Robinson Cano vs. Dustin Pedroia
Robinson Cano vs. Dustin Pedroia
- Dirty Water
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,785
- And1: 9
- Joined: Jan 29, 2005
- Location: The future
Robinson Cano vs. Dustin Pedroia
Now and for the future... who ya got?
- Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
Or the great Ken Ryan/Sterling Hitchcock filibuster of 1994
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 791
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jun 26, 2007
- Location: Plymouth/Springfield, MA
This is a tough one. Both guys are future All-Stars for many years to come. For a good season both guys will hit well over .300, and eventually i think both guys will be able to hit 20 home runs. Both guys don't really steal bases, but i like Pedrioa's overall speed better. As for defense, Peds blows Cano out of the water. I think Cano really isn't that great of a defensive second baseman, while Pedrioa has a lot of range, a quick throwing release, and a good arm. Offensivly its a toss up, but Pedrioa gets the edge with his glove
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,406
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 02, 2007
I think Cano is underrated defensively. Problem is he looks nonchalant because he makes a lot of things look easy but he is one of the best at coming in on a slow groundball and gunning the runner out at first.
HCYanks wrote:Thanks for reminding me Clay Buchholz is a couple of blocks away from me, Fox. Now I have to go hide my laptop.
-
- Inactive user
- Posts: 13,071
- And1: 2
- Joined: Nov 02, 2006
34Celtic wrote:I think Cano is underrated defensively. Problem is he looks nonchalant because he makes a lot of things look easy but he is one of the best at coming in on a slow groundball and gunning the runner out at first.
He has had a few stinker games where he has looked really bad, but he is really solid out there. Definitely underrated.
- Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
Back in April, this guy wrote:A lot of CanoManocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 2,487
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 18, 2007
- Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
cmaff051 wrote:
BABIP is an awful way to judge a hitter. If you hit the ball on the screws all the time, you are going to have a high BABIP.
Hunh? No. BABIP is a rather telling stat when it comes to predicting whether a seemingly high batting average in a small sample size is more design than luck/randomness. Case in point: Robbie Cano 2006.
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
- Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
34Celtic wrote:Wouldn't every good hitter have a high BABIP? Or a guy who strikes out a lot have a high BABIP? Like Adam Dunn.
High, as in relation to normal batting average? Yes. League BABIP tends to be around .300 or so, whereas league batting average is somewhat less. But, in context, not every good hitter is going to have a high BABIP, mostly because BABIP is as close to a ranomness stat as can be because it only accounts for balls in play. You'll notice certain trends among great hitters (like the slap-hitting Ichiro or Manny or Jeter) that they have generally higher average BABIP because, you know, they're great hitters and because there's enough of a sample size (i.e. multi-year) that you can make the logical assumption they're good hitters. Plus, and this is where you come in, there's enough visual evidence to point at them being great hitter.
But for guys like Cano that have seemingly great seasons, like his 2006, BABIP can be useful because 1. you know by looking at him that's he's not a once-in-a-generation hitter 2. that the high batting average was due more to a rather "lucky" (again random) collection of hits in-play. It wasn't due to speed, like Ichiro, or exceptional plate discipline like Manny or Bonds, or whomever. He just got a lot of hits in play last season and hits, by and large are more a product of luck than skill.
*For reference, Adam Dunn has a below-average BABIP, mostly because all his value (positive and negative) comes in the form of HRs/walks/strikeouts...things not measured in BABIP.
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,406
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 02, 2007
I dont know about hits being luck over skill. If you hit a ball on the nose, on a line...you will have a better chance of getting a hit than someone who continuously gets jammed and hits weak groundballs or has a dip in their swing and gets a lot of pop ups.
HCYanks wrote:Thanks for reminding me Clay Buchholz is a couple of blocks away from me, Fox. Now I have to go hide my laptop.
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 791
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jun 26, 2007
- Location: Plymouth/Springfield, MA