PDA

View Full Version : Interesting stat about Konerko


BadBobbyJenks
02-03-2009, 09:44 PM
I was listening to the Score today on my downtown and Murphy had John Dewan on who does his stat of the day every Tuesday (the only time I can tolerate the show). The stat of the day today was on Paul Konerko and his average on line drives. The average for all major leaguers is .701 and Paulie hits .702 for his career on line drives.

Well last season Paulie was dead last in the Majors for hitters with more than 50 line drives with an average of .551.

I would think that big of a drop off can only be explained by one thing and that is bad luck.

Are these thoughts that Paulie is done a bit premature?

EMachine10
02-03-2009, 09:48 PM
I never thought that he was done. Part of his trouble was bad luck, but not all of it. He had a few too many Crede style pop ups to be written off as unlucky. I'm pretty confident he'll bounce back nicely this year.

JermaineDye05
02-03-2009, 09:50 PM
I was listening to the Score today on my downtown and Murphy had John Dewan on who does his stat of the day every Tuesday (the only time I can tolerate the show). The stat of the day today was on Paul Konerko and his average on line drives. The average for all major leaguers is .701 and Paulie hits .702 for his career on line drives.

Well last season Paulie was dead last in the Majors for hitters with more than 50 line drives with an average of .551.

I would think that big of a drop off can only be explained by one thing and that is bad luck.

Are these thoughts that Paulie is done a bit premature?

I guess you could call it bad luck. He had a really bad thumb though and that really hurt him this year, no pun intended.

WhiteSox5187
02-03-2009, 09:52 PM
I really think that Paulie was banged up much more than he was letting on. The guy came alive in September and August and I think that is because he was healthy.

DaveFeelsRight
02-03-2009, 09:53 PM
I really think that Paulie was banged up much more than he was letting on. The guy came alive in September and August and I think that is because he was healthy.pretty much my thoughts too.

FedEx227
02-03-2009, 09:54 PM
I was listening to the Score today on my downtown and Murphy had John Dewan on who does his stat of the day every Tuesday (the only time I can tolerate the show). The stat of the day today was on Paul Konerko and his average on line drives. The average for all major leaguers is .701 and Paulie hits .702 for his career on line drives.

Well last season Paulie was dead last in the Majors for hitters with more than 50 line drives with an average of .551.

I would think that big of a drop off can only be explained by one thing and that is bad luck.

Are these thoughts that Paulie is done a bit premature?

Definitely. He's not "DONE" will he ever be .280/.370/.550, 40 HR, 110 RBI ever again? No.

But lots of metrics point to him having a ridiculously unlucky year.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/242_1B_season_mini_7_20080930.png

SoxyStu
02-03-2009, 10:08 PM
I really think that Paulie was banged up much more than he was letting on. The guy came alive in September and August and I think that is because he was healthy.

emotionally, too.

Frater Perdurabo
02-03-2009, 10:19 PM
Maybe it was bad luck.

Or maybe he's so utterly predictable as a hitter that opposing teams place their shortstops and third basemen exactly where he is statistically most likely to hit the ball.

Also, because the Sox don't have much speed on the basepaths ahead of Paulie in the order, when there are runners on base when Paulie is at the plate, opposing defenders are not playing out of position to prevent stolen bases.

Also, because Paulie is so slow of foot, opposing infielders can play further back to give themselves more time to react to his line drives (and grounders).

Rdy2PlayBall
02-03-2009, 10:20 PM
Being forced to play with his injury for a while didn't help his stats all to much either. I don't think a washed up player can play good for an extended time at all, well Konerko did that last year at the end of the season... maybe next year we will see an 05' or 06' Konerko? :rolleyes:

BadBobbyJenks
02-03-2009, 10:21 PM
Also, because Paulie is so slow of foot, opposing infielders can play further back to give themselves more time to react to his line drives (and grounders).

That is irrelevant as his speed has not effected his career average on line drives of .702.

ArkanSox
02-03-2009, 10:25 PM
Paulie's lack of speed allows the opponent's infield defense to play deeper which gives them a shot at some line drives that would normally get past them. Standing a few extra feet back can make a big difference on line drives, especially at third base and short. Just a thought.

Daver
02-03-2009, 10:29 PM
Fun with numbers MLB edition runs amok.

BadBobbyJenks
02-03-2009, 10:33 PM
Paulie's lack of speed allows the opponent's infield defense to play deeper which gives them a shot at some line drives that would normally get past them. Standing a few extra feet back can make a big difference on line drives, especially at third base and short. Just a thought.

Again it has not been a factor in his career until last season so I don't know how you can possibly argue that.

doublem23
02-03-2009, 11:02 PM
Again it has not been a factor in his career until last season so I don't know how you can possibly argue that.

Because Paul Konerko SUCKS and ANY state that counters that ARGUMENT sucks... Let me show you some LEGITIMATE stats that show he sucks.

Didn't you notice opposing teams placing their infielders 40 yards behind the cut of the infield, to get line drives off the bat of predictable ol' Paul?

WhiteSox1989
02-03-2009, 11:09 PM
I really think that Paulie was banged up much more than he was letting on. The guy came alive in September and August and I think that is because he was healthy.

Basically, yeah.

Like someone else said, I really think Konerko will come back in a big way this season.

A. Cavatica
02-03-2009, 11:09 PM
Good. Now convince the Angels that he was just unlucky, and trade him for prospects.

FedEx227
02-03-2009, 11:22 PM
Fun with numbers MLB edition runs amok.

Definitely contributing to the discussion.

Daver
02-03-2009, 11:34 PM
Definitely contributing to the discussion.

Yeah, pointing out the fact that stats can be misleading and that narrowing things down to the point that they tell whatever story you want is not beneficial. Do you really want to turn this into a pissing match?

Eddo144
02-03-2009, 11:41 PM
Yeah, pointing out the fact that stats can be misleading and that narrowing things down to the point that they tell whatever story you want is not beneficial. Do you really want to turn this into a pissing match?
Yeah, so obviously that means all statistics are terrible. You win, Daver.

And I can piss really, really far, so bring it on. :redneck

FedEx227
02-03-2009, 11:47 PM
Yeah, pointing out the fact that stats can be misleading and that narrowing things down to the point that they tell whatever story you want is not beneficial. Do you really want to turn this into a pissing match?

No, I'm just baffled why you continue to even click threads that say "stat" in them.

BadBobbyJenks
02-03-2009, 11:50 PM
Yeah, pointing out the fact that stats can be misleading and that narrowing things down to the point that they tell whatever story you want is not beneficial. Do you really want to turn this into a pissing match?

