Huff close to signing with the O's
by birdman on Dec 30, 2006 2:04 PM EST
42 comments
Rosenthal is reporting that the O's are close to signing Huff.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6317476
I'm not sure if I get this signing. Huff is an awful OF which makes 1B/DH more sensible for him but the O's already have two LHs at those two spots. Thus the signing adds depth but if you want to add depth why not add a RH bat (like Wilson) and why spend 18 million dollars? If the O's want to use Huff mostly at LF, then the signing is more sensible but I'm not particularly thrilled with this either. While I like the idea of platooning Payton and Corey at CF, Huff is an awful fielder and I'm afraid his skills might decline. An OPS around .780 from Huff would not suprise me at all which is entirely too little production for his pay.
FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.
0 recs |
42 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Oops
Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"
by birdman on Dec 30, 2006 2:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
6 million
by ReLaunch on Dec 30, 2006 3:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
yeah well
by SC on Dec 30, 2006 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Carlos
by ReLaunch on Dec 30, 2006 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
re:
s far as steep decline, not really sure where you are getting that. Yes, he didn't as well as years past, but not sure that proves he is on a steep decline.
It proves he's not nearly the hitter he was when he was 26/27? He had two really good years.
by SC on Dec 30, 2006 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You
And even with you comparision, you still don't make any sense.
Here are Pena's numbers from 02-04, horrible
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4594
Here are Huff's
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4479
Your point about Wilson over Huff makes sense. Your point of Huff over Pena makes absolutely no sense. Even with Pena's glove, his low OBP and Slugg, outweigh any contributions he makes there.
by ReLaunch on Dec 30, 2006 6:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sorry, i meant
by ReLaunch on Dec 30, 2006 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually...
2002 - 104
2003 - 107
2004 - 112
2005 - 112
2006 - 99
http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/penaca01.shtml
Huff's numbers over the same period:
2002 - 132
2003 - 139
2004 - 124
2005 - 98
2006 - 106
Pena would cost around the minimum next year, Huff will cost 6 million. I'd take Pena over Huff, based on cost and need.
Now, Huff can play left, which Pena can't, and his career OBP is certainly better than Pena's. But based on the costs I'd rather have Pena. And I'd rather have Craig Wilson than both, as we've established.
by pipkin on Dec 30, 2006 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Those
by ReLaunch on Dec 30, 2006 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what the hell
Pena
- 443
- 516
- 561
- 295
- 37
- 494
- 706
- 667
- 636
- 517
Oh also Pena's a couple years younger and a lot cheaper. And then you say...
And why do you care so much about cost? Angelos has money that he does not want to spend.
Because I love this stupid team, Angelos spends his money for shit, and I'd rather he not be waiting around until goddamn January every year to try to fill that one final hole -- THE POWER BAT -- with a halfass name solution that he pays almost $7 million a year for. Sure relative to the market, but there's another thing to consider, which is relativity to the Orioles. Angelos expects us to see Aubrey Huff as a big difference-maker despite that he hasn't produced in the last two seasons because his Baseball Reference page has an All-Star banner up at the top. Jose Rosado went twice, too, let's dig him up.
There's no way I can be convinced that Aubrey Huff is $6 million better than Carlos Pena, but I'll let you in on this secret, too: If Aubrey Huff lets them trade Jay Gibbons, I'm on board.
by SC on Dec 31, 2006 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There
See, you say that Huff isn't worth 7million. People on this site also said Soriano and Lee aren't worth what they are getting. But you want a big bat? Hmmmm. I don't think that Huff is the big bat that was ideal, but he is a better value than the awful deals given to Soriano and Lee.
Money shouldn't be as much as an object as you say it is for a team that has over payed for 2 okay relievers (Walker and Baez). It is amazing that the team that went to the WS from the AL cut Pena in spring training, but you still think he brings value. Maybe you should join the Orioles FO and continue the awful management of a once proud franchise.
by ReLaunch on Dec 31, 2006 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
re:
He was productive in every season.
by SC on Jan 1, 2007 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah,
by ReLaunch on Jan 1, 2007 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really don't see
At this point, they are both average hitters. Huff costs a lot more because he had two good years, while Pena hasn't been able to catch on. The Orioles might as well use their money on Huff, since nobody else will take it, and he's more likely (not saying much) to make a big impact. Especially if you buy this "unlucky" business. I certainly don't. They are comparable hitters. You pay $6 million extra a year for Huff because he had two really good seasons a while ago. That's all there is to it.
by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jan 1, 2007 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
re:
You're being daft. I've given you the stats. If you want to quote his batting averages, then no, he's not really good at that. He produced in Detroit. The fact that Pena hasn't caught on somewhere doesn't make him a bad player. The fact that Huff has a reputation doesn't make him $7 million better than Carlos Pena, because he's not.
