PDA

View Full Version : Alexei ROY?


BleacherBandit
09-29-2008, 07:26 PM
Discuss

turners56
09-29-2008, 07:27 PM
Unfortunately, he'll most likely finish 2nd. He's had to overcome way more adversity than Longoria and has had a barely subpar season compared to Longoria. But, when it comes down to it, the numbers are the first thing the voters look at.

thomas35forever
09-29-2008, 07:27 PM
It's gonna be close. Hopefully, Alexei will win it.

BoysMom3
09-29-2008, 07:29 PM
Alexei all the way!!!!!

Billy Ashley
09-29-2008, 08:04 PM
There is about a zero percent chance he'll win it...


and some people around here will be really mad. However, he doesn't deserve it.

Ramirez has been a splendid surprise for the White Sox this season. Kenny Williams was able to find one of the better 2b in the American League this season for a fraction of what other similar players would make on the open market. However, thatís fairly faint praise. Outside of Kinsler, Pedrioa or Roberts second base is pretty darn weak in the A.L. Ramirez is a solid regular, but heís not had a ďgreatĒ season. Longoria on the other hand has been pretty much better at every facet of the game this season.

Hell, one could argue that Ramirez doesnít belong on the top five in the ROY ballot. Iím not sure Iíd be comfortable making it, but considering on how much one values 100 innings, Chamberlain could be considered to have had a better year. How a voter interprets that values defense could also push a guy like Ellsbury (mediocre offensive season with excellent defense in the OF) ahead of a mediocre fielding good hitting Ramirez. Then there is Aviles in KC who played better in less time.

I suppose what Iím trying to argue is that only one candidate has really separated himself from the rest this season and that player is Longoria. He should get just about every vote, how the rest fall is completely inconsequential.

Longoria has had the best season and has the best chance of being something special.

ChiSoxFan7
09-29-2008, 08:18 PM
I would have agreed with bill before this game.


To break the record for GS by a rookie and then his fantastic, and ever improving, defense and not to mention the key role he has played in close whitesox games (like today), I think he stock has risen significantly.


If Alexei has himself a day tomorrow and the whitesox ride him into the playoff the vote will be very close.

Longoria has had a ludicrous kind of season, but with the recency effect I think alexei has a better shot than alot people are giving him.


Either way, THANK YOU TCM!

spongyfungy
09-29-2008, 08:34 PM
RISP Evan Longoria : .241
RISP Alexei Ramirez : .374 (according to Yahoo)

Billy Ashley
09-29-2008, 08:42 PM
RISP Evan Longoria : .241
RISP Alexei Ramirez : .374 (according to Yahoo)

Random and almost useless. What's the sample amount of AB's we're talking about here? Even if RISP meant anything, Ramirez would have to bat a lot better to make up the 6 or so games better Longoria has been this season.

Ramirez:

Warp 3: 3.5
Vorp: 18.3
OPS+: 101

Longoria:

Warp3: 9.2
Vorp: 34.8
OPS+: 130

Aviles:

Warp 3: 6.2
Vorp: 35.0
OPS+: 115

Chamberlain:

Warp 3: 4.5
ERA+: 166

Ellsbury:

Warp3: 7.8
VORP: 17.7
OPS+: 89

The one guy who scores really well across the board is Longoria. Scouts and advanced metrics alike love he defense. He’s also handily the best hitter of the lot. If he didn’t miss such a couple chunks of the season he’d have had a shot at a really really special rookie season.



Call me a propeller head if you wish, but there's a ton of compelling evidence suggesting that Longoria has had a much better year than any other rookie.

On top of that in "High leverage situations" as defined by baseballreference:

Ramirez: .304/.309/.418
Longoria: .253/.330/..476

This doesn't demonstrate that Longoria is more clutch than Ramirez, it's merely evidence that "clutchness" is in fact most often a result of random distribution.

johnnyg83
09-29-2008, 08:47 PM
There is about a zero percent chance he'll win it...


and some people around here will be really mad. However, he doesn't deserve it.

Ramirez has been a splendid surprise for the White Sox this season. Kenny Williams was able to find one of the better 2b in the American League this season for a fraction of what other similar players would make on the open market. However, thatís fairly faint praise. Outside of Kinsler, Pedrioa or Roberts second base is pretty darn weak in the A.L. Ramirez is a solid regular, but heís not had a ďgreatĒ season. Longoria on the other hand has been pretty much better at every facet of the game this season.

Hell, one could argue that Ramirez doesnít belong on the top five in the ROY ballot. Iím not sure Iíd be comfortable making it, but considering on how much one values 100 innings, Chamberlain could be considered to have had a better year. How a voter interprets that values defense could also push a guy like Ellsbury (mediocre offensive season with excellent defense in the OF) ahead of a mediocre fielding good hitting Ramirez. Then there is Aviles in KC who played better in less time.

I suppose what Iím trying to argue is that only one candidate has really separated himself from the rest this season and that player is Longoria. He should get just about every vote, how the rest fall is completely inconsequential.

Longoria has had the best season and has the best chance of being something special.

not in the top 5? wanna bet?

I'll grant that Longoria will win ... he had it locked until he got hurt but then got it back on that 3 hr night.

Aviles on KC? Fine season but in less than 2/3 of the season and with nothing on the line.

Joba's a setup guy middle on a 3rd place team.

Billy Ashley
09-29-2008, 08:52 PM
not in the top 5? wanna bet?

I'll grant that Longoria will win ... he had it locked until he got hurt but then got it back on that 3 hr night.

Aviles on KC? Fine season but in less than 2/3 of the season and with nothing on the line.

Joba's a setup guy middle on a 3rd place team.

I'm not making that bet as I would guess he'll finish second. Additionally, I don't think I'd argue he's not in the top five, I'm merely stating one can make that argument and still be pretty darn credible. Look at the numbers on the post above yours.

According to Warp 3 he shouldn't be in the top five. Now as I'm sure you're aware, Warp isn't perfect especially since it relies on some defensive metrics that are (to be kind) problematic. However, the point remains... as an all around player, only one rookie has really separated himself from the class. That player happens to be an elite defender and a very good hitter, both things that Ramirez is not (yet anyway). Ramirez has been a very solid regular this season and deserves recognition, but the RoY is a bit overboard.

spongyfungy
09-29-2008, 08:53 PM
Random and almost useless.

same with RBI total.

I didn't say it was or wasn't a useless stat but one voters may use to weigh their vote.

This isn't about who had the better season but who will win ROY award.

Dan Mega
09-29-2008, 08:53 PM
Joba's a setup guy middle on a 3rd place team.

The uniform he's wearing matters more to the voters than his actual stats and impact.

Billy Ashley
09-29-2008, 08:56 PM
same with RBI total.

I didn't say it was or wasn't a useless stat but one voters may use to weigh their vote.

This isn't about who had the better season but who will win ROY award.

Granted, and we all know that the voters really don't know what the heck they're doing. I'm fairly certain a random non baseball fan could watch a handful of games and do a similar job at the end of the year.

I'd rather Ramirez win the hardware for the simple fact that I'm pretty confident is Longoria getting a ton of gold gloves, silver sluggers and possibly MVPs during his career. Ramirez on the other hand has a very good chance of being a very solid second basemen and maybe a silver slugger here and there. However if the voters have a clue, Longoria wins by a blow out.

seventyseven
09-29-2008, 09:04 PM
According to Warp 3 he shouldn't be in the top five.

No offense Bill, but the baseball world needs less of people like you.

Billy Ashley
09-29-2008, 09:12 PM
No offense Bill, but the baseball world needs less of people like you.

Yeah what I said was really unreasonable. "According to this system, that is flawed that I don't completely agree with, we may be overrating Ramirez*" *paraphrasing.

No offense, but the real world needs less people like you. They already dominate the airwaves of ESPN. I've stated three times in this thread now that I'd vote for Ramirez second right now. I'm just also stating that there are a lot of reasonable people who would disagree with me. If you're that sensitive about sports analysis I hope you don't even bother talking about topics that actually do matter, we've got too many of them too.

RowanDye
09-29-2008, 09:15 PM
No offense Bill, but the baseball world needs less of people like you.

"That's bull...pure bull!"