Do you have a reason for why his average on line drives dropped so far?

Daver
02-04-2009, 12:10 AM
No, I'm just baffled why you continue to even click threads that say "stat" in them.

I'm the adminstrator for this site, whether I like the topic or not I am obligated to check the content of the thread. There are days I wonder why I let West talk me into this.

whitesox901
02-04-2009, 12:27 AM
I really think that Paulie was banged up much more than he was letting on. The guy came alive in September and August and I think that is because he was healthy.

I agree

jabrch
02-04-2009, 12:48 AM
Good. Now convince the Angels that he was just unlucky, and trade him for prospects.

Um - who exactly would play 1B?

jabrch
02-04-2009, 12:54 AM
Paulie's lack of speed allows the opponent's infield defense to play deeper which gives them a shot at some line drives that would normally get past them. Standing a few extra feet back can make a big difference on line drives, especially at third base and short. Just a thought.

That would make sense - and someone pointed that out (a caller). But Dewan then said that Konerko's career avg is .701 or .704 on line drives over his career - and he was no slower this year, nor did they play him any different.

I don't think you can really draw any conclusion about what will happen next year based on being told what happened last year with avg on line drives. You could easily argue it either way. As with most statistics - they are great to tell you what happened - but poor to tell you what will happen.

whitesox901
02-04-2009, 12:56 AM
Um - who exactly would play 1B?

Betimit

It's Dankerific
02-04-2009, 01:02 AM
Definitely. He's not "DONE" will he ever be .280/.370/.550, 40 HR, 110 RBI ever again? No.

But lots of metrics point to him having a ridiculously unlucky year.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/242_1B_season_mini_7_20080930.png

I think you are being overly generous with your trend line. He had never had 2 years in a row that were worse than the previous... until now. 1 data point, is a dot, 2 is a line, 3 is a trend.

Eddo144
02-04-2009, 10:41 AM
I think you are being overly generous with your trend line. He had never had 2 years in a row that were worse than the previous... until now. 1 data point, is a dot, 2 is a line, 3 is a trend.
A few points to clarify FedEx's graph:

1. FedEx didn't create it, it's from www.fangraphs.com, which is a really cool site with a ton of information.

2. The blue line is not a trend line for Konerko, but rather the league average in each year. I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to or not, just saying.

And I agree with you to a point. While Konerko's BABIP should rebound a bit, I can't see him every reaching his 2003-2006 levels again. Unfortunately, he's the type of player who does not age gracefully.

Lip Man 1
02-04-2009, 10:44 AM
Some of these stat people need to start getting a life.

"Line drive average" ???????

OK.

:rolleyes:

Lip

LoveYourSuit
02-04-2009, 10:55 AM
I saw a ton of "towering line drives" from Paulie last season.

His skills have diminished big time not only at the plate but with the glove also.

That said,
I predict a comeback from him. .270 BA 32 HRs 85 RBIs next season.

doublem23
02-04-2009, 10:57 AM
Some of these stat people need to start getting a life.

"Line drive average" ???????

OK.

:rolleyes:

Lip

That's it! Don't understand something... Make a derisive comment.

Craig Grebeck
02-04-2009, 11:08 AM
Some of these stat people need to start getting a life.

"Line drive average" ???????

OK.

:rolleyes:

Lip
I don't even know what to say anymore. You should stay out of these threads and go back to posting about Roland Hemond 400 times a day.

dickallen15
02-04-2009, 11:09 AM
I saw a ton of "towering line drives" from Paulie last season.

His skills have diminished big time not only at the plate but with the glove also.

That said,
I predict a comeback from him. .270 BA 32 HRs 85 RBIs next season.
He had a hand injury for a good part of the season and then hurt his knee. He hit .270 with a .374 OBP and a .909 OPS with 13 homers in 185 AB post all star break. He'll be fine as long as he's healthy.

jabrch
02-04-2009, 12:02 PM
Maybe it was bad luck.

Or maybe he's so utterly predictable as a hitter that opposing teams place their shortstops and third basemen exactly where he is statistically most likely to hit the ball.

FP - does he have a ridiculously high % of balls hit to an exact spot? I'm not sure of that.

jabrch
02-04-2009, 12:03 PM
Unfortunately, he's the type of player who does not age gracefully.

Why? He has had the skill set of an old man for a long time. Is he going to get slower? I don't believe so.

Craig Grebeck
02-04-2009, 12:15 PM
Why? He has had the skill set of an old man for a long time. Is he going to get slower? I don't believe so.
You missed the point. His skills will erode faster because he has "old player skills." These players tend to break down earlier in their thirties and fall out of baseball sooner than expected.

mrfourni
02-04-2009, 12:17 PM
Does anyone know what constitutes a line drive in this statistic? Could part of it be with a hand injury, he was hitting soft line drives as compared to previous years? There could be a million different explanations for the drop in avg.

Analyzing stats can be useful, but the arguments made in this thread seem pretty pointless based on the limited knowledge of the information presented.

FedEx227
02-04-2009, 12:28 PM
The stat I showed (BABIP) stands for batting average on balls in play, it's a statistic that measures the percentage of plate apperances that end with a batted ball in play, that is not a homework, for which the batter is credited with a hit. This doesn't truly tell anything, but it's more used as a way to see fluky seasons. When you see an incredible drop in BABIP, typically a play will rise back up closer to the mean. No, he may not absolutely acheive his mean ever again, but most players don't have significant years with huges peaks or drops.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/d/8/ed893b7b0405147c8498db6096fce17e.png

There's the stat. It really doesn't tell us a whole lot, all it really does is show the potential that Konerko's season was a fluke and he was just having general bad luck. We all remember Konerko's 2003, right?

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/242_1B_season_mini_7_20080930.png

Look after that season which is only in line with what he did during the early parts of his career plummets, but then slowly rises back up.

It's not a be-all, end-all statistic, because in essence it isn't meant to be examined at the yearly level, but rather looked at in context of a players career to see if there are any peaks.

spiffie
02-04-2009, 12:34 PM
Thanks for the trip to algebra class.

All I know is I watched Konerko look injured and in pain most of the first half last year, and he hit poorly. After taking some much needed time off to fully heal, he looked like the Captain again, hitting with authority. Paulie will be rocking next year, and you know he is desperate to prove something to all the folks writing him off. He's looking right at Frater.

And I don't need any graph to tell me that. My favorite stat:

eye1 + eye2 = analysis.

mjmcend
02-04-2009, 12:38 PM
Some of these stat people need to start getting a life.

