Marlin

I don't like the move. If he gets hurt, we're in deep doo-doo. Pitchers coming off of injury are extremely volatile/injury prone.

Coghlan was drafted as a 3B, then was moved to 2B as a project a couple of seasons ago. His defense has always been a huge question mark in the infield. He has the reputation as a butcher. That's why he's in LF.

If Coghlan's not a major league 2B at this point in his career, he's definitely not going to be one 2-3 yrs from now.

I wouldn't necessarily call it poor taste; it could just as well be considered exuberance and vigilance. Also, I've been a long time lurker, and this account was made last year.

Pitcher flame-out risk is high. I love the 3 year rule, and hope they don't compromise it.

He's projected to bat .270/.326/.347 next season (a projection system is a better gauge of a player's current talent level). But projection systems don't account for a player's tools (some players have better tools than productivity and just need experience to figure it out). Projection systems are also more volatile with players either on the upward swing or downward slope of the age curve. Given that Uggla figures to be around come opening day, it doesn't really matter. As long as Uggla's here, Bonifacio will be mitigated to a utility role.

He's 24, the rest of the league is 28 on average. He's also on the upward swing of the age curve and still has a couple of yrs to go before the typical age players start to peak. Last year was his first full major league season. That's young. As for his April split, I remember his line looking pretty good for the first few weeks of the season. I never broke it down as granularly as you did, thanks for the heads up.

Spring training is a mere string of exhibition games; the performances there mean very little if nothing at all. Bonifacio was terrible last year after a good first couple weeks in April. He also got hot at some point in June if I remember correctly. I don't know what we can learn from looking at his splits; he has what amounts to only 1 full season of major league plate appearances, all of which came while being very young relative to his competition. Next year will be his make or break year; hopefully he gets the opportunity to sink or swim so that we can move on one way or the other.

Are you seriously substituting CHONE (industry standard projection system) for the general consensus of a few hundred fans? Don't get me wrong, it's fun to see what the fans think, but if my money is on the line, I'm going with CHONE everytime (it eliminates the inherent bias -- and stays honest to the 80 some yr history of MLB player performances--since the earliest data was recorded). And Willingham's Win Value using CHONE & his career UZR (with slight decline included) puts him at 1.7 WAR which would be 3 runs below average. I can't think of a single starting outfielder (older than 25) who is heading into 2011 projected to produce only 17 runs above replacement. CHONE isn't the industry standard because those in the industry don't use projection systems (at least not 3rd party systems). Though I'd argue that PECOTA has become more of the "standard" to those outside the industry than CHONE. I figure most teams probably have their own proprietary projection systems -- but CHONE is an industry standard publicly available tool. PECOTA is an awesome system, but it's more accurate forecasting pitcher performance than offense. CHONE has been about as accurate as PECOTA offensively if not more. The problem with PECOTA is that it's held behind a premium wall and the 2010 set won't be released for another few months.

Are you seriously substituting CHONE (industry standard projection system) for the general consensus of a few hundred fans? Don't get me wrong, it's fun to see what the fans think, but if my money is on the line, I'm going with CHONE everytime (it eliminates the inherent bias -- and stays honest to the 80 some yr history of MLB player performances--since the earliest data was recorded). And Willingham's Win Value using CHONE & his career UZR (with slight decline included) puts him at 1.7 WAR which would be 3 runs below average. I can't think of a single starting outfielder (older than 25) who is heading into 2011 projected to produce only 17 runs above replacement.

No, correlates better to runs. Translating them to runs is more or less estimations, the question is which estimation better correlates to actual runs that happened. The ones that correlate the best are ergo the best stats. In the interest of staying on topic I won't even justify this with a rebuttal. Let's just say that if you're in the business of trying to make things easier for other posters to understand -- this won't get it done. And again, they give the same result, you basically showed as much. And I already said why I post in OPS, it's not about me it's about other posters. How do they give the same result when the results are completely different? Your makeshift/round about OPS calculations (which are vague and leave a lot to interpretation) put him as an above average player and a starting outfielder, where Win Values (a system that tells the complete picture) puts him at a below average player, and a 4th outfielder. The difference between a 4th OF and a starting OF is significant and the difference between 10-20+ runs (in most cases).