One of my favorite lines of the whole year!

On a side note, I'm not sure how Bill isn't supposed to take offense to your comment.

Billy Ashley
09-29-2008, 09:18 PM
"That's bull...pure bull!"

One of my favorite lines of the whole year!

On a side note, I'm not sure how Bill isn't supposed to take offense to your comment.

It's ok, he's like Will Farell playing Ricky Bobby. So long as he says "No offense", or " With all due respect" he can then say anything he wants.

He likely has a lot of similarities to fictional Mr. Bobby, and I don't mean the hot wife or J.C. Riley as a best friend.

SBSoxFan
09-29-2008, 09:22 PM
Random and almost useless. What's the sample amount of AB's we're talking about here? Even if RISP meant anything, Ramirez would have to bat a lot better to make up the 6 or so games better Longoria has been this season.


Tell that to the Twins. They probably wouldn't be playing tomorrow without their ridiculous average with RISP.


That player happens to be an elite defender and a very good hitter, both things that Ramirez is not (yet anyway). Ramirez has been a very solid regular this season and deserves recognition, but the RoY is a bit overboard.

Regardless of what the statistics say, it seems like it would be tough to watch games on a daily basis and not consider Ramirez an elite defender.

Billy Ashley
09-29-2008, 09:29 PM
Tell that to the Twins. They probably wouldn't be playing tomorrow without their ridiculous average with RISP.



Regardless of what the statistics say, it seems like it would be tough to watch games on a daily basis and not consider Ramirez an elite defender.

The Twins are not a good team that have gotten insanely lucky with RISP this season. It's not sustainable and illustrates what makes baseball so fun, no matter how good or bad a team/ player is, in the short run (1 season for instance) flukey things can happen. Whether that be the Twins winning 88 games this year, Matsuzaka posting a sub 3.00 ERA, Floyd posting a sub 4.00 ERA, the Mariners being competitive last season, Col. insane hot streak last year or even the Royals recent better play.

I don't consider him (Ramirez) a good fielder let alone elite one. Most scouts would likely agree and just about every advanced metric agrees as well. Lots of Yankee fans thought Jeter was a good fielder back in the day too.

TDog
09-29-2008, 09:49 PM
Unfortunately, he'll most likely finish 2nd. He's had to overcome way more adversity than Longoria and has had a barely subpar season compared to Longoria. But, when it comes down to it, the numbers are the first thing the voters look at.

I wouldn't Ramirez' season subpar in comparison to Longoria. Raimirez has a higher batting average than Longoria. Ramirez has more tools than Longoria. I think Ramirez demonstrated that he has more potential to be the better ballplayer in the next few years. Longoria has played in fewer games and has struck out more than twice as much as Ramirez, despite Ramirez being a free swinger.

The numbers aren't the first thing voters look at. Unfortunately, it's the hype. I have heard that the Rays have sent out a glossy publicity package to the acquaint voters on his qualifications. Perhaps the White Sox have done the same thing on behalf of Ramirez.

I expect the votes were cast before Ramirez hit his record grand slam today, even if the deadline to postmark ballots was extended.

SBSoxFan
09-29-2008, 09:55 PM
The Twins are not a good team that have gotten insanely lucky with RISP this season. It's not sustainable and illustrates what makes baseball so fun, no matter how good or bad a team/ player is, in the short run (1 season for instance) flukey things can happen. Whether that be the Twins winning 88 games this year, Matsuzaka posting a sub 3.00 ERA, Floyd posting a sub 4.00 ERA, the Mariners being competitive last season, Col. insane hot streak last year or even the Royals recent better play.

I don't consider him (Ramirez) a good fielder let alone elite one. Most scouts would likely agree and just about every advanced metric agrees as well. Lots of Yankee fans thought Jeter was a good fielder back in the day too.

You're right. They're likely a bad team that has gotten insanely lucky with RISP this year.

How many of those scouts agree with the metrics? Regardless of how "advanced" they are?

By the way, according to Ken Rosenthal, 2 other GM's of teams that were after Ramirez said they would have had him in AA. Based on what you've been saying in a couple of threads, I gather you would've put him there too. Thank goodness Sox management saw something special in him.

Billy Ashley
09-29-2008, 10:02 PM
You're right. They're likely a bad team that has gotten insanely lucky with RISP this year.

How many of those scouts agree with the metrics? Regardless of how "advanced" they are?

By the way, according to Ken Rosenthal, 2 other GM's of teams that were after Ramirez said they would have had him in AA. Based on what you've been saying in a couple of threads, I gather you would've put him there too. Thank goodness Sox management saw something special in him.

You can look it up if you wish, I argued he should be used as a super sub. I felt his ability to play well enough not to embarrass himself at several positions would have a ton of value. I also thought he had limited upside as a hitter. I did not believe he'd be as good as he is, but I thought he had a reasonable chance of having a good long career as a super sub with maybe a couple seasons as a starter.

All I've argued in the other threads is that he's not ROY... I don't see how that's a rip on him as a ball player. John Danks isn't the Cy Young either, I bet I could name 29 other GMs who would love to have him too.

champagne030
09-29-2008, 10:08 PM
There is about a zero percent chance he'll win it...


and some people around here will be really mad. However, he doesn't deserve it.

Ramirez has been a splendid surprise for the White Sox this season. Kenny Williams was able to find one of the better 2b in the American League this season for a fraction of what other similar players would make on the open market. However, thatís fairly faint praise. Outside of Kinsler, Pedrioa or Roberts second base is pretty darn weak in the A.L. Ramirez is a solid regular, but heís not had a ďgreatĒ season. Longoria on the other hand has been pretty much better at every facet of the game this season.

Hell, one could argue that Ramirez doesnít belong on the top five in the ROY ballot. Iím not sure Iíd be comfortable making it, but considering on how much one values 100 innings, Chamberlain could be considered to have had a better year. How a voter interprets that values defense could also push a guy like Ellsbury (mediocre offensive season with excellent defense in the OF) ahead of a mediocre fielding good hitting Ramirez. Then there is Aviles in KC who played better in less time.

I suppose what Iím trying to argue is that only one candidate has really separated himself from the rest this season and that player is Longoria. He should get just about every vote, how the rest fall is completely inconsequential.

Longoria has had the best season and has the best chance of being something special.

Your what hurts?

Seriously, they have the same total bases and one had a much more favorable spot in the lineup. Longoria has a chance to be special at 3rd, but Alexei plays the offensively challenged middle infield and if he can come close to Longoria offensively and play an above average middle infield, he's more valuable.

All that said, Longoria should win the ROY. Alexei's poor April cost him.....

Eddo144
09-29-2008, 11:05 PM
Your what hurts?

Seriously, they have the same total bases and one had a much more favorable spot in the lineup. Longoria has a chance to be special at 3rd, but Alexei plays the offensively challenged middle infield and if he can come close to Longoria offensively and play an above average middle infield, he's more valuable.

All that said, Longoria should win the ROY. Alexei's poor April cost him.....
How does lineup spot affect his total bases? RBI and runs, absolutely, but total bases are team-independent. A double batting third would be a double batting sixth.

Eddo144
09-29-2008, 11:06 PM
I wouldn't Ramirez' season subpar in comparison to Longoria. Raimirez has a higher batting average than Longoria.
I know you love batting average, but what if I told you that Longoria makes outs at a much lower rate than Ramirez? (68.7% for Alexei vs. 65.7% for Longoria, the equivalent of the difference between a .270 hitter and .300 hitter, essentially.)

Ramirez has more tools than Longoria. I think Ramirez demonstrated that he has more potential to be the better ballplayer in the next few years.
Which tool is Longoria missing?
Hitting? See above. Alexei makes outs at a much higher rate than Longoria.
Power? Longoria has more HR and plays in a park that is less conducive to hitting than U.S. Cellular.
Defense? By both metrics and scouting, Longoria is considered to be a well-above-average third baseman.
Arm? See above.
Speed? Alexei is faster, yes, but is a terrible base stealer at this stage in his career.

Longoria has played in fewer games and has struck out more than twice as much as Ramirez, despite Ramirez being a free swinger.
Yeah, and he's walked almost three times as much as Alexei. Longoria's K/BB rate is 2.65, Ramirez's is 3.8125.
And even with the greater number of strikeouts, Longoria's made fewer outs this year (342 vs. 369).

