PDA

View Full Version : Giambi to return to Oakland


ode to veeck
01-06-2009, 06:03 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bba_athletics_giambi;_ylt=Ap3XX0LwLaq6pJbHBDt00usL MxIF

returning to the land of Balco

DSpivack
01-06-2009, 07:09 PM
Holliday and Giambi is certainly a huge upgrade to their order over what they've had.

veeter
01-06-2009, 07:09 PM
I guess Beane's previous methods really didn't work.

DSpivack
01-06-2009, 07:10 PM
I guess Beane's previous methods really didn't work.

Their 'strength and conditioning coach' from 1993-2001 is returning to the team, as well. :wink:

whitesox901
01-06-2009, 07:38 PM
Wow, better line up with him & Holiday

RKMeibalane
01-06-2009, 08:06 PM
In other words, he's returning to the scene of the crime.

WHILEPITCH
01-06-2009, 08:07 PM
As soon as Giambi signed with NYY, I remember he went on Letterman and took part in a Top Ten that ripped on Oakland

thomas35forever
01-06-2009, 08:22 PM
Hey, after last season, Oakland needs all the offense it can get.

Here's that Top Ten list:
http://lateshow.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/top_ten/index/php/20011214.phtml

ode to veeck
01-06-2009, 09:32 PM
I guess Beane's previous methods really didn't work.

haven't won a playoff round yet

cwsfannick
01-06-2009, 09:59 PM
haven't won a playoff round yet

Beat the Twins in the 2006 playoffs.

whitesox901
01-06-2009, 10:01 PM
Beat the Twins in the 2006 playoffs.

And in the end...isn't that all that really matters? :cool:

ode to veeck
01-06-2009, 10:04 PM
Beat the Twins in the 2006 playoffs.

it was so uneventful, I forgot, so they're like 1/6 in playoff series last several years

ode to veeck
01-06-2009, 10:05 PM
In other words, he's returning to the scene of the crime.

you mean source of da creme

drewcifer
01-06-2009, 10:17 PM
you mean source of da creme

LOL - nice.

Frater Perdurabo
01-07-2009, 06:15 AM
It looks like Beane is playing the contrarian again. Now that young talent is most prized, Beane is going for veterans. But with the Angels in the division, I doubt it pays off.

khan
01-07-2009, 11:15 AM
I don't like to wish ill on other people.

But with a cheating cheater like Giambi, I'll make an exception:

Here's hoping he gets indicted, gets suspended, or in some other way goes away. A major career-ending injury wouldn't be a bad thing, though I won't necessarily hope for it.

I WILL, however, hope that Oakland sucks, their clubhouse suffers, their attendance plummets to <5,000/game, and their ownership fails to secure a new venue. This, for having signed a cheating cheater scumbag like Giambi. In turn, I hope that each and every GM in MLB decides not to ever sign a steroid cheater like him.

Giambi is human scum, garbage, and the world would be a better place without him, IMO.

Have a nice day! :D:

hi im skot
01-07-2009, 12:44 PM
No more "Giambino" home run calls? I'm crushed...

Foulke You
01-07-2009, 02:38 PM
I hate that scumbag Balco cheater with every fiber of my being. My loathing of Giambi is second only to that of Sosa. He can say he is "sorry" all he wants, I wish him nothing but the worst of luck back in Oakland.:angry:

jshanahanjr
01-07-2009, 09:59 PM
Jason Giambi seems like a good guy and should help the A's. Good move by Mr. Moneyball!

DSpivack
01-07-2009, 10:27 PM
Jason Giambi seems like a good guy and should help the A's. Good move by Mr. Moneyball!

:puking:

whitesox901
01-07-2009, 10:36 PM
:puking:
x2

TDog
01-08-2009, 01:27 AM
Jason Giambi seems like a good guy and should help the A's. Good move by Mr. Moneyball!

Is Giambi a better guy than Frank Thomas who should help the A's more than Frank Thomas would? Giambi can still play play some first base, of course. So, while it is apparent that the A's won't re-sign Thomas after signing Giambi (because they need another Jack Cust in the lineup), it isn't like Giambi will be replacing Thomas. I doubt they had any interest in re-signing Thomas anyway.