The difference between wOBA and OPS has nothing to do with correlation; it has everything to do with quantification. And why is wOBA better? Because, by quantifying each individual event, it correlates better to runs. I'm not saying OPS is better than wOBA (AGAIN I'VE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES IT ISN'T), I'm saying the difference is negligible (WHICH THE ARTICLE ITSELF SHOWS) when talking about broad topics. I get the impression that you're easily excitable when you're disagreed with. Deep breaths...deep breaths. "correlates better to runs" .. or did you mean translates better to runs? Your terminology is a bit off here -- but I digress. If you scroll up you'll see that I never accused you of thinking OPS was better than wOBA. I guess I just find it silly that you would rather count on your "round about" OPS to runs translation than to use a more comprehensive system that was tailor-made for this type of discussion (Win Values). There's no .001 difference in correlation as you put it -- Win Values simply provides a more complete and accurate picture of a player's value.

Let's use Win Values instead (it's doing what you're trying to do, but more comprehensively). Based on some of your other posts, I'm assuming you're already familiar with the methodology. Using CHONE's 2010 projection let's breakdown Willingham's expected performance next season: Offense: +11 Defense: -7 (he's -5.3 in his career, but coming off a -7 season. We're also accounting for the fact that he's a year older.) Replacement: +20 Position: -7.5 = 17 runs above replacement (or 1.7 wins) a 1.7 WAR isn't terrible by any stretch (he still belongs in the major leagues), but it certainly lines up with what a team would expect from a 4th OF. He'd be far more valuable to a team taking ABs vs LHP exclusively and pinch hitting. He'd be about 3 runs better as a full-time DH -- eliminating his defense altogether. You calculated this extremely wrong For one, you gave his defense and positional value 150 games played, while his offense is only 130 games played and his replacement value only 140 games played. Bumping his offense to 150 games played (650 PA) gives +14 runs (there's also the fact that Rally's wRAA is normally lower than other places like fangraphs but that's only by a 1-2 runs normally). Bumping replacement level to 150 games gives us +22 runs. So we're now at +5 runs over what you already posted, or +2.3 WAR. Ontop of which, you're still extremely underselling his defense. He's -5 at worse. Total Zone has him at -0.7 in his career, and +6 last year after +6 in 2008. Plus/Minus has him at +1.7 in his career, and -2 last year. Ontop of which again, UZR doesn't say his range is getting worse. In fact, it says his range is getting better. His UZR/150 was -7 last year mostly because his arm (Which previously was at +3.5 in 150 games) was at -3.8/150. His range was only -1.2/150, compared to his career rate of -6.7/150 (Most of which came in 2007, which seems to be an anomaly). The offense is scaled to Runs per 150. Willingham's offense is projected to be +11 per 150 games played -- and his defense is -5.3 in his career, but -7 last year according to UZR. UZR is the most comprehensive public-available defensive metric there is. That's why it's being used. He was -7 runs defensively per 150 games last year, and is a year older. It's totally reasonable to expect him to be -7 defensively in 2010 with a greater likelihood of it being worse.

The difference between wOBA and OPS has nothing to do with correlation and it has everything to do with quantification. I can't explain it any better than it's already explained, so I'll just post an excerpt from Fangraphs: So, why should you care about wOBA? What makes it better than OPS or any of the more famous rate statistics that measure offensive value? The beauty of wOBA lies in linear weights. Essentially, every outcome has a specific run value that is proportional to other outcomes – a home run is worth a little more than twice as much a single, for instance. What wOBA does, as all linear weights formulas do, is value these outcomes relative to each other so that they are properly valued. OPS, as you probably know, significantly undervalues the ability of a hitter to get on base. It treats a .330 OBP/.470 slug as equal to a .400 OBP/.400 slug, when the latter is more conducive to scoring runs. wOBA gives proper weight to all the things a hitter can do to produce value, and is a more accurate reflection of a hitter’s value. For a practical example, let’s look at Ryan Ludwick versus Hanley Ramirez. Ludwick had a .966 OPS versus a .940 OPS for Ramirez – not a huge difference, but one most people would consider significant. If you put a lot of stock in OPS, you’d probably argue that Ludwick had a better offensive season. However, Ramirez actually had a slightly higher wOBA, .403 to .401. This is due to the fact that Ramirez posted a .400/.540 line compared to Ludwick’s .375/.591 mark. Ramirez’s 25 point advantage in OBP was slightly more valuable than Ludwick’s 51 point advantage in SLG, and wOBA reflects this. For the rest of the article here's a link

