On David Murphy

by Adam J. Morris on Aug 26, 2007 11:46 AM CDT in News Comment 74 comments

I feel compelled to write about this, because of the overreaction David Murphy's recent play has generated from some fans. I've seen some comments that minor league numbers don't matter if you can hit in the majors, that he's proving he can hit in the majors, that Botts and Cruz should be moved aside so that Murphy can get more playing time, and that Rudy has fixed him...

First of all, you can see Murphy's career minor league numbers here.

For those who don't want to click the link, a summary:

In high A, at age 22: 669 OPS
In AA, at age 23: 767 OPS
In AA, at age 24: 751 OPS
In AAA, at age 24: 802 OPS
In AAA, at age 25: 770 OPS

In 1902 minor league ABs, Murphy has a career 750 OPS.

Those are pretty mediocre numbers...particularly given that he wasn't particularly young for his level at any stop.

PECOTA's 50% projections over the next few years peg him at an EQA in the .240s, which would be mediocre 4th outfielder level performance. His 75% projections peg him in the .260s, which would make him a good 4th outfielder or a mediocre/weak starting centerfielder.

Since coming to Texas, Murphy has 26 plate appearances. In those 26 plate appearances, he has posted a .462/.462/.731 line. And for some reason, some fans seem to believe that Murphy's last 26 plate appearances are more indicative of what he can do than the over 2000 plate appearances he had in the majors and minors since he turned pro.

26 plate appearances doesn't tell you anything. Matt Kata hit .387/.424/.613 in his first 34 plate appearances for the Rangers this year. Ramon Vazquez hit .524/.560/1.000 in his first 25 plate appearances for the Rangers this year. Jerry Hairston Jr. hit .345/.441/.483 over a 34 plate appearance span soon after arriving to the Rangers in 2006.

Now, there is some reason to hope that Murphy could be a useful player. Murphy had a solid .299/.370/.466 line against righthanders for Pawtucket, and plays good defense, so he could be a decent platoon option in centerfield or rightfield. And he certainly could be a late bloomer, a guy who puts it together later in his career and becomes a solid regular. I'm fine with Murphy getting some ABs the rest of the way, and being in the outfield mix for 2008.

But let's quit getting worked up about his numbers so far as a Ranger. Projecting what a player can or will do based on 26 plate appearances is about as reliable as projecting based on the I, Ching or cutting open a goat and reading its entrails.

Update [2007-8-26 13:24:48 by Adam J. Morris]: -- One other point on Murphy, which I was going to make and then forgot...

Here are the pitchers he has gotten hits off of this season:

Daniel Cabrera

Edwin Jackson

Jason Hammel

Felix Hernandez

Paul Shuey

John Bale

Rob Bell

Brian Burres

Justin Hampson

Jon Switzer

Jamie Walker

Dan Wheeler

It is hard to argue that he's a better hitter as a major leaguer than as a minor leaguer when he's hitting against mostly minor league caliber pitchers...

0 recs | Comment 74 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Goat entrails

I'm deeply offended by your casual dismissal of my belief system. Nevertheless, I agree with your assessment of Murphy.

by Lucas on Aug 26, 2007 11:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Dammit, Adam.

Weren't you listening last night? Didn't LAFlabbyFairy and that other brainiac make it abundantly clear that minor league stats don't mean a thing? Murphy's minor league stats are mediocre, and Rudy the miracle worker has a history of "fixing" guys who don't perform at high levels in the minors. Therefore, Murphy is going to be the next Andruw Jones. And Botts sucks. Since he hasn't adjusted yet to ML pitching, that means his minor league numbers are a farce.

When the hell are you going to get your nose out of the stat book and watch a damned game?

by Athos on Aug 26, 2007 11:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed..........