The numbers aren't the first thing voters look at.
That's Alexei's only chance, unfortunately.

I expect the votes were cast before Ramirez hit his record grand slam today, even if the deadline to postmark ballots was extended.
I sure hope one game is enough to sway voters. Especially when Alexei had the chance to step up the last two weeks and carry his team into the playoffs, but didn't until the eleventh hour.

Look, I'm not anti-Alexei. He has a higher upside than Longoria, in my opinion. He's also super-valuable for his up-the-middle defense. I'd love to see a Whit Sox player win Rookie of the Year, but Ramirez did not have as good a year as Longoria did. Alexei's flashier and has more potential, but he has not produced as much as Longoria has.

TDog
09-30-2008, 12:34 AM
I know you love batting average, but what if I told you that Longoria makes outs at a much lower rate than Ramirez? (68.7% for Alexei vs. 65.7% for Longoria, the equivalent of the difference between a .270 hitter and .300 hitter, essentially.) ....

Jim Thome make outs at a much lower rate than Evan Longoria. He hit more home runs and more RBIs. Did Longoria have a subpar seaon compared to Longoria? It's a faulty analogy of course, Thome is near the end of his career and Longoria is at the beginning of his. But a lot of people at WSI consider Thome "all or nothing" in large part becasue he has struck out nearly once a game. Longoria indeed has averaged one strikeout a game.

People here overrate on-base percentage. The reason batting average is a more important statistic is that hitters ultimately need to hit. Most people here would rather have Longoria than Thome as DH for the Sox (a purely hypothetical question) although Thome has a better on-base percentage becaues Longoria has a higher batting average.

hellview
09-30-2008, 07:21 AM
not in the top 5? wanna bet?

Joba's a setup guy middle on a 3rd place team.


A 3rd place team that has a better record then the Sox?

hellview
09-30-2008, 07:22 AM
People here overrate on-base percentage. The reason batting average is a more important statistic is that hitters ultimately need to hit. Most people here would rather have Longoria than Thome as DH for the Sox (a purely hypothetical question) although Thome has a better on-base percentage becaues Longoria has a higher batting average.

WOW?!?! You did not just say that.

Eddo144
09-30-2008, 08:24 AM
Jim Thome make outs at a much lower rate than Evan Longoria. He hit more home runs and more RBIs. Did Longoria have a subpar seaon compared to Longoria? It's a faulty analogy of course, Thome is near the end of his career and Longoria is at the beginning of his. But a lot of people at WSI consider Thome "all or nothing" in large part becasue he has struck out nearly once a game. Longoria indeed has averaged one strikeout a game.
Thome did have a better year than Longoria. But we're arguing about Rookie of the Year, not the overall best player this season. And I'll ask you, why does the method in which you make your outs matter so much? Especially when you make fewer outs, why does it matter that a higher percentage are strikeouts? Please give me one reason other than that strikeouts are traditionally frowned upon.

People here overrate on-base percentage. The reason batting average is a more important statistic is that hitters ultimately need to hit. Most people here would rather have Longoria than Thome as DH for the Sox (a purely hypothetical question) although Thome has a better on-base percentage becaues Longoria has a higher batting average.
On-base percentage is not overrated. It is, however, the most important statistic because it correlates the most with scoring runs. Simply put, throughout baseball history, teams with a higher on-base percentage score more runs, regardless of batting average or slugging. And, unlike RBI or runs, you can use it to measure an individual, as it is team-independent.

jabrch
09-30-2008, 08:57 AM
How does lineup spot affect his total bases? RBI and runs, absolutely, but total bases are team-independent. A double batting third would be a double batting sixth.

Except that the guy batting 3rd has more men on base who run better in front of him, and better sluggers behind him. The guy hitting 6th or 7th in our lineup has some pretty slow guys in front of him, and Uribe or something like that protecting him.

There's a reason #3 is the spot where you put your best hitter - best opportunity to drive in runs, and most protection from sluggers.

I'm surprised if you don't believe that player X would have more TB hitting #3 than #8, in particular in our lineup.

jabrch
09-30-2008, 09:02 AM
People here overrate on-base percentage. The reason batting average is a more important statistic is that hitters ultimately need to hit. Most people here would rather have Longoria than Thome as DH for the Sox (a purely hypothetical question) although Thome has a better on-base percentage becaues Longoria has a higher batting average.

You need to be able to do both to win. It is important to take walks - when they are available to you. OBP is nice.

But starting now, you won't see too many walks. We are done facing guys like Nate Robertson, Daniel Cabrera, Justin Verlander, etc. who walk a ton of people (except that we might get Edwin Jackson?). Now is the time when walks, while they still mean a lot, are less frequent. So here's why Oakland never advanced in the post season...you don't walk your way to winning a post season series. You hit your way there.

Walks are great over 162...but for the next 12 wins, we will need to hit the freaking baseball.

There is a segment of the population that does overrate walks (see Swisher, Nick with Oakland) - the same way as for a long time there was a segment that underrated them.

jabrch
09-30-2008, 09:03 AM
WOW?!?! You did not just say that.

He did...and while he didn't explain it - he is right.

Walk rate on strikes will equate to .000.

You will see a lot of strikes the rest of the way - and very few walks.

To win a post season series, you need to hit.

Rocket Science - this is not.

downstairs
09-30-2008, 09:17 AM
I just want him to be Rookie of the Game tonight.

Eddo144
09-30-2008, 09:54 AM
Except that the guy batting 3rd has more men on base who run better in front of him, and better sluggers behind him. The guy hitting 6th or 7th in our lineup has some pretty slow guys in front of him, and Uribe or something like that protecting him.

There's a reason #3 is the spot where you put your best hitter - best opportunity to drive in runs, and most protection from sluggers.

I'm surprised if you don't believe that player X would have more TB hitting #3 than #8, in particular in our lineup.
Yeah, but batting third doesn't make you a good hitter. If the Sox batted Gavin Floyd third, would he become their best hitter? No, of course not. You've got your causation mixed up.

The proper causation is that a player bats third because he's a good hitter. You're saying a player is a good hitter because he bats third.

Eddo144
09-30-2008, 10:05 AM
He did...and while he didn't explain it - he is right.

Walk rate on strikes will equate to .000.

You will see a lot of strikes the rest of the way - and very few walks.

To win a post season series, you need to hit.

Rocket Science - this is not.
OK, to your first part - why are you equating on-base percentage and walks? The majority of on-base percentage is made up of hits. If anyone blindly claimed Longoria was better because of his walk rate only, please point them out.

On-base percentage is not walk rate. On-base percentage is the percent of the time you don't make an out. Guess what: hits are not outs; walks are not outs; hit-by-pitches are not outs.

As to your second part - I can't find it now, but I know I've see evidence suggesting that walks occur at a similar rate in the postseason as they do in the regular season. And why are you assuming a hitter has no control over drawing a walk? If they didn't, the walk leaders would be random every year (and they're not).

Craig Grebeck
09-30-2008, 10:08 AM
He did...and while he didn't explain it - he is right.

Walk rate on strikes will equate to .000.

You will see a lot of strikes the rest of the way - and very few walks.

To win a post season series, you need to hit.

Rocket Science - this is not.
Except, you're wrong. And I've proven this before.

Boston drew sixteen walks in the three games against the Angels in the ALDS. They drew twenty-eight walks in the seven game ALCS. They drew seventeen in their four game sweep of the Rockies to win it all. That's 61 walks in 14 games, which is roughly 4.36 walks per game. That's not exactly fantastic control.

STL drew 59 walks in sixteen games, including 52 alone in the ALCS and WS in 2006.

TDog
09-30-2008, 10:41 AM
...
There is a segment of the population that does overrate walks (see Swisher, Nick with Oakland) - the same way as for a long time there was a segment that underrated them.

You get it. Ted Williams had a great on-base percentage because he was a great hitter. Frank Thomas, even a bit after his prime, was a great hitter with a great on-base perentage. Walks are important. It is important to put runners on base. Take what the pitcher gives you. Giving up walks hurts. In fact, intentional walks (in the American League, where you're not walking a guy to get to the pitcher, in non-game-ending situations) score more often than not. I made that point in Monday's game thread while Paul Konerko was being intentionally walked. He scored, of course. I think three of the last four intentional walks at the Cell have come around to score, unfortunately, two of them were Indians.