Let's use Win Values instead (it's doing what you're trying to do, but more comprehensively). Based on some of your other posts, I'm assuming you're already familiar with the methodology. Using CHONE's 2010 projection let's breakdown Willingham's expected performance next season: Offense: +11 Defense: -7 (he's -5.3 in his career, but coming off a -7 season. We're also accounting for the fact that he's a year older.) Replacement: +20 Position: -7.5 = 17 runs above replacement (or 1.7 wins) a 1.7 WAR isn't terrible by any stretch (he still belongs in the major leagues), but it certainly lines up with what a team would expect from a 4th OF. He'd be far more valuable to a team taking ABs vs LHP exclusively and pinch hitting. He'd be about 3 runs better as a full-time DH -- eliminating his defense altogether.

I've never seen anybody translate runs into OPS points using league average OPS as an all encompassing measurement for one's value. Besides disagreeing with the concept entirely -- you failed to make a run adjustment for position scarcity. Also, where are you getting league average OPS from -- do you have a source?

yeah, Hammer is not a DH only. And he has a career OPS against RHP of .826, how is he a platoon bat? He's an above average hitter against RHP, you don't bench above average hitters. Because the runs he produces with the bat vs LHP (1.000+ OPS) will far outweigh whatever runs he will give back with the glove (which isn't the case vs RHP). If he could DH exclusively he could be an everyday player -- but all-offense/no-glove types are a dime a dozen. In the NL he's a 4th OF/pinch hitter -- especially now that he's in his 30s where most outfielders begin to see their defense/range drop off significantly.

To this day, Willingham is a slugger, w/o a position who is better suited for full-time DH duty. At age 30, he's already on the downward swing of the defensive-age curve; given that he could never play defense to begin with, he has little upside long term in the NL. Willingham would be great to have in a 1B/cOF platoon vs LHP -- but those type of guys are a dime a dozen -- and can be found elsewhere more inexpensively. Marlins wanted to shed salary obviously, and add some major league ready depth at 2B to potentially take over for Uggla. Given Bonifacio's struggles last season the latter part of that plan hasn't worked out so well -- but there's still time. Olsen was a complete non factor to me. Although his ERA was good coming off his 2008 season, his peripherals were terrible, and there were some serious concerns about his lost velocity. I think he was a complete throw in, in the same vein the 2 other minor leaguers in the deal were. Had Olsen not been traded, he likely would've been non tendered anyway.

Granted spring training information should be incorporated into the decision making process -- I just hope that a lot more weight is put on the last 3 seasons accumulatively. 3 seasons = over 1k meaningful at bats spring training = a few weeks of exhibition at bats

I hope the front office doesn't make any knee jerk decisions based on a handful of spring training ABs and that they have enough foresight to know what the 25 man looks like already.

I don't think the front office expects anything other than defensive replacement and pinch running/hitting duty from Amezaga. I don't think they have any false hopes Amezaga at 29 is going to turn into anything more than what he already is. I have a BA subscription; and here was their scouting report on Bonifacio after 2007--he was rated their 6th best prospect that year (I haven't been able to find a more recent scouting report--from a credible source--because this was the last year he qualified.): Background: After four so-so pro seasons, Bonifacio moved into the fast lane by batting .321 with 66 steals in high Class A in 2006. He followed up with a good year in Double-A and made his major league debut in September. Strengths: Bonifacio's speed rates as either a 70 or 80 on the 20-80 scouting scale, and he plays with energy and passion. He continues to refine his basestealing, picking pitches and counts and getting good breaks, and he has no fear of getting thrown out (though he did get caught 13 times in 54 Double-A attempts). He's an above-average defender at second base, with sure hands, great range and enough arm for shorstop. Weaknesses: While Bonifacio draws comparisons to Luis Castillo, he doesn't have Castillo's approach at the plate. Bonifacio's swing isn't conducive to the small-ball game he needs to play, and he still doesn't have a good idea of the strike zone. He also hasn't shown the strength to drive the ball, which could lead to problems against quality fastballs at higher levels. The Future: Bonifacio is the kind of player managers love to have in the lineup, but if he doesn't improve at the plate he could end up as a utility player. He'll open the season in Triple-A, with Orlando Hudson and Alberto Callaspo ahead of him in the organization's pecking order. source: http://www.baseballa...008/265320.html Baseball America also rated him as the organizations best baserunner and best defensive infielder (this was a system full of rangy athletes too) that year.

