<$BlogRSDURL$>
Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Meta: Radio Silence

Owing to an unprecedented six consecutive days off at my day job, posting will be fairly light around these parts for a few days as I tend to getting enough room in the garage to add to my collection of woodworking goodies (in this case, a dust collector Helen got me for Christmas, and thank you very much!). Also, I'm taking some time off to work on a couple 6-4-2-related research projects that have been on ice for months. However, here's a few tidbits to keep you amused in the interim: I'll peek in daily, but this being a slow time anyway, and what with the Rev's Greatest Angels series on hiatus during his Laughlin vacation, don't expect much until after New Year's. Of course, I'll peek in with commentary on any significant trades or signings affecting the divisions or either team followed here. See you all in a few.

Comments:
I have to say, I'd have Glaus in the Halo line up myself.

last year showed he could stay healthy for a year (even if you never know how long it'll last) and decent power numbers were something we're badly short of.
 
Matt -- except that Glaus was known as something of a free-swinger even in his Halo days. I agree with you, Phil, that the Angels are looking increasingly like they could have used him, as McPherson's sell-by date is getting closer and closer.
 
I agree with Matt. Yes, he earned a lot of money, but that's what power hitters go for. Guys that can give you 35 dingers and 100 ribeyes aren't all that common.

I don't see how Glaus' contract is out of line with what other free agent power hitters are getting.

(Other than Jose Guillen, who's earning $5-7M less per year than he otherwise would because he's a nutcase.)
 
The trouble with Glaus is the injury risk, which is pretty large. In my view, the Snakes did well to unload him.
 
Glaus' 2005 numbers are a figment of The BOB:

Overall OPS: .885
Home OPS: .951
Road OPS: .824

Put him in a neutral dome like Toronto, with synthetic turf that will beat on his back and knee, and his numbers will be unimpressive for his salary.
 
The BOB was the most pitcher freindly stadium in baseball for at least the last five years.
 
The BOB was the most pitcher freindly stadium in baseball for at least the last five years.

Say what?

The BOB is a HITTER friendly ballpark. Here are the park factors from Baseball-Reference.com (with batting listed first, followed by pitching):

104/104
103/103
111/109
108/107
106/105
 
Rich:

That's rather odd, since ESPNs park factor has Arizona at the bottom (by a good measure) for the last five years.

It wouldn't surpise me if their method was terrible though.
 
Not sure which ESPN park factors you're looking at, Andrew, but the ones on ESPN show the BOB as being one of the best hitter's parks in the majors, though they did have an anomalous 2004.
 
Here's what I see there (0.540/0.477/0.553/0.644/1.278/0.559) Good for last in baseball. Please tell me I'm not crazy.
 
Wow, that's bizarre -- just this morning they had a park factor (by runs) of around 1.2. Something is very, very wrong here. The BOB has been one of baseball's better hitter's parks for years now.
 
Yeah, I was incredibly shocked when I saw that the BOB was not only last, but very last.
 
You can't expect consistent statistics out of something with a silly name like, 'the BOB'.
 
The Park Factors page on ESPN is awful. You can get different results just by refreshing the page sometimes.

FWIW, I saw the same thing as you when I checked it. I thought "well, isn't that the damndest thing?".
 
Just to back up Blue22 I refreshed the page and the BOB went from last to 9th, and the Big A went from 27th to 7th. Crazy!
 

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.



Newer›  ‹Older
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Google

WWW 6-4-2