"Line drive average" ???????

OK.

:rolleyes:

Lip

This isn't some esoteric stat nor a crazy formula. It is a simple measure of how many times someone reached base safely after hitting a line drive. We have all seen games where a particular player or the Sox in general hit the ball hard but right at someone. Hell, Hawk mentions it every time someone's screaming line drive is caught. To use the overused cliche, it is a game of inches. The difference between a base hit and a line drive out can be minuscule amount. Sometimes it really is bad luck.

spiffie
02-04-2009, 12:40 PM
This isn't some esoteric stat nor a crazy formula. It is a simple measure of how many times someone reached base safely after hitting a line drive. We have all seen games where a particular player or the Sox in general hit the ball hard but right at someone. Hell, Hawk mentions it every time someone's screaming line drive is caught. To use the overused cliche, it is a game of inches. The difference between a base hit and a line drive out can be minuscule amount. Sometimes it really is bad luck.
How high must the ball go into the air before it is considered a line drive? What degree of parabolic arc must the ball acheive? Is this being eyeballed or measured through some sort of 3-d modeling system?

Until every ball has a GPS sensor in it, and a universal standard is decided on for a "line drive" this stat is as meaningless as any typical BP calculatorial masturbation.

ChiSoxFan81
02-04-2009, 12:48 PM
How high must the ball go into the air before it is considered a line drive? What degree of parabolic arc must the ball acheive? Is this being eyeballed or measured through some sort of 3-d modeling system?

Until every ball has a GPS sensor in it, and a universal standard is decided on for a "line drive" this stat is as meaningless as any typical BP calculatorial masturbation.

Well, when scoring a game, line drive outs are noted as such. I'm sure they can classify hits as the same as well. As long as the same person is determining the classification of a batted ball, I see no reason that such a stat can't exist. What it actually tells you, I'm not sure, but I see no reason to argue that a line drive is some widely debated occurence.

Eddo144
02-04-2009, 12:49 PM
How high must the ball go into the air before it is considered a line drive? What degree of parabolic arc must the ball acheive? Is this being eyeballed or measured through some sort of 3-d modeling system?

Until every ball has a GPS sensor in it, and a universal standard is decided on for a "line drive" this stat is as meaningless as any typical BP calculatorial masturbation.
Spiffie, here's the thing: you make a really good point. LD% is mostly subjective in that a "line drive" is not a totally definable thing.

However, you ruined whatever credibility your critique may have had with your attitude. "Calculatorial masturbation"? Seriously? So taking one number (line drives that fell for hits) and dividing it by another (total line drives hit) is too complex for you? Statements like that say more about the person doing the criticizing than the thing they are criticizing.

Then again, LD% is not really a whole lot more subjective than batting average, which relies on someone's subjective opinion on what is or is not an error.

ChiSoxFan81
02-04-2009, 12:53 PM
Spiffie, here's the thing: you make a really good point. LD% is mostly subjective in that a "line drive" is not a totally definable thing.

However, you ruined whatever credibility your critique may have had with your attitude. "Calculatorial masturbation"? Seriously? So taking one number (line drives that fell for hits) and dividing it by another (total line drives hit) is too complex for you? Statements like that say more about the person doing the criticizing than the thing they are criticizing.

Then again, LD% is not really a whole lot more subjective than batting average, which relies on someone's subjective opinion on what is or is not an error.

Or fielding percentage, for that matter. Ask Orlando Cabrera.

jabrch
02-04-2009, 01:11 PM
It is a simple measure of how many times someone reached base safely after hitting a line drive.

What is a "line drive"?

Eddo144
02-04-2009, 01:16 PM
What is a "line drive"?
Right, it's subjective, and I'm sure there are official "line drives" used for this that you would consider flyballs and "flyballs" you would consider line drives.

Over the course of a whole season, though, I'd say they come close to evening out. And one or two misclassified line drives aren't really going to change Konerko's LD% very much either way.

jabrch
02-04-2009, 01:20 PM
Right, it's subjective, and I'm sure there are official "line drives" used for this that you would consider flyballs and "flyballs" you would consider line drives.

Over the course of a whole season, though, I'd say they come close to evening out. And one or two misclassified line drives aren't really going to change Konerko's LD% very much either way.

How many LDs did he hit? He only had 438 ABs. He struck out 80 times. So that leaves 358 times he made contact. I don't know how many GOs, POs, FOs and any other non-LDOs he had. But that number could be relatively small - small enough to have an impact. I really don't know.

Either way - I'm not sure this has much significance.

TheVulture
02-04-2009, 01:20 PM
Seems to me a low babip in combination with low line drive % indicates poor contact more than bad luck.

jabrch
02-04-2009, 01:21 PM
Seems to me a low babip in combination with low line drive % indicates poor contact more than bad luck.

It isn't a low LD%. It is a low Hit% on LDs. Very different.

Eddo144
02-04-2009, 01:23 PM
How many LDs did he hit? He only had 438 ABs. He struck out 80 times. So that leaves 358 times he made contact. I don't know how many GOs, POs, FOs and any other non-LDOs he had. But that number could be relatively small - small enough to have an impact. I really don't know.

Either way - I'm not sure this has much significance.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=242&position=1B#battedball

According to fangraphs, Konerko made contact 362 times, so a single misclassified line drive would take his LD% down from 21.5% to 21.3%.

Eddo144
02-04-2009, 01:24 PM
It isn't a low LD%. It is a low Hit% on LDs. Very different.
Right. If you go to his fangraphs page (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=242&position=1B#battedball), you'll actually see that his LD% was up this year. The big difference was that he was hitting fewer flyballs and more groundballs.

FedEx227
02-04-2009, 01:31 PM
That's why I like BABIP a little bit better. Tells roughly the same story, but not as subjective as what is a line drive.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/d/8/ed893b7b0405147c8498db6096fce17e.png

spiffie
02-04-2009, 01:55 PM
Spiffie, here's the thing: you make a really good point. LD% is mostly subjective in that a "line drive" is not a totally definable thing.

However, you ruined whatever credibility your critique may have had with your attitude. "Calculatorial masturbation"? Seriously? So taking one number (line drives that fell for hits) and dividing it by another (total line drives hit) is too complex for you? Statements like that say more about the person doing the criticizing than the thing they are criticizing.

Then again, LD% is not really a whole lot more subjective than batting average, which relies on someone's subjective opinion on what is or is not an error.
If the propeller hat fits...