Ofcourse they're -- and I don't think they're perfect by any stretch. But it's hard to find an organization right now better at evaluating and prognosticating talent. They've hit big on a number of moves recently--I've listed those ones that stand out (moves GMs maybe hit on once or twice in their entire career). Going back a little bit further, the Dan Uggla and Hanley Ramirez acquisitions were simply genius.

You guys ever let yourselves consider that the reason the Marlins are confidently shopping Uggla and aren't making any aggressive moves to replace him at 2B is because they have a lot of faith in Bonifacio's ability? You guys remember Cody Ross? The guy who was in 4 different organizations before the Marlins acquired him. You know, before Ross became a solid everyday player. He was terrible in his early twenties trying to breakthrough. The Marlins showed a lot of patience in him and it paid off. You guys remember Dan Meyer? The minor league free agent that had been mediocre his entire time with the A's organization. The rest of the league gave up on Meyer's upside, the Marlins didn't. He turned out to be a valuable set up guy for us last year. You guys remember Jorge Cantu? A guy who wasn't even in the major leagues anymore. The front office had faith in his ability, gave him a chance--and in the process--unearthed another valuable major league infielder. You guys remember John Baker? Another A's castoff no team wanted, but the Marlins seemingly plucked him out of thin air and now he's firmly entrenched in the major leagues. These are just some recent names off the top of my head -- but each one of these guys played a significant role last year. And each one of these guys were given up on too quickly by their respective teams. If the players the Marlins have been able to acquire (for virtually nothing), were good bets to perform in the majors, the Marlins wouldn't have been able to get them at the cost they did. Another way to look at this: We've gone into seasons with big unknowns at positions that none of us were excited about "oh crap, we're counting on Cantu at 3B this year" ... then Cantu goes on to hit 30 HRs and 100 RBI. Same for Uggla before his 2006. Bonifacio struggled last year and everybody wants to give up on him as an everyday player -- all the while the front office is steadfast in their belief in him -- thinking that he can materialize into a solid major league 2b with more experience. How many times have we disagreed with the moves the front office has made only to be pleasantly surprised afterwards? We've been here before. Btw Cody was in 3 organizations before becoming a Marlin and Cody is really non-comparable to Bonifacio He was a much better prospect caught in a numbers game with the Dodgers and then I believe theReds made a huge mistake in trading him I guess 5'8'' power hitters are not in high demands in MLB I actually the acquisition of Cody when it occurred and if you wanna bother bactracking in the archive of the forum I actually indicated he was a wonderful addition at the time and has never let us down since. Cody as aminor leaguer was OPSing around .850 consistently Bonifacio minor league numbers look like a roller coaster So I don't think that is a fair comparison BTW Cody only played about 17 games in the Reds organization when he became a Marlin Cody Ross and Emilio Bonifacio play two different positions. An outfielder should be outproducing a second basemen offensively. BTW I was trying to make a big-picture point: The Marlins do a very good job evaluating talent ... and wasn't really too worried about the precise details about each player's background. Thank you for the correction, though.

Count me on the side of I hope to hell no. Bonifacio has played in 187 games in the majors and he is 162 for 653 (.248 avg, .617 OPS) with 103 runs scored, 1 homer, 43 RBIs and 28 stolen bases. He has been caught stealing 14 times in his career and he has whiffed an amazing 144 times which is way too many with a player with no power. Heck, I would rather sign Jerry Hairston or Mark Loretta and see if either of them have anything left in the tank. This has been an ongoing discussion in several threads. Anyway, I seem to be the only one here who thinks Bonifacio has more upside at 2B than Coghlan (note: at 2B) -- and that Bonifacio's track record/profile justifies an extended look/opportunity there.

Yes because the front office, and coaching staff don't know more about Coghlan's ability than you do. Wow, man. You seem like a promising poster. Don't go this route. He's allowed to have his opinion without a nasty remark. I don't see anything wrong with disagreeing with somebody's opinion. I don't take it personally when I'm disagreed with maybe you shouldn't take it personally either.