Giambi is a low-batting average slugger who strikes out a lot. His walks are irrelevant. On-base percentage is the most overrated stat in baseball right now.

VenturaFan23
01-08-2009, 05:49 AM
Jason Giambi seems like a good guy and should help the A's. Good move by Mr. Moneyball!

Yeah until he trades him and Holliday halfway into the season for more prospects.

Craig Grebeck
01-08-2009, 08:47 AM
On-base percentage is the most overrated stat in baseball right now.
I laughed.

I don't understand what is wrong with rewarding guys who are good at not making outs. Also, your statement is incredibly foolish. The market for low average/high OBP guys is down compared to recent years. Look at this deal, the one Burrell just signed, the fact Abreu doesn't have a home, etc. OBP is becoming a less precious commodity, as teams are much more interested in youth/longevity/defense. You're about three years late on OBP being overrated (market wise).

TDog
01-08-2009, 01:37 PM
I laughed.

I don't understand what is wrong with rewarding guys who are good at not making outs. Also, your statement is incredibly foolish. The market for low average/high OBP guys is down compared to recent years. Look at this deal, the one Burrell just signed, the fact Abreu doesn't have a home, etc. OBP is becoming a less precious commodity, as teams are much more interested in youth/longevity/defense. You're about three years late on OBP being overrated (market wise).


My reference wasn't about the market overrating on-base percentage. It was about fans who post here about how great player X is because despite his low batting average he has a (relatively) high on-base percentage. As you note, the market is down for such players, but many fans are still fawning over them.

whitesox901
01-08-2009, 02:11 PM
Yeah until he trades him and Holliday halfway into the season for more prospects.

Its The Billy Beane Way!

MISoxfan
01-18-2009, 02:37 PM
My reference wasn't about the market overrating on-base percentage. It was about fans who post here about how great player X is because despite his low batting average he has a (relatively) high on-base percentage. As you note, the market is down for such players, but many fans are still fawning over them.

His relatively high on-base percentage? Are you referring to his .373 from last season or his .408 career? I despise the man, but his .OBP is not only good relative to his batting average, its the 39th highest of all time.

FedEx227
01-19-2009, 04:35 PM
He should make more outs though. He's only hurting his team by not getting out.

spiffie
01-19-2009, 04:37 PM
He should make more outs though. He's only hurting his team by not getting out.
A good productive out is often much better than a useless walk. We had the perfect example here last year in Swisher. The king of the walk with a man on 2nd or 3rd, unwilling to try and swing at something to move the runner along or move him in, content to take a meaningless walk, set up a DP situation, and do nothing for the team but help keep his OBP decent.

FedEx227
01-19-2009, 04:44 PM
Exactly, what I'm sure he meant to do.

I love how non-team players are apparently the best players in the world because they can pick and choose what they do on certain days.

A-Rod is unclutch because he makes sure he only hits home runs in the 5th inning. "Hey guys, once we start winning I'm going to jack a 2-1 pitch about 500 feet, but if we start winning I'm going to take similar swings but they aren't going to go anywhere"

I understand you want to nit-pick and find certain situations where Swisher did that and I won't disagree, but over the course of the season Swisher was doing what he could to not makes outs. Productive outs are still outs. He had an awful season, nobody is going to argue that, it's not like he was intentionally making his team awful. Unless your productive out is a sacrifice fly, it's as much as a worthless out. "Hey guys, I'm going to try and keep my OBP up, do you mind? I'm a professional baseball player but for some reason I don't like winning so I'm only going to do what helps me in one of my stats, cool." I'm sure that happened all the time.

And Swisher set up DP situations? Yes, most people that go on first do that, however is it his fault the person behind him hit into a sure DP? I'm sure it is.

Konerko05
01-19-2009, 04:48 PM
A good productive out is often much better than a useless walk.

Really? Making outs is better than putting runners on base. That's a new one.

