Lots of Juan Pierre level speedsters, actually. Billy Hamilton, now THAT'S once in a generation.

 

Pierre is a once in a generation base runner, not speedster. There's a gigantic difference between those two terms. Juan Pierre is a better base runner than Billy Hamilton, but Hamilton is faster than any base runner alive.

I don't think that any of this is true.

Maybe that is a better comparison but I was looking at positions and being they are both outfielders that fit best. Like I stated I understand their is a speed difference but I am looking at two guys that play outfield and can get on base and move around the bases once on. Keys is a better runner than Castillo and plays a different position so that is a tough comparison as well, but the point is Keys can't be overlooked because he doesn't have power. Penguino thinks hitting for average and high OBP are just one aspect of the game albeit very very important aspects. Keys gets on base, hits for average, steels a few bases, plays a solid outfield, oh but I forgot he doesn't have power he's not worth talking about.

 

I agree the power thing gets a bit out of hand. However, Keys IS NOT a better base runner than Luis Castillo. In his prime, Castillo was the best base runner in MLB. Keys won't steal more than 20 bases in the big on average. He's above average, nothing more. But I agree he does have value, if he can put up numbers similar his minor league career, he will have a long and profitable career in the majors.

The power thing is not "out of hand." Having zero power limits a player's potential/upside to a great extent. Keys has a very limited range of skills that could actually blossom into something useful at the MLB level. You don't seem to get this; that's why places like Fangraphs and Baseball America don't rate him highly.

Lots of Juan Pierre level speedsters, actually. Billy Hamilton, now THAT'S once in a generation.

 

Pierre is a once in a generation base runner, not speedster. There's a gigantic difference between those two terms. Juan Pierre is a better base runner than Billy Hamilton, but Hamilton is faster than any base runner alive.

I don't think that any of this is true.

Is this a joke? How do you think players with average, even below average speed like Derrek Lee and Chipper Jones were able to swipe 10-20 bases a year? Pure intelligence on the base paths, being elite base runners. Running the bases is absolutely a skill, if you disagree, you probably never played the game.

Maybe that is a better comparison but I was looking at positions and being they are both outfielders that fit best. Like I stated I understand their is a speed difference but I am looking at two guys that play outfield and can get on base and move around the bases once on. Keys is a better runner than Castillo and plays a different position so that is a tough comparison as well, but the point is Keys can't be overlooked because he doesn't have power. Penguino thinks hitting for average and high OBP are just one aspect of the game albeit very very important aspects. Keys gets on base, hits for average, steels a few bases, plays a solid outfield, oh but I forgot he doesn't have power he's not worth talking about.

 

I agree the power thing gets a bit out of hand. However, Keys IS NOT a better base runner than Luis Castillo. In his prime, Castillo was the best base runner in MLB. Keys won't steal more than 20 bases in the big on average. He's above average, nothing more. But I agree he does have value, if he can put up numbers similar his minor league career, he will have a long and profitable career in the majors.

Good call a younger Castillo was a great base runner. I was stuck in his more current role.

I'm not denying that there's a difference between pure speed and baserunning. I think you are wrong in saying that Pierre is a once in a generation baserunner and think you are also wrong in saying that Pierre is a better baserunner than Hamilton.

Everything I've read says he's capable of playing CF in the majors. And he has speed, not Pierre-level, but that's like a once in a generation base runner.

 

Link? I only see references to scouts being uncertain as to whether he can remain in CF.

 

Keys probably has slightly above average speed. That's not going to do much to increase his value.

http://miami.marlins.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2013/index.jsp?c_id=mia#list=mia

I think you are both talking out of your asses about the Pierre baserunning stuff. If he didn't have elite speed, you wouldn't be calling him a once in a generation baserunner. You can certainly have elite speed and make judgmental errors on the basepaths, but having that speed goes a long way into granting a player high value in terms of baserunning.

