Jump to content

Edman85

Where did Henning Get this?

Recommended Posts

Edman,

Don't you think it's fair someone could've just hacked a few hours on baseball-reference.com with a list of each starter at each position and not come to a general conclusion that was fairly similar to yours without seeing your site? Is what he guessing really that off base? I really don't think it looks that far-fetched. If you do, I'd like to know why? There has to be a reason why you are flat out certain he took this from you. It doesn't seem his guesses - even if they don't end up being correct - are that ridiculous to suggest "he must have gotten these guesses from somewhere with great incite."

I really think the burden is on you to prove what you have suggested happened.

Varitek his .220 with 13 homers and he threw out 22% of base stealers. He was poor offensively and poor defensively. A person using baseball reference and basic stats and intuition would see he wasn't good and not in the top 20% at his position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone emailed him yet? I am just really interested in his response on where he came up with those guesses (or uncited references if he got them from Ed or MLBTR...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the comparisons to Morosi's previous column are a bit of apples/oranges. Morosi's column had a different approach and meaning. Henning's just writing fodder for ways to fill gaps and why going after certain free agents may not be the best way to go. I am with Dtroppens on this, I don't see it as any big leap of faith to say that these guys will be the types of free agents suggested. I didn't read Edman's blog but did see the Morosi column. When I read Henning say that Fossum, Glover, and Farnsworth likely will not be Type B it's not exactly earth shattering news to me. I didn't see it as having any inside dope or that he even spent 5 minutes thinking about it. The same with Varitek.

I also think that if Henning did use Ed's work he'd be likely to attribute it since it did appear in teh crosstown paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edman,

Don't you think it's fair someone could've just hacked a few hours on baseball-reference.com with a list of each starter at each position and not come to a general conclusion that was fairly similar to yours without seeing your site? Is what he guessing really that off base? I really don't think it looks that far-fetched. If you do, I'd like to know why? There has to be a reason why you are flat out certain he took this from you. It doesn't seem his guesses - even if they don't end up being correct - are that ridiculous to suggest "he must have gotten these guesses from somewhere with great incite."

I really think the burden is on you to prove what you have suggested happened.

The problem is his past columns have not been written like someone who spent a few hours hacking on baseball-reference.com. I agree that Hennings side of the story needs to be heard but your explanation doesn't seem likely to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varitek his .220 with 13 homers and he threw out 22% of base stealers. He was poor offensively and poor defensively. A person using baseball reference and basic stats and intuition would see he wasn't good and not in the top 20% at his position.

But Varitek's numbers over the last two years combined are actually pretty decent for an AL catcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also not that common for newspaper columnists to cite references in their columns (aside from when they quote someone).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it also possible that Henning could be "wrong" in the sense that he thinks Varitek is a type A for the wrong reasons? I'm remembering all the Durbin replacing Rogers talk from a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Varitek's numbers over the last two years combined are actually pretty decent for an AL catcher.

They're not bad, but now we're talking another level of complexity where you're looking at all (AL) catchers over the last two years. I think there's a lot of ambiguity about Varitek. It's not like we're talking Joe Mauer here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't it also possible that Henning could be "wrong" in the sense that he thinks Varitek is a type A for the wrong reasons? I'm remembering all the Durbin replacing Rogers talk from a few years ago.

Yeah, he could be. What tipped me off was Furcal. It was not intuitive that he would fall short of Type B status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varitek his .220 with 13 homers and he threw out 22% of base stealers. He was poor offensively and poor defensively. A person using baseball reference and basic stats and intuition would see he wasn't good and not in the top 20% at his position.

His numbers aren't that ridiculous for a catcher. He still played a ton and last year was an aberration. If the Tigers signed him I'd take him. Do this. Just glance at the starting AL catchers from last year. How many of them does he compare pretty similar to? And then look at his past. Even at his age, I think it's fair to say last year's offensive numbers were an aberration. Even with them at worst he's still a top half AL starting catcher - and really that's all you have to be to get a B rating since reserves generally are going to have a hard time getting A ratings (guessing because of not enough play). He has to be in the top 40% of all catchers. I think it's very easy to see where he may guess this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, he could be. What tipped me off was Furcal. It was not intuitive that he would fall short of Type B status.

That's one that surprised me a little when I first saw it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's pretty clear. If he didn't take it from my site, he took it from MLBTR. Why didn't he qualify it as a hunch or a guess. He had to have gotten it from somewhere, and there's no way he did it on his own unless one of his moles within the Tigers' organization gave it to him.

