PDA

View Full Version : Why not TCQ leading off ??


JungleJimR
03-16-2009, 03:36 PM
What putting TCQ in leadoff does is-

- Improves the table setting for the other power guys (TCQ '08 OBP = .394). (This moves high OBP Thome up to third in lineup, and Dye and Konerko to 4th and 5th resp.).
- Definitely improves our defense by playing Anderson in CF thereby covering for the adequate at best --- Dye and TCQ.
- Strengthens our middle field defense coupled with Ramirez and Getz, leaving the only weak spot at third.
- In summary, this improves both our defense and, we argue, improves our run production.

Proposed Lineup
TCQ
Pierzynski
Thome
Dye
Konerko
TCM
Fields
Anderson
Getz

If Getz pans out - consider moving to 2nd spot and slot AJ behind TCM.

Marqhead
03-16-2009, 03:38 PM
No.

You don't put your run producing power hitters in the lead off spot.

doublem23
03-16-2009, 03:39 PM
Putting our #1 power/RBI guy between a ferocious threesome of Josh Fields, Brian Anderson, and Chris Getz does not increase run potential.

Lorenzo Barcelo
03-16-2009, 03:42 PM
Someone has been listening to the Score way too much from 12:00-2:00. Murph thinks this is a great idea.

LITTLE NELL
03-16-2009, 03:43 PM
I know we need a lead off man but not TCQ.

esbrechtel
03-16-2009, 03:46 PM
:mg:

This is definately one of those "cabin fever" threads...

spawn
03-16-2009, 03:47 PM
Someone has been listening to the Score way too much from 12:00-2:00. Murph thinks this is a great idea.
Maybe he is Murph...

SoxGirl4Life
03-16-2009, 04:03 PM
No :gah:

Chrisaway
03-16-2009, 04:04 PM
:?:What are we the Cubs? TCQ is our best hitter. You bat your best hitter #3.

jabrch
03-16-2009, 04:08 PM
Have Q play CF too.

Risk
03-16-2009, 04:14 PM
Great idea. Just like sending a manned mission to the Sun. (no teal necessary as sarcasm should be obvious).

Only Mike Murphy could come up with an idea that stupid.

Risk

Frontman
03-16-2009, 04:21 PM
Have Q play CF too.

Can't, he's already competing for the 5th spot in the rotation....

Oi, meaningful games cannot come soon enough......

Dibbs
03-16-2009, 04:28 PM
They probably should have had Frank lead off all of these years too, right?

Frontman
03-16-2009, 04:33 PM
They probably should have had Frank lead off all of these years too, right?

And Fisk play the outfield...wait; Harrelson actually wanted to try that. My bad.

Billy Ashley
03-16-2009, 04:43 PM
From a purely theoretical stand point- it would make sense to bat a teams best hitters in rank of best to worst. The more at bats a team gets a good hitter to have, and the fewer a bad one receives, the better.

That said, not one team has ever tried it. The reason is likely one of the following two reasons:

1)It doesn’t work.


2)The benefit is not worth pushing a player outside of their comfort zone. A guy like Quentin has likely been hitting in a “run producers” spot since he was 12. The minimal benefit from getting him 30 or so extra at bats a year isn’t worth upsetting the patterns he’s used to.


Personally, I don’t think how a manager lines up a batting order doesn’t mean a damn thing in the long run. That said, I can think of a number of players who have expressed concern over where they bat. So if the impact is minimal, why possibly ruin with a guys mojo.

thomas35forever
03-16-2009, 04:44 PM
What? You don't bat your best hitter first for a reason. You want to get at least one man on base that said hitter can hit in. That's why your fastest guy always bats leadoff: so that your best hitter has a chance to knock at least one more run in. Your best man leading off might be a good idea if you were playing schoolyard softball.

Billy Ashley
03-16-2009, 04:48 PM
What? You don't bat your best hitter first for a reason. You want to get at least one man on base that said hitter can hit in. That's why your fastest guy always bats leadoff: so that your best hitter has a chance to knock at least one more run in. Your best man leading off might be a good idea if you were playing schoolyard softball.

Speed better not be the main factor in determining who's a good lead off hitter. Michael Bourne is fast, he sucks. You don't get much faster than Willy Taverez, and he sucks as well.

I agree with you that it's ideal to have a faster runner lead off- but speed pales in comparison to OBP.

cws05champ
03-16-2009, 04:50 PM
No!! Because he does not bat left handed and is not fast!!

Eddo144
03-16-2009, 04:54 PM
What? You don't bat your best hitter first for a reason. You want to get at least one man on base that said hitter can hit in. That's why your fastest guy always bats leadoff: so that your best hitter has a chance to knock at least one more run in. Your best man leading off might be a good idea if you were playing schoolyard softball.
A fast hitter is actually more useful in front of poor hitters. Good hitters like Quentin don't need fast guys in front of them - they mash the ball regardless. Putting a speedy guy in front of someone like AJ, who's primarily a singles hitter, will maximize runs.

Eddo144
03-16-2009, 04:54 PM
They probably should have had Frank lead off all of these years too, right?
Nope. The 90s Sox had the second-best leadoff hitter of all time. His name was Tim Raines.

Hendu
03-16-2009, 04:56 PM
Wow. Yeah, let's put our best run producer behind the albatross at the bottom of our line-up. I can see it now...35 homers and 60 rbi. :D:

WhiteSox5187
03-16-2009, 05:00 PM
Nope. The 90s Sox had the second-best leadoff hitter of all time. His name was Tim Raines.

But didn't Lance Johnson leadoff the whole time Raines was here?

hi im skot
03-16-2009, 05:02 PM
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j146/sschaaf/kramerscared.gif

JermaineDye05
03-16-2009, 05:10 PM
I wasn't aware that Mike Murphy had a WSI account.

JungleJimR
03-16-2009, 05:17 PM
I will concede the point about the possible psychological problem for someone used to hitting in the middle of the order. (But even here I am not that concerned since TCQ is a level headed guy who just wants to help the team).

What matters ultimately is our team's total run production. And we argue here that while TCQ's rbi's will no doubt go down they will more than be offset by his increased runs scored. Since batting first gives him 40-50 more AB's/yr with a lot of power behind him.

Long time White Sox fans may agree that this current team is the most powerful in the team's history. Our problem is scoring more runs with the power we have, and not worrying about an individual's rbi totals.

Eddo144
03-16-2009, 05:28 PM
But didn't Lance Johnson leadoff the whole time Raines was here?
No, Cora did for a while (not sure why, but whatever), with Raines batting second. Johnson was primarily the seventh hitter.

Source: baseball-reference.com
1991: Raines led off 150 times (Huff 5, Johnson 3).
1992: Raines led off 87 times (Sax 55, Cora 12).
1993: Raines led off 102 times (Cora 38, Sax 15).
1994: Raines led off 47 times (Cora 27, Martin 24). He batted second 45 times.
1995: Raines led off 11 times (Johnson 115, Durham 14). He batted second 92 times.

I won't go into this, but legitimate research has concluded that your three best hitters should hit 1, 2, and 4 in the lineup. A non-technical way to look at this is that your #3 hitter will bat more often with two outs and none on that 1, 2, or 4.

Britt Burns
03-16-2009, 05:28 PM
But didn't Lance Johnson leadoff the whole time Raines was here?

No, Raines did. One Dog didn't start leading off until after Raines was gone.

Eddo144
03-16-2009, 05:29 PM
Long time White Sox fans may agree that this current team is the most powerful in the team's history. Our problem is scoring more runs with the power we have, and not worrying about an individual's rbi totals.
Couldn't agree more. The lower number of RBIs Quentin gets would possibly be offset (maybe even bested) by the number of RBIs other get due to hitting behind him.

areilly
03-16-2009, 06:03 PM
Your best man leading off might be a good idea if you were playing schoolyard softball.

Have you seen this team's construction? Schoolyard softball isn't too inaccurate a description.

JungleJimR
03-16-2009, 06:24 PM
Have you seen this team's construction? Schoolyard softball isn't too inaccurate a description.



Yeah, Industrial league softball!!!

Its what we got, so lets make the most of it!

soxinem1
03-16-2009, 10:29 PM
http://chud.com/nextraimages/BENNYHILLC&U2-1.jpg

'What??'

SOXPHILE
03-17-2009, 10:08 AM
Stop listening to Mike Murphy, as he is a jackass who knows absolutely NOTHING about any of the four sports. He is however, an expert on phony laughs, interupting people, and thinking that the styles of Wally Phillips and Dr. Dimento are cutting edge, raw, humor.

Frontman
03-17-2009, 12:14 PM
Stop listening to Mike Murphy, as he is a jackass who knows absolutely NOTHING about any of the four sports. He is however, an expert on phony laughs, interupting people, and thinking that the styles of Wally Phillips and Dr. Dimento are cutting edge, raw, humor.

"Why thanks SOXPHILE; love our posters....now, as I was saying, having Quentin lead off is statistically sound, right John Dejaun?"

"Actually Murph, you can make a case that it isn't statistically sound. If you look..."

[Murph interrupts] "Well, what would you know, John? You must think Santo doesn't belong in a Hall of Fame either, right?"

"Murph, I'm not on to debate that topic with you...again."

[Murph hangs up on John] "Musta been a Sox fan. Only they hate Santo that much to keep him out of the Hall of Fame."

CashMan
03-17-2009, 12:34 PM
"Why thanks SOXPHILE; love our posters....now, as I was saying, having Quentin lead off is statistically sound, right John Dejaun?"

"Actually Murph, you can make a case that it isn't statistically sound. If you look..."

[Murph interrupts] "Well, what would you know, John? You must think Santo doesn't belong in a Hall of Fame either, right?"

"Murph, I'm not on to debate that topic with you...again."

[Murph hangs up on John] "Musta been a Sox fan. Only they hate Santo that much to keep him out of the Hall of Fame."



You forgot to add a Brown's Chicken add in there!

Frontman
03-17-2009, 04:40 PM
You forgot to add a Brown's Chicken add in there!

Well thanks, Cashman. Love our posters. I was going to actually point out they have more than chicken at Brown's Chicken. You can get it the Chicago way. Get a sausage sandwich, get a beef sandwich; HEY you can them together, they call it a combo.

How about my favorite, Maxwell Street Polish....

pythons007
03-17-2009, 04:47 PM
Great idea. Just like sending a manned mission to the Sun. (no teal necessary as sarcasm should be obvious).

Only Mike Murphy could come up with an idea that stupid.

Risk

We could use somemore research on the Sun, why not send a man mission there?

rdwj
03-17-2009, 05:11 PM
We could use somemore research on the Sun, why not send a man mission there?

We just need to be smart about it and do it in the winter when it's cold. Night time might help too!

CashMan
03-17-2009, 05:12 PM
Well thanks, Cashman. Love our posters. I was going to actually point out they have more than chicken at Brown's Chicken. You can get it the Chicago way. Get a sausage sandwich, get a beef sandwich; HEY you can them together, they call it a combo.

How about my favorite, Maxwell Street Polish....

Somebody say tool?

bradchifan3
03-17-2009, 05:15 PM
I love how you all say you hate Mike Murphy, yet you know all of his phrases and what not.

CashMan
03-17-2009, 05:17 PM
I love how you all say you hate Mike Murphy, yet you know all of his phrases and what not.

When I did listen to talk radio, I was toooooo lazy to change the dial.

TheOzziePlan
03-17-2009, 05:19 PM
Wow. Yeah, let's put our best run producer behind the albatross at the bottom of our line-up. I can see it now...35 homers and 60 rbi. :D:

Haha "the albatross at the bottom of our line-up." Well put. Yeah this is the worst idea ever. What we need is to bring Ricky Henderson out of retirement again and lead off the first active hall of famer. OO or Ozzie! Can anyone say player/manager? Or we could bring Eddie Collins back from the dead- who's got a Necronomicon? Man the possibilities are endless...

SoxGirl4Life
03-17-2009, 05:21 PM
I love how you all say you hate Mike Murphy, yet you know all of his phrases and what not.

I think its like a car wreck too. Its so bad, you keep it on to be amazed at its badness.

Frontman
03-17-2009, 06:00 PM
I love how you all say you hate Mike Murphy, yet you know all of his phrases and what not.

I stopped listening 3 years ago; with the occasional catch him prior to a Sox pre-game. Guess what?

He's still doing the same gimmick. It's not hard to know all his phrases when he's used the same ones for 16 years.

Frater Perdurabo
03-17-2009, 06:35 PM
I stopped listening 3 years ago; with the occasional catch him prior to a Sox pre-game. Guess what?

He's still doing the same gimmick. It's not hard to know all his phrases when he's used the same ones for 16 years.

He had the same schtick when he was on WLS in the late 80s/early 90s.

Frontman
03-17-2009, 06:43 PM
He had the same schtick when he was on WLS in the late 80s/early 90s.

Well, thanks there Frater. Love our posters. Now, you gotta..clap-clap...see Jack...clap-clap DOT COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!

beasly213
03-17-2009, 06:48 PM
I hope this thread is off to the Roadhouse soon. It's becoming a bash Mike Murphy thread and honestly, that's just too easy.

A far as the actual thread goes,

Having Quentin lead off is a horrible idea.

Your top RBI guy when there is no one on base for him to drive in? Bad.

Your leadoff guy with no speed? Bad.

Being able to walk TCQ more often than not because the number two hitter is easier to get out than the number four hitter is also another one of the many reasons why this is arguably one of the dumbest ideas ever brought up in the history of sports talk radio.

tstrike2000
03-17-2009, 07:01 PM
This thread idea...ugh.

Eddo144
03-17-2009, 07:26 PM
Having Quentin lead off is a horrible idea.

Your top RBI guy when there is no one on base for him to drive in? Bad.
There's no such thing as an "RBI guy". Driving in a run is just as much a function of who's in front of you as how good a hitter you are. As it stands, Dewayne Wise and A.J. Pierzynski, a pair of out machines, are hitting in front of Quentin, so he's not going to have that many RBI opportunities.

Your leadoff guy with no speed? Bad.
Again, speed matters more in front of bad hitters today. In the 1960s, a low-scoring environment, it was smart to have fast guys in front of your best hitters. Today, however, you need to put your speed in front of primarily singles hitters, as your best hitters will be getting extra-base hits, which drive in slow runners just as easily.

Being able to walk TCQ more often than not because the number two hitter is easier to get out than the number four hitter is also another one of the many reasons why this is arguably one of the dumbest ideas ever brought up in the history of sports talk radio.
Here's a novel idea - change the #2 hitter as well. It deeply saddens me that the Sox are about have two guys who make outs at a worse rate than a league average hitter get the most at bats on the team.

Personally, I'd hit Thome ahead of Quentin. He gets on base the most of any non-Quentin Sox hitter, and it's vital to have guys on base for Carlos.

Frontman
03-17-2009, 08:02 PM
I never understood the idea of a guy who can put the ball into the seats on any swing being the leadoff hitter. You want to make the most of that power, and Quentin has power.

Eddo144
03-17-2009, 08:36 PM
I never understood the idea of a guy who can put the ball into the seats on any swing being the leadoff hitter. You want to make the most of that power, and Quentin has power.
That is true; home runs are best leveraged in the #2 slot, as generally you lead off with the guy who's going to get on base the most, maximizing the runs for those homers.

However, the Sox don't have any guys who get on base at a good enough clip besides Quentin and Thome. They do, however, have four power hitters in Quentin, Thome, Dye, and Konerko (and to an extent, Ramirez). I'd actually lead off with Thome, then Quentin, then Dye, Konerko, and Ramirez. I'd definitely have those five as the first five hitters; why set up your big bats with Wise and Pierzynski, two poor overall hitters (A.J.'s decent for a catcher, but only the very best catchers ever hit at the top of the order: Mauer, McCann, Martin, etc).

RedPinStripes
03-17-2009, 10:16 PM
:chunks

drewcifer
03-18-2009, 12:06 AM
That is true; home runs are best leveraged in the #2 slot, as generally you lead off with the guy who's going to get on base the most, maximizing the runs for those homers.

However, the Sox don't have any guys who get on base at a good enough clip besides Quentin and Thome. They do, however, have four power hitters in Quentin, Thome, Dye, and Konerko (and to an extent, Ramirez). I'd actually lead off with Thome, then Quentin, then Dye, Konerko, and Ramirez. I'd definitely have those five as the first five hitters; why set up your big bats with Wise and Pierzynski, two poor overall hitters (A.J.'s decent for a catcher, but only the very best catchers ever hit at the top of the order: Mauer, McCann, Martin, etc).

Holy ****. Thome would be dead by June 1. Brilliant.

Billy Ashley
03-18-2009, 12:38 AM
Holy ****. Thome would be dead by June 1. Brilliant.

Yes because apparently Jim Thome would drastically alter how he bats/ runs the bases should he bat lead off.

Unless you think he's so fragile that 1-2 extra plate appearances a game would kill him, you don't have a point.

I'm not in favor of Thome leading off- though I'm not totally against the notion of dispelling the need for an offense to have a conventional lead off hitter either.

The problem lies in the personnel and I don't think the White Sox have the players needed to re-invent the wheel. Someone in baseball will try to do so in the long run, probably not too long from now and if it works- great, if not it will probably not be talked about until a team does it out of necessity.

StillMissOzzie
03-18-2009, 01:40 AM
If the Sox did not lead the world in solo home runs last year, it sure felt like it. Leading off with TCQ for 20%-25% of his AB's will just add to this potential. I certainly hope not.

SMO
:gulp:

asindc
03-18-2009, 09:03 AM
I hope this thread is off to the Roadhouse soon. It's becoming a bash Mike Murphy thread and honestly, that's just too easy.

A far as the actual thread goes,

Having Quentin lead off is a horrible idea.

Your top RBI guy when there is no one on base for him to drive in? Bad.

Your leadoff guy with no speed? Bad.

Being able to walk TCQ more often than not because the number two hitter is easier to get out than the number four hitter is also another one of the many reasons why this is arguably one of the dumbest ideas ever brought up in the history of sports talk radio.

The part of your statement in bold is why this thread should have been Roadhoused long before it reached 50 posts. This is a ridiculous idea.

Eddo144
03-18-2009, 10:20 AM
Holy ****. Thome would be dead by June 1. Brilliant.
Why? Leading off isn't any tougher on your body that batting fourth or fifth? This is a mindless statement.

Is Thome the ideal leadoff man? No, of course not, but not because he's slow (speed is no more important for a leadoff man than it is for anywhere in the lineup). But the Sox don't have anyone capable of leading off. Might as well put a guy who's on base a lot in front of Quentin. Wise and Pierzysnki don't fit that mold.

jabrch
03-18-2009, 10:39 AM
I can't believe this thread is still alive.

Thome25
03-18-2009, 10:55 AM
:chunks

I've seen some bad ideas here at WSI but, this one is in the top 1 or 2.

Eddo144
03-18-2009, 12:17 PM
I've seen some bad ideas here at WSI but, this one is in the top 1 or 2.
Why, exactly? Just because it's tradition to make your lineup a certain way doesn't make it correct. Remember, these traditions started 100 years ago, when the game was totally different.

Heaven forbid people think outside the box. Baseball is the only sport that resists change like this. Football is a total copycat sport - look at the west coast offense, the spread offense, and the wildcat. Basketball strategy is constantly changing, from Auerbach's Celtics to Riley's Lakers to Daly' Pistons to Jackson's Bulls to Poppovich's Spurs. Yet baseball people act like the best strategy was discovered 100 years ago and there's no room for improvement.

OmarLittle
03-18-2009, 12:31 PM
Why isn't anyone actually giving real evidence or reasoning behind being against this idea?

I'm not saying I fully support it, but I read Eddo's posts and he makes a ton of great points. And all I see in response is pictures of guys puking.

asindc
03-18-2009, 01:53 PM
Why isn't anyone actually giving real evidence or reasoning behind being against this idea?

I'm not saying I fully support it, but I read Eddo's posts and he makes a ton of great points. And all I see in response is pictures of guys puking.

You should read all the posts in thread.

areilly
03-18-2009, 03:55 PM
Football is a total copycat sport - look at the west coast offense, the spread offense, and the wildcat.

It still saddens me the A-11 is illegal at the pro level.

jabrch
03-18-2009, 04:04 PM
Why isn't anyone actually giving real evidence or reasoning behind being against this idea?

I'm not saying I fully support it, but I read Eddo's posts and he makes a ton of great points. And all I see in response is pictures of guys puking.

You need evidence as to why it makes little sense to have one of the guys you project to have the most XBH hitting right after your three worst hitters?

**** smells. Do you need a olfactometer for me to prove it?

If you feel having a guy who will be (one of) your best XBH creator, one of your best sluggers, and one of your best hitters should be hitting #1, then you are welcome to prove that to yourself. To me - that's mental mastrubation in its finest form. Enjoy... But I don't need the math to tell you that, in my opinion, this is a bad idea.

Eddo144
03-18-2009, 04:13 PM
You need evidence as to why it makes little sense to have one of the guys you project to have the most XBH hitting right after your three worst hitters?
So hitting him third, after two hitters who get on base the least on the team, is better? OK. :shrug:

If you feel having a guy who will be (one of) your best XBH creator, one of your best sluggers, and one of your best hitters should be hitting #1, then you are welcome to prove that to yourself. To me - that's mental mastrubation in its finest form. Enjoy... But I don't need the math to tell you that, in my opinion, this is a bad idea.
I didn't see any math used to advocate Quentin leading off. :scratch:

jabrch
03-18-2009, 04:15 PM
So hitting him third, after two hitters who get on base the least on the team, is better? OK. :shrug:

If that's what you expect from #1 and #2, that's the problem. Don't compound it by making another mistake.


I didn't see any math used to advocate Quentin leading off. :scratch:

If you are talking about who has what OBP and how that determines who should hit where, how is that not math?

Frater Perdurabo
03-18-2009, 04:24 PM
The Sox simply don't have a productive leadoff hitter. Lillibridge and Owens are the most likely candidates, but Owens is playing himself off the roster entirely and Lillibridge seems to strike out too much. They don't even have a legitimate #2 hitter, although Getz COULD be that guy if he wins the 2B job. Given that situation, you might as well move up your core hitters so they get more ABs. Given who is on the roster, I'd put Alexei at leadoff. He doesn't walk much, but he can put himself into scoring position with his bat and with his legs. Here's the lineup:

Alexei, Getz, Quentin, Thome, Dye, Konerko, AJ, Fields, BA

At least that puts five guys in a row (8, 9, 1, 2, 3) who aren't "station to station" baserunners.

bradchifan3
03-18-2009, 04:27 PM
I'm thinking more along the lines of Getz leading off with TCM at the 2. I don't want back to back lefties when we only have 3 in the lineup.

1. Getz
2. Ramirez
3. Quentin
4. Dye
5. Thome
6. Konerko
7. Pierzynski
8. Fields
9. Anderson

This is a division winning everyday lineup. Move Quentin to lead-off and it is not a division winning lineup.

Eddo144
03-18-2009, 04:58 PM
If that's what you expect from #1 and #2, that's the problem. Don't compound it by making another mistake.
That's the worst defense I've ever heard. It's OK to have no one on base for Quentin because we expect our #1 and #2 to not be good hitters?

If you are talking about who has what OBP and how that determines who should hit where, how is that not math?
And you're using statements like "project to have the most XBH"; that's just as math-y as using OBP. There's math everywhere, jab, don't be afraid of it.

Eddo144
03-18-2009, 05:02 PM
I'm thinking more along the lines of Getz leading off with TCM at the 2. I don't want back to back lefties when we only have 3 in the lineup.

1. Getz
2. Ramirez
3. Quentin
4. Dye
5. Thome
6. Konerko
7. Pierzynski
8. Fields
9. Anderson

This is a division winning everyday lineup. Move Quentin to lead-off and it is not a division winning lineup.
To illustrate the futility of arguing lineup placement (which, by the way, the best lineup is only worth 15 more runs over 162 games than the worst lineup is):

Your lineup would progress like this:
Getz Ramirez Quentin Dye Thome Konerko Pierzynski Fields Anderson Getz Ramirez Quentin Dye Thome Konerko Pierzynski Fields Anderson Getz Ramirez Quentin Dye Thome Konerko Pierzynski Fields Anderson Getz Ramirez Quentin Dye Thome Konerko Pierzynski Fields Anderson Getz Ramirez Quentin Dye Thome Konerko Pierzynski Fields Anderson Getz Ramirez Quentin Dye...

Simply moving Quentin to leadoff would progress like this:
Quentin Dye Thome Konerko Pierzynski Fields Anderson Getz Ramirez Quentin Dye Thome Konerko Pierzynski Fields Anderson Getz Ramirez Quentin Dye Thome Konerko Pierzynski Fields Anderson Getz Ramirez Quentin Dye Thome Konerko Pierzynski Fields Anderson Getz Ramirez Quentin Dye Thome Konerko Pierzynski Fields Anderson Getz Ramirez Quentin Dye Thome Konerko Pierzynski...

After the first inning, not much difference. That's why I'd at least make sure some good hitters were in front of Quentin; let's get some guys on base for him to drive in.


You'll all note I'm not arguing for Quentin to lead off; I've actually said Thome should lead off, just so that he bats ahead of Quentin.

JungleJimR
03-18-2009, 05:48 PM
.

Is Thome the ideal leadoff man? No, of course not, but not because he's slow (speed is no more important for a leadoff man than it is for anywhere in the lineup). But the Sox don't have anyone capable of leading off. Might as well put a guy who's on base a lot in front of Quentin. Wise and Pierzysnki don't fit that mold.

You should be congratulated Eddo for hanging in there while a lot of venom is thrown at this thread. You do get it though. - We simply have such poor options for Nos. 1 & 2. I mean really poor - Everyone loves AJ at no. 2 yet his obp is below .335. Wise and Owens are not much better. And I'm afraid TCM is genetically allergic to walking. There's going to be far too many Sox first innings that start with no one on and two out. We will all watch in utter frustration.

Given this, Sox fans need to realize that we have to work with what we have. A Chone Figgins trade woud have solved 2 key problems - leadoff and good 3B defense. But we don't have that. What we do have is a slow team with a lot of power that plays at home in a hitters' ball park. Da!

I believe that management sees this but wants to work the margins by leading off a speedy Owens and posting him in Center. But this attempt to duplicate Pods and 2005 fails because of Owens' consistent failure to get on base. In addition Pods played left and not the critical center field. So this move adds a gaping defensive hole in center to one looming at 3rd.

I believe that this team should use as a model some of the very successful Oriole teams of the late 60's and early 70's. - Great starting pitching, a station to station slow team with good power, and great defense. While we will never match Brooks Robinson at third we could match the critical middle of Belanger, Blair and Johnson with Ramirez, Anderson, and Getz. Our overall pitching could approach theirs since while our starters still are improving our bull pen is stronger than theirs. Our hitting power is greater than theirs (the Robinsons and Bood Powell).

If we take this model then we need to fully optimize the production of our vast power by hitting the highest OBP players in front of the power, even it these players are relatively slow. While I appreciate your plug for Thome leading off, I really like the idea of a man on base with no greater than one out while Thome works the count. This is the first inning and the pitcher is facing walking a patient Thome to put 2 on for Dye and Konerko waiting on deck. I really relish this image, don't you? This situation is as good as Pods bugging the pitcher with his speed.

jabrch
03-18-2009, 06:05 PM
That's the worst defense I've ever heard. It's OK to have no one on base for Quentin because we expect our #1 and #2 to not be good hitters?

You said that - not me. If you want to put words in my mouth, try putting the right ones in.


And you're using statements like "project to have the most XBH"; that's just as math-y as using OBP. There's math everywhere, jab, don't be afraid of it.

Nobody is afraid of anything. What I said is that I don't need statistics to tell me that. If someone else does - fine with me. But don't come with your "afraid of statistics" bull****. I deal with statistics all day where they are meaningful. I don't believe in dealing with them where they have no significant meaning or where I don't need it to answer the question to my own satisfaction. So you take your "afraid of statistics" crap and stick it.

Eddo144
03-18-2009, 07:02 PM
You said that - not me. If you want to put words in my mouth, try putting the right ones in.
You're right, I misinterpreted your comment. You said that if we have poor #1 and #2 hitters, we shouldn't compound it by moving Quentin (or, as I argue, Thome) to the leadoff spot. But that would not compound the problem, it would fix it.

Problem: poor #1 and #2 hitters.
Solution: put better hitters (Thome and Quentin, in my scenario) in the #1 and #2 spots.

Nobody is afraid of anything. What I said is that I don't need statistics to tell me that. If someone else does - fine with me. But don't come with your "afraid of statistics" bull****. I deal with statistics all day where they are meaningful. I don't believe in dealing with them where they have no significant meaning or where I don't need it to answer the question to my own satisfaction. So you take your "afraid of statistics" crap and stick it.
Except you were dealing with statistics, that's what's hilarious. You used the phrase "project to have the most XBH" in regards to Quentin. How is that not using statistics, or at least math? "Most" is a math-related term, so your baseball-without-math world is not quite what you think it is.

jabrch
03-18-2009, 07:09 PM
so your baseball-without-math world is not quite what you think it is.

If you want to keep putting words in my mouth - go ahead. But I am done paying any attention to that sillyness.

I specifically said that I don't need math to understand that putting your best base creator at #1 is a bad idea. Nowhere did I talk about a "baseball-without-math world". There is a specific role for math in baseball - and that is to count. There is no role for math if it is to propose that you should hit a middle of the order hitter #1 because he gets on base. That's just flat out stupid.

Eddo144
03-18-2009, 07:44 PM
There is no role for math if it is to propose that you should hit a middle of the order hitter #1 because he gets on base. That's just flat out stupid.
Jab, I'll stop arguing the math thing because it's not the point of this thread, but why is is "flat out stupid"? Omar pointed out earlier that everyone against leading off with Quentin has no real reason other than "that's just the way it is" (paraphrasing). It only is that way because 100 years ago, in a totally different run-scoring environment, it was the best strategy.

What's your reasoning for Quentin being forced into the middle of the lineup? So that there are more guys on base for him? Well, hitting third, that won't be the case, since Wise and Pierzynski are not good hitters. You want to hit Quentin even lower so that he can be behind some combination of Dye, Thome, Konerko, and Ramirez? Then you're limiting his at bats, which seems absurd.

No, Quentin should definitely hit third at the lowest, which brings us back to my proposal: lead off Thome and hit Quentin second or third. This way, there would actually be someone for Quentin to drive in.

RedPinStripes
03-18-2009, 07:56 PM
Why isn't anyone actually giving real evidence or reasoning behind being against this idea?

I'm not saying I fully support it, but I read Eddo's posts and he makes a ton of great points. And all I see in response is pictures of guys puking.


There was only 1 picture of someone puking and that's all I have to say about the topic. Correction. There are 2.

jabrch
03-18-2009, 11:01 PM
which brings us back to my proposal: lead off Thome and hit Quentin second or third.

That's dumb.

Eddo144
03-19-2009, 12:04 AM
That's dumb.
Well jab, you've convinced me. You've presented such a good case. I guess baseball strategy was perfected in 1912.

jabrch
03-19-2009, 12:20 AM
Well jab, you've convinced me.

I made no attempt to convince you of anything.

You've presented such a good case.

And that's not my job. This is not class. This is not a debate. This is not a court of law. I don't have to present **** to you.

I guess baseball strategy was perfected in 1912.

That a fine non-sequitor - but a non-sequitor none-the-less. This has nothing to do at all with 1912. Since you brought it up, tell me of the great power hitters in 1912 who hit in the middle of the order?

Eddo144
03-19-2009, 10:00 AM
And that's not my job. This is not class. This is not a debate. This is not a court of law. I don't have to present **** to you.
Then why post here? Why make an argument if you don't plan on, you know, arguing it?

jabrch
03-19-2009, 10:32 AM
Then why post here? Why make an argument if you don't plan on, you know, arguing it?

I'm not arguing if Jim Thome should lead off. That's dumb.

OmarLittle
03-19-2009, 12:41 PM
You should read all the posts in thread.

Stuff like this is what I'm referring too:

Jab, I'll stop arguing the math thing because it's not the point of this thread, but why is is "flat out stupid"? Omar pointed out earlier that everyone against leading off with Quentin has no real reason other than "that's just the way it is" (paraphrasing). It only is that way because 100 years ago, in a totally different run-scoring environment, it was the best strategy.

What's your reasoning for Quentin being forced into the middle of the lineup? So that there are more guys on base for him? Well, hitting third, that won't be the case, since Wise and Pierzynski are not good hitters. You want to hit Quentin even lower so that he can be behind some combination of Dye, Thome, Konerko, and Ramirez? Then you're limiting his at bats, which seems absurd.

No, Quentin should definitely hit third at the lowest, which brings us back to my proposal: lead off Thome and hit Quentin second or third. This way, there would actually be someone for Quentin to drive in.

Good solid argument, backed up with actual reasoning.

And the response:

That's dumb.

I'm not arguing if Jim Thome should lead off. That's dumb.

Jim Shorts
03-19-2009, 03:06 PM
Stuff like this is what I'm referring too:



Good solid argument, backed up with actual reasoning.

And the response:

No. He lost me when he said AJ was not a good hitter. That and for over 100 years, the smartest baseball minds on the planet haven't agreed with his 'argument'

esbrechtel
03-19-2009, 03:22 PM
:o:

What the hell happened in this thread?!?

People are actually suggesting Thome to lead off?

TCQ would have to hit a HR every at bat to "drive Thome in"

Fast guys lead off so that they can steal second, get bunted or moved over on a ground ball and have your power hitter drive them in either via a single, sac fly, ect...

Or they can score from second on a single.

voodoochile
03-19-2009, 03:37 PM
:o:

What the hell happened in this thread?!?

People are actually suggesting Thome to lead off?

TCQ would have to hit a HR every at bat to "drive Thome in"

Fast guys lead off so that they can steal second, get bunted or moved over on a ground ball and have your power hitter drive them in either via a single, sac fly, ect...

Or they can score from second on a single.

NONONONO! All that matters is who reaches base the most. Nothing else should ever be considered. Speed, pitching matchups, side of the plate that you bat from, whether the bottom 3 guys are a complete black hole of power and will struggle to post a .300 OBP collectively, ability to hit behind the runner, etc. None of that stupid stuff matters. It's simply about getting the guys on base in front of TCQ. Nevermind that Thome will come close to matching TCQ for HR this season. That doesn't matter either. 100 years of thinking about this problem is clearly wrong. There's a new paradiagm in lineup strategy and some random WSI poster thought of it. I always knew we had the smartest fans of any website and this only reinforces that fact. WSI rules, baseball's braintrust drools...:cool:








:rolleyes:

Eddo144
03-19-2009, 03:46 PM
TCQ would have to hit a HR every at bat to "drive Thome in"
So, when Thome set that record by scoring in 30+ games to start the season in 2006, it was all due to home runs? Please.

Fast guys lead off so that they can steal second, get bunted or moved over on a ground ball and have your power hitter drive them in either via a single, sac fly, ect...

Or they can score from second on a single.
No, no, no, no, no. Why are you counting on power hitters to hit singles and sac flies? Your power hitters are so valuable because they hit doubles and home runs, which score just about any player.

Your strategy is, quite simply, outdated.

esbrechtel
03-19-2009, 03:48 PM
If my strategy is so out dated how come most MLB teams would love to have a speedy leadoff man?

Eddo144
03-19-2009, 03:50 PM
No. He lost me when he said AJ was not a good hitter. That and for over 100 years, the smartest baseball minds on the planet haven't agreed with his 'argument'
AJ is a good hitter for a catcher. However, catchers, in general, are very poor hitters. AJ is not a good hitter compared to all other positions. Just what makes him one? The fact he swings at absolutely everything? Or the fact that he hits for very little power?

The 100 years argument is trash. You know who led the league in home runs in 1909? Ty Cobb. He led off. I'll repeat that to give it the attention it deserves.

Eddo144
03-19-2009, 03:51 PM
If my strategy is so out dated how come most MLB teams would love to have a speedy leadoff man?
They wouldn't, unless he can actually get on base. Most front offices value speed appropriately; it's a good tool to have, but it's just as valuable at any spot in the lineup.

Eddo144
03-19-2009, 03:53 PM
NONONONO! All that matters is who reaches base the most. Nothing else should ever be considered. Speed, pitching matchups, side of the plate that you bat from, whether the bottom 3 guys are a complete black hole of power and will struggle to post a .300 OBP collectively, ability to hit behind the runner, etc. None of that stupid stuff matters. It's simply about getting the guys on base in front of TCQ. Nevermind that Thome will come close to matching TCQ for HR this season. That doesn't matter either. 100 years of thinking about this problem is clearly wrong. There's a new paradiagm in lineup strategy and some random WSI poster thought of it. I always knew we had the smartest fans of any website and this only reinforces that fact. WSI rules, baseball's braintrust drools...:cool:








:rolleyes:
To be fair, I did not come up with this idea.

Also, you really oversimplify my argument. Thome is far from an idea leadoff hitter, as there are more qualities that go into being one. But who on the Sox gives any of those qualities? And please don't say Jerry Owens because he's fast.

My hope is that Getz shows he can be a good major-league hitter, because his skillset seems to translate beautifully to being a leadoff hitter.

esbrechtel
03-19-2009, 03:54 PM
I am not saying that you find the fastest guy on your team and have him lead off....

Obviously you want a guy that can get on base and run thats a no brainer I am not arguing that.

I am arguing that Jim Thome should not be a lead off hitter...

voodoochile
03-19-2009, 04:12 PM
To be fair, I did not come up with this idea.

Also, you really oversimplify my argument. Thome is far from an idea leadoff hitter, as there are more qualities that go into being one. But who on the Sox gives any of those qualities? And please don't say Jerry Owens because he's fast.

My hope is that Getz shows he can be a good major-league hitter, because his skillset seems to translate beautifully to being a leadoff hitter.

The Sox scored 800+ runs last year with a guy who posted a .335 (or something) OBP and stole a total of ~15 bases leading off for the majority of the season. I think they can find someone to match those numbers.

Jim Shorts
03-19-2009, 04:25 PM
The 100 years argument is trash. You know who led the league in home runs in 1909? Ty Cobb. He led off. I'll repeat that to give it the attention it deserves.

Cobb had fewer than 12 home runs in 1909...how many of them were in-the-park homeruns? That don't wash.

Just because you shout something loud enough and long enough doesn't maker your point correct.

Eddo144
03-19-2009, 04:31 PM
Cobb had fewer than 12 home runs in 1909...how many of them were in-the-park homeruns? That don't wash.

Just because you shout something loud enough and long enough doesn't maker your point correct.
And that sort of proves my point. One hundred years ago, the league leader in home runs only had 9. Why should current teams use that strategy without actually, you know, asking why they're doing so?

I'm not just yelling things, I've at least made arguments with some reasoning. Meanwhile, everyone is just countering with "that's stupid" or "it's been this way 100 years, why change?"

And I'm still waiting to hear why AJ is a good hitter. Just because you shout something loud enough and long enough doesn't make your point correct.

jabrch
03-19-2009, 04:32 PM
I am arguing that Jim Thome should not be a lead off hitter...

I'm amazed you have to argue this point.

voodoochile
03-19-2009, 04:33 PM
And that sort of proves my point. One hundred years ago, the league leader in home runs only had 9. Why should current teams use that strategy without actually, you know, asking why they're doing so?

I'm not just yelling things, I've at least made arguments with some reasoning. Meanwhile, everyone is just countering with "that's stupid" or "it's been this way 100 years, why change?"

And I'm still waiting to hear why AJ is a good hitter. Just because you shout something loud enough and long enough doesn't make your point correct.
AJ posts a solid batting average with solid power and has good bat control. That's what makes him a good hitter especially for a catcher.

Konerko05
03-19-2009, 04:35 PM
I'm amazed you have to argue this point.

You argued with me early in the offseason that batting order does not matter.

Eddo144
03-19-2009, 04:45 PM
You argued with me early in the offseason that batting order does not matter.
For the most part, it doesn't. The difference between the best and worst lineups of a set of players comes out to under 15 runs over the course of a season, so we're really only arguing over a run every ten games or so.

Still, it's fun to think about.

Konerko05
03-19-2009, 04:49 PM
For the most part, it doesn't. The difference between the best and worst lineups of a set of players comes out to under 15 runs over the course of a season, so we're really only arguing over a run every ten games or so.

Still, it's fun to think about.

Well I don't know about all that. My point was it doesn't make sense for someone who says batting orders are meaningless to call your batting order "dumb" and "stupid."

jabrch
03-19-2009, 04:53 PM
You argued with me early in the offseason that batting order does not matter.


If I recall correctly, I said that as long as you didn't do something patently stupid that it didn't. This qualifies. Who were we specifically talking about and what slots? (I forget the detail)

Well I don't know about all that. My point was it doesn't make sense for someone who says batting orders are meaningless to call your batting order "dumb" and "stupid."

I said nothing about his batting order. I said the thought of hitting Thome #1 is stupid. How many runs of difference it makes is small - and hardly relevant. That doesn't make the idea not stupid.

kobo
03-19-2009, 05:30 PM
And that sort of proves my point. One hundred years ago, the league leader in home runs only had 9. Why should current teams use that strategy without actually, you know, asking why they're doing so?


Ty Cobb also hit .377 in 1909. He is the only player since 1909 to lead the league in homeruns without actually hitting one over the fence. You've been saying speed isn't that important at the top, but doesn't using this example sort of disprove that point?

Konerko05
03-19-2009, 06:09 PM
If I recall correctly, I said that as long as you didn't do something patently stupid that it didn't. This qualifies. Who were we specifically talking about and what slots? (I forget the detail)

I believe we were talking about Alfonso Soriano leading off. Soriano leading off is just as stupid because he gets on base less, and he hits homeruns following the pitcher's spot in the lineup.

I said nothing about his batting order. I said the thought of hitting Thome #1 is stupid. How many runs of difference it makes is small - and hardly relevant. That doesn't make the idea not stupid.

I'm not saying I agree with Thome batting lead off, I'm just wondering if you consider it stupid based on speed?

Konerko05
03-19-2009, 06:14 PM
Ty Cobb also hit .377 in 1909. He is the only player since 1909 to lead the league in homeruns without actually hitting one over the fence. You've been saying speed isn't that important at the top, but doesn't using this example sort of disprove that point?

Ty Cobb leading off in 1909 doesn't prove or disprove anything. It means a manager decided to bat Ty Cobb 1st in 1909.

jabrch
03-19-2009, 06:47 PM
I believe we were talking about Alfonso Soriano leading off. Soriano leading off is just as stupid because he gets on base less, and he hits homeruns following the pitcher's spot in the lineup.

And I agree with that as well - just that I don't think it makes a ton of difference at the end of the day in terms of runs scored over the course of 162. That doesn't mean it is smart, makes sense, isn't stupid.


I'm not saying I agree with Thome batting lead off, I'm just wondering if you consider it stupid based on speed?

No - I think it is stupid based on what Thome would do later in the order, the the value he provides to guys hitting before and after him.

Eddo144
03-19-2009, 06:53 PM
Ty Cobb also hit .377 in 1909. He is the only player since 1909 to lead the league in homeruns without actually hitting one over the fence. You've been saying speed isn't that important at the top, but doesn't using this example sort of disprove that point?
No, I'm using it as an example to show that the game is totally different today than it was when these "correct" strategies were decided upon.

JungleJimR
03-19-2009, 09:29 PM
AJ posts a solid batting average with solid power and has good bat control. That's what makes him a good hitter especially for a catcher.


My close friend with season tickets agrees that AJ did improve his plate discipline and concentration last year while batting second. My friend also agrees that given our lineup from 3-6, AJ should not be batting second. His low OBP just wastes opportunities for 3-6. One could say that he makes contact and "good outs" but I suggest that we should be focusing on getting base runners on base in front of a very powerful 3-6, not on making good outs.

I'm afraid that with continuing to bat AJ second to a low OBP leadoff batter all us Sox fans should get used to hearing the Hawk refrain - "and now Quentin steps in with no one on and two outs".

Billy Ashley
03-20-2009, 10:28 AM
I'm thinking more along the lines of Getz leading off with TCM at the 2. I don't want back to back lefties when we only have 3 in the lineup.

1. Getz
2. Ramirez
3. Quentin
4. Dye
5. Thome
6. Konerko
7. Pierzynski
8. Fields
9. Anderson

This is a division winning everyday lineup. Move Quentin to lead-off and it is not a division winning lineup.

This line wins the division if a lot of stuff break the right way- otherwise, it's pretty bad.

1) Who knows- would an OPS under 7 really be that shocking for Getz? How about an OBP under .340
2) Ramirez is not that good of a hitter. He's a very valuable player given his ability to play passable defense at difficult to fill positions and he has power, but would anyone be shcoked by a .280/.310/.500 line (I'm being pretty damn bullish with that projection btw). He's a useful player, but batting him 2nd will deflate his value as he's going to suck up a ton of outs.
3) Quentin- Great talent, great hitter. Coming off a broken wrist. Wrist injuries tend to zap power a ton for about a year. It's entirely possible Quentin will merely be a good hitter this year.
4) Dye- Good hitter, getting old- but still a good offensive player
5) Thome- Got no problem with Thome other than the issues I have with Dye (only magnified due to his age) Both are health concerns at this point.
6) I think Konerko is a really good candidate to break out in 09. He won't ever return to his 05/06 form but he's likely to post an .840ish OPS
7) Not a good hitter
8) worse
9) Worst

That offense has a pretty healthy chance of producing 5 batters with an OBP under .320. Two of those guys are batting before Quentin/Dye/Thome.

I don't agree with Eddo about Thome leading off- just because I doubt he'd be comfortable with it. However, theoretically a line up of Thome/Quentin/Dye/Thome/Ramirez/AJP/Fields/Anderson would likely score more runs than the one listed above.

Billy Ashley
03-20-2009, 10:32 AM
What this thread really tells me is that offensively, the white sox are going to have some issues this season.

Sure the combination for power/ home ball park will mask the issue but beyond Thome and Quentin- no one on the 2009 White Sox gets on base at a much higher clip than league average.

Could things come together and work out fine? Absolutely. It happens every once in a while but I would not bet on it.

voodoochile
03-20-2009, 10:43 AM
1) Who knows- would an OPS under 7 really be that shocking for Getz? How about an OBP under .340
2) Ramirez is not that good of a hitter. He's a very valuable player given his ability to play passable defense at difficult to fill positions and he has power, but would anyone be shcoked by a .280/.310/.500 line (I'm being pretty damn bullish with that projection btw). He's a useful player, but he's going to suck up a ton of outs.
3) Quentin- Great talent, great hitter. Coming off a broken wrist. Wrist injuries tend to zap power a ton for about a year. It's entirely possible Quentin will merely be a good hitter this year.
4) Dye- Good hitter, getting old- but still a good offensive player
5) Thome- Got no problem with Thome other than the issues I have with Dye (only magnified due to his age) Both are health concerns at this point.
6) I think Konerko is a really good candidate to break out in 09. He won't ever return to his 05/06 form but he's likely to post an .840ish OPS
7)(AJ) - Not a good hitter
8) (Fields) - worse
9) (platoon Wise/Anderson) Worst

That offense has a pretty healthy chance of producing 5 batters with an OBP under .320. Two of those guys are batting before Quentin/Dye/Thome.


Well, I guess we'll find out, but I take major issue with your analysis of AJ and Ramirez, both of whom you label bad hitters because they don't walk much. However, they both hit for a good average and will hit for power. It seems simplistic to label them bad hitters because they produce more outs than an average player when they make up for it by outslugging and out averaging an average hitter. Their OPS is certainly above average (AJ because of the position he plays).

In addition, lots of teams would like to have the Sox problem of having Fields batting 8th for them. He's probably going to post a .480 slg% this season even if he doesn't reach base a ton and K's a lot.

I don't have a major issue with your analysis of the 9 whole, but it dismisses the probable platoon that will hapepn there and if those two guys can come close to matching last year's splits against the pitchers they will most likely face then it's not a hole at all and could come close to an .800 OPS.

Yeah, the Sox are overloaded on power hitters again, but your dismissal of that fact as if it has no meaning in baseball is simplistic to say the least...

Billy Ashley
03-20-2009, 11:21 AM
Well, I guess we'll find out, but I take major issue with your analysis of AJ and Ramirez, both of whom you label bad hitters because they don't walk much. However, they both hit for a good average and will hit for power. It seems simplistic to label them bad hitters because they produce more outs than an average player when they make up for it by outslugging and out averaging an average hitter. Their OPS is certainly above average (AJ because of the position he plays).

In addition, lots of teams would like to have the Sox problem of having Fields batting 8th for them. He's probably going to post a .480 slg% this season even if he doesn't reach base a ton and K's a lot.

I don't have a major issue with your analysis of the 9 whole, but it dismisses the probable platoon that will hapepn there and if those two guys can come close to matching last year's splits against the pitchers they will most likely face then it's not a hole at all and could come close to an .800 OPS.

Yeah, the Sox are overloaded on power hitters again, but your dismissal of that fact as if it has no meaning in baseball is simplistic to say the least...

OPS is a great measurement but its largest failing is that it judges slugging percentage as equal to on base percentage. Slugging is worth a little more than half of OBP in regards to creating runs.

AJ posted a triple slash line .281/.312/.416 last season. Among all qualified catchers last season that ranks as the 6th best OPS out of 9. He Ranked 8th of 9 in OBP. If we expand that list to include catchers who had over 350 plate appearances he ranks 17th in OBP and 13th in OPS. Take into consideration that AJ also plays half his games in a very offensively friendly environment. He is what he is, a middle of the pack hitter for catchers who is awful defensively. That’s not a bad thing to be, but to argue that he’s a good hitter because of his position is overstating his offensive abilities.

Alexei Ramirez ranked 8th in OPS among qualified 2b, however he also ranked 13th of 16 qualified 2b. He’s a good player, I’m not debating that point- but much of his value comes from the fact that he has good power for a middle infielder. That’s a valuable player, but right now he’s the 3 or 4 best hitter on the team- that’s not a good sign.

Of the projection systems, the most bullish estimates on Fields OPS next season is around .460. That’s not to suggest he can’t do better, but that where impartial statistical analysis predicts he’ll be. The guy’s got serous contact rate issues- his strike out to walk rate was simply astounding… yes there are guys who have had similar rates and been successful- but they’re rare- additionally, they’re also usually guys who strike out 180-200 times and walk a hell of a lot. Fields on the other hand, seems more likely to walk about 30-40 times and whiff 140 times- that’s bad.

One misconception a lot of people have about those more inclined towards statistical analysis is that we don’t care about strike outs. It’s only half true- we care about strike outs in comparison to walks and age and development. Right now, Fields looks likely to strike out about 33% of his plate appearances- or about the same as Dan Uggla. This presents two problems and very well could mean a third.

1)Dan Uggla makes up for his contact rate issues with a very healthy walk rate- I don’t think there’s any chance of Fields doing so.
2)Players who demonstrate these trends tend to get old fast. I like Uggla, I like Adam Dunn… neither are likely to be playing at 35

And possibly 3) This massive disparity could possibly mean Fields has some pitch recognition issues (he can’t lay of breaking stuff off the plate). The reason this could be potentially devastating is that I’ve read scouts argue this point about him in the past (and as I’ve pointed out, the stats bear it that this could be possible) and it would also mean that Fields would likely only prosper against fast balls- something that would likely become common knowledge around the league fast.

Tony Armas had a similar skill set to Fields- he wasn’t a good player- though he did knock a lot of mistakes out of the yard. I expect the same from Fields. I said it last year and I'll say it agin-

If the White Sox are competitive it will be because of their pitching. Last year the gamble was on Floyd and Danks (I ended up being half right on them thus far). This year, it will depend on those two again along with whoever makes up the 3-5 spots. Trading Vasquez was a mistake.

Fixed the brain fart

Eddo144
03-20-2009, 11:28 AM
Well, I guess we'll find out, but I take major issue with your analysis of AJ and Ramirez, both of whom you label bad hitters because they don't walk much. However, they both hit for a good average and will hit for power. It seems simplistic to label them bad hitters because they produce more outs than an average player when they make up for it by outslugging and out averaging an average hitter. Their OPS is certainly above average (AJ because of the position he plays).
The problem with looking at batting average for young players like Alexei is that it fluctuates year to year. If Alexei's average drops 30 points, which is entirely possible due to a variety of factors, he'll make that many more outs, because his walk rate is low. (What good is "out averaging an average hitter" if you're still making more outs than an average hitter? The slugging, obviously, is a great thing, but batting average is just another, more incomplete, way to measure how often a player makes outs.)

The upside, though, is that walk rate is something players develop as they mature, so it seems silly to write off Alexei yet.

Billy-
You can't just look at qualifying catchers when judging AJ's OPS. The fact that any catcher even gets that many plater appearances is a very good sign. Saying AJ is 6th out of 9 is rather misleading. There are 30 teams that need catchers. Either use combinations of catchers from those teams or lower the qualifying bar for that position.

kitekrazy
03-20-2009, 11:36 AM
Someone has been listening to the Score way too much from 12:00-2:00. Murph thinks this is a great idea.

Yeah, lets borrow ideas from a team with poor post season production.

voodoochile
03-20-2009, 11:42 AM
The problem with looking at batting average for young players like Alexei is that it fluctuates year to year. If Alexei's average drops 30 points, which is entirely possible due to a variety of factors, he'll make that many more outs, because his walk rate is low. (What good is "out averaging an average hitter" if you're still making more outs than an average hitter? The slugging, obviously, is a great thing, but batting average is just another, more incomplete, way to measure how often a player makes outs.)

The upside, though, is that walk rate is something players develop as they mature, so it seems silly to write off Alexei yet.

Billy-
You can't just look at qualifying catchers when judging AJ's OPS. The fact that any catcher even gets that many plater appearances is a very good sign. Saying AJ is 6th out of 9 is rather misleading. There are 30 teams that need catchers. Either use combinations of catchers from those teams or lower the qualifying bar for that position.

TCM's average might drop, but he also might end up walking more. Guys tend to become more patient as they get comfortable.

Personally, I think walks are over rated as a run producing tool. Yeah, they matter, but swinging the bat effectively is still the best way to score runs in bunches...

jabrch
03-20-2009, 11:49 AM
Personally, I think walks are over rated as a run producing tool. Yeah, they matter, but swinging the bat effectively is still the best way to score runs in bunches...


When you face good pitchers who throw strikes, your walk rate will be very very low.

Eddo144
03-20-2009, 11:55 AM
TCM's average might drop, but he also might end up walking more. Guys tend to become more patient as they get comfortable.

Personally, I think walks are over rated as a run producing tool. Yeah, they matter, but swinging the bat effectively is still the best way to score runs in bunches...
No one with any brains will tell you walks are as important as hits, that ridiculous.

However, where a walk is important is that it's not making an out. Would you rather have a player draw a walk or swing at a pitcher's pitch and groundout because he was trying too hard for a hit? It seems like a no-brainer to me.

No one has a problem with Alexei's high average. A high batting average is great. What critical people point out is that he still makes more outs than an average player with that batting average, because he walks so little.

And you're absolutely right, he could walk more - it's a learned skill, so players generally get better at it over their first few years in the league.

bradchifan3
03-20-2009, 11:55 AM
OPS is a great measurement but its largest failing is that it judges slugging percentage as equal to on base percentage. Slugging is worth a little more than half of slugging in regards to creating runs.

AJ posted a triple slash line .281/.312/.416 last season. Among all qualified catchers last season that ranks as the 6th best OPS out of 9. He Ranked 8th of 9 in OBP. If we expand that list to include catchers who had over 350 plate appearances he ranks 17th in OBP and 13th in OPS. Take into consideration that AJ also plays half his games in a very offensively friendly environment. He is what he is, a middle of the pack hitter for catchers who is awful defensively. Thatís not a bad thing to be, but to argue that heís a good hitter because of his position is overstating his offensive abilities.

Alexei Ramirez ranked 8th in OPS among qualified 2b, however he also ranked 13th of 16 qualified 2b. Heís a good player, Iím not debating that point- but much of his value comes from the fact that he has good power for a middle infielder. Thatís a valuable player, but right now heís the 3 or 4 best hitter on the team- thatís not a good sign.

Of the projection systems, the most bullish estimates on Fields OPS next season is around .460. Thatís not to suggest he canít do better, but that where impartial statistical analysis predicts heíll be. The guyís got serous contact rate issues- his strike out to walk rate was simply astoundingÖ yes there are guys who have had similar rates and been successful- but theyíre rare- additionally, theyíre also usually guys who strike out 180-200 times and walk a hell of a lot. Fields on the other hand, seems more likely to walk about 30-40 times and whiff 140 times- thatís bad.

One misconception a lot of people have about those more inclined towards statistical analysis is that we donít care about strike outs. Itís only half true- we care about strike outs in comparison to walks and age and development. Right now, Fields looks likely to strike out about 33% of his plate appearances- or about the same as Dan Uggla. This presents two problems and very well could mean a third.

1)Dan Uggla makes up for his contact rate issues with a very healthy walk rate- I donít think thereís any chance of Fields doing so.
2)Players who demonstrate these trends tend to get old fast. I like Uggla, I like Adam DunnÖ neither are likely to be playing at 35

And possibly 3) This massive disparity could possibly mean Fields has some pitch recognition issues (he canít lay of breaking stuff off the plate). The reason this could be potentially devastating is that Iíve read scouts argue this point about him in the past (and as Iíve pointed out, the stats bear it that this could be possible) and it would also mean that Fields would likely only prosper against fast balls- something that would likely become common knowledge around the league fast.

Tony Armas had a similar skill set to Fields- he wasnít a good player- though he did knock a lot of mistakes out of the yard. I expect the same from Fields. I said it last year and I'll say it agin-

If the White Sox are competitive it will be because of their pitching. Last year the gamble was on Floyd and Danks (I ended up being half right on them thus far). This year, it will depend on those two again along with whoever makes up the 3-5 spots. Trading Vasquez was a mistake.

Go work for Baseball Prospectus. But here in the real world we care about W's. I don't understand why there is so much negativity coming from you but you are certainly underestimating our hitting. I enjoy life much more when I think optimistically. And I could understand your argument if you were more realistic, but you are straight hating right now and I honestly can't tell from where it is coming.

Eddo144
03-20-2009, 11:55 AM
When you face good pitchers who throw strikes, your walk rate will be very very low.
That's been proven false time and time again. Walk rates in the playoffs are actually slightly higher than walk rates in the regular season, for example.

Eddo144
03-20-2009, 11:56 AM
Go work for Baseball Prospectus. But here in the real world we care about W's. I don't understand why there is so much negativity coming from you but you are certainly underestimating our hitting. I enjoy life much more when I think optimistically. And I could understand your argument if you were more realistic, but you are straight hating right now and I honestly can't tell from where it is coming.
But when you "hate" on Jerry Owens, it's OK? :rolleyes:

bradchifan3
03-20-2009, 11:57 AM
But when you "hate" on Jerry Owens, it's OK? :rolleyes:

The difference is that Jerry Owens is an awful baseball player. I mean have you ever watched him play? He looks completely lost out there. He should be a DB for the Bears because he certainly can't play baseball.

Nellie_Fox
03-20-2009, 12:03 PM
Slugging is worth a little more than half of slugging in regards to creating runs. Interesting concept. How do you do the math on that? Do you cut slugging in half, or double the other slugging?

OmarLittle
03-20-2009, 12:12 PM
Interesting concept. How do you do the math on that? Do you cut slugging in half, or double the other slugging?

It looks like that was a typo, way to argue the point though.

voodoochile
03-20-2009, 12:19 PM
It looks like that was a typo, way to argue the point though.

What point? Obviously, one of the words "slugging" should be replaced with the word "OBP". Which one is it, oh great interpreter of poorly worded posts?

Nellie_Fox
03-20-2009, 12:23 PM
It looks like that was a typo, way to argue the point though."Typo" is a catch-all excuse used by people who don't even know what "typo" means. A "typo," or typographical error, is when your fingers mistakenly hit the wrong keys, such as typing "teh" for "the." It is not when you misspell or use the wrong word.

The result of the post that I was teasing is that I don't know which he considers more important in OPS, OBP or slugging.

Billy Ashley
03-20-2009, 02:48 PM
What point? Obviously, one of the words "slugging" should be replaced with the word "OBP". Which one is it, oh great interpreter of poorly worded posts?

The point is that my point still stands, poorly worded or not.

Slugging is worth about half of OBP- think about it this way-

If a guy hits a single, is he literally half as likely to score as a guy who hits a singe? Not, of course not. Is a triple 25% more likely to score than a 2b? Again, not really.

Slugging is very valuable but nowhere near as valuable as the ability to get on base with out creating an out.

Also, nice of you to ignore the part of the post where I compare AJ to catchers.

Billy Ashley
03-20-2009, 02:49 PM
"Typo" is a catch-all excuse used by people who don't even know what "typo" means. A "typo," or typographical error, is when your fingers mistakenly hit the wrong keys, such as typing "teh" for "the." It is not when you misspell or use the wrong word.

The result of the post that I was teasing is that I don't know which he considers more important in OPS, OBP or slugging.


If you read the rest of the post, it was pretty clear I meant to write that OBP is worth about twice as much as slugging.

Billy Ashley
03-20-2009, 02:57 PM
The problem with looking at batting average for young players like Alexei is that it fluctuates year to year. If Alexei's average drops 30 points, which is entirely possible due to a variety of factors, he'll make that many more outs, because his walk rate is low. (What good is "out averaging an average hitter" if you're still making more outs than an average hitter? The slugging, obviously, is a great thing, but batting average is just another, more incomplete, way to measure how often a player makes outs.)

The upside, though, is that walk rate is something players develop as they mature, so it seems silly to write off Alexei yet.

Billy-
You can't just look at qualifying catchers when judging AJ's OPS. The fact that any catcher even gets that many plater appearances is a very good sign. Saying AJ is 6th out of 9 is rather misleading. There are 30 teams that need catchers. Either use combinations of catchers from those teams or lower the qualifying bar for that position.

Eddo, I've made my arguments about AJ numerous times but perhaps you've missed those posts.

I think he's a fine catcher- I don't think he's a liability for a contending ball club. I do think he's overrated as all hell on this board though. His main value comes from the fact that he's very durable (which by itself is incredibly valuable).

The catchers I included in that list of 16 included Soto, Innatta, Doumit, Shoppach, Y. Molina, Navaro, Chris Snyder. Each one of those guys caught a full load, they just missed the cut off due to walks or the fact that their managers were more conservative with them. Aside from Shoppach, I feel pretty confortable in stating that those guys are all better players.

Billy Ashley
03-20-2009, 03:07 PM
Go work for Baseball Prospectus. But here in the real world we care about W's. I don't understand why there is so much negativity coming from you but you are certainly underestimating our hitting. I enjoy life much more when I think optimistically. And I could understand your argument if you were more realistic, but you are straight hating right now and I honestly can't tell from where it is coming.

They wouldn't hire me. Cristina Karl is too crappy of an editor to deal with my constant stream of typos and mistakes caused by lazy writing.

I'm glad realism now counts for hating.

Eddo144
03-20-2009, 03:37 PM
Eddo, I've made my arguments about AJ numerous times but perhaps you've missed those posts.

I think he's a fine catcher- I don't think he's a liability for a contending ball club. I do think he's overrated as all hell on this board though. His main value comes from the fact that he's very durable (which by itself is incredibly valuable).

The catchers I included in that list of 16 included Soto, Innatta, Doumit, Shoppach, Y. Molina, Navaro, Chris Snyder. Each one of those guys caught a full load, they just missed the cut off due to walks or the fact that their managers were more conservative with them. Aside from Shoppach, I feel pretty confortable in stating that those guys are all better players.
OK. I get what you're saying. Yes, AJ is overrated here, but that's true of just about every current White Sox player, unless you get in the fans' doghouse, like Swisher or Erstad.

voodoochile
03-20-2009, 03:40 PM
The point is that my point still stands, poorly worded or not.

Slugging is worth about half of OBP- think about it this way-

If a guy hits a single, is he literally half as likely to score as a guy who hits a singe? Not, of course not. Is a triple 25% more likely to score than a 2b? Again, not really.

Slugging is very valuable but nowhere near as valuable as the ability to get on base with out creating an out.

Also, nice of you to ignore the part of the post where I compare AJ to catchers.

Just curious where you get this stuff. I disagree completely.

Look at it from the other perspective. With base runners on, hitting for power is ALWAYS more valuable than walking. MLB teams averaged ~5500 AB last year and ~2400 of them were with runners on base. That's close to 44% of the time that players batted with runners on base. In almost ALL of those cases, a base hit or better is more valuable than a walk.

SLG % is the number of bases per AB a player generates.

OBP is the number of times they reach base per PA.

I don't see how reaching base 40% of the time (exceptional OBP production) is more valuable than averaging 0.5 bases/AB (exceptional slg production). In fact, it can be argued that 40%<50% so it seems slg is more valuable at least from a simplistic viewpoint.

So I ask again, where do you get your stats from?

bradchifan3
03-20-2009, 04:10 PM
The point is that my point still stands, poorly worded or not.

Slugging is worth about half of OBP- think about it this way-

If a guy hits a single, is he literally half as likely to score as a guy who hits a singe? Not, of course not. Is a triple 25% more likely to score than a 2b? Again, not really.

Slugging is very valuable but nowhere near as valuable as the ability to get on base with out creating an out.

Also, nice of you to ignore the part of the post where I compare AJ to catchers.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you learn how to type and make sense, then we can have a conversation but I can't understand you.

Eddo144
03-20-2009, 04:20 PM
I don't see how reaching base 40% of the time (exceptional OBP production) is more valuable than averaging 0.5 bases/AB (exceptional slg production). In fact, it can be argued that 40%<50% so it seems slg is more valuable at least from a simplistic viewpoint.
Ah, you've made a bad assumption here, voodoo. That 40% OBP does not just consist of walks and singles; rather, a good amount of that is extra-base hits. Also, you need to look at difference between peers. A .400 OBP is very impressive if the league averages .300, but a .500 SLG is not if the league averages .495.

It sounds like you'd like Weighted On Base Average (wOBA), voodoo, developed by the authors of The Book, Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin. Basically, it counts a single as 1.24 walks, a double as 1.74, a triple as 2.21, and a home run as 2.74 - so it fixes the problem with slugging that walks are omitted, and the problem with OBP that every hit or walk counts with the same weight (source (http://www.insidethebook.com/woba.shtml)).

voodoochile
03-20-2009, 04:30 PM
Ah, you've made a bad assumption here, voodoo. That 40% OBP does not just consist of walks and singles; rather, a good amount of that is extra-base hits. Also, you need to look at difference between peers. A .400 OBP is very impressive if the league averages .300, but a .500 SLG is not if the league averages .495.

It sounds like you'd like Weighted On Base Average (wOBA), voodoo, developed by the authors of The Book, Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin. Basically, it counts a single as 1.24 walks, a double as 1.74, a triple as 2.21, and a home run as 2.74 - so it fixes the problem with slugging that walks are omitted, and the problem with OBP that every hit or walk counts with the same weight (source (http://www.insidethebook.com/woba.shtml)).

Maybe they could just add back in the walks to SLG and create a better stat:

1B + (2*2B) + (3*3B) + (4*HR) + BB
_______________________________
PA

Seems it would solve the problem of walks not being counted toward SLG very easily.

Years ago I proposed a stat on these forums for Total Bases Generated (TBG) which would include all the bases a batter created when they did anything positive.

A walk or single with bases empty would be worth 1.

A single with a man on first where the runner went to third would be worth 3.

A double with a man on first who scored would be worth 5 (2+3).

A grand slam would be worth 10 and would be the ultimate score a player could achieve in a single AB.

You could even include SF and SH as 1 or 2 or even 3 depending on how many runners there were and how far they moved up.

I can't picture it would be that hard to track and IMO would be the ultimate all-encompassing stat to show a players offensive worth.

You could divide it by PA to get a TBGPPA stat that would be a simple number to wrap your head around as opposed to trying to consider whether 500 TBG is a good number in August.

So there ya go. Feel free to take the ball and run with it. All I ask is that if you sell it to BP, you give me a cut and a co-author listing...

Billy Ashley
03-20-2009, 04:40 PM
Maybe they could just add back in the walks to SLG and create a better stat:

1B + (2*2B) + (3*3B) + (4*HR) + BB
_______________________________
PA

Seems it would solve the problem of walks not being counted toward SLG very easily.

Years ago I proposed a stat on these forums for Total Bases Generated (TBG) which would include all the bases a batter created when they did anything positive.

A walk or single with bases empty would be worth 1.

A single with a man on first where the runner went to third would be worth 3.

A double with a man on first who scored would be worth 5 (2+3).

A grand slam would be worth 10 and would be the ultimate score a player could achieve in a single AB.

You could even include SF and SH as 1 or 2 or even 3 depending on how many runners there were and how far they moved up.

I can't picture it would be that hard to track and IMO would be the ultimate all-encompassing stat to show a players offensive worth.

You could divide it by PA to get a TBGPPA stat that would be a simple number to wrap your head around as opposed to trying to consider whether 500 TBG is a good number in August.

So there ya go. Feel free to take the ball and run with it. All I ask is that if you sell it to BP, you give me a cut and a co-author listing...

This sounds like what WPA is trying to do, only WPA also assesses the situation (how many outs, what the score is and so on.). It's useful, but I'm not sure how predictive it can be-

unless we come to believe that hitting with men on base is a specific skill. Personally, I believe it to be generally not a skill (though there have been examples of players who seem to excel/ wilt in these spots over sustained periods of plate appearances). Personally, I like WOBA but I've never really personally tested it.

jabrch
03-20-2009, 04:42 PM
Maybe they could just add back in the walks to SLG and create a better stat:

1B + (2*2B) + (3*3B) + (4*HR) + BB
_______________________________
PA

Seems it would solve the problem of walks not being counted toward SLG very easily.

Years ago I proposed a stat on these forums for Total Bases Generated (TBG) which would include all the bases a batter created when they did anything positive.

A walk or single with bases empty would be worth 1.

A single with a man on first where the runner went to third would be worth 3.

A double with a man on first who scored would be worth 5 (2+3).

A grand slam would be worth 10 and would be the ultimate score a player could achieve in a single AB.

You could even include SF and SH as 1 or 2 or even 3 depending on how many runners there were and how far they moved up.

I can't picture it would be that hard to track and IMO would be the ultimate all-encompassing stat to show a players offensive worth.

You could divide it by PA to get a TBGPPA stat that would be a simple number to wrap your head around as opposed to trying to consider whether 500 TBG is a good number in August.

So there ya go. Feel free to take the ball and run with it. All I ask is that if you sell it to BP, you give me a cut and a co-author listing...


Problem with something like this is you are measuring something that a player has no control over (how many people are on base for him to drive in) My HR with nobody on base is worth less than your GS because of how many guys were on ahead of you - which you have (very) little control of or impact on.

There is no single good stat to compare two players. You need much more than one stat to do it - and you also need more than just stats to be accurate.

Billy Ashley
03-20-2009, 04:42 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about. If you learn how to type and make sense, then we can have a conversation but I can't understand you.

nwhahaha, sorry I've been hanging out with some old college friends today and am totally drunk. I meant is a double worth twice as much a single. I would hope that was obvious because I later spoke of the difference between a double and a triple- however, forgive me if I'm not lucid today. I'm not much for drinking anymore, and my friends have had me drinking since the AM and thus, I'm not making much sense.

Frater Perdurabo
03-20-2009, 04:44 PM
Maybe they could just add back in the walks to SLG and create a better stat:

1B + (2*2B) + (3*3B) + (4*HR) + BB
_______________________________
PA

Seems it would solve the problem of walks not being counted toward SLG very easily.

Years ago I proposed a stat on these forums for Total Bases Generated (TBG) which would include all the bases a batter created when they did anything positive.

A walk or single with bases empty would be worth 1.

A single with a man on first where the runner went to third would be worth 3.

A double with a man on first who scored would be worth 5 (2+3).

A grand slam would be worth 10 and would be the ultimate score a player could achieve in a single AB.

You could even include SF and SH as 1 or 2 or even 3 depending on how many runners there were and how far they moved up.

I can't picture it would be that hard to track and IMO would be the ultimate all-encompassing stat to show a players offensive worth.

You could divide it by PA to get a TBGPPA stat that would be a simple number to wrap your head around as opposed to trying to consider whether 500 TBG is a good number in August.

So there ya go. Feel free to take the ball and run with it. All I ask is that if you sell it to BP, you give me a cut and a co-author listing...

I like it, but it also could fluctuate significantly based on who is batting and/or on base (or not on base) in front of you. So I have some quibbles...

For example, whoever hits behind Paulie would get "penalized" because Paulie can't advance two bases on a single. Another example is Quentin, who as the #3 hitter, given the fact that the Sox don't have high-OBP guys in front of him, won't have as many opportunities to advance runners as #3 hitters on other teams. In other words, your TBG stat - like RBIs - is not independent of other hitters.

I know you brought up your TBG stat in a stolen base discussion: guys get +1 for stealing a base and -1 for getting thrown out attempting to steal. How about getting a +1 for going from first to third or second to home on a single, or from first to home on a double? This reflects the value of running bases well.

What about penalizing slow runners for clogging the bases?

What about rewarding baserunners who break up double plays?

What about rewwarding baserunners who cause pitchers to make mistakes like overthrowing a pickoff attempt or serving up a meatball that the batter crushes?

:tongue:

voodoochile
03-20-2009, 04:47 PM
This sounds like what WPA is trying to do, only WPA also assesses the situation (how many outs, what the score is and so on.). It's useful, but I'm not sure how predictive it can be-

unless we come to believe that hitting with men on base is a specific skill. Personally, I believe it to be generally not a skill (though there have been examples of players who seem to excel/ wilt in these spots over sustained periods of plate appearances). Personally, I like WOBA but I've never really personally tested it.

I don't use stats for predictive purposes other than in a very general way (I expect Konerko to post an OPS in the .850 area this year - for example). I don't think you truly can model enough factors in baseball to actually build a predictive model. There's too many human and environmental factors in any given game. If you can find a way to model human emotions into the equation, you could get somewhere, maybe, but since there's up to 45 people involved in the actual playing of any given game (roughly, including the umps, managers and coaches but not the fans), I think it's a lost cause.

voodoochile
03-20-2009, 04:50 PM
I like it, but it also could fluctuate significantly based on who is batting and/or on base (or not on base) in front of you. So I have some quibbles...

For example, whoever hits behind Paulie would get "penalized" because Paulie can't advance two bases on a single. Another example is Quentin, who as the #3 hitter, given the fact that the Sox don't have high-OBP guys in front of him, won't have as many opportunities to advance runners as #3 hitters on other teams. In other words, your TBG stat - like RBIs - is not independent of other hitters.

I know you brought up your TBG stat in a stolen base discussion: guys get +1 for stealing a base and -1 for getting thrown out attempting to steal. How about getting a +1 for going from first to third or second to home on a single, or from first to home on a double? This reflects the value of running bases well.

What about penalizing slow runners for clogging the bases?

What about rewarding baserunners who break up double plays?

What about rewwarding baserunners who cause pitchers to make mistakes like overthrowing a pickoff attempt or serving up a meatball that the batter crushes?

:tongue:

I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible. What about the guy who scores from second on a single because of where the ball was hit? You get a hit and the runner for whatever reason takes an extra base, you get credit, period. After all, without the hit, the runner couldn't take ANY bases. The rest is for ****s and giggles...

Jim Shorts
03-20-2009, 04:50 PM
And that sort of proves my point. One hundred years ago, the league leader in home runs only had 9. Why should current teams use that strategy without actually, you know, asking why they're doing so?

I'm not just yelling things, I've at least made arguments with some reasoning. Meanwhile, everyone is just countering with "that's stupid" or "it's been this way 100 years, why change?"

And I'm still waiting to hear why AJ is a good hitter. Just because you shout something loud enough and long enough doesn't make your point correct.

He hovers around .300 year in and year out....I'll take that type of production from my catcher who lacks power.

And my point wasn't the 100 years, but rather do you think you're the only person who has thought of such ground breaking ideas? The game is nearly as old as you, your father and his father combined, but some guy on a message board is going to revolutionize the game?

Frater Perdurabo
03-20-2009, 04:56 PM
I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible.

Therein lies the problem with relying on stats. In the effort to quantify the game, so much of the subtlety is lost.

Frater Perdurabo
03-20-2009, 04:57 PM
I don't use stats for predictive purposes other than in a very general way (I expect Konerko to post an OPS in the .850 area this year - for example). I don't think you truly can model enough factors in baseball to actually build a predictive model. There's too many human and environmental factors in any given game. If you can find a way to model human emotions into the equation, you could get somewhere, maybe, but since there's up to 45 people involved in the actual playing of any given game (roughly, including the umps, managers and coaches but not the fans), I think it's a lost cause.

Now I agree with this! Too complex and subtle to quantify!

Oh, and are you predicting an .850 OPS for Paulie because that's my "cutoff" line for him?
:tongue:

Billy Ashley
03-20-2009, 05:05 PM
I don't use stats for predictive purposes other than in a very general way (I expect Konerko to post an OPS in the .850 area this year - for example). I don't think you truly can model enough factors in baseball to actually build a predictive model. There's too many human and environmental factors in any given game. If you can find a way to model human emotions into the equation, you could get somewhere, maybe, but since there's up to 45 people involved in the actual playing of any given game (roughly, including the umps, managers and coaches but not the fans), I think it's a lost cause.

As I've stated before, I'm at a little bit of a disadvantage being that I'm somewhat polluted at the moment.

I believe you are correct in terms of an individuals performance- however, I do believe when looking at the borad scope of players in the majors, projections do make sense-

they're not to be taken as gospel, but there are plenty of predictive statistics in baseball that work out well in general

Billy Ashley
03-20-2009, 05:08 PM
He hovers around .300 year in and year out....I'll take that type of production from my catcher who lacks power.

And my point wasn't the 100 years, but rather do you think you're the only person who has thought of such ground breaking ideas? The game is nearly as old as you, your father and his father combined, but some guy on a message board is going to revolutionize the game?


Dude, believing in averaging trumping OBP is so 50 years ago...

Really, BA is dependent on a great deal of luck (Babip and so on). As Eddo pointed out, a BA can drop 30 points any given season despite a batter performing at roughly the same level. The reason it's good to draw a fair share of walks is it limits the variance of a player.

Look at robinson cano. Did he turn into a ****ty player in 2008? No, he was pretty much the same guy as before, only given that so much of his value is tied up in BA, when 20-30 base hits got killed by defense/ bad luck- his value went down the toliet

Daver
03-20-2009, 05:17 PM
Therein lies the problem with relying on stats. In the effort to quantify the game, so much of the subtlety is lost.


Propellerhead baseball.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/daver/Basicball.jpg

Billy Ashley
03-20-2009, 05:31 PM
http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq146/a_mills93/Retard.jpg

Daver Baseball

My eys is never wrongz

Jim Shorts
03-20-2009, 05:54 PM
Dude, believing in averaging trumping OBP is so 50 years ago...

Really, BA is dependent on a great deal of luck (Babip and so on). As Eddo pointed out, a BA can drop 30 points any given season despite a batter performing at roughly the same level. The reason it's good to draw a fair share of walks is it limits the variance of a player.

Look at robinson cano. Did he turn into a ****ty player in 2008? No, he was pretty much the same guy as before, only given that so much of his value is tied up in BA, when 20-30 base hits got killed by defense/ bad luck- his value went down the toliet

When the consistency is there, then the average makes for a pretty good hitter. IMO, AJ falls in that category.

I've learned my lesson not to debate with stat heads...lies, damn lies and statistics or something.

Billy Ashley
03-20-2009, 05:58 PM
When the consistency is there, then the average makes for a pretty good hitter. IMO, AJ falls in that category.

I've learned my lesson not to debate with stat heads...lies, damn lies and statistics or something.

cliche's damned cliche's or something

True or false-

A batter who bats 140/ 500 with 50 walks is creates more outs than a guy who 170/500 and 10 walks.

The answer is false- the guy in this situation who bats .280 is a better hitter than the guy who hits .340.

bunty_doghunter
03-20-2009, 06:58 PM
http://chud.com/nextraimages/BENNYHILLC&U2-1.jpg

'What??'
Double bonus points for the Benny Hill reference!

chaerulez
03-20-2009, 07:43 PM
AJ's OPS+ numbers since he joined the Sox: 90, 94, 83, 88.

Decent numbers for a catcher, but to say he's a good offensive player relative to the entire league is not true.

As for the poster who says he hovers around .300 each season... did you mean OBP? Because since he's put on a Sox uniform, that's what he's done.

SBSoxFan
03-20-2009, 08:07 PM
cliche's damned cliche's or something

True or false-

A batter who bats 140/ 500 with 50 walks is creates more outs than a guy who 170/500 and 10 walks.

The answer is false- the guy in this situation who bats .280 is a better hitter than the guy who hits .340.

You're abusing the stats right there. It's not a fact that the first batter in your example is a better hitter. All else being equal, he has a higher on base percentage. That's all you can say from the information provided, no more.

AJ's OPS+ numbers since he joined the Sox: 90, 94, 83, 88.

Decent numbers for a catcher, but to say he's a good offensive player relative to the entire league is not true.

As for the poster who says he hovers around .300 each season... did you mean OBP? Because since he's put on a Sox uniform, that's what he's done.

You're exaggerating a bit, but AJ hit 300 and 312 his last two seasons with Minnesota. I thought he'd have a higher average when he came to the Sox. Must be the dome factor!

chaerulez
03-20-2009, 08:12 PM
My scope was what he's done with the White Sox. In those four seasons his OBP has been closer to .300 than his BA. So my slight exaggeration wasn't much more exaggerating than the notion he hovers around .300 each year, especially since his career average is .284.