 

Keys doesn't project to come even close to having the baserunning value of a Pierre or Castillo.

Lots of Juan Pierre level speedsters, actually. Billy Hamilton, now THAT'S once in a generation.

 

Pierre is a once in a generation base runner, not speedster. There's a gigantic difference between those two terms. Juan Pierre is a better base runner than Billy Hamilton, but Hamilton is faster than any base runner alive.

I don't think that any of this is true.

Is this a joke? How do you think players with average, even below average speed like Derrek Lee and Chipper Jones were able to swipe 10-20 bases a year? Pure intelligence on the base paths, being elite base runners. Running the bases is absolutely a skill, if you disagree, you probably never played the game.

I second this!! I'm sure we all remember a guy named Rickey Henderson..lol...Read this list please. I see ten guys on there with the same or faster 60 times....Um I'm sure Rickey stole a few more bases than most of them. Base running requires some level of speed of course, but it also requires the skill of base running like Wild Card stated.

http://60yarddash.net/baseball-60-yard-dash-times-bigs/

I'm not denying that there's a difference between pure speed and baserunning. I think you are wrong in saying that Pierre is a once in a generation baserunner and think you are also wrong in saying that Pierre is a better baserunner than Hamilton.

 

Only ONE base runner ahead of Juan Pierre on the All-Time list (he ranks 16th) was an active Major League player during Juan Pierre's career; Kenny Lofton, with 622 through age 40. Pierre has 614 through age 36.

 

He is a once in a generation base runner.

Everything I've read says he's capable of playing CF in the majors. And he has speed, not Pierre-level, but that's like a once in a generation base runner.

 

Link? I only see references to scouts being uncertain as to whether he can remain in CF.

 

Keys probably has slightly above average speed. That's not going to do much to increase his value.

http://miami.marlins.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2013/index.jsp?c_id=mia#list=mia

Keys run. 7/7 yeah he can't run!!! Penguino I would guess this is better than slightly above average speed considering 8 is the highest and 7-8 is considered plus speed.

I think you are both talking out of your asses about the Pierre baserunning stuff. If he didn't have elite speed, you wouldn't be calling him a once in a generation baserunner. You can certainly have elite speed and make judgmental errors on the basepaths, but having that speed goes a long way into granting a player high value in terms of baserunning.

 

Keys doesn't project to come even close to having the baserunning value of a Pierre or Castillo.

 

I never, ever said Keys had the base running value that those two did. Never.

 

Juan Pierre does have excellent speed. What I am saying is he was not the fastest guy in the majors at any point in his career, just great speed and great skills. Hamilton has once in a lifetime speed but does not have the skills Pierre does on the base paths, at least not yet. He will get plenty of practice to improve that... lol

I'm not denying that there's a difference between pure speed and baserunning. I think you are wrong in saying that Pierre is a once in a generation baserunner and think you are also wrong in saying that Pierre is a better baserunner than Hamilton.

 

Only ONE base runner ahead of Juan Pierre on the All-Time list (he ranks 16th) was an active Major League player during Juan Pierre's career; Kenny Lofton, with 622 through age 40. Pierre has 614 through age 36.

 

He is a once in a generation base runner.

This makes no sense. First of all, looking at career stolen bases is absolutely ridiculous. It just favors longevity. Players like Carl Crawford and Jose Reyes have the same ability (if not better) that Pierre has. Just because they haven't accumulated higher career totals yet (hampered by injuries and other things) doesn't mean they are lesser baserunners.

I think you are both talking out of your asses about the Pierre baserunning stuff. If he didn't have elite speed, you wouldn't be calling him a once in a generation baserunner. You can certainly have elite speed and make judgmental errors on the basepaths, but having that speed goes a long way into granting a player high value in terms of baserunning.

 

Keys doesn't project to come even close to having the baserunning value of a Pierre or Castillo.

 

I never, ever said Keys had the base running value that those two did. Never.