WhiteSox5187
01-19-2009, 05:22 PM
A good productive out is often much better than a useless walk. We had the perfect example here last year in Swisher. The king of the walk with a man on 2nd or 3rd, unwilling to try and swing at something to move the runner along or move him in, content to take a meaningless walk, set up a DP situation, and do nothing for the team but help keep his OBP decent.
Here's the thing, if OBP is the best thing you've got going for you, you're probably not going to be very helpful. If all you can do is walk (like Swisher), I don't think you're going to contribute to your team winning. How often do you find yourself in the course of a ball game saying "Oh man, we could use a walk right now!"

FedEx227
01-19-2009, 05:23 PM
A few more times than I say "Man I hope we get a flyout right now".

soxinem1
01-19-2009, 05:36 PM
I wonder if Jason knows that Dave McKay, the former workout 'guru', is no longer in OAK.

MISoxfan
01-19-2009, 06:02 PM
Are you guys seriously comparing Giambi to Nick Swisher? Giambi was a better hitter in every single way last season.

spiffie
01-20-2009, 03:20 PM
Here's the thing, if OBP is the best thing you've got going for you, you're probably not going to be very helpful. If all you can do is walk (like Swisher), I don't think you're going to contribute to your team winning. How often do you find yourself in the course of a ball game saying "Oh man, we could use a walk right now!"
Bingo. That 1-out walk with a man on third might help your OBP, but it sure doesn't do as much as a sac fly would. Or with a man on second, when you walk onto that empty base late in a tie game, like we saw Swish do multiple times.

But then OBP is the end-all be-all for most statheads. Oh well. Thankfully actual baseball men run the White Sox.

Konerko05
01-20-2009, 03:29 PM
Bingo. That 1-out walk with a man on third might help your OBP, but it sure doesn't do as much as a sac fly would.

I hope you realize the next hitter has the same opportunity to hit your sacrifice fly. The next hitter also has the opportunity to drive in one more run with a hit.

Not every player with a high OBP is comparable to Nick Swisher. Did you get mad about Frank Thomas taking walks?

TDog
01-20-2009, 05:25 PM
I hope you realize the next hitter has the same opportunity to hit your sacrifice fly. The next hitter also has the opportunity to drive in one more run with a hit.

Not every player with a high OBP is comparable to Nick Swisher. Did you get mad about Frank Thomas taking walks?

The same hitter also has the chance to hit into an inning-ending doubleplay after the hitter who walked with a man on third had an opportunity to drive in the run with a grounder up the middle.

I have nothing against hitters with high on-base percentages. I have nothing against hitters who don't make outs. But on-base percentages don't tell you much in isolation. A batting average is a better indicator of how dangerous a hitter is, and a high on-base percentage means more if if it comes in conjunction with a high batting average.

Frank Thomas walked a lot while he was hitting over .300. For his career, he has a .301 batting average and a .419 on-base percentage. His batting average, and his slugging percentage, tells you he is dangerous. Jason Giambi had only two more hits than strikeouts last year. He often didn't put the ball in play.

Konerko05
01-20-2009, 05:54 PM
The same hitter also has the chance to hit into an inning-ending doubleplay after the hitter who walked with a man on third had an opportunity to drive in the run with a grounder up the middle.

I have nothing against hitters with high on-base percentages. I have nothing against hitters who don't make outs. But on-base percentages don't tell you much in isolation. A batting average is a better indicator of how dangerous a hitter is, and a high on-base percentage means more if if it comes in conjunction with a high batting average.

Frank Thomas walked a lot while he was hitting over .300. For his career, he has a .301 batting average and a .419 on-base percentage. His batting average, and his slugging percentage, tells you he is dangerous. Jason Giambi had only two more hits than strikeouts last year. He often didn't put the ball in play.

So hitters should avoid reaching first base out of fear of a double play? That doesn't make any sense.

I agree there is much more to a productive hitter than OBP. I was responding to the poster who claimed walks are "useless."

Walks are not evil. Walks put runners on base without creating an out. Of course I would rather have a hit with two runners on, but a walk isn't a bad thing. A walk might even mean the hitter was unwilling to swing at bad pitches which would have resulted in an out.

Eddo144
01-20-2009, 07:12 PM
A good productive out is often much better than a useless walk. We had the perfect example here last year in Swisher. The king of the walk with a man on 2nd or 3rd, unwilling to try and swing at something to move the runner along or move him in, content to take a meaningless walk, set up a DP situation, and do nothing for the team but help keep his OBP decent.
For reference.