Also, you are trying to make a point on a hitter that was cut during spring training because of Shelton.
And the Tigers have replaced Shelton with Casey, who was worse than Shelton. What the hell is your point? That baseball teams always make the right call and are never wrong about players?
by SC on Jan 3, 2007 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
First off
I'm with Roch though in that I want Huff and Wilson...and more if we can get it. Sign Pena to a split contract like Knott. Trade for Thames. We need options if we're going to make this team work and taking not so pricey chances on guys with potential increases the odds one or more of these guys is gonna work out and give us the offense we need in order to compete. As for the rotation...well, I guess a lot of finger crossing and praying is about all we have right now.
by Jonnypops on Dec 30, 2006 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
guys with potential
by SC on Dec 30, 2006 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It could...
by Jonnypops on Dec 30, 2006 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
for the record
by SC on Dec 30, 2006 4:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Meh
by 2632 on Dec 30, 2006 4:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
hmmm
by dtran2k3 on Dec 30, 2006 5:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
well...
Huff had a down year in 05.
He had an unlucky year in 06.
His peripherals suggest he very well could put up an .840 OPS next year and I would be suprised if he put up a .780 OPS.
He is probably the 3rd or 4th best hiiter on our team and probably has the most power.
His signing improves our depth so we can deal with injuries and potential players who just tank on us.
While he isn't great defensively at any position, he is certainly adequate enough and versatile as well. He can play 1b, LF, RF, 3b, and DH if necessary. A big positive for this move is that it allows us to spell Mora at 3b when necessary.
I am very excited over this move and makes us a much better team.
by sportsman885 on Dec 30, 2006 6:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
re:
He is probably the 3rd or 4th best hiiter on our team and probably has the most power.
You'd think Miguel Tejada didn't put up a .500 slugging percentage every year of his three years in Baltimore. Huff's power is about the same as Gibbons', really. And being the third or fourth best hitter on this team isn't saying a whole lot.
While he isn't great defensively at any position, he is certainly adequate enough and versatile as well.
He is not adequate in the OF or at 3B. His versatility boils down to willingness. He is not at all an outfielder or third baseman. He is a born DH, always has been. Which is great if you consider him any sort of serious upgrade on Gibbons or Millar, which he likely is not.
Look he's an improvement over last year's left fielders if you want to consider him a left fielder, which would be a mistake. Payton already has that "upgrade on the pathetic left fielders" thing covered anyway. Huff is an improvement on...um. Gibbons? Millar? I suppose you could find a way to spin that, but I don't see it.
If he has a great year I'll be his number one fan, but I don't see it. He's an OK player who could be useful. I'm not saying don't be optimistic, but I'm finding it hard to do that anymore.
by SC on Dec 30, 2006 6:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Huff
That's sort of my take. He's someone who will probably have an OK year while playing stone glove defense. I'm not hating this signing but I'm just not excited. He's just another mediocre player that helps to insure another 4th place finish. If this was a 1 or 2 year deal, I might even like this signing. But for 18-20 million dollars, I would rather see the O's spend this money somewhere else.
Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"
by birdman on Dec 30, 2006 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
re:
Tejada's sluggin % was a result of his batting average, at least last year. His ISO power was .163 last year and has been declining for three years now. Even if he goes back to the .190 ISO he had in Oakland, I still feel that would fall below Huff's ISO.
Gibbons' and Huffs' power are comparable, though I feel Huff might have a little more.
When I say 3rd or 4th best hitter on our team, I say Tejada, Markakis, and maybe Hernandez. He could be our second best hitter, but it depens on Markakis' progression. For our sake, I hope he is our 3rd best hitter.
Would you be surprised if I told you that Huff had a better zone rating, range factor, and fielding % than Mora? Both are below average, however.
He hasn't play 1b in a while, but his zone rating in 05 and 04 was much better than Millar's last year. He has barely played any LF in his career, but has played ok in RF...I don't feel he'll be much worse than Conine was last year.
He isn't a replacement for Millar and Gibbons. He is a replacement of Fahey/Matos/Newhan/Conine in LF. When somebody gets hit with an injury, we won't have to go straight to Fahey/Bynum to replace them. He is a clear upgrade in talent for a reasonable contract. He'll make our team better.
by sportsman885 on Dec 30, 2006 8:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Huff
Why was his 2006 season unlucky? And what about his peripherals that suggest improvement next year?
Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"
by birdman on Dec 30, 2006 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here you guys go:
HR/AB
03 - 18.7
04 - 20.7
05 - 26.1
06 - 21.6
RBIs are a function of how well your teammates in front of you get on base...and the number of ABs you get. So don't worry about the low RBI totals in 2006.
Batting average is sometimes based on luck...look at his BABIP and line drive rates:
03 - .314, 22%
04 - .300, 18.5%
05 - .275, 15.4%
06 - .271, 19% - unlucky due to the increase in line drives, yet a lower BABIP
Also, look at his ISO power:
02 - .207
03 - .244
04 - .197
05 - .167
06 - .203
And his walk rates:
03 - 7.7%
04 - 8.5%
05 - 7.9%
06 - 9.9%
He is not the player he was in 2003. However, his walk rate increased last year, and his power is consistent with his 02 (.884 OPS) and 04 seasons.
The difference? His BA was not as high as it was during his 04 and 05 seasons. Why was this? His BABIP was lower than his 03 and 04 seasons. And why was this? Well, his LD rate dropped in 05 (hence the down year), but in 2006 his LD rate bounced right back up to his normal levels. This is why he had an unlucky year.
If you keep everything essentially the same, you will find an increase in batting average spikes up his OPS 20 or 30 so points. This is why I expect at least an .830 OPS, while the potential is there for him to put up an .860 OPS.
Of course, like with any player, he could always come crashing down for one reason or another. It is just a projection. But I do feel his chances putting up another sub .800 OPS small and a .750 OPS very small.
by sportsman885 on Dec 30, 2006 8:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Huff
Again, is it possible that he's simply not hitting the ball as hard as he did a few years ago which is why periphals haven't dropped a lot but his overall performance has suffered? Is is possible to interpret your data as Huff is hitting the ball just as much as a few years ago but his hits have been a lot weaker thus they have led to more outs? If this is an incorrect interpretation, please let me know.
Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"
by birdman on Dec 31, 2006 1:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sure...
The key point i should make is that I am not saying he should have this exact BABIP or that exact BA, but we should expect an increase in his BABIP because BABIP is usually a league-wide stable statistic. When you see somebody have an unusally high/low BABIP, you would expect it to regress somwhere back towards the middle, and it usually does. Huff's BABIP isn't that extreme, but its below average enough where we should expect at least some sort of increase in his BABIP.
And if you think about it, in 2005, he had clearly had a down year. His LD rate was well below average (again, a pretty stable league-wide stat), his power was down, his K's were up, and his walks were down. Yet somehow, despite a bounce back in every single one of his peripheral stats, his BABIP just happened to be lower in 2006 than 2005. I seriously doubt in 2005 he was hitting the ball with more velocity than in 2006.
Could he have a bad year again? Sure. But based off his past performance and peripheral stats, he should be at around at least an .830 OPS. A bad luck year I think would land him around an .800 OPS, but at that point I might not consider it bad luck anymore. Of course, he could have a great year as well.
My main point is that you should expect his BABIP to go up in some fashion given his peripheral stats, which will help his BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS. Adding an .800+ player in any form is an exciting thing for this particular offense considering the .680 OPS we are replacing it with.
by sportsman885 on Dec 31, 2006 2:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Huff
Sorry if this a stupid question, but why does it matter if BABIP is a "league-wide stable statistic" in terms of predicting Huff's performance?
"When you see somebody have an unusally high/low BABIP, you would expect it to regress somwhere back towards the middle, and it usually does."
And you saying that since Huff's BABIP is below the league wide stable statistic, his BABIP should regress back to this league wide stable point? Are you saying his BABIP should regress back to his career average BABIP? If it's the former, then I think that's a extremely dangerous leap in logic. It basically says that player X should regress to the league average in performance X. What other players are doing (i.e. a league average) shouldn't have much bearing in predicting what player X will do. If it's the later, it's a little more sensible but regression to the mean is simplest and often most dangerous form of prediction. People use it a lot simply because it's the simplest but I hardly put a lot of stock into it. I'm not saying I don't trust it at all. I do it as a quick and simple way to predict performance (e.g. I think Rodrigo will regress back to career averages a bit next year) but it's hardly a highly reliable measure.
"His LD rate was well below average (again, a pretty stable league-wide stat), his power was down, his K's were up, and his walks were down. Yet somehow, despite a bounce back in every single one of his peripheral stats, his BABIP just happened to be lower in 2006 than 2005. I seriously doubt in 2005 he was hitting the ball with more velocity than in 2006."