 

Juan Pierre does have excellent speed. What I am saying is he was not the fastest guy in the majors at any point in his career, just great speed and great skills. Hamilton has once in a lifetime speed but does not have the skills Pierre does on the base paths, at least not yet. He will get plenty of practice to improve that... lol

Then you aren't making a point here. Pierre was never the best baserunner in baseball. You have not competently argued otherwise. What does this have to do with Keys anyway?

I'm not denying that there's a difference between pure speed and baserunning. I think you are wrong in saying that Pierre is a once in a generation baserunner and think you are also wrong in saying that Pierre is a better baserunner than Hamilton.

 

Only ONE base runner ahead of Juan Pierre on the All-Time list (he ranks 16th) was an active Major League player during Juan Pierre's career; Kenny Lofton, with 622 through age 40. Pierre has 614 through age 36.

 

He is a once in a generation base runner.

This makes no sense. First of all, looking at career stolen bases is absolutely ridiculous. It just favors longevity. Players like Carl Crawford and Jose Reyes have the same ability (if not better) that Pierre has. Just because they haven't accumulated higher career totals yet (hampered by injuries and other things) doesn't mean they are lesser baserunners.

OK, you're right. Juan Pierre stayed around baseball for 15 years because of his great, uh, arm. That's it... Yea. And his ability to get on base... And, and, and... his glove. Yup, all those things. Not because he is the best base runner of his generation.

 

If you don't think that longevity has to do with earning the phrase "Best of a Generation" then you're extremely short sighted. You can only be the best of a generation if you've been around and playing and consistent for a generation, at least in my opinion.

 

I mean, would you call Chris Davis the best power hitter of his generation? I mean, "Just because (he hasn't) accumulated higher career totals yet (hampered by injuries and other things) doesn't mean (he is a lesser power hitter)."

Then you aren't making a point here. Pierre was never the best baserunner in baseball. You have not competently argued otherwise. What does this have to do with Keys anyway?

 

Yea, I'm done with this discussion. Dude, go do some research or something.

For what it's worth, if you look at Fangraph's baserunning metric for the 200

I'm not denying that there's a difference between pure speed and baserunning. I think you are wrong in saying that Pierre is a once in a generation baserunner and think you are also wrong in saying that Pierre is a better baserunner than Hamilton.

 

Only ONE base runner ahead of Juan Pierre on the All-Time list (he ranks 16th) was an active Major League player during Juan Pierre's career; Kenny Lofton, with 622 through age 40. Pierre has 614 through age 36.

 

He is a once in a generation base runner.

This makes no sense. First of all, looking at career stolen bases is absolutely ridiculous. It just favors longevity. Players like Carl Crawford and Jose Reyes have the same ability (if not better) that Pierre has. Just because they haven't accumulated higher career totals yet (hampered by injuries and other things) doesn't mean they are lesser baserunners.

OK, you're right. Juan Pierre stayed around baseball for 15 years because of his great, uh, arm. That's it... Yea. And his ability to get on base... And, and, and... his glove. Yup, all those things. Not because he is the best base runner of his generation.

 

If you don't think that longevity has to do with earning the phrase "Best of a Generation" then you're extremely short sighted. You can only be the best of a generation if you've been around and playing and consistent for a generation, at least in my opinion.

 

I mean, would you call Chris Davis the best power hitter of his generation? I mean, "Just because (he hasn't) accumulated higher career totals yet (hampered by injuries and other things) doesn't mean (he is a lesser power hitter)."

Being the best at something should never be considered upon counting stats. That's statistics 101. The sampling size needs to be reasonable, but Juan Pierre isn't a better base stealer than Jose Reyes is just because he managed to stay healthier.

 

Being the best at something should be determined by ability, not longevity. That's why baseball analysts rely on rate-driven stats and rarely pay attention to counting stats.

Being the best at something should never be considered upon counting stats. That's statistics 101. The sampling size needs to be reasonable, but Juan Pierre isn't a better base stealer than Jose Reyes is just because he managed to stay healthier.

