Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

2ndCitySox

Elvis Andrus 2014 Outlook

52 posts in this topic

Elvis is entering his prime years, and had a pretty darn good year last year. He rated out very highly in my OBP league.

But can he reach 40 SB again? His power is about 5 HR, which is like a first basemen stealing 5 bags for you (ie, nice, but whatever, esp. In H2H)

What do you guys see for him this year? Having Fielder should add to the R totals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually noticed he had his best season last year. plus they got some new hitters. I would target this guy more than any previous years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty high floor 90+ runs 60 RBI 30-40 steals and an average that won't hurt you. I like him quite a bit along with Everth. I think that's the way to go at shortstop with the top options being injury risks and big base stealers at a premium now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elvis is entering his prime years, and had a pretty darn good year last year. He rated out very highly in my OBP league.

But can he reach 40 SB again? His power is about 5 HR, which is like a first basemen stealing 5 bags for you (ie, nice, but whatever, esp. In H2H)

It's funny the difference between fantasy & real life. He actually had the worst OBP and 2nd worst wRC+ of his career, but those 40 SBs look so golden in make believe baseball. When you mine sweep all his underlying stats, nothing has changed. He hit only 17 2B, which cratered his SLG. Obviously Gary Pettis & co helped him with his pickoffs at 1B, and his SB frequency went up with a less powerful lineup. Will Ron W have him stay put more with Prince in town? My guess, probably not. But I still believe 42 was his ceiling. Runs? I don't see him topping his usual 90, even with Prince, but it's surely possible. I didn't see Carpenters 127 last year haha.

ADP ~60? He might be undervalued since he was about 4th round value last year (buoyed by those SBs). ECabrera might eclipse him in SBs, but in Rs and RBIs Andrus will gain that value back. Andrus at 60 vs Cabrera at 100? All depends on how many standad deviations they are above average in SBs. Evereth could be better value if he got to 55+.

Last year during preseason, the forum took 2 pages to debate Andrus' 8/120 extension on the that kicks in next year, after the 2/10 he already had. Fangraphs argued that Andrus was worth 2 WAR in defense before ever stepping in the batters box, but noted this declines over time.. Then they suggested that his offense could improve. Only problem? Their own author, JZimmerman, suggested that hitters don't improve anymore they just get worse.

I said it then and I'll say it now. That extension might not go down as Jon Daniel's best move.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their own author, JZimmerman, suggested that hitters don't improve anymore they just get worse.

I've glanced through Zimmernan's piece. The premise is horrible; hitters improve all of the time. At a certain age when their skills decline, obviously they don't. But come on! That is a horrible argument. Sounds like Zimmerman was just trying to make a name for himself. I like FanGraphs and I like Sabermetrics, but sometimes a stat geek is just a stat geek and he doesn't know s*** about baseball.

Off the top of my head, I can think of hundreds upon hundreds of ballplayers who improved over time since they entered the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their own author, JZimmerman, suggested that hitters don't improve anymore they just get worse.

I've glanced through Zimmernan's piece. The premise is horrible; hitters improve all of the time. At a certain age when their skills decline, obviously they don't. But come on! That is a horrible argument. Sounds like Zimmerman was just trying to make a name for himself. I like FanGraphs and I like Sabermetrics, but sometimes a stat geek is just a stat geek and he doesn't know s*** about baseball.

Off the top of my head, I can think of hundreds upon hundreds of ballplayers who improved over time since they entered the league.

1) When you say "hundreds upon hundreds", you're insinuating way back in the past. The whole premise of Zimmerman's research was based on how things have changed in the recent past.

2) You'd have to do research to disprove his theory. That article actually went against a defining "age curve" article that he had written 2 years earlier. And in human performance, there will always be outliers. This isn't research where say, the laws of physics must be preserved.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their own author, JZimmerman, suggested that hitters don't improve anymore they just get worse.

I've glanced through Zimmernan's piece. The premise is horrible; hitters improve all of the time. At a certain age when their skills decline, obviously they don't. But come on! That is a horrible argument. Sounds like Zimmerman was just trying to make a name for himself. I like FanGraphs and I like Sabermetrics, but sometimes a stat geek is just a stat geek and he doesn't know s*** about baseball.

Off the top of my head, I can think of hundreds upon hundreds of ballplayers who improved over time since they entered the league.

1) When you say "hundreds upon hundreds", you're insinuating way back in the past. The whole premise of Zimmerman's research was based on how things have changed in the recent past.