I think this is a column on his opinion. Isn't that pretty much assumed? I write a column weekly. I don't write after everything that can be considered my opinion or thought a "hunch" or a "guess." You have limited space. You write it as quickly as you can get get out. That's just how it is. You can't footnote everything and write it like a research paper. That's just how it is. And if we did, no one would read it. I don't think most people care how he got the info or came to it. They have an opinion on his credibility and take it from there. They see the name Veritek and say "that makes sense" and that's it. If it doesn't they laugh about it and go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is his past columns have not been written like someone who spent a few hours hacking on baseball-reference.com. I agree that Hennings side of the story needs to be heard but your explanation doesn't seem likely to me.

I don't even know if he would've had to do that much. I know I would. I don't know opposing teams as well as many people here. I'm a Tigers fan. I haven't watched a second of the postseason because it doesn't involve the Tigers. But I think Henning (no matter what you think about him), probably can make a pretty quick guess in his mind about where these guys rate. Maybe Varitek is a B? But I don't think it was off base for him to call him an A - and I don't think he had to have a secret equation to call him an A. I think he could've seen the name and said "he should be an A" just on who he thinks are the best AL catchers from what he's seen. He may not even had to look at a stat site. He knows enough that he didn't have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is a column on his opinion. Isn't that pretty much assumed? I write a column weekly. I don't write after everything that can be considered my opinion or thought a "hunch" or a "guess." You have limited space. You write it as quickly as you can get get out. That's just how it is. You can't footnote everything and write it like a research paper. That's just how it is. And if we did, no one would read it. I don't think most people care how he got the info or came to it. They have an opinion on his credibility and take it from there. They see the name Veritek and say "that makes sense" and that's it. If it doesn't they laugh about it and go on.

People read Billfer, Lee, and I every day and we differentiate all of our guesses, facts, and opinions. I've even qualified the projections by saying there are likely to be errors.

Any guesses on the types of any players in that list earlier in the thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't even know if he would've had to do that much. I know I would. I don't know opposing teams as well as many people here. I'm a Tigers fan. I haven't watched a second of the postseason because it doesn't involve the Tigers. But I think Henning (no matter what you think about him), probably can make a pretty quick guess in his mind about where these guys rate. Maybe Varitek is a B? But I don't think it was off base for him to call him an A - and I don't think he had to have a secret equation to call him an A. I think he could've seen the name and said "he should be an A" just on who he thinks are the best AL catchers from what he's seen. He may not even had to look at a stat site. He knows enough that he didn't have to.

If that's the case, then it's sloppy reporting. It's ok to state which players you think are the best or which players you want the Tigers to pursue without getting into facts. However, saying that someone is probably type A or Type B without really knowing it is sloppy in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think most people care how he got the info or came to it. They have an opinion on his credibility and take it from there. They see the name Veritek and say "that makes sense" and that's it. If it doesn't they laugh about it and go on.

That's not really the point though is it. I have a feeling the News would be upset if Gage interviewed Verlander by phone and I just published all the quotes like I'd had the conversation with him instead.

Most people wouldn't care how I got the quotes, they'd just find them interesting.

EDIT: I'm not saying that Henning got the information from Eddie. I'm more arguing the point that attribution isn't important because the people reading it don't really care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without looking, tell me where you think these players qualify: Type A, Type B, or no Type (there is not Type C anymore)

Ivan Rodriguez

Rod Barajas

Paul LoDuca

Raul Ibanez

Ken Griffey

Adam Dunn

Milton Bradley

Jim Thome

Cliff Floyd

Sean Casey

Eric Hinske

Moises Alou

Pat Burrell

Mike Cameron

Juan Uribe

Mark Ellis

Orlando Cabrera

Mark Grudzelanek

Mark Loretta

Orlando Hudson

Casey Blake

Ray Durham

Mike Mussina

Tim Wakefield

Derek Lowe

Paul Byrd

Braden Looper

Jamie Moyer

Brad Penny

John Smoltz

Oliver Perez

Darren Oliver

Trever Miller

Dennys Reyes

Eddie Guardado

Brian Shouse

Brian Fuentes

Russ Springer

Doug Brocail

Trever Hoffman

Eric Gagne

I just saw this list. I couldn't. But I'm not Lynn Henning. I bet he had a much better grasp of these players that I do. I admit to being a Tigers' fan, and not caring too much for other teams. But I bet if I wanted to tonight, I could go on baseball-reference.com and make a pretty nice list of who I think are the best to weakest and maybe come close. Maybe I can't. I don't know what they use. But you can't tell me after covering baseball for years that Henning doesn't A) have a pretty reasonable idea how good these guys are and B) can at least tell me some of the things that are looked for in creating a Type A, B or C player. Maybe he doesn't have your equation and I'm sure it's a great equation. I think a ton of the stuff you do is awesome. But you don't need that equation to make an educated guess.