 

Being the best at something should be determined by ability, not longevity. That's why baseball analysts rely on rate-driven stats and rarely pay attention to counting stats.

 

So you're willing to simply ignore these facts?

 

From 2001 to 2010 Juan Pierre led MLB in stolen bases 3 times. He was second 5 times. He was 5th two times. The ONLY reason he was 5th was due to 425 and 406 PA in those two seasons.

 

That is absolute dominance over an entire decade. You're just wrong.

Those aren't really facts. Your method of evaluation is nonsense. It's bad statistics.

 

You excuse Pierre finishing 5th because he had less PAs. You can make the same excuse for some of the other elite baserunners of the decade--not all of whom had regular playing time by 2001. Setting the two limits as 2001 and 2010 is entirely arbitrary too.

Fangraph's baserunning value ranks Pierre 3rd from 2001 through 2010. The 4th and 5th players are right behind him.

 

That's far from once in a generation performance.

Those aren't really facts. Your method of evaluation is nonsense. It's bad statistics.

 

You excuse Pierre finishing 5th because he had less PAs. You can make the same excuse for some of the other elite baserunners of the decade--not all of whom had regular playing time by 2001. Setting the two limits as 2001 and 2010 is entirely arbitrary too.

 

They are the definition of facts. They are literally, 100%, facts.

 

It was less of an excuse and more of a way to point out that Juan Pierre finished 1st or 2nd in stolen bases in all of baseball for a decade outside of two years he did not receive regular playing time. If he had received regular playing time, he would have ranked 1st or 2nd EVERY YEAR for AN ENTIRE DECADE. That is absolute dominance of that area of the game.

 

Even the THEORY that you want to use (FanGraphs' ratings are based on formulas and theories, not reality) ranks him #3 over a decade. That's not really helping your argument IMO.

But if you extended other player's the opportunity to have more PA's, they would rank higher too.

 

Pierre's career CS% is also worse than guys like Reyes and Crawford. Pierre isn't necessarily any better at stealing bases--he just had more opportunities to do it and was rewarded by getting more playing time and staying healthy. That's not a sign of ability.

 

And being ranked 3rd precisely shows that he was not dominant over that period. He was third best and was closely clustered together with the 4-5 ranked players. The Fangraphs stat absolutely strengthens the argument here.

 

It also takes into consideration other aspects of baserunning, which is not determined entirely by stolen bases. Pierre was definitely a top 5 baserunner in the period spanning his entire career, but to call him the best is just plain silly and statistically absurd.

But if you extended other player's the opportunity to have more PA's, they would rank higher too.

 

Pierre's career CS% is also worse than guys like Reyes and Crawford. Pierre isn't necessarily any better at stealing bases--he just had more opportunities to do it and was rewarded by getting more playing time and staying healthy. That's not a sign of ability.

 

And being ranked 3rd precisely shows that he was not dominant over that period. He was third best and was closely clustered together with the 4-5 ranked players. The Fangraphs stat absolutely strengthens the argument here.

 

It also takes into consideration other aspects of baserunning, which is not determined entirely by stolen bases. Pierre was definitely a top 5 baserunner in the period spanning his entire career, but to call him the best is just plain silly and statistically absurd.

 

It's not silly or statistically absurd when one set of real statistics say he stole the most bases, and another says he was third best but isn't actually a real statistic. So, he's not top 5, he's top 3. And he's arguably the best of a generation because the actual stats say so, not my opinion, real numbers.

 

Let's just end this, we're not going to agree.

You are using a counting stat, which isn't even a stat that statisticians use for the reasons I've mentioned repeatedly.

 

You are arbitrarily defining a period (2001 through 2010) that favors Pierre's career. You are only looking at cumulative stolen bases as a measure (not CS%, not other facets of baserunning). There are a ton of things wrong with your argument and the way you are applying statistics.