2) You'd have to do research to disprove his theory. That article actually went against a defining "age curve" article that he had written 2 years earlier. And in human performance, there will always be outliers. This isn't research where say, the laws of physics must be preserved.

The article has some merit but I don't think its construed correctly. I think for a player that has real talent they could always improve in their 20's, sometimes even in their 30's. The main guys that peak early I would think are guys that played very well after a call up, but when league made adjustments they couldn't make adjustments themselves. There's a much larger majority of these kind of players than the great players so the numbers will point toward this phenomenon.

To explain why this trend wasn't so prevalent in the past, the easy answer is advanced scouting. Once the MLB gets a a couple months of major league tape on a player, they will figure you out and expose your biggest weakness. This kind of scouting nowledge wasn't as great in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their own author, JZimmerman, suggested that hitters don't improve anymore they just get worse.

I've glanced through Zimmernan's piece. The premise is horrible; hitters improve all of the time. At a certain age when their skills decline, obviously they don't. But come on! That is a horrible argument. Sounds like Zimmerman was just trying to make a name for himself. I like FanGraphs and I like Sabermetrics, but sometimes a stat geek is just a stat geek and he doesn't know s*** about baseball.

Off the top of my head, I can think of hundreds upon hundreds of ballplayers who improved over time since they entered the league.

1) When you say "hundreds upon hundreds", you're insinuating way back in the past. The whole premise of Zimmerman's research was based on how things have changed in the recent past.

2) You'd have to do research to disprove his theory. That article actually went against a defining "age curve" article that he had written 2 years earlier. And in human performance, there will always be outliers. This isn't research where say, the laws of physics must be preserved.

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm stating as a fact there are simply a lot of players who disprove the theory with their performance.

I don't have to research anything. Players who enter the league as rookies in any era CAN and DO get better over time. His theory is predicated on the idea of being a finished product when you reach the Majors, which is absurd.

For some guys, yes, they won't get better. But to make a blanket statement that no one gets better is ridiculous and controversial for controversy's sake.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm stating as a fact there are simply a lot of players who disprove the theory with their performance.

I don't have to research anything. Players who enter the league as rookies in any era CAN and DO get better over time. His theory is predicated on the idea of being a finished product when you reach the Majors, which is absurd.

For some guys, yes, they won't get better. But to make a blanket statement that no one gets better is ridiculous and controversial for controversy's sake.

The fact that you think that is what was stated just shows your basic lack of understanding. Counterexamples do not disprove trends, as trends are merely what happens on the average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously PTC didn't read the article , as it's supposed to be a theory in the alleged post-PED era. Not sure if I agree with it in full. but definitely a very interesting read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously PTC didn't read the article , as it's supposed to be a theory in the alleged post-PED era. Not sure if I agree with it in full. but definitely a very interesting read.

It was an interesting read although seemed to ignore external impacts of other things between eras and made what some may argue is a rather naive assumption that everything remains the same from 1995 to 2013 except for PED use. He does touch on some other external stimuli that may help explain it but doesn't go into detail. I guess it depends on how you feel about PEDs....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously PTC didn't read the article , as it's supposed to be a theory in the alleged post-PED era. Not sure if I agree with it in full. but definitely a very interesting read.

It was an interesting read although seemed to ignore external impacts of other things between eras and made what some may argue is a rather naive assumption that everything remains the same from 1995 to 2013 except for PED use. He does touch on some other external stimuli that may help explain it but doesn't go into detail. I guess it depends on how you feel about PEDs....

All I was trying to emphasize is that he claims it's a recent phenomenon. Not sure what you're trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has much less to do with peds and much more to do with players getting more and better coaching at a younger age. The more that happens, the closer the performance peak gets to the athletic peak of the early 20s. Whatever the cause, the effect is clearly there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously PTC didn't read the article , as it's supposed to be a theory in the alleged post-PED era. Not sure if I agree with it in full. but definitely a very interesting read.

It was an interesting read although seemed to ignore external impacts of other things between eras and made what some may argue is a rather naive assumption that everything remains the same from 1995 to 2013 except for PED use. He does touch on some other external stimuli that may help explain it but doesn't go into detail. I guess it depends on how you feel about PEDs....

All I was trying to emphasize is that he claims it's a recent phenomenon. Not sure what you're trying to say.