I hope Murphy turns out to be a good player like I do with all the Rangers but he can't take AB's away from Botts and Cruz and I'm tired of seeing people say someone is great (Murphy) or sucks (Botts) after not having enough time to make that judgement.....that said I am ok with Murphy platooning with Byrd the rest of the way

As young as this team is and is going to be, people are going to have to start showing patience with these kids and not rushing to judgement....what happens if in 2009 Chris Davis comes up and struggles for 2 months...that means he sucks right?

by slc ranger on Aug 26, 2007 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Point taken but

Vazquez hairston and others have long histories of poor mlb performance of being bad.

i get that thats part of your point, but still... we know what they are, we dont know what murphy is. a lot of mlb players have had mediocre minor league careers and turned into nice major leaguers. not many ramon vazquez's have turned their careers around at his age. And Murphy was a high draft pick and has been a name in the boston system, even if not one of the top ones.

and its that murphy has "looked good doing it" if you know what I mean. He plays nice defense, he runs well, he seems to be able to make good contact.

Its not like because hes hitting .450 I actually believe he will hit .450.

And really, how many people have been suggesting he could be a good mlb corner outfielder? Whenever I praise him its just as someone who i think can stick around on the team in one way or another, not as a .380 hitting all star OF.

by DSheppard on Aug 26, 2007 12:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

He'd be a nice, cheap stopgap along with Byrd for a couple of years until Borbon or Beltre come up, then he'll be back to 4th OF duties.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by Chase Irwin on Aug 26, 2007 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

beltre????

you want that platoon for 5 years??

untill boggs and Borbon make it up, thatd be ok

by slash on Aug 26, 2007 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is it just me

Or is the fact that he's yet to take a walk worrisome?

sportsdeals.blogspot.com

by BudLight on Aug 26, 2007 12:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I could be wrong

because I haven't really been paying close enough attention to the details but he looks like he has a hitch or something in his swing which is not indicative of extended success. That said, sometimes guys do better against higher quality pitching because they feel more comfortable knowing they aren't about to lose a body part when the pitch is thrown. But he does look like a guy who can be servicable, a guy who can make some plays to help out the club, slap the ball on the ground and get a base hit kind of guy. Beats the hell out of a guy like Cruz who has shown absolutely nothing.

by gp on Aug 26, 2007 12:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Wrong about Nellie....

he has shown flashes of what he can do, solid on D, great arm, just very streaky right now at the plate...still needs more time and should be in RF next year...but that should be his last chance he needs to start hitting like a corner OF

by slc ranger on Aug 26, 2007 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's the guy

that you'll be saying the same thing about when he is 32. The guy has just enough ability to fool people but not enough ability to sustain success.

by gp on Aug 26, 2007 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That may be ....

but I'm not ready to give up on him yet and I hope the Rangers aren't either

by slc ranger on Aug 26, 2007 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just glanced over his minor league numbers

and using OPS to judge the guy is just asinine. He isn't a power hitter so his OPS is going to always be low since OPS is basically a measure of how many home runs a guy hits. His BA is alright, but not great and his on-base % is low. To me those are the indicators that you need to focus on. The vast majority of OPS is slugging %. OPS is sort of a fluid measure because the value of a hit or walk varies from case to case. It is very possible for a person to be a dreadful ballplayer with an 800 OPS where someone else is a terrific ballplayer at the same OPS. You should know that something is seriously flawed when a base hit is worth more than a walk. Separated, both on-base percentage and slugging % give a real nice read on how productive a player is and what their true skill set is. Together it just muddles the water and actually describes less. In short, OPS is a fraud when it comes to describing a players ability.

by gp on Aug 26, 2007 12:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

OPS

It isn't perfect, but it is a useful snapshot. And it measures more than just how many home runs a guy hits.

And I don't see that it is misleading in Murphy's case.

by Adam J. Morris on Aug 26, 2007 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A few things...

"The vast majority of OPS is slugging %."

Actually, it is half slugging % and half on-base % (OPS + Slugging). Think of it another way, (1 * OBP) + (1 * Slugging). The similar multiples (1 in this case) mean that each half of the equation is weighted equally.

"You should know that something is seriously flawed when a base hit is worth more than a walk."