Nick Swisher, 2008, with runner on third, less than two out (http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=swishni01&year=2008):
30 PA, 7 BB (3 IBB), 4 SF, 2 HR, .211/.367/.526

Jason Giambi, 2008, with runner on third, less than two out (http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=giambja01&year=2008):
42 PA, 5 BB (0 IBB), 9 SF, 2 HR, .321/.333/.607

Carlos Quentin, 2008, with runner on third, less than two out (http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=quentca01&year=2008):
40 PA, 3 BB (0 IBB), 3 SF, 2 HR, .393/.500/.714

Both Swisher and Quentin had as many unintentional walks as sacrifice flies with a runner on third and less than two out.

Here's the thing, if OBP is the best thing you've got going for you, you're probably not going to be very helpful. If all you can do is walk (like Swisher), I don't think you're going to contribute to your team winning. How often do you find yourself in the course of a ball game saying "Oh man, we could use a walk right now!"
Keep in mind that OBP does not equal walks. Swisher most definitely did not have OBP "going for him" last year, which is why he had a bad year. Walks contribute to OBP, but Swisher's problem was that he didn't get enough hits, period.

And as for situations when I say, "Oh man, we could use a walk right now!": leading off any inning (that's nine times each game) and whenever the bases are empty.

TDog
01-20-2009, 10:12 PM
So hitters should avoid reaching first base out of fear of a double play? That doesn't make any sense.

I agree there is much more to a productive hitter than OBP. I was responding to the poster who claimed walks are "useless."

Walks are not evil. Walks put runners on base without creating an out. Of course I would rather have a hit with two runners on, but a walk isn't a bad thing. A walk might even mean the hitter was unwilling to swing at bad pitches which would have resulted in an out.

I didn't write that there was anything wrong with walks. There was a criticism of Ted Williams during his career that he walked too often on hittable pitches with runners in scoring position, that he was more concerned with his stats than winning. In fact, he lost the MVP to Joe DiMaggio while hitting .406, leading the league in home runs and getting on base at a .553 clip. DiMaggio led the league in RBI, had a 56-game hitting streak and played for the first-place Yankees. But Ted Williams retired when I was 3.

What I do believe is that on-base percentage is not nearly as important as many fans, especially younger fans insist. A player with a .247 batting average and a .373 on-base percentage with two fewer strikeouts than hits doesn't impress me with his on-base percentage. Some people discount RBIs as a valuable state because it depends on people being on base when you come up. Some people will tell you they are more impressed with on-base percentage, which, when it isn't combined with an impressive batting average, depends on other teammates hitting the ball to be meaningful to your team.

If you want to know if a hitter is dangerous, look at all his stats, but first look at his batting average.

FedEx227
01-21-2009, 12:39 AM
Or his OPS.

Batting average is pretty damn worthless no matter what old timers thing.

One of the better hitters of all time Tony Gwynn himself even said that batting average is overrated.

Who would you rather have on your team in 2008?

Player A: .316/.345/.440

or

Player B: .268/.374/.502

TDog
01-21-2009, 08:48 AM
Or his OPS.

Batting average is pretty damn worthless no matter what old timers thing.

One of the better hitters of all time Tony Gwynn himself even said that batting average is overrated.

Who would you rather have on your team in 2008?

Player A: .316/.345/.440

or

Player B: .268/.374/.502

Neither player is certain to help your team win. Of course batting averages can be deceptively high. But on-base percentages are at least as worthless as batting averages.

You don't scout players by stats. You have to watch them play. But in your scenario, if player B has 120 RBIs and player A has only 80, player B is probably someone you would rather have on your team. If player A scores 120 runs, you might prefer him on your team.

Stats can be deceptive all around, although some baseball fans are seeking a single formula to define a player's achievements, much like physicists looking for the unification theory. It isn't out there.

Eddo144
01-21-2009, 09:34 AM
Neither player is certain to help your team win. Of course batting averages can be deceptively high. But on-base percentages are at least as worthless as batting averages.
Well of course neither player is certain to help your team win. You could have a team of All Stars that loses to a college-level team on a given day. If you're going to go by that logic, why discuss anything? Why acquire any good players?

And on-base percentage correlates much better with runs scored than batting average do. And runs scored correlate well with wins. Have you ever even looked into any research on the subject? Or are you just so offended by new statistical analysis that you simply go by the same figures baseball has always used?

You don't scout players by stats. You have to watch them play. But in your scenario, if player B has 120 RBIs and player A has only 80, player B is probably someone you would rather have on your team. If player A scores 120 runs, you might prefer him on your team.
Except runs and RBI are team-dependent. Player B might have Brian Roberts hitting in front of him, while Player A might have Jerry Owens in front of him. Player B would have to be flat-out awful to get fewer RBI in that case.

Stats can be deceptive all around, although some baseball fans are seeking a single formula to define a player's achievements, much like physicists looking for the unification theory. It isn't out there.
Very few actually intelligent people claim there's a single stat to grade all players. Don't go by what BP says; most fans who have some idea of how to analyze baseball understand that there's more to baseball than a single number. Read some of Tom Tango's stuff, please. He hates BP, pretty much. And he was just hired by the Mariners.

WhiteSox5187
01-21-2009, 09:55 AM
I think that while OBP is a valuable stat it can at times be vastly overrated. That was my point with the Swisher reference. If you have a guy whose main asset to the game is that he can get on base a lot (via walks) and can't steal bases, doesn't get a lot of hits, and defensively is nothing special, I don't think that he is going to contribute that much. He needs to have another asset besides JUST being able to walk. For example, when Pods would walk (in '05 cuz he didn't walk too much in '06 or '07) to lead off an inning you would feel "Great! He can steal second and then we'd have a runner in scoring position!" When Swisher would walk to lead off an inning in '08 I at least, would feel "Well, now we're going to either hit into a double play or have to get an awful lot of hits to bring Swisher around." So, yea, OBP is a nice stat and useful, but I'm not so sure I'd want a guy whose best offensive quality is the ability to walk in my lineup. Now if the guy can walk a lot and steal bases, it's a whole different story.

This leads me to another problem I have with stats; stats ideally are tools to help understand the game. They are not the end all be all, to really know what a player contributes you have to watch him play consistently. Not just go to baseball-reference and see what exactly his stats are. An example of this would be with a guy like Luis Apparcio. I read in Jayson Stark's book that he has Apparcio as the most overrated Sox player of all time and he points to Apparcio's low OBP and low OPS. Now, I am willing to bet that Stark has never seen Apparcio play a single inning of a baseball game, he looked at his stats and went "Wow, his OBP is rather low." But everyone I've talked to or heard talk about Luis Apparcio who saw him play would say that he is undoubtedly the greatest White Sox shortstop of all time (with all due respect to Luke Appling and Chico Carosel). There seems to be this notion in the statistical community that you don't really need to watch the game so much as much as you need to look at the numbers and this drives me crazy. Anyone who saw Quentin hit last year would know the kid knows what he is doing, same thing with Floyd pitching. So, that's my rant.

Eddo144
01-21-2009, 10:11 AM
This leads me to another problem I have with stats; stats ideally are tools to help understand the game. They are not the end all be all, to really know what a player contributes you have to watch him play consistently. Not just go to baseball-reference and see what exactly his stats are. An example of this would be with a guy like Luis Apparcio. I read in Jayson Stark's book that he has Apparcio as the most overrated Sox player of all time and he points to Apparcio's low OBP and low OPS. Now, I am willing to bet that Stark has never seen Apparcio play a single inning of a baseball game, he looked at his stats and went "Wow, his OBP is rather low." But everyone I've talked to or heard talk about Luis Apparcio who saw him play would say that he is undoubtedly the greatest White Sox shortstop of all time (with all due respect to Luke Appling and Chico Carosel). There seems to be this notion in the statistical community that you don't really need to watch the game so much as much as you need to look at the numbers and this drives me crazy. Anyone who saw Quentin hit last year would know the kid knows what he is doing, same thing with Floyd pitching. So, that's my rant.
Good points. While Aparaicio is one of the worst offensive players in the Hall of Fame, he's in for his defense and base-stealing abilities. He deserves to be there. The problem is that right now, there is no good way to objectively measure defense. However, tools to do so are improving, and several sabermetric sites (fangraphs, Tom Tango and MGL's blog) have recently remarked how defense has been one of the most undervalued skills out there, that guys like Adam Everett were criminally underrated the past five years.

As for your Quetin example, yes, watching him you can tell he's a good hitter. But you know what? The numbers back that up too!

As for Floyd, he's a good pitcher, but when I watch him I see a guy who still has some control problems. Danks, on the other hand, is the real deal.

spiffie
01-21-2009, 10:18 AM
I hope you realize the next hitter has the same opportunity to hit your sacrifice fly. The next hitter also has the opportunity to drive in one more run with a hit.

Not every player with a high OBP is comparable to Nick Swisher. Did you get mad about Frank Thomas taking walks?
Frank Thomas was good at everything. He got walks simply due to pitchers fearing him, not due to refusing to swing at anything remotely hittable. A guy who hits 300 like Frank while walking a lot is valuable. A guy who hits 240 while walking a lot is not nearly as much so.

And yes, the next guy can hit a sac fly. Or he can hit a ground ball that if Swisher would have hit could have scored the runner, instead of being an inning ending DP.

Eddo144
01-21-2009, 10:24 AM
Frank Thomas was good at everything. He got walks simply due to pitchers fearing him, not due to refusing to swing at anything remotely hittable. A guy who hits 300 like Frank while walking a lot is valuable. A guy who hits 240 while walking a lot is not nearly as much so.

And yes, the next guy can hit a sac fly. Or he can hit a ground ball that if Swisher would have hit could have scored the runner, instead of being an inning ending DP.
Yes, you're right, I'd rather have an RBI groundout than a walk with one out and a runner on third. But how often does that scenario play out?

Nick Swisher had only 30 plate appearances with a runner on third and less than two out last year. He had 588 plate appearances total, and during the other 558, a walk was more valuable than a groundout. Do you really want to build a team that is valuable in only 5.1% of situations?

And Frank Thomas got walks because he had a good eye. There are plenty of "feared" hitters, like Ryan Howard and Vlad Gurrero, who don't draw walks.

spiffie
01-21-2009, 10:37 AM
Yes, you're right, I'd rather have an RBI groundout than a walk with one out and a runner on third. But how often does that scenario play out?

Nick Swisher had only 30 plate appearances with a runner on third and less than two out last year. He had 588 plate appearances total, and during the other 558, a walk was more valuable than a groundout. Do you really want to build a team that is valuable in only 5.1% of situations?

And Frank Thomas got walks because he had a good eye. There are plenty of "feared" hitters, like Ryan Howard and Vlad Gurrero, who don't draw walks.
And in many of those other situations a hit is more valuable than a walk. Hence having a player who goes up with the idea that a walk is as good as a hit doesn't help as much as a player with a hit-first, walk if necessary mindset.

Frank Thomas had a great eye. But he also was a great hitter first. His goal wasn't to try and squeeze a walk out. And he was a good enough hitter that even if he was waiting for one pitch in an at-bat, he could do something with it. A guy like Swisher, who doesn't have that kind of talent, becomes an empty OBP. Yes, oftentimes I would rather have a walk than an out. No one is disputing that in most situations this is true.

The dispute becomes whether or not someone with a higher OBP and lower BA is truly more valuable than someone with a higher BA and a lower OBP. And Swisher throughout his career has been the guy who is the perfect test case. Always a very low BA, high OBP and a lot of K's. And so far I have yet to see anything that tells me I would be worse off as a manager with a guy who is going to put the ball in play more, get more hits, and be on base a few less times per year. That second guy has much more potential to help his team on an at-bat by at-bat basis, even if the simulations run on a computer over 10,000 pretend games might favor the low BA/high OBP player.

Eddo144
01-21-2009, 11:35 AM
The dispute becomes whether or not someone with a higher OBP and lower BA is truly more valuable than someone with a higher BA and a lower OBP. And Swisher throughout his career has been the guy who is the perfect test case. Always a very low BA, high OBP and a lot of K's. And so far I have yet to see anything that tells me I would be worse off as a manager with a guy who is going to put the ball in play more, get more hits, and be on base a few less times per year. That second guy has much more potential to help his team on an at-bat by at-bat basis, even if the simulations run on a computer over 10,000 pretend games might favor the low BA/high OBP player.
OK, but again, by that logic, there's no sense even acquiring good players. Sometimes, David Eckstein has a better World Series than Albert Pujols. But, the likelihood of that happening, which can only be determined by a really large sample size (like your 10,000 pretend games), is low.

I'll take the high-OBP, low-AVG guy, as he'll be on base more for my other hitters. He also will use up fewer of the 4374 outs I get on the season.

A player with a higher AVG will get more hits, yes, but the player with the higher OBP is using fewer outs between his hits. And outs ultimately lose you the game.

FedEx227
01-21-2009, 11:35 AM
This leads me to another problem I have with stats; stats ideally are tools to help understand the game. They are not the end all be all, to really know what a player contributes you have to watch him play consistently. Not just go to baseball-reference and see what exactly his stats are. An example of this would be with a guy like Luis Apparcio. I read in Jayson Stark's book that he has Apparcio as the most overrated Sox player of all time and he points to Apparcio's low OBP and low OPS. Now, I am willing to bet that Stark has never seen Apparcio play a single inning of a baseball game, he looked at his stats and went "Wow, his OBP is rather low." But everyone I've talked to or heard talk about Luis Apparcio who saw him play would say that he is undoubtedly the greatest White Sox shortstop of all time (with all due respect to Luke Appling and Chico Carosel). There seems to be this notion in the statistical community that you don't really need to watch the game so much as much as you need to look at the numbers and this drives me crazy. Anyone who saw Quentin hit last year would know the kid knows what he is doing, same thing with Floyd pitching. So, that's my rant.

Then nobody is realistically able to discuss or talk about any baseball player because there is no physical way someone can watch 15 major league games a night. Also forget talking about the minors because at the same time that you're watching all 15 major league games, you have to be watching every single A, AA, AAA game. If you can watch over 70 baseball games at the same time, while focusing on what each individual player does over the course of the game, more power to you.

A healthy mix of both is definitely the key to evaluating players. There is no physical way I can watch Grady Sizemore every single night, just as there is no physical way I can watch Ryan Braun every single night. However, I see them sparingly and then look at numbers to come to my overall conclusion about the players they are.

Your eyes can be very deceiving when it comes to baseball. In another thread Carlos Gomez came out. If you actually scouted based on watching Carlos Gomez face the White Sox you'd think this kid was the greatest player in the league, he had pesky hit after pesky hit, was playing great defense, stole a ton of bases... but his numbers do not show that, meaning he had some GREAT games against the Sox but for the most part struggled throughout much of the year. Gomez' line of .258/.296/.360, 7 HR, 59 RBI, 33 SB, 11 CS shows he is not a very good player.

spiffie
01-21-2009, 11:37 AM
Then nobody is realistically able to discuss or talk about any baseball player because there is no physical way someone can watch 15 major league games a night. Also forget talking about the minors because at the same time that you're watching all 15 major league games, you have to be watching every single A, AA, AAA game. If you can watch over 70 baseball games at the same time, while focusing on what each individual player does over the course of the game, more power to you.

A healthy mix of both is definitely the key to evaluating players. There is no physical way I can watch Grady Sizemore every single night, just as there is no physical way I can watch Ryan Braun every single night. However, I see them sparingly and then look at numbers to come to my overall conclusion about the players they are.
Little known fact, Daver actually watches every single minor league game.

Hendu
01-21-2009, 11:39 AM
Frank Thomas was good at everything. He got walks simply due to pitchers fearing him, not due to refusing to swing at anything remotely hittable. A guy who hits 300 like Frank while walking a lot is valuable. A guy who hits 240 while walking a lot is not nearly as much so.

And yes, the next guy can hit a sac fly. Or he can hit a ground ball that if Swisher would have hit could have scored the runner, instead of being an inning ending DP.

A guy who hits 240 while walking a lot is more valuable than a guy who hits 240 and doesn't walk. There aren't many guys in the game who hit 300 year in and year out...and there are fewer guys who can hit 300, with power, while walking a lot. That's why Frank is going to be in the HOF.

I'd rather have a player taking a walk than swinging at bad pitches, though (which Frank rarely did). I can't think of too many one-dimensional walk machines that have long careers in MLB...even Swisher had a couple years where he hit the ball pretty well; otherwise Kenny would not have gone after him. OBP usually indicates a good feel for the strike zone (not just the ability to walk).

Konerko05
01-21-2009, 03:41 PM
Frank Thomas was good at everything. He got walks simply due to pitchers fearing him, not due to refusing to swing at anything remotely hittable. A guy who hits 300 like Frank while walking a lot is valuable. A guy who hits 240 while walking a lot is not nearly as much so.

Hey, you were the one that said walks are "useless." I used Thomas as an example because I'm sure you didn't think his walks were useless. Walks were part of the reason he was such a great hitter.

He didn't draw walks "simply due" to pitchers fearing him. He drew walks because he had an outstanding command of the strike zone. That means he knew how to take bad hitter's pitches, and swing at good hitter's pitches.

A guy who hits 300 like Frank while walking a lot is valuable. A guy who hits 240 while walking a lot is not nearly as much so.

Yes, a .300 average is higher than .240. I'd also like to know what their SLG% is with those averages.

Just so you know though, Thomas hasn't hit close to .300 since 2000. So was Thomas a bad hitter during those years? Did his walks become "useless" like Swisher's?

I'm not sure where you came up with the idea walks are only valuable if the player is hitting .300. That doesn't make any sense.

And yes, the next guy can hit a sac fly. Or he can hit a ground ball that if Swisher would have hit could have scored the runner, instead of being an inning ending DP.

Or both players could have struck out swinging at bad pitches out of the zone because they are trying to avoid the useless walk. We can insert any result in this hypothetical situation.

Sure, sometimes an RBI groundout is better than a walk, but that doesn't mean players should be punished for not swinging at bad pitches.

I think your opinion of this type of player is biased because of your hatred for all things Nick Swisher.

Thome25
01-22-2009, 09:27 AM
I still think Giambi should have to give his 2000 MVP to Big Frank and Dan Patrick should have to publicly apologize to Frank for the entire debacle.

MISoxfan
01-22-2009, 09:30 PM
I think that while OBP is a valuable stat it can at times be vastly overrated. That was my point with the Swisher reference. If you have a guy whose main asset to the game is that he can get on base a lot (via walks) and can't steal bases, doesn't get a lot of hits, and defensively is nothing special, I don't think that he is going to contribute that much. He needs to have another asset besides JUST being able to walk. For example, when Pods would walk (in '05 cuz he didn't walk too much in '06 or '07) to lead off an inning you would feel "Great! He can steal second and then we'd have a runner in scoring position!" When Swisher would walk to lead off an inning in '08 I at least, would feel "Well, now we're going to either hit into a double play or have to get an awful lot of hits to bring Swisher around." So, yea, OBP is a nice stat and useful, but I'm not so sure I'd want a guy whose best offensive quality is the ability to walk in my lineup. Now if the guy can walk a lot and steal bases, it's a whole different story.

This leads me to another problem I have with stats; stats ideally are tools to help understand the game. They are not the end all be all, to really know what a player contributes you have to watch him play consistently. Not just go to baseball-reference and see what exactly his stats are. An example of this would be with a guy like Luis Apparcio. I read in Jayson Stark's book that he has Apparcio as the most overrated Sox player of all time and he points to Apparcio's low OBP and low OPS. Now, I am willing to bet that Stark has never seen Apparcio play a single inning of a baseball game, he looked at his stats and went "Wow, his OBP is rather low." But everyone I've talked to or heard talk about Luis Apparcio who saw him play would say that he is undoubtedly the greatest White Sox shortstop of all time (with all due respect to Luke Appling and Chico Carosel). There seems to be this notion in the statistical community that you don't really need to watch the game so much as much as you need to look at the numbers and this drives me crazy. Anyone who saw Quentin hit last year would know the kid knows what he is doing, same thing with Floyd pitching. So, that's my rant.

You were honestly disappointed when Swisher would walk to lead-off an inning? :rolleyes: