to the term.  And it’s the concept, not the term, that we usually encounter in poetry.

My thought (if that’s not putting it too strongly) was that if you know what “anacoluthon” means, you might, in writing or revising, say to yourself, “I haven’t used anacoluthon in a while, this paragraph is kinda dull, maybe ...”.  It’s true that poems like Bishop’s “Anaphora” are rare, and I guess even fewer people read technical writing about poetry than read poetry.