Again, both are weighted equally (OBP + Slugging). There are some stat heads who dislike OPS because they feel a hit is more important than a walk (with a hit you can drive in runs, something that is very difficult to do with a walk). So, a better formula would be something like (OBP * 0.5 + Slugging). Basically, I disagree with your above assertations. However, this is not to mean that I think OPS is the greatest stat. It is flawed, though hardly a fraud.

I personally like OPS because it judges a player by his ability to get on base and to hit for power. This is the ideal player. However, these type of players are quite rare. You don't have to do get on base AND hit for power to be a good/useful player. So yes, OPS can be misleading.

"It is very possible for a person to be a dreadful ballplayer with an 800 OPS where someone else is a terrific ballplayer at the same OPS."

Well, the words "dreadful" and "terrific" are very subjective. Dunn can post a high OPS but he will rack up a lot of K's. You can argue that Dunn is not as valuable as somebody with the same OPS. For instance, adding Dunn to this current Rangers' roster might not be such a good idea as they strike out enough on their own. Yet, Dunn would be a nice fit for another team that does not strike out as often. So I see your point, but "dreadful" and "terrific" are a bit sensational.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Aug 26, 2007 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

Slugging pct and OBP are on different scales, so they are not actually weighted equally in regard to OPS.

For example a 10% increase in OBP will not have the same effect on OPS as a 10% increase in SLG.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Aug 26, 2007 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am confuzzled....

in parts by all 3 of the posts above.

-A hit SHOULD be worth more than a walk. A hit ALWAYS does better than a walk would (i.e., players can take extra bases on a hit, but can't on a walk).

-OTOH, a single is NOT twice as valuable as a walk, nor is a double 3x as valuable as a walk, etc. Because the most important part of getting a hit or a walk is that you did not use up an out.

-Therefore, a lot of statheads feel that SLG NOT OBP is weighted too much in OPS (though OPS is usually known as a quick and dirty method of comparing hitters, not the holy grail of tools). Some feel the weighting should be more (1.4 to 1.9)*OPS+1*SLG vs. the even division.

-A 10% increase in OBP WILL have the same effect on OPS as a 10% increase SLG. Basic mathematics assures that. Perhaps, what you meant is a 10% in BA? I dunno.

Req

by Requiem on Aug 26, 2007 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And by all 3...

I'm excluding Adam's short reply because it's not in the branch that I'm replying to.

Req

by Requiem on Aug 26, 2007 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

huh?

OBP is generally in the range of .300 - .400, so a 10% increase in OBP would increase OPS by 30-40 points.

SLG is generally in the range of .400 - .600, so a 10% increase in SLG would generally increase OPS by 40-60 points.

The two numbers (OBP and SLG) are not measured on the same scale, so it is incorrect to say that they are both weighted equally in OPS.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Aug 26, 2007 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Weighted Equally

Yes they are weighted equally because you add them at face value to calculate OPS. If they were weighted differently, then there would be a difference in multiples. As it turns out, the multiple for both stats is the same; thus there is no difference in weight.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Aug 26, 2007 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'M LIVIN' IN A COO-COO CLOCK!

by oc on Aug 26, 2007 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, I see

You're talking general range for ALL players which isn't necessarily accurate.

Still, there's a small differential between average OBP and average SLG which does make SLG more valued in OPS.

I'll concede that. I'm no longer confused about what you were trying to say.

Req

by Requiem on Aug 26, 2007 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My Formula

I just made up a formula that weighs OBP and Slugging on different levels (hence the multiple of 0.5). I am not trying to say that a single is twice as valuable as a walk, it is just an example to make a point.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Aug 26, 2007 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But...

I see your point, and this makes sense as most people have a higher Slugging than OBP. But this has nothing to do as to how each statistic is weighted. Since they have the same multiple, they are weighted the same.

As you stated a ten percent increase in Slugging is a larger number than a ten percent increase in OBP. This is why some feel that Slugging is more important than OBP; thus they should be weighted differently. Going back to my hypothetical formula of ((OBP * 0.5) + (1 * Slugging)), this would mean that Slugging is twice as important as OBP.

The difference of scales used in calculating Slugging and OBP is independent from the weight used in calculating OPS.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Aug 26, 2007 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm still confused...