But the problem with averages is that they are averages of what a player has done. There are pitchers who don't issue many walks. The Twins issue fewer walks than any team in the league, probably in baseball. Dangerous hitters aren't hitters looking to walk, especially against the Twins. A player with a high batting average has shown he can hit. A player with a low batting average and a high on-base percentage has faced a lot of pitchers who walk him.

Ultimately, hitters have to hit.

The fact that there is no "Mendoza line" for on-base percentage, the fact that people can't agree on a standard on-base percentage that is solid, as people do with .300 hitters speaks to the fact that batting averages are more important measures for hitters than on-base percentages. It really depends on where you are hitting in the order. But if you have a .220 hitter with a high on-base-percentage leading off, pitchers are ultimately going to force him to swing the bat.

Look at Jim Thome this season. Can you say he has had a better season than Evan Longoria simply because he has a better on-base percentage, more walks (of course) more home runs and more RBIs while striking out (slightly) fewer times per game? To me it sounds like a silly argument. He has seemed so "all or nothing" for most of the year. But in this thread, from someone arguing why Longoria should be named Rookie of the Year, I read the following:

Thome did have a better year than Longoria. But we're arguing about Rookie of the Year, not the overall best player this season.

How many White Sox fans would say that Jim Thome has had a better season than Alexei Ramirez?

hellview
09-30-2008, 10:49 AM
The fact that there is no "Mendoza line" for on-base percentage, the fact that people can't agree on a standard on-base percentage that is solid, as people do with .300 hitters speaks to the fact that batting averages are more important measures for hitters than on-base percentages. It really depends on where you are hitting in the order. But if you have a .220 hitter with a high on-base-percentage leading off, pitchers are ultimately going to force him to swing the bat

Alot of people judge pitchers by wins too...don't mean it's right.

OBP will always trump AVG

Eddo144
09-30-2008, 10:59 AM
You get it. Ted Williams had a great on-base percentage because he was a great hitter. Frank Thomas, even a bit after his prime, was a great hitter with a great on-base perentage. Walks are important. It is important to put runners on base. Take what the pitcher gives you. Giving up walks hurts. In fact, intentional walks (in the American League, where you're not walking a guy to get to the pitcher, in non-game-ending situations) score more often than not. I made that point in Monday's game thread while Paul Konerko was being intentionally walked. He scored, of course. I think three of the last four intentional walks at the Cell have come around to score, unfortunately, two of them were Indians.
You know, pointing out that two of the ten greatest hitters of all time were high-OBP guys sort of contradicts your "OBP is overrated" argument.

But the problem with averages is that they are averages of what a player has done. There are pitchers who don't issue many walks. The Twins issue fewer walks than any team in the league, probably in baseball. Dangerous hitters aren't hitters looking to walk, especially against the Twins. A player with a high batting average has shown he can hit. A player with a low batting average and a high on-base percentage has faced a lot of pitchers who walk him.

Ultimately, hitters have to hit.

The fact that there is no "Mendoza line" for on-base percentage, the fact that people can't agree on a standard on-base percentage that is solid, as people do with .300 hitters speaks to the fact that batting averages are more important measures for hitters than on-base percentages. It really depends on where you are hitting in the order. But if you have a .220 hitter with a high on-base-percentage leading off, pitchers are ultimately going to force him to swing the bat.
You cite the "problem with averages", yet are willing to go by batting average?

And why oh why does a high walk rate imply that a hitter is not looking to hit? You really think there are major league hitters who are afraid to swing the bat?

A high walk rate indicates that a hitter has good discipline and is selective (Nick Swisher, Eddie Yost) or is tremendously feared (Barry Bonds, Frank Thomas). Both are good things.

Oh, and the "Mendoza line" for OBP would be .300. Any hitter who makes outs more than 70% of the time is a very poor hitter.

Look at Jim Thome this season. Can you say he has had a better season than Evan Longoria simply because he has a better on-base percentage, more walks (of course) more home runs and more RBIs while striking out (slightly) fewer times per game? To me it sounds like a silly argument. He has seemed so "all or nothing" for most of the year. But in this thread, from someone arguing why Longoria should be named Rookie of the Year, I read the following:

...

How many White Sox fans would say that Jim Thome has had a better season than Alexei Ramirez?
I said that. And I would definitely say Thome had a better season than Ramirez, because I can (a) look beyond batting average, which is an extremely flawed way to measure a hitter, and (b) avoid falling back onto cliches like "all or nothing" because I actually look at the records of the year rather than just going by the smaller subset of plate appearances that I've physically observed.

TDog
09-30-2008, 12:03 PM
... I would definitely say Thome had a better season than Ramirez, because I can (a) look beyond batting average, which is an extremely flawed way to measure a hitter, and (b) avoid falling back onto cliches like "all or nothing" because I actually look at the records of the year rather than just going by the smaller subset of plate appearances that I've physically observed.

Any statistical measure of a hitter has flaws. On-base-percentages have some different flaws than batting averages do, but in isolation both are flawed in evaluating hitters. For example, hitters with high on-base percentages who strike out a lot can become black holes in your lineup.

If you can honestly look at Jim Thome's season and say he has had a better season than Alexei Ramirez, you spend too much time looking at flawed stats and not enough time watching baseball.

In mid-May, Thome's batting average was just over the Mendoza line (by the way, Mario Mendoza's career on-base percentage was .245) and Ramirez was hitting less than .160 with an on-base-percentage less than .200. At the time, Thome's on-base percentage was around .400. There were demands at WSI to release him because people watching the games could see no production, despite his .400 on-base percentage. There were those, including myself, who believed Ramirez needed some time in AAA.

Thome's batting average has gone up by 40 points. His on-base-percentage has gone down by 40 points. People who watched the game instead of stats could see Thome was hitting better. (It is coincidental that people who were watching his batting average and power numbers would have made the same observation.) Going into game 163, your statistical analysis he has had a better season than Ramirez, whose batting average is more than 130 points higher and whose on-base percentage is more than 120 points higher than in mid-May.

If you have watched the White Sox play, especially from June, you can see Ramirez is having a better season.

People want to find the magical statistical formula that explains baseball. Baseball is such a well-defined game that it lends itself to statistical analysis. The magical formula isn't out there. Different stats tell you different things about hitters. If you look at on-base percentages, you might have thought it would be a great idea for the Sox to trade for Nick Swisher. I had watched Nick Swisher play last summer, and I didn't expect much more than what he has given the Sox this season. He is going to have to change his approach to hitting if he wants to continue his career in baseball. I felt that way a year ago and I feel that way today. But today he is a White Sox problem.

I will go on record now in saying I hope the Sox don't trade for Jack Cust this offseason. I don't care if he does have a higher on-base percentage than anyone on the Sox.

Eddo144
09-30-2008, 12:15 PM
If you can honestly look at Jim Thome's season and say he has had a better season than Alexei Ramirez, you spend too much time looking at flawed stats and not enough time watching baseball.

...

If you have watched the White Sox play, especially from June, you can see Ramirez is having a better season.
...and as soon as you make this argument, I stop giving you any credibility. I watch plenty of Sox games to see that Thome's a good hitter. Don't you live on the west coast? You comment more on the fact you've seen the A's play than the White Sox.

And the main flaw with OBP is that it's a binary outcome - out or no out. The same is true with AVG. Watching the games does tell you the quality of a plate appearance, but so do other stats like slugging (or if you want to go into metrics, EqA).

Unless you (or me, or anyone) has enough time on their hands to watch every. single. plate appearance, we absolutely must rely on stats. The stats have watched every PA, and kept accurate records. Our eys and minds do not.

Now I'm done. I look at stats. I also watch games. I played baseball up until college, when I no longer had the skill to compete at the level. Claiming anything else about my mindset is insulting.

champagne030
09-30-2008, 02:30 PM
How does lineup spot affect his total bases? RBI and runs, absolutely, but total bases are team-independent. A double batting third would be a double batting sixth.