Could you explain your doubt a bit more? When I look at your argument, I don't see how walks, Ks relate to putting the ball in play which is the points that I'm trying to get at it. Obviously power and LD gets at this but again, I'm again these things don't measure how hard he's hitting the ball and using walks and Ks doesn't triangulate this. I get that your main point is that his BABIP should go up based on his peripheral stats but you seem to be saying that there's no way to measure the "authority" he hits the ball into play which may very well explain his poor performance despite his peripheral stats. And while regression to the mean is a sensible argument, it's not something I'll hang a lot of hope on.
Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"
by birdman on Dec 31, 2006 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
re:
The BABIP average is usually around .300. When you see an unusually high or low BABIP, you can expect their BABIP to regress back towards the middle at some point. How far they are supposed to regress I feel depends on the player's past history of BABIP.
A player does have some control over BABIP. Their past BABIPs are a good indication of the skill they have over their BABIPs. Line drive rates are very important to look at when you try to predict their BABIP.
Remember, I'm just projecting here. Nobody can predict the future. But when you are evaluating players, it is important to project what they will do even if it isn't a perfect tool. I would say there is very good chance that you will see his BABIP rise next year if LD rate stays the same. That doesn't mean it will happen and I can't say exactly how far it will rise, though I can estimate 15-20 points based on his past history.
I'm using walks and Ks just to show how he bounced back from his down year a bit. The other things I site are why I feel he was unlucky last year. He had a higher BABIP in 2005 despite hitting less line drives and having a down year overall. Why did he have a bounce back in each one of his peripheral statistics and still have a lower BABIP? I don't think he was hitting the ball with more velocity in 2005.
Here is an article that explains some things, called PrOPS...predicted OPS based on a variety of factors explained here:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/introducing-props/
Huff's PrOPS in TB was .821 (actual .809)
Huff's PrOPS in Hou was .936 (actual .819)
Remember, Huff had a miserable start to the season (.652 OPS in April and .531 OPS in May)
by sportsman885 on Dec 31, 2006 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Huff
Again, regress back to what? His career average? The "league-wide stable statistic"?
"Why did he have a bounce back in each one of his peripheral statistics and still have a lower BABIP? I don't think he was hitting the ball with more velocity in 2005."
Why not... what's the alternative explanation? The fact that he bounced back in each of his peripheral statistics like isolated power and line drive and STILL had a lower BABIP suggest he making good contact (right?) but they're leading to more outs. Why are they leading to more outs. Well, as PrOPS suggest, he might be a little unlucky but I doubt luck fully explains the downfall of Huff. He's probably just not hitting the ball as well but since the data doesn't really measure this variable, it's hard to say.
btw, that bradbury article is interesting. I'm little skeptical as to whether it actually measures "luck" but his modeling is quite creative.
Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"
by birdman on Dec 31, 2006 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
re:
his BABIP was .271 last year. What are the chances, do you feel, that his BABIP is going to go down? I would say he has a very good chance of seeing that number increase. It is all about determining the chances that we get better production from Huff. The chances are pretty good, IMO.
by sportsman885 on Jan 1, 2007 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One point from the Sun article ...
Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun
But mama, that's where the fun is...
by zknower on Dec 30, 2006 11:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
interesting note...
According to a source close to Huff, the player was intrigued by becoming an Oriole, partly because of his success at Camden Yards. He is a .285 career hitter at Oriole Park with eight home runs and 29 RBIs in 48 games. He also has more home runs (20) and RBIs (63) against the Orioles than any other team.
Also, Huff has hit 20 HR and 25 doubles in 5 straight seasons. That would rank him 3rd and 5th, respectively, on last year's roster.
Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun
But mama, that's where the fun is...
by zknower on Dec 31, 2006 8:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
what a signing!!!
This is a great signing, great depth! And we stole him from under the Jays eyes...
Looks like they won't trade Brian Roberts now.
There's a good stat analysis here, where I stole this..
Huff combined for a 106 OPS+ last year and has hig over 20 home runs in each of the last five seasons. He will give the Orioles many options because of his right handed bat and his ability to play 4 different positions along with DHing.
by huffistheman on Dec 31, 2006 10:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Speculate all we want
by O face on Dec 31, 2006 11:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
by 2632 on Dec 31, 2006 11:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
not terrible...
wilson still would have been my top target given his lefty splits and i'm still annoyed at the phelps blunder, but the huff deal doesn't look too bad in this market.
by jq higgins on Dec 31, 2006 5:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
We got him
by silverstadium on Jan 1, 2007 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
GAMETHREAD SPONSOR
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