Why would you multiply OBP by 0.5?

Statheads already have a problem that if you get a hit it counts in OBP AND SLG (2+).

Whereas if you get a walk, it only counts in OBP (1).

I don't see how making a single = (1.5) vs. a walk = (0.5) makes things better since a walk is already almost definitely better than 1/2 a single.

Req

by Requiem on Aug 26, 2007 6:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hypothetical

My formula is hypothetical. Since many people view a hit as more important than a walk, OPS should reflect this. This is why I made hits twice as important as a walk. I pulled this number out of my ass. It is not scientific at all. I was just trying to prove a point about the weighting of stats.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Aug 26, 2007 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess...

that's why I'm confused.

OPS already DOES value a hit more than a walk.

In OPS a hit is valued as 2 for a single, 3 for a double, 4 for a triple, 5 for a HR.

Whereas a walk is valued as 1 for a walk (or HBP).

Some people, however, do NOT think that the hit should be valued THAT much.

Therefore, they increase the weight TO OBP NOT SLG in more "sophisticated" versions of OPS to more accurately reflect the value of a walk vs. the hit.

As I've said, I've seen many variations on OPS where OBP is weighted anywhere from 1.4-1.9. I've NEVER seen it weighted LESS.

Is there a reason for doing this, given that OPS already values a hit >>> walk?

Req

by Requiem on Aug 26, 2007 6:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

"...given that OPS already values a hit >>> walk?"

Yes, OPS values a hit more than a walk, but it does not value Slugging more than OBP.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Aug 26, 2007 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Forgot to Mention

I forgot to mention that the post to which you responded should have said that slugging is more important than getting on base.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Aug 26, 2007 6:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah... ok

That makes more sense.

Though, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think OBP > SLG.

Req

by Requiem on Aug 26, 2007 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's the Problem

I think that is the problem with OPS. If you favor OBP, then OPS is lacking. The same could be said of favoring Slugging. You can go on and on arguing about which is more important, OBP or Slugging. OPS avoids this mess by treating them as equals, and allows for a quick point of reference. OPS's greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Aug 26, 2007 7:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree.

All that these stats should be are TOOLS.

They are supposed to fulfill functions.

OPS is great as a quick and dirty method of calculating a player's value in one number.

However, it is not the most ACCURATE one. And it CAN be improved upon.

It's incorrect to argue that if you favor OBP or you favor SLG, then OPS is lacking. As one way or another will be closer to be a better gauge of a player's value. And everyone else I've talked to thinks that SLG is weighted too much in the OPS equation.

I don't disagree that OPS allows for a quick point of reference (and in fact, that's why it's used so often). But it isn't the be-all, end-all of player evaluation.

Req

by Requiem on Aug 26, 2007 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

OPS

I was not trying to say that it is the most accurate stat, and I do believe that it can be improved (and by improved I mean recognizing it's limitations and using other stats in conjunction with other stats). I think OPS is so popular because it takes into account walks, reaching on errors, reaching on fielder's choice, HR's, etc. This is probably the first single-number stat that is this robust. Also, it is fairly easy to understand. This is what I mean by it's greatest strength. This simplicity, however, hides the other complexities of player evaluation (value of a steal, value of getting caught stealing, sac flies, etc.).

I get the feeling that we are arguing the same point...

by Excel Hearts Choi on Aug 26, 2007 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess we are...

arguing the same point.

I think I got a little side-tracked by the weighting of the OBP by 0.5, because I've never seen anyone do that before...

Req

by Requiem on Aug 27, 2007 12:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Weighting K's

I don't get this argument that people use against Adam Dunn. So what if he strikes out a lot? Would it be better if he hit pop-ups more often? Or hit more ground outs instead?

I understand that K's are bad because they don't put the ball in play (allowing runners to move up, giving the defense a chance to make an error). But to an extent these negatives are mitigated by the fact that you can't hit into a double play by striking out.