That's not necessarily true when Konerko or Thome are on first or Uribe is batting behind you.

Adele_H
09-30-2008, 03:12 PM
As always, people take an issue that's fairly 'gray' and try to dumb it down.

Hitting is very important, duh. Situational hitting is even more important.

But so is NOT making outs. Forcing the pitcher to labor, to reveal his entire pitching arsenal/pattern before he wants to; getting him to throw out of the stretch; putting more pressure on the entire defense; affecting defensive alignment; even getting the opposing manager out of his comfort zone has hidden benefits.

You need BOTH a 'Thome' and an 'Alexei' to have a potent, well-balanced line-up. TDog only remembers Alexei's GS, but the conditions for it were created by less "sexy" occurences like

a) Wise working a walk against otherwise cruising Freddy leading off the inning.
b) Wise swiping 2nd against suddenly stiffened defense.
c) Dye laying off borderline pitch from Galarraga.
d) Galarraga overthrowing another pitch to the backstop.
e) Ryan feeling real pressure behind the plate.
f) Dye not swinging at another pitch he could have jammed himself on. Another walk.
g) Thome, instead of concentrating on getting ON BASE at any cost, wants to be T-Dog's Batting Average Hero and as a result plays right into the pitcher's hands. Which compromises the potential rally (but thankfully doesn't kill it).
h) Konerko walks.
i) Griffey walks - also refusing to be TDog's Batting-average Hero, realizing some things are more important.
[Ok, I don't know the alphabet past letter 'i', so bear with me]


If Alexei didn't have all that happen in the inning...... didn't have somone to load the bases for him...... leading to the premature appearance by Gary "my cutter is just a fancy name for a hanging slider" Glover.... Who knows, he probably chases a pitch up and away, popping it up as he has been doing for most of September. No rally. Different Tiger relievers come in the 8th. Season possibly ovah.

voodoochile
09-30-2008, 03:20 PM
As always, people take an issue that's fairly 'gray' and try to dumb it down.

Hitting is very important, duh. Situational hitting is even more important.

But so is NOT making outs. Forcing the pitcher to labor, to reveal his entire pitching arsenal/pattern before he wants to; getting him to throw out of the stretch; putting more pressure on the entire defense; affecting defensive alignment; even getting the opposing manager out of his comfort zone has hidden benefits.

You need BOTH a 'Thome' and an 'Alexei' to have a potent, well-balanced line-up. TDog only remembers Alexei's GS, but the conditions for it were created by less "sexy" occurences like

a) Wise working a walk against otherwise cruising Freddy leading off the inning.
b) Wise swiping 2nd against suddenly stiffened defense.
c) Dye laying off borderline pitch from Galarraga.
d) Galarraga overthrowing another pitch to the backstop.
e) Ryan feeling real pressure behind the plate.
f) Dye not swinging at another pitch he could have jammed himself on. Another walk.
g) Thome, instead of concentrating on getting ON BASE at any cost, wants to be T-Dog's Batting Average Hero and as a result plays right into the pitcher's hands. Which compromises the potential rally (but thankfully doesn't kill it).
h) Konerko walks.
i) Griffey walks - also refusing to be TDog's Batting-average Hero, realizing some things are more important.
[Ok, I don't know the alphabet past letter 'i', so bear with me]


If Alexei didn't have all that happen in the inning...... didn't have somone to load the bases for him...... leading to the premature appearance by Gary "my cutter is just a fancy name for a hanging slider" Glover.... Who knows, he probably chases a pitch up and away, popping it up as he has been doing for most of September. No rally. Different Tiger relievers come in the 8th. Season possibly ovah.

Wow, that's a long work around to find some dark clouds...

Here, I'll translate it for everyone...

"If these 9 things don't happen, TCM doesn't get to do what he did and then he still got lucky to do it..."

You left off Freddy pulling his big money contract muscle and opening the door...

:whocares:

:putitontheboard

^what happened and the rest is mental masturbation...^

Adele_H
09-30-2008, 03:25 PM
Wow, that's a long work around to find some dark clouds...

Here, I'll translate it for everyone...

"If these 9 things don't happen, TCM doesn't get to do what he did and then he still got lucky to do it..."

You left off Freddy pulling his big money contract muscle and opening the door...

:whocares:

:putitontheboard

^what happened and the rest is mental masturbation...^


Huh? Fluffy Cloud, are you in the wrong thread or something? This is 'People vs. OBP'.

Adele_H
09-30-2008, 03:31 PM
Of course, another problem is ability to hit & abiliy to get on base don't exist independent of one another.

Swisher, for instance, has been finding that out lately the hard way. Pitchers aren't afraid of him anymore. Less walks. Lower OBP

turners56
09-30-2008, 03:34 PM
Alot of people judge pitchers by wins too...don't mean it's right.

OBP will always trump AVG

AVG is a part of OBP. OBP is a more "complete" stat, but you can't say that Alexei Ramirez is not a good hitter just because he can't walk.

Adele_H
09-30-2008, 03:38 PM
AVG is a part of OBP. OBP is a more "complete" stat, but you can't say that Alexei Ramirez is not a good hitter just because he can't walk.

Agreed. Alexei is a good hitter, his September fatigue-related slump aside.

But Alexei has a skill-set that not every hitter has. I wouldn't recommend most hitters approach the game the way he does. So in that regard, he may just be the exception that reinforced the rule (whatever the rule may be).

Alexei is not a complete hitter yet. He still hasn't learned the league/culture. I love his fearless, clutch bat, but I can also see the other side of the arguement: with his speed, he needs to be on base as much as possible. It's possible to be ultra-agressive hitter WITHIN the strike-zone, but have the discipline & instincts to know when the opposing pitcher refuses to give in to you - and to take your base. That's what I'd like to see Alexei work in the off-season and in 2009 as the league tries to adjust to him.

jabrch
09-30-2008, 03:39 PM
OK, to your first part - why are you equating on-base percentage and walks? The majority of on-base percentage is made up of hits. If anyone blindly claimed Longoria was better because of his walk rate only, please point them out.

Because if you are talking about OBP being better than average, or more relevant than average, you should be able to isolate the only component of OBP not in average and that should hold water.

On-base percentage is not walk rate. On-base percentage is the percent of the time you don't make an out. Guess what: hits are not outs; walks are not outs; hit-by-pitches are not outs.

And the number of times you don't make an out that is not a hit or a walk is...darn close to nil. It's not relevant.

You want to say OBP is important - fine. HBPs are irrelevant - few happen - and the hitter doesn't control them. Sacrifices...a small piece to the number. The difference between average and obp for the most part is walks.

As to your second part - I can't find it now, but I know I've see evidence suggesting that walks occur at a similar rate in the postseason as they do in the regular season. And why are you assuming a hitter has no control over drawing a walk? If they didn't, the walk leaders would be random every year (and they're not).

Hitters have a 0% walk rate on strikes. Hitters don't control what is thrown to them. Pitchers do. A pitcher who throws a strike will not walk a hitter. Why is this so damn difficult?

Tell me how many walks you plan to get against the type of pitchers we will have to beat to win this. Garza, Sonenstine and Shields don't walk many. Kasmir walks some - but not a ton. Guess what - no Edwin Jackson... I know Matsuzaka walks a bunch, but Beckett hardly walks anyone. Lester and Wake somewhere in the middle. None of the LAA pitchers walk many. So what...are we going to wait for them to start suddenly issuing walks? They won't - so don't hold your breath.

In the post season, hitting wins, not walking. Every year we see the same damn thing. How's Oakland done with their high OBPs? Crappy - why? Because you can't walk if you don't see bad pitches and you don't see bad pitches from the kinds of pitchers you generally see in the post season. Exceptions - sure there are many. I can find you an exception or ten to most rules. But I don't know why you'd argue that hits are more important than walks in the post season.

jabrch
09-30-2008, 03:44 PM
Yeah, but batting third doesn't make you a good hitter. If the Sox batted Gavin Floyd third, would he become their best hitter? No, of course not. You've got your causation mixed up.

The proper causation is that a player bats third because he's a good hitter. You're saying a player is a good hitter because he bats third.

That's not at all what I am saying. But thank you for trying to tell me what I am saying.