Before I posted this list I did just look at every AL starting catcher in the American League. I assumed there was at least 30 catchers on the list. To place him top 20 percent, that meant he had to be one of the top 6 starting catchers in the AL. That was a muddled down group of catchers (looking on baseball-reference.com). Veritek didn't have the year as some but he certainly has a better track record than most. I don't think it was out of the realm of possibility that he put him as Type A. I think I woud've done it as well. I would love to see Veritek here next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, he could be. What tipped me off was Furcal. It was not intuitive that he would fall short of Type B status.

He played 36 games last year and has back injuries. Even Yahoo's player notes said his asking price will be dramatically reduced because of that. Could he have been a B by someone guessing - I'm sure you are right. But he still only played 36 games. And I'm guessing games played the prior season has to be a factor.

He sounds like a great gamble at C Type. A bit of a danger as B Type (but more if you pay him as you'd expect a B type to get instead of a C).

This is all said with really little personal knowledge I have of the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without looking, tell me where you think these players qualify: Type A, Type B, or no Type (there is not Type C anymore)

long list of players

Ed, I have no knowledge whatsoever, besides being good, as to what goes into making someone Type A, B, or C. So if you give me a list (or link) of several of each A, B, and C (presuming this would be the type of info that Henning would have on hand), I will look at them and then rank these players from your list Type A, B, or C. I won't look anything up besides maybe some basic stats for the players I don't follow as closely. Again presuming that's what Henning would have most likely done if he made these guesses on his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the Varitek point, he can't hit righties anymore. We need somebody who can take care of northpaws to split the duties with Ryan, lest we have an awful platoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that's the case, then it's sloppy reporting. It's ok to state which players you think are the best or which players you want the Tigers to pursue without getting into facts. However, saying that someone is probably type A or Type B without really knowing it is sloppy in my opinion.

Call it sloppy reporting if you want. If he knows players, has covered MLB for a few years and has seen Type A, B, C lists before, I'm thinking he can make some pretty good educated guesses. I don't think that's too sloppy.

Sorry, but what Edman did in his blog and with this thread is sloppy. He accused someone of something not only here but in his blog. He did so without any real facts. And he did so despite the fact that we now have a few people admitting here that "I can see where he came up with that conclusion." Lee, were those projections really that wacked out that he had to get them from some place? I know you know the answer to that - it's no. But he directly assumed they came from something that he did and tore him apart for it. He had every chance to ask him about it in advance, but didn't do it. Instead he accused - that's wrong and very unprofessional.

He should've given Henning a chance to respond first - especially when Henning probably knows enough about these guys to make an educated guess and didn't say anything that Earth-shattering that "he had to have inside information." And I don't think it comes across as anything more than that - he's creating an opinion.

I know you want to support a friend and a fellow blogger. I am not here to rip on Edman (actually I kind of used him in another thread this week even though his post really didn't bother me - you'll have to read the thread to understand). I respect his opinions and I've used his numbers many times to either confirm my opinions or to say "if he says that am I wrong somewhere" in the HOF. I want to support him here. But I don't think he's come close to proving what he's stating happened here. And even if he was right, he certainly didn't go through the proper channels to at least give it a chance to make it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed, I have no knowledge whatsoever, besides being good, as to what goes into making someone Type A, B, or C. So if you give me a list (or link) of several of each A, B, and C (presuming this would be the type of info that Henning would have on hand), I will look at them and then rank these players from your list Type A, B, or C. I won't look anything up besides maybe some basic stats for the players I don't follow as closely. Again presuming that's what Henning would have most likely done if he made these guesses on his own.

You also have to remember Henning probably has a better grasp on the talent of these players than maybe a few of us do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To the Varitek point, he can't hit righties anymore. We need somebody who can take care of northpaws to split the duties with Ryan, lest we have an awful platoon.

Then you are probably right if you and Lee quickly pointed that out. I just looked at his overall stats. If we did get him I would take a larger look into his ability. My initial impression was he'd probably be a good fit. And it looks like I may have been wrong. Good thing this wasn't a column. And this is one of the reasons I usually don't get involved with "we should get this guy" talk here. I'd rather wait to see who we get and then decide if it looks like a good move.

I'm guessing those Type grades probably have more to do with overall numbers than platoon numbers - unless platooning ends up hurting their overall numbers or hurting their sheer bulk of numbers.

That's enough for awhile. I have to do some work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You also have to remember Henning probably has a better grasp on the talent of these players than maybe a few of us do.

I wouldn't assume that he knows more about players outside the Tigers than a lot of people here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×