Furthermore, players like Dunn (and Wilkerson) who strike out a lot force the pitcher to throw lots of pitches. In addition to the obvious (getting to the bullpen faster), it also has an effect of slowing down the game - which can make the defense less focused (basically what people were saying about Padilla). I have no idea if this is true, but do you really think that the SS is at his most alert when a "3 possible outcomes" guy like Dunn is up?

K's look bad, but when you are fielding a team with a team OBP of .323, the negatives associated with Dunn's 150+ K's are easily canceled out by the fact that when he doesn't strike out, he actually gets on base. I'll take that any day. (And before that clown comparing Dunn to Wilkerson shows up, Dunn's OBP is about 75 points higher than Wilk's...)

Bottom line - I think baseball already over-discounts some highly productive guys like Adam Dunn because of their K's, and they represent a great "buying opportunity" rather than something to be concerned about in the current market (in Moneyball terms...)

by JBImaknee on Aug 26, 2007 5:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My Intention

My intention was not to start another debate on the value of Dunn. Rather, I just wanted to show that two players with the same OPS are not identical. I will defend a player such as Dunn. However, having a lineup of nine players who are at the top of the league in K's is not a very good lineup.

As gp stated, two players with identical OPS's can be described as "dreadful" or "terrific", and I would argue that these subjective adjectives are probably dependent upon the makeup of the team.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Aug 26, 2007 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

murphy

I agree with what you are saying here, but what I'd like to see is him get consistent at bats the rest of the way to see if these 26pa's are a fluke or if something has clicked with the guy.

if he hits anywhere close to this the rest of the season then i think he deserves a legit look at being a starter in spring training. if he proves it's just a hot streak, then oh well you gave a guy good at bats and he can be a 4th outfielder.

Can you please Look into getting a less funny signature? That's sarcasm, btw. - Sharky

by rentz on Aug 26, 2007 12:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

But that is still only a month

of at bats to go on. I agree he needs all the at bats he can get, but you can't say he's a totally new hitter based on that short a sample. That's kind of like saying that if Botts doesn't hit .400 the rest of the way he's proven he's just a AAAA player. I can see Murphy getting 300 at bats minimum next year anyway, because the Rangers are not likely to get a whole new outfield of better players this offseason and there will be room for him somewhere.

Signature

by t ball on Aug 26, 2007 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree

i guess my main point is, if he plays this well the rest of the season, then he should at least get a look at being a starter in spring training (this also would assume they don't sign a big free agent outfielder)... if not then he's the 4th outfielder.

and i believe i've said before in gameday threads.... i don't think the guy's suddenly turning into a solid hitter or anything i'd just like to take a wait and see approach.

Can you please Look into getting a less funny signature? That's sarcasm, btw. - Sharky

by rentz on Aug 26, 2007 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would be a wonderful world

if Murphy was set in a 4th outfielder role next year because the team had 3 obvious starters. Unfortunately, right now they have a big pile of 4th outfielders. Happily, though, Murphy and Byrd seem to both have something to offer defensively while neither are likely to be an embarrassment at the plate if kept near the bottom of the order most of the time.

Signature

by t ball on Aug 26, 2007 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is how

bad roster decisions get made in spring training, because even Managers aren't immune to a hot streak at the right time. This is one area that I hope Washington grows in before next March.

How a handful of at bats can overwhelm several years of contrary evidence is beyond me. Jaramillo is good, but come on. He's hardly had time to remember Murphy's name since the trade. If Kinsler is just now saying he's getting comfortable with the defensive things, don't you think it might take a little bit longer than 3 weeks for a new approach at the plate to sink in. And that's assuming that Jaramillo saw something the very first day that he could easily fix, that Carl Yastremski (who has worked with Murphy) didn't see or couldn't fix, let alone all his other coaches.

Signature

by t ball on Aug 26, 2007 12:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Your listing of pitchers.....

come on. What hitter doesn't get most of their hits off of the scrubs?

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that added set of information made you lose some points for me. It made it seem like you didn't think your original argument was enough.

by bdavison94 on Aug 26, 2007 1:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

In fact.....

since you decided to use that as evidence then why don't you show us who Cruz and Botts have their major league hits against? Might make your argument even stronger.

by bdavison94 on Aug 26, 2007 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's the point?