I am saying a hitter will have more success, all things being equal, hitting #3 than he will hitting #7 or #8. This is fairly simple. Don't read any other words into it. I'll say it again - and make it painfully clear so nobody needs to interpret it.

YOU WILL DO BETTER HITTING AFTER #1 and #2 and before #4 and #5 in nearly every single lineup in the history of baseball, regardless of what appropriate metric of better you choose to use.

The only exception to this would be a guy who doesn't handle pressure well - and that's not the kind of hitter you'd want in the #3 spot anyhow - so it is a fairly academic discussion.

hellview
09-30-2008, 03:48 PM
AVG is a part of OBP. OBP is a more "complete" stat, but you can't say that Alexei Ramirez is not a good hitter just because he can't walk.

I never said he wasn't a good hitter cause he doesn't walk.

turners56
09-30-2008, 03:50 PM
I never said he wasn't a good hitter cause he doesn't walk.

You were certainly implying that by saying OBP always debunks AVG.

There's a saying that a hit is better than a walk. In a lot of situations, it is.

I'd rather have a player hitting .290 with a .313 OBP than a player hitting .245 with a .360 OBP.

TDog
09-30-2008, 04:07 PM
... You need BOTH a 'Thome' and an 'Alexei' to have a potent, well-balanced line-up. TDog only remembers Alexei's GS, but the conditions for it were created by less "sexy" occurences like ...

I remember a lot more than the grand slam, which was the first fair ball the White Sox hit in the inning. I also am a bigger Jim Thome fan than most people who post in abundance here.

My point has always been that you need to get runners on base and you need to drive them in. When Paul Konerko was intentionally walked, I posted in the game thread that it was good for the Sox because intentional walks usually score.

I saw a game earlier this year where the Orioles walked in five runs, four in one inning, and gave up a grand slam to a hitter who came in as a pinch-runner for a walk earlier in the inning. In the 1950s, the Sox scored 11 runs in an inning in which they got just one hit. But if you can't hit, your chances of getting walks is diminished. And if you only hit sacrifice flies, you're not going to get many 11-run innings. If you give up outs by sacrifice-bunting, you're not going to score a lot of runs.

This isn't an either-or thing. Most hitters with very good on-base percentages have very good batting averages. They walk because pitchers pitch them carefully. There are grinders who have impressive on-base percentages without having good batting averages, doing whatever they can to get on base. Then there are the Jim Thomes who will take walks when pitchers don't want to give in to leave themselves open to the sort of damage they can cause.

The fact that Jim Thome was helping the team less when he had an on-base percentage of .400 and a batting average of .200 than he did later in the season while raising his batting average 40 points and lowering his on-base percentage 40 points rather illustrates that that it isn't all about on-base percentage. I'm just saying that I am impressed with a .300 hitter who doesn't walk much but don't think much of a .375 OBP guy if he strikes out 197 times in 147 games, even if Jack Cust did hit 33 home runs.

It's the stat geeks that place such elevated importance on on-base percentage to the exclusion of all else and want to argue batting averages are ineffective in judging hitters. Fortunately, baseball teams still employ real live scouts.

hellview
09-30-2008, 04:11 PM
You were certainly implying that by saying OBP always debunks AVG.

There's a saying that a hit is better than a walk. In a lot of situations, it is.

I'd rather have a player hitting .290 with a .313 OBP than a player hitting .245 with a .360 OBP.

WOW?!?!

This has to be the worst thing I've ever read on this site.

BTW Carlos Gomez +16 leading the league among MLB CF in the Fielding Bible.

turners56
09-30-2008, 04:13 PM
WOW?!?!

This has to be the worst thing I've ever read on this site.

BTW Carlos Gomez +16 leading the league among MLB CF in the Fielding Bible.


So you're telling me you'd rather have Jim Thome than Alexei Ramirez? Because those are the numbers I just put up...

EndemicSox
09-30-2008, 04:13 PM
OK, to your first part - why are you equating on-base percentage and walks? The majority of on-base percentage is made up of hits. If anyone blindly claimed Longoria was better because of his walk rate only, please point them out.

On-base percentage is not walk rate. On-base percentage is the percent of the time you don't make an out. Guess what: hits are not outs; walks are not outs; hit-by-pitches are not outs.

As to your second part - I can't find it now, but I know I've see evidence suggesting that walks occur at a similar rate in the postseason as they do in the regular season. And why are you assuming a hitter has no control over drawing a walk? If they didn't, the walk leaders would be random every year (and they're not).

Good post. Batting average is window dressing, and isn't really used by any GM worth his salt because of the many factors it doesn't take into account. The old-timers and sports television producers still use it because of the said tradition/old-timers who are comfortable with the statistic, but it's not worth much compared to other stats like OBP among many others.

Don't get me wrong, Ramirez has had a very nice year, and I do think he is/will be an excellent fielding SS down the line, but Longoria has been better across the board, and will win the ROY deservedly in a romp. With that being said, I'm very happy the White Sox have Alexei, and here's to him dominating the AL Central for the next decade!

Adele_H
09-30-2008, 04:15 PM
I'd rather have a player hitting .290 with a .313 OBP than a player hitting .245 with a .360 OBP.

Not for a top-of-the-order hitter, I hope.

As for Postseason.... Pitchers are tougher, more aggressive, so obviously a bunch of passive OBP types will have a more difficult time. But it's also true that overly aggressive pull-meisters like younger Soriano will be exploited in October.

But ultimately, the same dynamic for creating runs/rallies applies in October as it does in April. What you want in postseason is a preponderance of quality AB, you want people who are tough outs - whether by holding up the swing at the last possible split-second and taking a nasty 2-2 splitter in the dirt for 'ball 3'..... or fighting off numerous tailing 97-mph fastballs on the outside corner on 3-2, before lining one softly into opposite field with a compact, level swing.

In October, you NEED "break-through" hits such as the ones Sox got from AJ, Gooch, Konerko (4 times), Crede in 2005. But you also NEED to create the necessary conditions for said break-through hits to occur. Hopefully the opponent self-destructs and creates them for you, but it can't be expected going into each series. That's where skilled, mentally tough "On base" players come in handy.

The rest is baseball Luck that noone can control.

hellview
09-30-2008, 04:17 PM
He's still gay. :redneck

So you're telling me you'd rather have Jim Thome than Alexei Ramirez? Because those are the numbers I just put up...

Yeah but you called him a bad defensive outfielder and claimed +/- was the best defensive metric and clearly Gomez is one of the best in the league.

If Thome and Alexei both played the same position then yes I'd rather have Thome then Ramirez.

turners56
09-30-2008, 04:18 PM
Not for a top-of-the-order hitter, I hope.

As for Postseason.... Pitchers are tougher, more aggressive, so obviously a bunch of passive OBP types will have a more difficult time. But's also true that overly aggressive pull-meisters like younger Soriano will be exploited in October.

But ultimately, the same dynamic for creating runs/rallies applies. What you want in postseason is a preponderance of quality AB, you want people who are tough outs - whether by holding up the swing at the last possible split-second and taking a nasty 2-2 splitter in the dirt for 'ball 3'..... or fighting off numerous tailing 97-mph fastballs on the outside corner on 3-2, before lining one softly into opposite field with a compact, level swing.

In October, you NEED "break-through" hits such as the ones Sox got from AJ, Gooch, Konerko (4 times), Crede in 2005. But you also NEED to create the necessary conditions for said break-through hits to occur. Hopefully the opponent self-destructs and creates them for you, but it can't be expected going into each series. That's where skilled "On base" players come in handy.

I wouldn't want my leadoff hitter to hit .245 though. There's a reason why Swish was bad at leading off this year even when he drew a bunch of walks.

hellview
09-30-2008, 04:21 PM
I wouldn't want my leadoff hitter to hit .245 though. There's a reason why Swish was bad at leading off this year even when he drew a bunch of walks.

You don't need your leadoff hitter to bat .300, you need him to get onbase and Swisher gets onbase as well as anyone on this team.

EndemicSox
09-30-2008, 04:23 PM
Huh? Fluffy Cloud, are you in the wrong thread or something? This is 'People vs. OBP'.

Adele's post was excellent, yours, my friend, was not...