Just agreeing that it was an interesting thesis.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting my value hunt and he's really jumping out at me. Nobody seems to expect a huge difference from last year, but there's still a lot of separation between his actual rank and his expert ranking.

Yahoo final ranking for 2013: 54 His ranking in their top 250: 90 ADP at the moment is 84.

Espn is sharper, with a player rater rank of 36 and an expert rank of 42.

Given that he's also healthy and consistent, he'll be one of my primary targets in my Yahoo league. I assume their rankings will sharpen up, but maybe not. The only question is how long to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elvis is entering his prime years, and had a pretty darn good year last year. He rated out very highly in my OBP league.

But can he reach 40 SB again? His power is about 5 HR, which is like a first basemen stealing 5 bags for you (ie, nice, but whatever, esp. In H2H)

It's funny the difference between fantasy & real life. He actually had the worst OBP and 2nd worst wRC+ of his career, but those 40 SBs look so golden in make believe baseball. When you mine sweep all his underlying stats, nothing has changed. He hit only 17 2B, which cratered his SLG. Obviously Gary Pettis & co helped him with his pickoffs at 1B, and his SB frequency went up with a less powerful lineup. Will Ron W have him stay put more with Prince in town? My guess, probably not. But I still believe 42 was his ceiling. Runs? I don't see him topping his usual 90, even with Prince, but it's surely possible. I didn't see Carpenters 127 last year haha.

ADP ~60? He might be undervalued since he was about 4th round value last year (buoyed by those SBs). ECabrera might eclipse him in SBs, but in Rs and RBIs Andrus will gain that value back. Andrus at 60 vs Cabrera at 100? All depends on how many standad deviations they are above average in SBs. Evereth could be better value if he got to 55+.

Last year during preseason, the forum took 2 pages to debate Andrus' 8/120 extension on the that kicks in next year, after the 2/10 he already had. Fangraphs argued that Andrus was worth 2 WAR in defense before ever stepping in the batters box, but noted this declines over time.. Then they suggested that his offense could improve. Only problem? Their own author, JZimmerman, suggested that hitters don't improve anymore they just get worse.

I said it then and I'll say it now. That extension might not go down as Jon Daniel's best move.

I liked your post, but you are not saying much here (referring to the bold).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously PTC didn't read the article , as it's supposed to be a theory in the alleged post-PED era. Not sure if I agree with it in full. but definitely a very interesting read.

It was an interesting read although seemed to ignore external impacts of other things between eras and made what some may argue is a rather naive assumption that everything remains the same from 1995 to 2013 except for PED use. He does touch on some other external stimuli that may help explain it but doesn't go into detail. I guess it depends on how you feel about PEDs....

All I was trying to emphasize is that he claims it's a recent phenomenon. Not sure what you're trying to say.

I agree it was interesting. According to RC+. Its an ever so slight increase from age 21 to 25. I remember a Prospectus Article about how when you get called up. Determines your prime. Usually exceptional Talents get called up 21 or younger. Peak earlier. Having a higher peak than Older Prospects.

I'd like to see a Re-do of this. But separated by the age they were called up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... this is somewhat concerning. Seems to be lingering problem this spring. Scratched from the lineup today, now shut down from throwing for a few days.

http://fansided.com/2014/03/18/elvis-andrus-shut-rangers/#!AvmMr

Andrus getting shut down from throwing

Rangers shortstop Elvis Andrus, who is dealing with a sore right elbow, will not throw for the next three days. Next step is for Dr. Meister to evaluate him on Friday so Andrus will not play until at least the weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was elbow problems. now shoulder? ugh.

I've seen articles saying it is one or the other. He had some flexor tendinitis problems earlier this spring, which were "localized in the forearm" and the RW post for this latest injury says it is a sore elbow. Not sure if the two are related. We'll know more this weekend, for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pitchers go through dead arms periods and nobody bats an eye. Fielders go through it and everyone is worried. He'll be fine. Rest, cortisone shot, more rest. No need to rush in ST.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't appear to be anything more than speculation at this point, but would certainly be a problem if it was the case...

@injuryexpert

The worry on Andrus is that there's bone spurs or chips in there. Easily fixed, but would miss 4-6 weeks after. Profar/Odor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't appear to be anything more than speculation at this point, but would certainly be a problem if it was the case...

@injuryexpert

The worry on Andrus is that there's bone spurs or chips in there. Easily fixed, but would miss 4-6 weeks after. Profar/Odor?

Well that would suck. The sooner we know the better though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.