He's not trying to prove Cruz and Botts sample sizes are too little to draw any conclusion on... although with Botts that might be the case.

by chase1971 on Aug 26, 2007 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How would it make my argument stronger?

My point is simply that 25 ABs doesn't tell you anything.

by Adam J. Morris on Aug 26, 2007 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

misinterpretation on my part.....

I had a Botts/Cruz comparison on the brain I guess.

In my defense my daughter was pulling me from the computer at the time to build "statues" (a lego tower in her world)

by bdavison94 on Aug 26, 2007 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sure it does.

it means he needs further evalutation...

anybody who goes 13 for his first 28 gets playing time on my team...

i never said the guy was the second coming of Willie Mays, sir... i just don't appreciate people saying that he'll never amount to anything more than a back-up centerfield based solely on his minor league numbers...

by oc on Aug 26, 2007 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

murphy

didn't Botts tear the cover off the baseballs in the minors and can't hit his weight in the majors?

your system is flawed

yo soy Horsedooty!

by horsedooty on Aug 26, 2007 2:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Minor league numbers

If Murphy sucks as badly as his minor league numbers suggest, he will rapidly fade into a major slump and die and whether he starts or comes off the bench won't be an issue because he won't be on the team. However, Travis Metcalf is hitting .254 for the Rangers in 114 at bats, including a granny and looks to have improved at the plate. He hit .140 something in 60 something at bats with OKC. As Botts, Diaz and Cruz have established, minor league stats are history, present performance in the major leagues is something different.

by doolindalton on Aug 26, 2007 2:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Again...

That's ridiculous.

To argue that, because Botts, Cruz and Diaz have hit well in the minors, but not in the majors, that minor league numbers are irrelevant and a player with mediocre minor league numbers could put up quality major league numbers is absurd.

And Metcalf has a 719 OPS in the majors. That doesn't really support your argument.

by Adam J. Morris on Aug 26, 2007 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It may be absurd...

But in all due respect, counsel, you're saying so doesn't support the argument either. The fact is there is no way to establish a perfect correlation between minor league performance and big league performance. The Rangers obviously believe Murphy has something his minor league numbers don't reflect or he wouldn't be getting an extended shot with the big league team. He is obviously making the most of it (again tonight he makes an outstanding defensive play).

by doolindalton on Aug 26, 2007 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

stacking absurdities

Murphy is getting an extended shot because the Rangers' outfield sucks. They have nothing to lost by giving him a shot, and he might very well end up a starter next year -- but that should not be something to celebrate necessarily.

Signature

by t ball on Aug 26, 2007 11:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If there is no way to correlate minor

and major league performances then why don't baseball draft picks go straight to the pro's like they do in basketball and football?

by slc ranger on Aug 27, 2007 12:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously this is the majors

and we would all like to see Murphy, Metcalf, Botts, Cruz, Salty, etc just take off....but you can't dismiss their track record. That is the argument here is that Murphy has played well and hopefully will continue to do so but you can't give him a starting job on 26 at bats....that's the point 26 at bats....you have to wait and see how he does over a longer period of time, like with all the before mentioned players

by slc ranger on Aug 26, 2007 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

track record

so by your calculations we don't need to see what a player can do in the bigs all we need are the numbers of the minors. Thats stupid!

yo soy Horsedoooty!

by horsedooty on Aug 26, 2007 11:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

assessment

As we assess these guys down the stretch, just as important as the numbers, are the adjustments and improvements that they make. For example: Salty needs to show plate discipline, Botts needs to be able to hit the high and inside strike, Cruz needs to start driving the ball consistently (though I've been very impressed with his recent ability to take walks).

Seems like there is an impatience on here with Botts, but I whole-heartedly agree with Adam, he needs to play everyday and be given the DH job at the beginning of next year. If he's still struggling June 1st, then consider doing something.