EDIT: Oops...sorry Adele...

Adele_H
09-30-2008, 04:25 PM
You don't need your leadoff hitter to bat .300, you need him to get onbase and Swisher gets onbase as well as anyone on this team.

With the way the juiced ball flies out of the parks, esp. at USCF during summer-time these days.... and considering that most pitchers/defense, in general, perform worse with runners on base....

You need your 1-2 guys to be on base as much as possible with Quentin, Dye and Thome coming up. Reach on an error. Reach on a HBP. Reach on a triple. Reach on via bribing 1B ump. I don't care. Just reach.

turners56
09-30-2008, 04:26 PM
Yeah but you called him a bad defensive outfielder and claimed +/- was the best defensive metric and clearly Gomez is one of the best in the league.

If Thome and Alexei both played the same position then yes I'd rather have Thome then Ramirez.

:shrug: Oh well.

I'd rather have a 45 point advantage in batting average than a 45 point advantage in OBP any day. Alexei has a higher rate of getting hits, meaning the possibility of him driving in a runner on second or first is much better than Thome's.

In these situations, a single is better than a walk.


Runner on second
Runners on second and third
Runner on third
Runners on first and third
Runners on first and second

In these situations, a single is just as good as a walk


Nobody on
Runner on first (let's just say the runner is really slow)
Runners on first and second (with a really slow runner on second)

In no situation is a walk better than a hit other than the assumption that a pitcher will be pissed off after not letting the hitter earn his way on base.

And let's not forget that a hit will make the fielder field the ball, which could result in possible errors. And if the runner was fast, he would be able to make something happen. Such as going from first to third, something a walk cannot do.

spiffie
09-30-2008, 04:34 PM
Because if you are talking about OBP being better than average, or more relevant than average, you should be able to isolate the only component of OBP not in average and that should hold water.



And the number of times you don't make an out that is not a hit or a walk is...darn close to nil. It's not relevant.

You want to say OBP is important - fine. HBPs are irrelevant - few happen - and the hitter doesn't control them. Sacrifices...a small piece to the number. The difference between average and obp for the most part is walks.



Hitters have a 0% walk rate on strikes. Hitters don't control what is thrown to them. Pitchers do. A pitcher who throws a strike will not walk a hitter. Why is this so damn difficult?

Tell me how many walks you plan to get against the type of pitchers we will have to beat to win this. Garza, Sonenstine and Shields don't walk many. Kasmir walks some - but not a ton. Guess what - no Edwin Jackson... I know Matsuzaka walks a bunch, but Beckett hardly walks anyone. Lester and Wake somewhere in the middle. None of the LAA pitchers walk many. So what...are we going to wait for them to start suddenly issuing walks? They won't - so don't hold your breath.

In the post season, hitting wins, not walking. Every year we see the same damn thing. How's Oakland done with their high OBPs? Crappy - why? Because you can't walk if you don't see bad pitches and you don't see bad pitches from the kinds of pitchers you generally see in the post season. Exceptions - sure there are many. I can find you an exception or ten to most rules. But I don't know why you'd argue that hits are more important than walks in the post season.

2007 regular season walks per game: 6.61
2007 regular season PA per walk: 11.73
2007 postseason walks per game: 7.46
2007 postseason Plate Appearance per walk: 10.32

I'm sure 2007 was just an outlier though, and that really there are less walks in the postseason even though last year they were actually more frequent than in the regular season. It just makes more sense that way, and shows why ****ty teams that focus on their spreadsheets like the scummy A's and the bull**** hitting Twins always crap the bed in the postseason.

hellview
09-30-2008, 04:35 PM
In no situation is a walk better than a hit other than the assumption that a pitcher will be pissed off after not letting the hitter earn his way on base.



OMG...this is the funniest **** I've ever read in my life.

Eddo144
09-30-2008, 04:36 PM
That's not at all what I am saying. But thank you for trying to tell me what I am saying.

I am saying a hitter will have more success, all things being equal, hitting #3 than he will hitting #7 or #8. This is fairly simple. Don't read any other words into it. I'll say it again - and make it painfully clear so nobody needs to interpret it.

YOU WILL DO BETTER HITTING AFTER #1 and #2 and before #4 and #5 in nearly every single lineup in the history of baseball, regardless of what appropriate metric of better you choose to use.

The only exception to this would be a guy who doesn't handle pressure well - and that's not the kind of hitter you'd want in the #3 spot anyhow - so it is a fairly academic discussion.
Sure, you'll perform better hitting #3 if you are using only RBI and runs scored to judge performance. But we know better than to do that, here.

A double is a double from any spot in the order. A home run is a home run, and an out is an out. Are you trying to tell me moving from #6 to #3 magicially makes you a better hitter? If so, then there's no room for rational discussion.

Now, if you're saying that moving from #6 to #3 will get you more RBI opportunities, I couldn't agree more. But that's not the point of our discussion.

turners56
09-30-2008, 04:37 PM
OMG...this is the funniest **** I've ever read in my life.

Can you think of a situation where a walk would actually be better than a single offensively?

Eddo144
09-30-2008, 04:41 PM
Hitters have a 0% walk rate on strikes. Hitters don't control what is thrown to them. Pitchers do. A pitcher who throws a strike will not walk a hitter. Why is this so damn difficult?

Tell me how many walks you plan to get against the type of pitchers we will have to beat to win this. Garza, Sonenstine and Shields don't walk many. Kasmir walks some - but not a ton. Guess what - no Edwin Jackson... I know Matsuzaka walks a bunch, but Beckett hardly walks anyone. Lester and Wake somewhere in the middle. None of the LAA pitchers walk many. So what...are we going to wait for them to start suddenly issuing walks? They won't - so don't hold your breath.

In the post season, hitting wins, not walking. Every year we see the same damn thing. How's Oakland done with their high OBPs? Crappy - why? Because you can't walk if you don't see bad pitches and you don't see bad pitches from the kinds of pitchers you generally see in the post season. Exceptions - sure there are many. I can find you an exception or ten to most rules. But I don't know why you'd argue that hits are more important than walks in the post season.
First of all, no one says walks are more important than hits. And OBP, as someone so eloquently put earlier, is a more complete version of AVG. You don't want to just isolate walks - if that mattered as much, I'd just quote you walk rates instead of OBPs.

To re-iterate spiffie's point, you're just wrong about walks dropping in the postseason:
2007 regular season walks per game: 6.61
2007 regular season PA per walk: 11.73
2007 postseason walks per game: 7.46
2007 postseason Plate Appearance per walk: 10.32

Adele_H
09-30-2008, 04:41 PM
Can you think of a situation where a walk would actually be better than a single offensively?

When a bad/overthrowing/clever pitcher does NOT WANT you to hit a single... and instead nibbles the corners in hopes that you either jam yourself or the ump has a wide zone?

Which happens a lot more than you'd think.

jabrch
09-30-2008, 04:47 PM
Sure, you'll perform better hitting #3 if you are using only RBI and runs scored to judge performance. But we know better than to do that, here.

That is not true - not even marginally. Using ANY metric, a hitter will perform better with the calibre of hitters in front and ahead of him that you find at 1/2 and 4/5.

A double is a double from any spot in the order. A home run is a home run, and an out is an out. Are you trying to tell me moving from #6 to #3 magicially makes you a better hitter? If so, then there's no room for rational discussion.

I'm telling you that pitchers pitch different, and defenses plays diffent positioning with certain guys on base ahead of you, and certain hitters behind you. I'm sorry you find no room for rational discussion, but if you think that hitter X sees the same pitches hitting before nearly every cleanup hitter in the game as he will with nearly any #8 or #9 hitter in the game, and if you think defenses play the same with any leadoff hitter on base rather than a slugfooted catcher, then I will still leave open room for rational discussion if you care to join me in a world of said rational discussion.

Now, if you're saying that moving from #6 to #3 will get you more RBI opportunities, I couldn't agree more. But that's not the point of our discussion.

While that is true, that's not my point at all...Pitch selection and defense positioning are favorable to a guy hitting #3 with the hitters he has in front and behind him than to a guy hitting 7 or 8.

hellview
09-30-2008, 04:48 PM
Can you think of a situation where a walk would actually be better than a single offensively?

Yeah it's as effective every single at bat.

Would a guy go chasing pitches just to get a hit? If a guys sitting on 3-0 should he be up there looking for a single or take some pitches and work a walk? Not to mention it drives up guys pitch count getting the bullpen earlier when a team can do some real damage.

A walk is as good as a single.

turners56
09-30-2008, 04:52 PM
Yeah it's as effective every single at bat.

Would a guy go chasing pitches just to get a hit? If a guys sitting on 3-0 should he be up there looking for a single or take some pitches and work a walk? Not to mention it drives up guys pitch count getting the bullpen earlier when a team can do some real damage.

A walk is as good as a single.

Hmm, it's not like you can't single after getting to a favorable count.

Ok, here's a situation where a single is way better than a walk...

It's the bot of the 9th. Runners on second and third. It's a 1 run ball game with 2 outs.

You have a terrible hitter on deck who tends to strikeout a lot and never draws any walks.

The hitter at the plate right now is one of your better hitters. If he walks, you're going to have to deal with a horrendous hitter and wish that he can somehow work a walk or a hit, which is pretty much impossible.

So, what is better in this situation for the batter at the plate? A single or a walk? A single can drive in not only the tying run, but also the winning a run. You would need 3 consecutive walks to drive in the winning run. I'd say single wins.

turners56
09-30-2008, 04:54 PM
When a bad/overthrowing/clever pitcher does NOT WANT you to hit a single... and instead nibbles the corners in hopes that you either jam yourself or the ump has a wide zone?

Which happens a lot more than you'd think.

Take the whole psychological aspect out of it and come out with it plainly. Which is better? A single or a walk?

jabrch
09-30-2008, 04:57 PM
First of all, no one says walks are more important than hits. And OBP, as someone so eloquently put earlier, is a more complete version of AVG. You don't want to just isolate walks - if that mattered as much, I'd just quote you walk rates instead of OBPs.


You are using OBP as a proxy for walks. The other componentry to differentiate it from AVG is nearly irrelevant.

My point - back at the beginning of this - was that I'll take guys with high batting averages even if they don't walk quite as much. Hitting is something a hitter controls. Walking only happens under circumstances that I'm not willing to be on getting from the calibre of guys we will see the rest of October after the Twins leave town. You want to bet on a bunch of walks and a 3 run HR? Have at it dude. Give me guys who hit the ball and put it in play. More things will happen. Walks are secondary and almost only happen if a guy can hit.

Sure - best case we'd get both. But since you can't have that with everyone, I'll take guys who can control their own destiny with the bat. You take the guys that need other people to make mistakes more often for them.

hellview
09-30-2008, 04:57 PM
Hmm, it's not like you can't single after getting to a favorable count.

Ok, here's a situation where a single is way better than a walk...

It's the bot of the 9th. Runners on second and third. It's a 1 run ball game with 2 outs.

You have a terrible hitter on deck who tends to strikeout a lot and never draws any walks.

The hitter at the plate right now is one of your better hitters. If he walks, you're going to have to deal with a horrendous hitter and wish that he can somehow work a walk or a hit, which is pretty much impossible.

So, what is better in this situation for the batter at the plate? A single or a walk? A single can drive in not only the tying run, but also the winning a run. You would need 3 consecutive walks to drive in the winning run. I'd say single wins.

I know I might get banned or whatever for this but I have to say this:

YOUR A MORON!!

Adele_H
09-30-2008, 04:59 PM
Take the whole psychological aspect out of it and come out with it plainly. Which is better? A single or a walk?



A 15-pitch walk is better than a 1-pitch single. A single w. runners at 2nd/3rd & 2 outs is better than a walk.

But a domesticated giraffe is better than either a single or a walk. What's your point?

turners56
09-30-2008, 04:59 PM
I know I might get banned or whatever for this but I have to say this:

YOUR A MORON!!


Who's a moron? Your? Who's your?

Adele_H
09-30-2008, 05:01 PM
Who's a moron? Your? Who's your?

HA!

That's where hellview is wrong: everyone knows that I am the designated moron on this site. Woot :bandance:

turners56
09-30-2008, 05:01 PM
A 15-pitch walk is better than a 1-pitch single. A single w. runners at 2nd/3rd & 2 outs is better than a walk.

But a domesticated giraffe is better than either of a single or a walk. What's your point?

And is it not possible to get a single in a 15 pitch at bat?

You cannot drive in a run with a walk unless the bases are loaded.

You can drive in a run with a single with a runner on second or third.

Would you take the chance of succeeding in one AB or three ABs?

That's kind of like asking the question of: is it easier to hit a three run homer or hit three straight homers?

voodoochile
09-30-2008, 05:25 PM
When a bad/overthrowing/clever pitcher does NOT WANT you to hit a single... and instead nibbles the corners in hopes that you either jam yourself or the ump has a wide zone?

Which happens a lot more than you'd think.

You changed the rules.

The question was, when is a single (worst possible hit) ever worse than a walk?

You replied, when you make an out by swinging at crappy pitches.

But that wasn't the question.

A hit is always at least as good as a walk and often is better.

voodoochile
09-30-2008, 05:27 PM
I know I might get banned or whatever for this but I have to say this:

YOUR A MORON!!


Well at least you got part of your post correct...

Craig Grebeck
09-30-2008, 05:58 PM
You are using OBP as a proxy for walks. The other componentry to differentiate it from AVG is nearly irrelevant.

My point - back at the beginning of this - was that I'll take guys with high batting averages even if they don't walk quite as much. Hitting is something a hitter controls. Walking only happens under circumstances that I'm not willing to be on getting from the calibre of guys we will see the rest of October after the Twins leave town. You want to bet on a bunch of walks and a 3 run HR? Have at it dude. Give me guys who hit the ball and put it in play. More things will happen. Walks are secondary and almost only happen if a guy can hit.

Sure - best case we'd get both. But since you can't have that with everyone, I'll take guys who can control their own destiny with the bat. You take the guys that need other people to make mistakes more often for them.
Are you going to admit you had it wrong?

Billy Ashley
09-30-2008, 06:59 PM
A single is better than a hit, a single can get a runner from first to third. A walk can't.

That said, the goal of a hitter is to create runs and not create outs. Very few hitters in the games history have been able to get on base at a suitable rate with out drawing a decent amount of walks. Ramirez, for all that he has done this season has not gotten on base at a league average rate. That is a deficiency to his game. That said, we as fans tend to sometimes focus too much on one area of weakness for players and fail to see that despite their drawbacks there is also great value.

- Adam Dunn provides great production despite a serous lack of contact skills.

- Ramirez provides very good production for a middle infielder despite his inability to draw walks.

Both players both have a glaring weakness, however they compensate in other areas. I tend to value OBP a whole heck of a lot more than Slugging but regardless, Ramirez is still valuable given that he plays second and posts a league average OPS.

DSpivack
09-30-2008, 11:29 PM
Well at least you got part of your post correct...

That had to be a joke, right? No one could be that dumb.

spiffie
10-01-2008, 09:52 AM
You are using OBP as a proxy for walks. The other componentry to differentiate it from AVG is nearly irrelevant.

My point - back at the beginning of this - was that I'll take guys with high batting averages even if they don't walk quite as much. Hitting is something a hitter controls. Walking only happens under circumstances that I'm not willing to be on getting from the calibre of guys we will see the rest of October after the Twins leave town. You want to bet on a bunch of walks and a 3 run HR? Have at it dude. Give me guys who hit the ball and put it in play. More things will happen. Walks are secondary and almost only happen if a guy can hit.

Sure - best case we'd get both. But since you can't have that with everyone, I'll take guys who can control their own destiny with the bat. You take the guys that need other people to make mistakes more often for them.

2007 regular season walks per game: 6.61
2007 regular season PA per walk: 11.73
2007 postseason walks per game: 7.46
2007 postseason Plate Appearance per walk: 10.32

Everything else you say is correct. Give me a guy with a 300 BA and a 330 OBP over a 260 BA and 350 OBP any day and twice on Sundays. But I do wish you'd quit repeating the old mantra about there being less walks in the postseason. It just isn't true, and endlessly repeating something that is just not a fact makes your opinion seem less valid.