Eddo144
02-04-2009, 02:07 PM
If the propeller hat fits...
Excuse me, I was being critical of the statistic. There are more than just "propellorheads" and "anti-stat" people. You act as if anyone who understands a statistic believes in any number, hook, line, and sinker.

You're the one who immediately rejects anything that hasn't been used for more than 100 years.

And did you even read what I said? I was agreeing with your point, that what constitutes a line drive is subjective, and that therefore, this statistic loses some credibility.

But I wouldn't want you to ever pass up a chance to make fun.

SBSoxFan
02-04-2009, 03:56 PM
That's why I like BABIP a little bit better. Tells roughly the same story, but not as subjective as what is a line drive.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/d/8/ed893b7b0405147c8498db6096fce17e.png

Thanks for clarifying that. At first I thought the line drive % and BABIP were measuring the same thing.

I'm not sure I'd want to penalize a guy for hitting balls that aren't in play, i.e., home runs or sac. flies. Both seem rather beneficial. In addition, the sac fly may actually have some intent behind it.

Eddo144
02-04-2009, 04:03 PM
Thanks for clarifying that. At first I thought the line drive % and BABIP were measuring the same thing.

I'm not sure I'd want to penalize a guy for hitting balls that aren't in play, i.e., home runs or sac. flies. Both seem rather beneficial. In addition, the sac fly may actually have some intent behind it.
The idea behind excluding HR and including sacrifice flies is to figure out how much impact a defense has on a hitter's batting average. Basically, BABIP shows how well you did during at bats in which a fielder had a play on your ball. A low BABIP could show that the defense was just able to make more plays on balls you hit.

Carolina Kenny
02-04-2009, 04:08 PM
Konerko gives me a Bonerko.

End of story.

Jim Shorts
02-04-2009, 04:22 PM
Konerko gives me a Bonerko.

End of story.

I'd Bohn Linda Cohn

cws05champ
02-04-2009, 04:48 PM
Paulie's lack of speed allows the opponent's infield defense to play deeper which gives them a shot at some line drives that would normally get past them. Standing a few extra feet back can make a big difference on line drives, especially at third base and short. Just a thought.
The real question to all of this is; Would Paulie have hit the ball at a defensive player anyways if the defense hadn't adjusted their position in the first place?

Whoa...I just blew my own mind.

chaerulez
02-04-2009, 04:49 PM
That's why I like BABIP a little bit better. Tells roughly the same story, but not as subjective as what is a line drive.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/d/8/ed893b7b0405147c8498db6096fce17e.png

ZOMG u r a stathead! i bet u live in ur momz basement and watch startrek reruns LOLOLOL

BadBobbyJenks
02-04-2009, 06:05 PM
If the propeller hat fits...

Why even post in the thread, I really don't get it.

mjmcend
02-04-2009, 06:52 PM
That's why I like BABIP a little bit better. Tells roughly the same story, but not as subjective as what is a line drive.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/d/8/ed893b7b0405147c8498db6096fce17e.png

That is some fancy math there. Addition and subtraction. You must have spent every waking hour with your face in a book and never even had time to watch a real, live baseball game.

Craig Grebeck
02-04-2009, 06:55 PM
That is some fancy math there. Addition and subtraction. You must have spent every waking hour with your face in a book and never even had time to watch a real, live baseball game.
Sarcasm aside, division is also utilized there. You must have skipped grades 4-6.

FedEx227
02-04-2009, 06:57 PM
That is some fancy math there. Addition and subtraction. You must have spent every waking hour with your face in a book and never even had time to watch a real, live baseball game.

What's baseball?

mjmcend
02-04-2009, 06:57 PM
Sarcasm aside, division is also utilized there. You must have skipped grades 4-6.

That just goes way beyond the level I am capable of operating at so I ignored it. If I was intimidated just a bit more, I would have mocked it as well.

FedEx227
02-04-2009, 07:01 PM
Thanks for clarifying that. At first I thought the line drive % and BABIP were measuring the same thing.

I'm not sure I'd want to penalize a guy for hitting balls that aren't in play, i.e., home runs or sac. flies. Both seem rather beneficial. In addition, the sac fly may actually have some intent behind it.

Like Eddo said, it's not really a statistic that should just be looked at. Basically in a vacuum a .356 BABIP means nothing. It's meant to be judged upon the complete career of a player to see trends upward or downward. BABIP is not meant to be a counting or judging stat really. There isn't a top 15 BABIP list or anything like that, you wouldn't acquire a player with a large BABIP or a lower BABIP or whatever. Mainly, it's a way to judge if there may have been a peak or fall in a players career that can attribute itself to a fluke year.

soxfandoug
02-05-2009, 01:32 AM
As has already been pointed out, line drive percentage and BABIP are excellent ways to help clarify whether an abnormally good or bad season were flukes.

For example, Nick Swisher in 2008. He had the highest LD% of his career at 20.9%. He also had the lowest BABIP of his career at .249.

What these numbers show is that Nick was hitting more line drives, while also making more outs. If this seems counterintuitive, that's because it is. Generally speaking, if you hit the ball harder, you will obtain more hits.

Based on these facts, Nick should have a very nice "bounceback" season in 2009. The same goes for Paulie. I expect numbers similar to 2007 in 2009.

It's Dankerific
02-05-2009, 03:32 AM
He had a hand injury for a good part of the season and then hurt his knee. He hit .270 with a .374 OBP and a .909 OPS with 13 homers in 185 AB post all star break. He'll be fine as long as he's healthy.

Unless he decides to play hurt again, right?

Hurt isn't an excuse if you don't come out of the ballgame.

spiffie
02-05-2009, 09:52 AM
Unless he decides to play hurt again, right?

Hurt isn't an excuse if you don't come out of the ballgame.
Why do I suspect that you would give Brian Anderson a pass if he wasn't playing at 100%?

chaerulez
02-05-2009, 10:15 AM
As has already been pointed out, line drive percentage and BABIP are excellent ways to help clarify whether an abnormally good or bad season were flukes.

For example, Nick Swisher in 2008. He had the highest LD% of his career at 20.9%. He also had the lowest BABIP of his career at .249.

What these numbers show is that Nick was hitting more line drives, while also making more outs. If this seems counterintuitive, that's because it is. Generally speaking, if you hit the ball harder, you will obtain more hits.

Based on these facts, Nick should have a very nice "bounceback" season in 2009. The same goes for Paulie. I expect numbers similar to 2007 in 2009.

That's why I don't understand the Swisher trade. Yes he sucked in 2008 but was likely to bounce back. And his contract was pretty decent and well yeah he had no position really, but KW was the idiot who thought Swisher could play CF. I think Swisher could've been used well in a super sub role or how the Cubs used DeRosa and just play him everywhere, Ozzie loves changing lineups anyway. But the fact we sold low on him was also a factor why I don't like the trade so much looking back on it.

jabrch
02-05-2009, 11:07 AM
But the fact we sold low on him was also a factor why I don't like the trade so much looking back on it.

It has been explained that the Sox "sold low" to free up money so that we could afford Viciedo. Since the two earn the same, I understand that logic. Viciedo, at this point, has more upside. Swish may return to his previous numbers - he may not. But the money he was going to earn wouldn't be a good investment given we had nowhere to play him.

Frankly, I'm not even sure how low we sold. If we still had him today, I doubt we'd get as much in return as we got - given that we didn't have to eat the contract.

Eddo144
02-05-2009, 11:11 AM
Frankly, I'm not even sure how low we sold. If we still had him today, I doubt we'd get as much in return as we got - given that we didn't have to eat the contract.
I think the selling low was because we "sold" him this offseason, period. He's coming off his worst year as a professional. You don't sell a stock at its lowest point.

If the Sox were dead-set on selling an OF, the one that made the most sense to have sold would have probably been Dye, since he was coming off his best year.

jabrch
02-05-2009, 11:23 AM
I think the selling low was because we "sold" him this offseason, period. He's coming off his worst year as a professional. You don't sell a stock at its lowest point.

That's not entirely true either...

First, you don't KNOW that this is his lowest point. Second, if the potential return elsewhere on your investment is greater than the projected return on your current investment is, then you DO want to sell low. Would you sell low on a stock that is only expected to return 3% per year if you can buy something else that will return 30%? I would. I'm hoping that's what we did with selling Swish to buy Viciedo.

If the Sox were dead-set on selling an OF, the one that made the most sense to have sold would have probably been Dye, since he was coming off his best year.

And you don't want to sell your best player for less than he is worth to you to keep a guy who's value is low because he produced poorly and just bet on him improving. We did shop Dye, as we have heard from the rumor mill. And the best (that we heard) we were discussing was Homer Bailey, who would just fit in the pile of guys competing for the #5 slot in our rotation.

Would you rather have Swisher or Dye in RF? Me personally - I'd rather have Dye. The difference in return on the two (Bailey vs Marquez+) isn't nearly as big as the difference in what I expect them to deliver.

I liked Swish - but he just didn't give us enough last year - and he didn't give us reason to predict much different this year. I know people say he had bad luck last year - and that may be true. He also may not be as effective of a hitter as we had hoped.

EIther way Eddo - it is a lof of guessing. If we were able to get a huge return for Dye, I'd agree with you. I'm OK with getting Bailey back - but not for the sake of keeping Swisher. If that's what we do, I'd rather go out and get a bigger bat than Swish - Abreu or something...

Jerome
02-05-2009, 11:30 AM
get that statistical mumbo jumbo out of here!

:geezer:

ChiSoxFan81
02-05-2009, 11:34 AM
get that statistical mumbo jumbo out of here!

:geezer:

Stats: 60% of the time, they work EVERY time.

everafan
02-05-2009, 03:44 PM
Maybe it was bad luck.

Or maybe he's so utterly predictable as a hitter that opposing teams place their shortstops and third basemen exactly where he is statistically most likely to hit the ball.

Also, because the Sox don't have much speed on the basepaths ahead of Paulie in the order, when there are runners on base when Paulie is at the plate, opposing defenders are not playing out of position to prevent stolen bases.

Also, because Paulie is so slow of foot, opposing infielders can play further back to give themselves more time to react to his line drives (and grounders).

Paulie batted the league average on linedrives prior to 08, so the slow argument is not valid. He didn't get slow last year. Same thing on defensive positioning. He's been in the league forever - teams didn't suddenly figure him out last year. He may never get back to 06 production but considering bad luck plus injury he should have a decent year.

It's Dankerific
02-05-2009, 03:58 PM
I wish we could have some sort of contest over the PK rebounding and Wise/Owens/BA situation.

As we learned from last year, looking at wins/losses aren't enough because someone will say that dropping a sure out didn't have any adverse consequences.

MISoxfan
02-05-2009, 06:58 PM
Do you mean some kind of contest where some people win if Konerko bounces back and some people win if he doesn't?

If Paul Konerko doesn't bounce back, we all lose.

It's Dankerific
02-05-2009, 07:02 PM
If Paul Konerko doesn't bounce back, we all lose.

Only because he will continue to play even if he doesn't.

Maybe the contest can be labeled "Just how great will Paul Konerko do!"

hi im skot
02-05-2009, 07:11 PM
Why do I suspect that you would give Brian Anderson a pass if he wasn't playing at 100%?

Because you're absolutely correct.

MISoxfan
02-06-2009, 02:12 AM
Only because he will continue to play even if he doesn't.

Maybe the contest can be labeled "Just how great will Paul Konerko do!"

If there were two first basemen competing for the job this might make the smallest amount of sense. This season it would just be people hoping he does well vs people who hope he fails to pave the way for... no one?

It's Dankerific
02-06-2009, 02:47 AM
If there were two first basemen competing for the job this might make the smallest amount of sense. This season it would just be people hoping he does well vs people who hope he fails to pave the way for... no one?

Maybe Wise can play 1st. So we can get Owens and Wise in on the same lineup.

It's Dankerific
02-06-2009, 02:56 AM
Because you're absolutely correct.

Thats hilarious. BA posts PK's stats in the first 4 months of last year and he would have been regularly tarred and feathered around here.

Plus, 1B is an OFFENSE position. You kinda expect a little more out of that spot.

Frater Perdurabo
02-06-2009, 07:02 AM
Thats hilarious. BA posts PK's stats in the first 4 months of last year and he would have been regularly tarred and feathered around here.

For the first four months of 2008, BA did outproduce PK. :o:

BadBobbyJenks
02-06-2009, 12:31 PM
Thats hilarious. BA posts PK's stats in the first 4 months of last year and he would have been regularly tarred and feathered around here.

Plus, 1B is an OFFENSE position. You kinda expect a little more out of that spot.


Hmmm maybe Paul Konerko has a little more rope than BA because of a slightly better track record. Just a thought.

It's Dankerific
02-06-2009, 02:19 PM
Hmmm maybe Paul Konerko has a little more rope than BA because of a slightly better track record. Just a thought.

Whats the difference between Rowand and PK again? Or Freddy and PK? Or any of the other heroes that have been shipped off because of their lack of production. Seems like only an albatross contract is the difference.

doublem23
02-06-2009, 02:26 PM
Whats the difference between Rowand and PK again? Or Freddy and PK? Or any of the other heroes that have been shipped off because of their lack of production. Seems like only an albatross contract is the difference.

Garcia was obviously done, KW's assement has bee completely validated by the turn his career has taken. As for Rowand, he was shipped out (a) because the Sox handed your boy BA the starting centerfield job on a silver platter (and he was terrible) and (b) they were able to acquire the booming, left-handed bat they sorely needed. The 2006 White Sox scored 120 more runs than their 2005 version (a below average offense to one of the top 3 in the American League), even with Brian Anderson playing Offensive Black Hole for 130 games.

Konerko's been pretty steady for the Sox since 2005 until last year, when he hit poorly while playing hurt and then *magically* hit much better when he reportedly felt better.

BadBobbyJenks
02-06-2009, 04:30 PM
Whats the difference between Rowand and PK again? Or Freddy and PK? Or any of the other heroes that have been shipped off because of their lack of production. Seems like only an albatross contract is the difference.


Rowand was shipped out because of lack of production?:?: I thought it was to acquire Jim Thome.

I see Doub already beat me to it.

FarmerAndy
02-06-2009, 04:44 PM
Why? He has had the skill set of an old man for a long time. Is he going to get slower? I don't believe so.

If Konerko got any slower he'd be standing still. :)

This is what I know -

*Paul Konerko hasn't had a season up to the standard he set for himself since 2006.

*It is now 2009

*For better or worse, Paul Konerko is the starting 1B for the Chicago White Sox this year. So there's not much point arguing about him.

*Everybody who seems to think (based on what, I'm still not sure) that Paulie will just bounce back to his old self this year...... Well, I hope you're right.

*Regardless of bad luck, ouchies, or any other excuses for declined performance; if Paulie doesn't perform well this season, the excuses will really start to wear thin.

I wish him the best of luck.

MISoxfan
02-06-2009, 05:55 PM
If Konerko got any slower he'd be standing still. :)

This is what I know -

*Paul Konerko hasn't had a season up to the standard he set for himself since 2006.

*It is now 2009

*For better or worse, Paul Konerko is the starting 1B for the Chicago White Sox this year. So there's not much point arguing about him.

*Everybody who seems to think (based on what, I'm still not sure) that Paulie will just bounce back to his old self this year...... Well, I hope you're right.

*Regardless of bad luck, ouchies, or any other excuses for declined performance; if Paulie doesn't perform well this season, the excuses will really start to wear thin.

I wish him the best of luck.

based on this

.333/.483/.591 in August
.260/.321/.649 in September
.313/.353/.688 in the postseason

And Frater, Anderson outperformed Paulie in only one month last season.

It's Dankerific
02-06-2009, 06:31 PM
The 2006 White Sox scored 120 more runs than their 2005 version (a below average offense to one of the top 3 in the American League), even with Brian Anderson playing Offensive Black Hole for 130 games.

So what your saying is that in 2006 we didn't need anymore Offense, so perhaps we should have gone with defense in CF and won a few more games? Sounds about right to me.

doublem23
02-06-2009, 06:37 PM
So what your saying is that in 2006 we didn't need anymore Offense, so perhaps we should have gone with defense in CF and won a few more games? Sounds about right to me.

No, what I'm saying is that Brian Anderson sucks. He played 66% of the innings for the Sox in CF that year and lost the job because he was an amazingly terrible hitter. .225/.290/.359?

The Sox finished 5 games out the play-offs in 2006. Do you really think Anderson's defense would have won us 5 extra games out of the 30 or so he sat out of? Good one.

It's Dankerific
02-06-2009, 07:00 PM
No, what I'm saying is that Brian Anderson sucks. He played 66% of the innings for the Sox in CF that year and lost the job because he was an amazingly terrible hitter. .225/.290/.359?

The Sox finished 5 games out the play-offs in 2006. Do you really think Anderson's defense would have won us 5 extra games out of the 30 or so he sat out of? Good one.

BA played 966 innings in 2006

162X9= 1458; 1458-966=492

492/9=54.6 Games

So if you're asking me if i think he could have made a difference in 55 games? The answer is yes. ESPECIALLY when we all SAW MACK LOSE GAMES NIGHT AFTER NIGHT IN CF

Lets add some more:

in 966 innings, BA had 305 PO and 2 ERRORS
In 436 innings, Mack had 119 PO and 4 ERRORS
Extrapolate, in 966 innings Mack would have had only 263.6 PO and 8.8 Errors

So, did balls just not get hit to CF when Mack wasn't actually getting an ERROR?

Lets see what we could have expected in CF with BA out there instead
Extra 436 innings would average 137.6 PO and 0.9 Errors
A difference of 18.6 PO and 3 errors. = over 21 outs

Yeah, 21 outs (or a 7 inning game) over the course 50 games COULDN'T possibly help win a few extra games. And thats not even including not knowing how many Unearned runs scored with Mack or the stuff that doesn't show up on the stats, like cutoff throws and cutting off extra base hits.

Rdy2PlayBall
02-06-2009, 07:37 PM
Stop defending Anderson's batting. His average is way too low. Good fielding doesn't make up for everything. He's a good player and I think the Sox should have never gotten Swisher, the Sox would have won more games if Anderson started ALL year. But I think his chances are over, unless we get a good leadoff hitter, we are going to see more of Owens.

It's Dankerific
02-06-2009, 07:44 PM
Stop defending Anderson's batting. His average is way too low. Good fielding doesn't make up for everything. He's a good player and I think the Sox should have never gotten Swisher, the Sox would have won more games if Anderson started ALL year. But I think his chances are over, unless we get a good leadoff hitter, we are going to see more of Owens.

No one is "Defending" BA's 2006 Offense. It was pointed out, quite astutely, that even with BA out there the 2006 White Sox scored plenty of runs.

I'm merely pointing out that losing outs in CF during that year costs us games, it certainly wasn't the offense.

In any case, this is 2009 and KW said BA would have hit .275 with 25 HR last year. (NOT 2006)

tstrike2000
02-07-2009, 12:51 PM
Whether stats like this are really telling of what he's gonna do this year, we still need him in the middle of the lineup with the youngsters we have. Plus, assuming his health is alright, he'll have a much better year this year. I still like our middle of the order for the offense, despite the speed issues.

ode to veeck
02-10-2009, 12:20 PM
Fun with numbers MLB edition runs amok.

LMAO, the 2nd intelligent sentance in the post (the 1st was Paulie damn slow, but we knew that).

chunk
02-10-2009, 06:14 PM
We lost in 2006 because our pitching was abysmal, something that playing Mack over BA certainly contributed to.

spiffie
02-10-2009, 08:48 PM
BA played 966 innings in 2006

162X9= 1458; 1458-966=492

492/9=54.6 Games

So if you're asking me if i think he could have made a difference in 55 games? The answer is yes. ESPECIALLY when we all SAW MACK LOSE GAMES NIGHT AFTER NIGHT IN CF

Lets add some more:

in 966 innings, BA had 305 PO and 2 ERRORS
In 436 innings, Mack had 119 PO and 4 ERRORS
Extrapolate, in 966 innings Mack would have had only 263.6 PO and 8.8 Errors

So, did balls just not get hit to CF when Mack wasn't actually getting an ERROR?

Lets see what we could have expected in CF with BA out there instead
Extra 436 innings would average 137.6 PO and 0.9 Errors
A difference of 18.6 PO and 3 errors. = over 21 outs

Yeah, 21 outs (or a 7 inning game) over the course 50 games COULDN'T possibly help win a few extra games. And thats not even including not knowing how many Unearned runs scored with Mack or the stuff that doesn't show up on the stats, like cutoff throws and cutting off extra base hits.
I assume of course that absolutely none of the hits Mackowiak had in his time in CF did anything to win games. They are all meaningless and had no impact at all on a game's outcome. After all, the Sox had a strong offense in aggregate, so obviously the only thing that could have had an impact is BA's defense.

champagne030
02-10-2009, 10:33 PM
I assume of course that absolutely none of the hits Mackowiak had in his time in CF did anything to win games. They are all meaningless and had no impact at all on a game's outcome. After all, the Sox had a strong offense in aggregate, so obviously the only thing that could have had an impact is BA's defense.

No, Mack actually won a game with a homer, IIRC. The problem is he played the worst CF defense I've even seen a MLB CF play on a regular basis.

I don't fault Mack....he screamed to not play center (admitted he sucked out there), but our dumb **** manager continued to run him out there and trashed the rest of his career. All because of a personal vendetta........:shrug:

Frater Perdurabo
02-10-2009, 11:04 PM
And now we've earned this...

:tomatoaward:

MISoxfan
02-10-2009, 11:54 PM
BA played 966 innings in 2006

162X9= 1458; 1458-966=492

492/9=54.6 Games

So if you're asking me if i think he could have made a difference in 55 games? The answer is yes. ESPECIALLY when we all SAW MACK LOSE GAMES NIGHT AFTER NIGHT IN CF

Lets add some more:

in 966 innings, BA had 305 PO and 2 ERRORS
In 436 innings, Mack had 119 PO and 4 ERRORS
Extrapolate, in 966 innings Mack would have had only 263.6 PO and 8.8 Errors

So, did balls just not get hit to CF when Mack wasn't actually getting an ERROR?

Lets see what we could have expected in CF with BA out there instead
Extra 436 innings would average 137.6 PO and 0.9 Errors
A difference of 18.6 PO and 3 errors. = over 21 outs

Yeah, 21 outs (or a 7 inning game) over the course 50 games COULDN'T possibly help win a few extra games. And thats not even including not knowing how many Unearned runs scored with Mack or the stuff that doesn't show up on the stats, like cutoff throws and cutting off extra base hits.

Why don't you compare Mack's bat to Anderson's bat and see how many more outs Anderson would have cost us at the plate.

It's Dankerific
02-11-2009, 07:00 PM
Why don't you compare Mack's bat to Anderson's bat and see how many more outs Anderson would have cost us at the plate.

BECAUSE the offense of the 2006 team was fine, EVEN WHEN BA PLAYED.

They scored a ton runs more than in 2005, even with the BA "black hole" playing over half the time.

It's THAT simple.

It's Dankerific
02-11-2009, 07:03 PM
I assume of course that absolutely none of the hits Mackowiak had in his time in CF did anything to win games. They are all meaningless and had no impact at all on a game's outcome. After all, the Sox had a strong offense in aggregate, so obviously the only thing that could have had an impact is BA's defense.

It may be an upper level concept but you can have weakness where you have a team strength and similarly, its better to have a strength where there is a team weakness.

I won't start a discussion on marginal utility, but it could be helpful for your understanding of the subject. Perhaps in a different thread.

Daver
02-11-2009, 07:04 PM
No, Mack actually won a game with a homer, IIRC. The problem is he played the worst CF defense I've even seen a MLB CF play on a regular basis.


Wait till you see Dwayne Wise trot out there on a regular basis.

MISoxfan
02-11-2009, 07:43 PM
BECAUSE the offense of the 2006 team was fine, EVEN WHEN BA PLAYED.

They scored a ton runs more than in 2005, even with the BA "black hole" playing over half the time.

It's THAT simple.

Its not that simple. Taking Rob out and putting Anderson in could easily just be swapping from a 9-8 loss to a 7-6 loss. Unless you can show that Anderson was preventing enough hits to overcome the greater number of outs he was making at the plate you can't just assume the rest of the team would carry BA's deadweight.

Mackowiak and Anderson had roughly even plate appearances in the first half, but Anderson had about 100 more in the second half. How'd that work out for us?

BadBobbyJenks
02-11-2009, 08:24 PM
How did a thread about Konerko become a BA thread again?:scratch:

It's Dankerific
02-11-2009, 09:42 PM
Its not that simple. Taking Rob out and putting Anderson in could easily just be swapping from a 9-8 loss to a 7-6 loss. Unless you can show that Anderson was preventing enough hits to overcome the greater number of outs he was making at the plate you can't just assume the rest of the team would carry BA's deadweight.

Mackowiak and Anderson had roughly even plate appearances in the first half, but Anderson had about 100 more in the second half. How'd that work out for us?

THANK YOU for making me look up the post allstar 2006 offensive stats for these guys.

Post all Star Break:
Batting Average: Brian Anderson .257, Mack .258
Slugging : Brian Anderson .393, Mack .398
OBP : Brian Anderson .301, Mack .307

So, Post All-Star break, their offense was VIRTUALLY equal, yet Ozzie trotted out the woefully MUCH worse Defender in Mack.

Again, THANK YOU.

MISoxfan
02-11-2009, 10:08 PM
He trotted out Anderson much more often. Maybe I should use the old Brian Anderson defense that Rob wasn't getting consistent enough playing time to hit as well as he is capable.

Hopefully one day we'll get a decent centerfielder and won't be stuck comparing two guys with no business in a starting lineup.

It's Dankerific
02-11-2009, 10:58 PM
He trotted out Anderson much more often. Maybe I should use the old Brian Anderson defense that Rob wasn't getting consistent enough playing time to hit as well as he is capable.

Hopefully one day we'll get a decent centerfielder and won't be stuck comparing two guys with no business in a starting lineup.

Keep changing the goalposts, it wont help.

oeo
02-11-2009, 11:10 PM
How did a thread about Konerko become a BA thread again?:scratch:

I'm beginning to hate the guy just because of It's Dankerific.

champagne030
02-11-2009, 11:18 PM
I'm beginning to hate the guy just because of It's Dankerific.

You hate him already. :shrug:

It's Dankerific
02-11-2009, 11:19 PM
I'm beginning to hate the guy just because of It's Dankerific.

I never bring up Brian in a non-Brian thread. However, I will present the facts on Brian in any thread that bashes him.

Daver
02-11-2009, 11:27 PM
I just wish Kenny would trade him.

oeo
02-11-2009, 11:40 PM
You hate him already. :shrug:

I don't hate him. I think he's a fine fourth outfielder.

BadBobbyJenks
02-11-2009, 11:48 PM
I never bring up Brian in a non-Brian thread. However, I will present the facts on Brian in any thread that bashes him.

Actually you are the sole reason this became a Brian Anderson thread.

decolores9628
02-12-2009, 02:35 AM
I just wish Kenny would trade him.

Even though I am a FOBA I sort of wish this too, just so all this will stop lol

It's Dankerific
02-12-2009, 02:39 AM
Actually you are the sole reason this became a Brian Anderson thread.

Why don't you go back and read the thread again, see who mentions him first. Its not me.

sullythered
02-12-2009, 04:07 AM
I don't hate him. I think he's a fine fourth outfielder.
I agree completely. Unfortunately, I don't think we have a fine third outfielder.

Frater Perdurabo
02-12-2009, 06:52 AM
For the record, this was the first BA post of the thread:

Why do I suspect that you would give Brian Anderson a pass if he wasn't playing at 100%?

whitesox901
02-12-2009, 11:28 AM
*trying to steer thread back on track*

Paulie will do fine in 2009

.270+, 30+ HR, 80+ RBI (Whitesox901's projection)

FarmerAndy
02-12-2009, 01:42 PM
*trying to steer thread back on track*

Paulie will do fine in 2009

.270+, 30+ HR, 80+ RBI (Whitesox901's projection)

What formula resulted in this projection?

Anyway, I would love it if you were right. But if I were a betting man, I sure wouldn't put any money on it.

whitesox901
02-12-2009, 01:46 PM
What formula resulted in this projection?

Well you see, its wishful thinking, plus hoping and add some finger crossing :wink:

FedEx227
02-12-2009, 01:51 PM
Well you see, its wishful thinking, plus hoping and add some finger crossing :wink:

It's not way off from what the computers and other people have been saying.

Bill James had him at .267, 30 HR, 90 RBI

and a few others had him in that 25-30 HR range, with about 75-85 RBI.

ode to veeck
02-12-2009, 02:10 PM
I just wish Kenny would trade him.

its thermodynamics of clubhouse threads, all threads devolve towards more chaos and lowest (intelligent) energy states, aka BA threads

let's start a BA got traded to Giants to join Crede and Rowand rumor!

oeo
02-12-2009, 02:26 PM
its thermodynamics of clubhouse threads, all threads devolve towards more chaos and lowest (intelligent) energy states, aka BA threads

let's start a BA got traded to Giants to join Crede and Rowand rumor!

What, so Rowand can steal playing time from Anderson? :angry:

Frater Perdurabo
02-12-2009, 10:58 PM
I'm going to stand by my vow from last season.

I expect Paulie to produce a consistent .850 OPS.

If he falls below .850 at any time, I will rip him until he brings it above .850.

If he has a sub-.850 OPS month, I will shred him during that month.

I hope I don't have to criticize him at all.

drewcifer
02-13-2009, 02:49 AM
I'm going to stand by my vow from last season.

I expect Paulie to produce a consistent .850 OPS.

If he falls below .850 at any time, I will rip him until he brings it above .850.

He hasn't sniffed 850 in 2 years.

sullythered
02-13-2009, 04:16 AM
.289 34 102

Based on nothing but his being healthy and a hunch.

Frater Perdurabo
02-13-2009, 06:52 AM
He hasn't sniffed 850 in 2 years.

Alas, then it may be a long season.

jabrch
02-13-2009, 08:41 AM
He hasn't sniffed 850 in 2 years.

Were you watching August and September last year?

The sun rises.

The sun sets.

FP still dislikes PK.

None surprise me. One confuses me.

voodoochile
02-13-2009, 09:56 AM
He hasn't sniffed 850 in 2 years.

.841 in 2007 isn't sniffing .850? What is that, 2 hits over the course of a season with one of them being a double?

Then the final two months of last season when he finally got healthy he put up OPS of 1.074 and .970 for a total of .909 post All-star and 1.040 in the 4 game playoffs.

Yeah, he's toast. :rolleyes:

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 10:19 AM
It's not way off from what the computers and other people have been saying.

Bill James had him at .267, 30 HR, 90 RBI

and a few others had him in that 25-30 HR range, with about 75-85 RBI.
Bill James usually puts out the most nonsensical offensive projections. I'm surprised he didn't peg Paulie for a .300 BA.

oeo
02-13-2009, 10:36 AM
.841 in 2007 isn't sniffing .850? What is that, 2 hits over the course of a season with one of them being a double?

Then the final two months of last season when he finally got healthy he put up OPS of 1.074 and .970 for a total of .909 post All-star and 1.040 in the 4 game playoffs.

Yeah, he's toast. :rolleyes:

Shh...Paulie sucks.

khan
02-13-2009, 10:59 AM
.289 34 102

Based on nothing but his being healthy and a hunch.

Yeah, but how many stolen bases will Paulie get this year?

It's Dankerific
02-13-2009, 11:29 AM
Yeah, September stats are only valid when it supports your position. Otherwise its garbage time against AAA call-ups.

oeo
02-13-2009, 11:38 AM
Yeah, September stats are only valid when it supports your position. Otherwise its garbage time against AAA call-ups.

I'm definitely not in that crowd. :shrug:

It's Dankerific
02-13-2009, 12:17 PM
I'm definitely not in that crowd. :shrug:

Others are. Others are.