Murphy - somebody on here a couple of weeks ago compared him to Rusty Greer. While that would be nice, Greer basically was the same hitter in the majors as he was in the minors, except with a little more power. I think it's a shaky argument to project that a guy who hit .270 in his minor league career is going to become a .300+ hitter in the majors.

by Randy Richardson on Aug 26, 2007 2:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

true

Botts also needs to lay off the low fastball...but mostly, he needs to find his comfort zone. I think he presses here a bit too much, trying to prove himself - he just needs to relax and do what he does.

at least we have some young guys to be excited about. They need time to develop and thankfully we have the ability to be patient with them, let them get in a groove, as there's no pressure on this team the rest of this year and realistically speaking, no pressure to win the division next year.

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Aug 26, 2007 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stats

Greer hit .287 in the minors compared to .305 in the majors. His OPS was .820 in the minors compared to .865 in the majors. So he did improve from the minors to the majors.

by Pitcher15 on Aug 26, 2007 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why do people use this argument?

Hey, I found this one guy who goes against the trend of thousands of other guys so I must be right!!!!

by Chris Martin on Aug 26, 2007 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

thousands of other guys ???

Greer hit for more power in the majors than he ever did in the minors. That is not an isolated instance, it happens all the time. Most players hit for the most power in the age range of 27-31.

Look at the top 25 in slugging pct and I would bet you that the big majority of them have hit for more power in the majors than they did in the minors.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Aug 26, 2007 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't...

believe Randy mentioned power in his argument. He was talkign batting average which is how Greer got brought up. Of which, Greer is a fairly isolated incidence of hitting better in the majors than the minors. Typically if you aren't a good minor league hitter, you're not going to be a good major league hitter.

It's true that the power comes with age usually, which is why you don't see many 19 year olds hititng for power in the minors and those same players at 25 hitting for more power.

by rangers85 on Aug 26, 2007 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK

I see that now that you pointed it out, but when using OPS in the minors vs OPS in the majors the majors total will often be higher due to the power development that you mention.

But as far as BA and OBP, yeah I would agree that those numbers are not likely to improve from minors to majors.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Aug 26, 2007 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey I just simply made

quoted what Greer did since the comparison to Greer was made. Settle Turbo.

by Pitcher15 on Aug 26, 2007 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Murph Dawg

the dude's playing well right now, so let it ride...get him, Byrd, Nelson Cruz, Botts and Saltalamacchia all the at bats you can from now on...and they're doing that to some degree right now.

nobody is saying Murphy is going to be our long-term answer in CF, but it sure would be nice if he could hold that spot for a few years until Boggs, Borbon, etc. are ready...assuming we don't sign a big-name free agent for CF.

question: would you rather have a guy that walks 50 times and strikes out 75 times, hits in the .280 to .300 range, plays solid centerfield and consistently puts the ball in play, or not? I think that's what David Murphy can offer us, and I'll take it.

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Aug 26, 2007 2:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Batting average in minors vs majors

heres some quick research for you.

top 7 in batting avg 2007 - career mlb average - career milb average

Ordonez - .309 - .269
Ichiro - no milb
Renteria - .291 - .258
Utley - .299 - .283
Figgins - .293 - .274
Holliday - .316 - .275
Polanco - .304 - .279

so all top 7 that played in the minors had higher major league averages, in many cases by a lot.

i was going to do top 15, but baseballcube is now lagging out on me.

i realize that choosing the top in the mlb in batting average is going to get guys that have obviously done really well in the mlb and noone who flamed out in their second, but if nothing else it shows that its not exactly this terribly rare situation.

by DSheppard on Aug 26, 2007 4:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

interesting...

...thanks for the research, sir.

by oc on Aug 26, 2007 5:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Couple of issues...

Like you said, you're cherry-picking the top, so you won't run into the issue where the minor-leaguers flame out. In fact, you'll likely find that the vast majority of baseball players (major and minor leaguers) have WORSE BAs in the majors than their career minor league numbers. Though, you weren't making that argument, so anyways, on to the next point.
There's something significantly different about most of the players cited and David Murphy.

Ordonez - 18 Rk, 19/20 A-, 21 A+, 22 AA, 23 AAA, 24 MLB
Ichiro - no milb
Renteria - 17 Rk, 18 A-, 19 A+, 20 AA, 21 AAA/MLB, 22 MLB
Utley - 22 A+, 23 AAA, 24 AAA/MLB, 25 AAA/MLB, 26 MLB
Figgins - 19 Rk, 20 A-, 21/22 A+, 23 AA, 24 AAA, 25 AAA/MLB
Holliday - 18 Rk, 19 A-, 20/21 A+, 22/23 AA, 24 MLB
Polanco - 18 Rk, 19 A-, 20 A+, 21 AA, 22 AAA/MLB, 23 AAA/MLB

Murphy - 21 A-/A+, 22 A+, 23 AA, 24 AA/AAA, 25 AAA/MLB?

Almost all the other players were at least pretty young for their level in SOME part of their minor league listing. And all of them had were at least part-time players in the majors by age 24 or earlier (except Figgins and Ichiro was in Japan).

Not only that all but one of the cited players have shown the ability to hit > .300 over a significant amount of time in the minors or were extremely young for their level. And the one exception is due almost entirely to the Coors effect, IMO.

Best seasons
Ordonez - .329 in 523 AB (AAA)
Ichiro - no milb
Renteria - .289 in 508 AB as 20yo (AA)
Utley - .323 in 431 AB (AAA)
Figgins - .305 in 511 AB (AAA)
*Holliday - .276 in 463 AB (AA)
Polanco - .291 in 508 AB as 21yo (AA)

Murphy - .280 in 400 AB as 25yo (AAA)

Of course, we're really just quibbling. I don't think anyone here really thinks that Murphy is definitely going to be a starting OF for a playoff team just because of these 28 PAs. Nor does anyone really think that Murphy has no possibility of improving.

But the quibbles are what we baseball fans like to argue about.

Req

by Requiem on Aug 26, 2007 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Murphy's a scrub

No wonder LSB would overrate him.

More media sky-is-falling distortion

by Sharky on Aug 26, 2007 5:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Damn....

people are really fired up about Murphy, very interesting views

by slc ranger on Aug 26, 2007 6:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Murphy

Botts is from California
Byrd is a Florida guy
Cruz is Dominican...

Aside from all the hard facts (stats), there might be a little bit of incentive for Murphy to earn a starting spot by next year. He was born in Houston, grew up there and went to Baylor. Now, he is married and his wife is from Dallas as is all of her family. Not to mention, they have a newborn...this to me says he will work a little harder to earn a spot because he is in a perfect situation. Just something to think about...

by rfed013 on Aug 26, 2007 10:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

well im sure almost everybody tries hard

you dont think drew meyer has tried hard? sometimes it just doesnt work out......

by slash on Aug 26, 2007 11:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just think

Murphy has potential, he has the tools and obviously hasnt put it together in the minors

I in no way agree with all the stuff those other guys were saying.....but the kid does have potential, itd be great if he put it together, even though its highly unlikely, since he hasnt yet in the minors and he was a 3 year college guy when he got picked

its just fun to watch since gabbard and murphy are both playing well and so it beltre....and even though i like gagne, he's not......just fun to watch since we havent exactly made good trades

by slash on Aug 26, 2007 11:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Pretty crazy

How we got dudes writing theisis about how good Dale Murphy is in here.

But Tex, he was a scrub.

LSB loves some scrubs..

More media sky-is-falling distortion

by Sharky on Aug 27, 2007 6:39 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i dont understand

the murphy thing, i root for him though, but i dont believe the dumb shit some of the other posters are saying......but i also dont understand you most of the time lol i dont know many people who think Tex is a scrub, but i dont like the guy personally, an asshole towards this franchise.....coulda handled it a lot better

by slash on Aug 27, 2007 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No one thinks Tex, Arod, Pudge....

or any other stars who left the team are "scrubs"...it just sucks when your team loses a good player, but Tex had a chance to stay, he just turned it down...I can't say that I blame him, he wants to win now but his overall attitude towards the franchise should have been better. Whether he was correct about the direction of the team or not!

by slc ranger on Aug 27, 2007 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs