PDA

View Full Version : Royce's average still climbing...


Kilroy
09-03-2001, 09:01 PM
I wonder...

If he'd started out like he played in June, then had April and May in May and June, then continued on with his same July and August, would most Sox fans hate him as much??

NUKE_CLEVELAND
09-03-2001, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
I wonder...

If he'd started out like he played in June, then had April and May in May and June, then continued on with his same July and August, would most Sox fans hate him as much??

Ol' hitless will always hold a special place in my heart. The
*****ter.

doublem23
09-03-2001, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
I wonder...

If he'd started out like he played in June, then had April and May in May and June, then continued on with his same July and August, would most Sox fans hate him as much??

Well he didn't and I want him run out of town on a rail.

Kilroy
09-03-2001, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by doublem23


Well he didn't and I want him run out of town on a rail.

Well, that makes sense...

Bmr31
09-04-2001, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Well, that makes sense...


royce clayton will end up with the numbers expected from him. Let it go and stop blaming the wrong player.....

LongDistanceFan
09-04-2001, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31



royce clayton will end up with the numbers expected from him. Let it go and stop blaming the wrong player..... The binging of the season was very brutal, i think if he had a beginning like he is now, at least my opinion would have been diiferent.

BMR, who is to blame then?

KempersRS
09-04-2001, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
The binging of the season was very brutal, i think if he had a beginning like he is now, at least my opinion would have been diiferent.

BMR, who is to blame then?

Well, I'll chime in anyway with what I think is to blame for 2001 not being a great season.
Injury to Thomas
Injury to Osuna, Simas, Wunsch
Injury/Poor season from Wells
Durham cold too often
Caballo subpar
Injury to Manos
Inconsistent lineups
Treating April as spring training
Baines
Management
Lack of fundamentals
Lack of clutch hitting
Howry
Awful Defense
Lack of a catcher

voodoochile
09-04-2001, 09:09 AM
IF royce can play as hard as he has this last 6 weeks and especially since KW essentially said he was gone next year, then he is welcome back, IMO. BUT... that is a BIG IF. I still remember his, "Now I know what I need to do to play" comment in May or June when he got benched. Do we really want to take the chance that Royce getting the starting SS job handed to him next spring won't do the same thing again?

Bmr31
09-04-2001, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by KempersRS


Well, I'll chime in anyway with what I think is to blame for 2001 not being a great season.
Injury to Thomas
Injury to Osuna, Simas, Wunsch
Injury/Poor season from Wells
Durham cold too often
Caballo subpar
Injury to Manos
Inconsistent lineups
Treating April as spring training
Baines
Management
Lack of fundamentals
Lack of clutch hitting
Howry
Awful Defense
Lack of a catcher

What he said.........

Bmr31
09-04-2001, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
IF royce can play as hard as he has this last 6 weeks and especially since KW essentially said he was gone next year, then he is welcome back, IMO. BUT... that is a BIG IF. I still remember his, "Now I know what I need to do to play" comment in May or June when he got benched. Do we really want to take the chance that Royce getting the starting SS job handed to him next spring won't do the same thing again?

If youre asking me, my answer is no. I just dont think Royce is to blame, i think he is doing exactly was is expected from him, and i think he is a better option at SS, than Jose. Royce is still a sub par option. Just remember, Royce didnt bring himself in here to play SS, management did.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-04-2001, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


If youre asking me, my answer is no. I just dont think Royce is to blame, i think he is doing exactly was is expected from him, and i think he is a better option at SS, than Jose. Royce is still a sub par option. Just remember, Royce didnt bring himself in here to play SS, management did.

Oh great. Now we're suppose to be satisfied with a career .259 hitter who has proven they can only hit #8, has a puss arm, and no range. Brilliant. World Series, here we come!

You got that bass ackwards, Bmr. Weak-hitting #8 hitters who play mediocre defense come a dime a dozen. If you're hanging Clayton's defensive rep on the eyeballs of Comiskey's official scorer, you'll make yourself a laughingstock amongst anyone who has actually attended a game there this year.

So what makes you think Valentin is "sub-par", besides your own egotistical opinion?

Specifics, please. (The bane of all your arguments).

Kilroy
09-04-2001, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
So what makes you think Valentin is "sub-par", besides your own egotistical opinion?

Well let me chime in on his D. 18 errors this year, 36 last, that's brutal. And most throwing errors too? That makes it even worse. He's got the damn ball, just throw it where its supposed to go. Its not like he's got a questionable arm either. So many times its a routine play and the ball goes to the camera well. It drives a person nuts.

The best role Valentin could have on the Sox is DH. But we already have 5 of those.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-04-2001, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Well let me chime in on his D. 18 errors this year, 36 last, that's brutal. And most throwing errors too? That makes it even worse. He's got the damn ball, just throw it where its supposed to go. Its not like he's got a questionable arm either. So many times its a routine play and the ball goes to the camera well. It drives a person nuts.

The best role Valentin could have on the Sox is DH. But we already have 5 of those.

Sorry, K. That's a big "so what?" The question is whether your shortstop (or any player) is winning ballgames for you. Clayton doesn't win games; Valentin does.

Let me put it to you this way. Suppose God created a ballplayer with one flaw: every ball hit to him was guaranteed an error. However, each time he came up (regardless of the situation) he hit a homerun. Would you want this guy on your team? Seriously, how many chances can he possibly screw up compared to the superior offense he provides?

Sorry, but good defense doesn't win ballgames anymore. Twenty years ago a guy with a 4.00 ERA was probaly relegated to the bullpen. Now he's a Cy Young candidate. YOU HAVE TO SCORE RUNS TO WIN. You only get 27 outs to do it; same as ever. Thus, they are very precious.

A slick fielder who can't hit costs you too much. His outs are magnified because the other team CAN SCORE RUNS while yours can't. Meanwhile his chances at shortstop (or whatever position) simply can't make up the difference. HE DOESN'T GET THAT MANY CHANCES IN THE FIELD. Capisce?

Folks, this is the American League in 2001. You want to go back to something akin to the dead-ball era, you better first build bigger ballparks, take the weight rooms out of the clubhouse, and start banning players for suspicious performance-enhancing drugs. Don't forget to make the pitcher bat, too.

And for the record, Clayton is NOT the reason the Sox aren't a playoff team. I agree with the other post detailing plenty of other reasons, too.

But don't discount Royce's role. His blame is especially aggravating because it was totally unnecessary. Even KW admits he only acquired the jerk so he could trade him. Turns out nobody else was dumb enough to take Royce off KW's hands.

I blame KW for this mess one-hundred times more than Clayton.

Kilroy
09-04-2001, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Sorry, K. That's a big "so what?" The question is whether your shortstop (or any player) is winning ballgames for you. Clayton doesn't win games; Valentin does...

Sorry, but good defense doesn't win ballgames anymore...


I'll have to disagree to a certain extent. But first, think back, when Clayton was first acquired, I said that the only reason to get him was so that he could be packaged in a trade. Never wanted him.

Getting back, each team usually only has one or two players that "win" games for you. Most of the time its a team effort. Along the way, each player on the team will "win" a game for you. Case in point, Josh Paul did it the other day. Oh, and Clayton did it too on Friday night.

As far as D not being as important these days, I think you need to rethink that, because no team with D on par with what the Sox put out there has won a Series. Until then, I'll take the solid D.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-04-2001, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


I'll have to disagree to a certain extent. But first, think back, when Clayton was first acquired, I said that the only reason to get him was so that he could be packaged in a trade. Never wanted him.

The identity of Kilroy is finally revealed. He's Kenny Williams!!!

:)

"Oops. I slipped up. Well, it's not the first time, is it?"
:KW

"Unfortunately I fear, it won't be the last either."
:manos

"Hey Kenny, can we talk long-term deal? No sense fixing your shortstop problem first, ain't that right?"
:ray

Kilroy
09-04-2001, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
A slick fielder who can't hit costs you too much. His outs are magnified because the other team CAN SCORE RUNS while yours can't. Meanwhile his chances at shortstop (or whatever position) simply can't make up the difference. HE DOESN'T GET THAT MANY CHANCES IN THE FIELD. Capisce?

I forgot to speak to this point.

I think your way off on this one. A guy steps to the plate 4 times a game, sometimes five. Even less times w/ RBI chances. Yet on the other hand, at short, he could have a ball hit to him in every inning he plays. And more than once. Clayton has had over 100 more chances in the field than he has at the plate. Doesn't get that many chances? That may be the case at many of the other positions, but at short, you will see the ball.

Kilroy
09-04-2001, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
The identity of Kilroy is finally revealed. He's Kenny Williams!!!


Cute.

I never would have gone after Clayton, but when they got him, I figured they must be working a deal. I thought he'd be gone in a week.

KW messed up big time on that one.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-04-2001, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


I forgot to speak to this point.

I think your way off on this one. A guy steps to the plate 4 times a game, sometimes five. Even less times w/ RBI chances. Yet on the other hand, at short, he could have a ball hit to him in every inning he plays. And more than once. Clayton has had over 100 more chances in the field than he has at the plate. Doesn't get that many chances? That may be the case at many of the other positions, but at short, you will see the ball.

I'm off base? LMAO. Do the math, K.

God's flawed homerun hitter bats #4 for every manager short of Don Zimmer. He'll get a minimum 5 plate appearances and hits a homerun each time up. That works out to a minimum 5 runs batted in per game and potentially 20 (5 grand slams). All of that from just one player!

Now, how many of those runs can he possibly give back with his 100 percent errors in the field? Is his defense going to give back his 3,240 potential runs he batted in? (Potential 20 runs batted in per game x 162 games=3,240 Potential runs batted in per season).

God's flawed homerun hitter is a unanimous MVP winner, K. No number of errors can possibly be attributed to him to make him anything less.

Gimme a break.

Paulwny
09-04-2001, 12:54 PM
I agree with Kilroy, last spring some of us felt a trade was in the wings due to the number of inf. we had. Many people want Lee traded because of his "D" and the effect this would have on a young pitching staff yet are willing to live with >30 errors at short, I don't get it.

FarWestChicago
09-04-2001, 12:59 PM
Many people want Lee traded because of his "D" and the effect this would have on a young pitching staff yet are willing to live with >30 errors at short, I don't get it.

It's pretty simple, actually. Most of the people on the Trade Caballo bandwagon are reacting emotionally instead of thinking things through.

KempersRS
09-04-2001, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago


It's pretty simple, actually. Most of the people on the Trade Caballo bandwagon are reacting emotionally instead of thinking things through.

I really think we handled this situation all wrong. We needed to play Rowand full time for the majority of the 2nd half. I'd really like to know if Rowand can be a major leaguer. IF Rowand had the ability to keep hitting .300, and keep walking keeping his OBA up, then I would want us to consider him in our future. But of course, we don't know, because he didn't play enough. If Rowand could hit .300, OBA around .370, and knock in 75 runs a year, I would want to keep him over Lee. Lee has no ability to walk and he may be the worst leftfielder in the league. Rowand has shown us far more in the field, but we don't know about his hitting. Borchard could take center, Rowand in left, and Maggs in right could work. The only problem is that we should have used THIS season to see if Rowand had any kind of future. Next year I would stick with Caballo because I don't want to be experimenting next season. We need to know who is going to stick in each position. I'd stick with Lee for now, because I don't want to take a chance on Rowand being a flop in an important season.

Kilroy
09-04-2001, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Now, how many of those runs can he possibly give back with his 100 percent errors in the field? Is his defense going to give back his 3,240 potential runs he batted in?

Wait a minute!!! We're obviously examining this in dreamland where God's Flawed homerun hitter (GFHH) gets a grand-slam every time up and bats in 3,240 runs, right? Well given the scenario you've laid out, I submit that at 100% error rate, he'd give back those 3,240 and probably much more.

In your example, it's plausible that 1) GFHH hits a granny every time at bat, and 2) GFHH makes an error on 100% of his chances.

Given that, its equally plausible that every pitched ball is put in play and is hit TO GFHH. So, at this point the conga-line around the bases begins. The never get out of that inning, and a trillion unearned runs score.

All I'm saying is that you can't create an imiaginary scenario with the guy getting a grand slam every time he bats yet surmise that he'd have a normal number of chances in the field.

voodoochile
09-04-2001, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Wait a minute!!! We're obviously examining this in dreamland where God's Flawed homerun hitter (GFHH) gets a grand-slam every time up and bats in 3,240 runs, right? Well given the scenario you've laid out, I submit that at 100% error rate, he'd give back those 3,240 and probably much more.

In your example, it's plausible that 1) GFHH hits a granny every time at bat, and 2) GFHH makes an error on 100% of his chances.

Given that, its equally plausible that every pitched ball is put in play and is hit TO GFHH. So, at this point the conga-line around the bases begins. The never get out of that inning, and a trillion unearned runs score.

All I'm saying is that you can't create an imiaginary scenario with the guy getting a grand slam every time he bats yet surmise that he'd have a normal number of chances in the field.

It's a good point, but if that's the case you have to take it one step further and presuppose that he will bat in every inning at least once, after all if his fellow fielders don't field thay must be able to hit a ton.

The point was to take what are normal possibilities (5-6 chances/game, 4-5 AB/game) and take them to their logical extremes. If you want to be more rational, you can back off of the one GS/AB and make it one RBI/AB and the same point holds true... The runs generated will far exceed the runs given up.

In either case it was an example. A guy like Jose brings SOOOO much more to the offensive and intangible parts of the game than Royce does that it dwarfs the difference in FP and errors. This year alone, Jose has an OPS 200 POINTS HIGHER than Clayton. He also was 1/2 of the combination that lead the majors in DP's turned last year... sounds pretty simple to me...

Mathew
09-04-2001, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


I'll have to disagree to a certain extent. But first, think back, when Clayton was first acquired, I said that the only reason to get him was so that he could be packaged in a trade. Never wanted him.

Getting back, each team usually only has one or two players that "win" games for you. Most of the time its a team effort. Along the way, each player on the team will "win" a game for you. Case in point, Josh Paul did it the other day. Oh, and Clayton did it too on Friday night.

As far as D not being as important these days, I think you need to rethink that, because no team with D on par with what the Sox put out there has won a Series. Until then, I'll take the solid D.

Royce didn't win us that game, Valentin hit 2 hrs?

LongDistanceFan
09-04-2001, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


I have to interject here, if i may. I was w/alot of people who agreed that getting clayton was a good move due to his def. Jose made way too many errors for me and others. Since then, i have change my mind about jose.

Clayton, has been too disappointing with the way he has performed in the beginning. Question, does the end justify the means? His recent success does not make up for what he didn't do in the beginning. That is my opinion. What jose brings to the table have to be taken advantaged of. If it means dealing with the errors at "ss". I would if only his mistake doesn't hurt us too much.

Kilroy
09-04-2001, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Mathew


Royce didn't win us that game, Valentin hit 2 hrs?

Even with Valentin's 2 homeruns, they were tied at 8 until Clayton hit the three run shot.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-04-2001, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Given that, its equally plausible that every pitched ball is put in play and is hit TO GFHH. So, at this point the conga-line around the bases begins. The never get out of that inning, and a trillion unearned runs score.

No, it isn't. GFHH bats in AT LEAST one run each plate appearance, with a POTENTIAL of four. The minimum five runs he produces each game ought to be enough to make his team a .500 club all by itself.

In the universe of places a batted ball can be hit, only 25 percent is fair territory (the rest is foul, either a strike or an out). There are 8 position players besides GFHH covering the remaining 25 percent--yet you think mere-mortal batsmen are going to be able to successfully aim every batted ball directly at GFHH? Only GFHH is capable of anything extraordinary; that's the whole point to this excercise!

GFHH can't possibly commit enough errors to ever cancel out the value of his run production. Sheesh...

Next tell me all the scenarios where a fielding error results in four unearned runs and I will really be on the floor laughing.


All I'm saying is that you can't create an imiaginary scenario with the guy getting a grand slam every time he bats yet surmise that he'd have a normal number of chances in the field.

You're the one who wants to believe an error is as costly as run production is valuable. I keep beating about your head with metaphysical evidence to the contrary and you still come back claiming the Earth is flat. If I wasn't taking your flawed logic to its natural extreme, you would never believe me.

GFHH would be the unanimous MVP, and you can't deny he wouldn't be--in spite of all the errors.

LongDistanceFan
09-04-2001, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago


It's pretty simple, actually. Most of the people on the Trade Caballo bandwagon are reacting emotionally instead of thinking things through. West, west, west i was one of the people who wanted to trade lee, and it was not b/c of emotions. I was one of those who wanted to trade durham and lee last yr, so we can address what we were lacking. i still want too.

BTW :) :) :)

voodoochile
09-04-2001, 03:47 PM
In the universe of places a batted ball can be hit, only 25 percent is fair territory (the rest is foul, either a strike or an out).

Actually to be correct the number is smaller. The foul lines do not form a 90 degree angle. I blieve it is 60 degrees, which is 1/6th of the universe, or about 17% (33% smaller than PHG calculated). All the more reason of course why GFHH is that much more valuable...

Mathew
09-04-2001, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Even with Valentin's 2 homeruns, they were tied at 8 until Clayton hit the three run shot.


Did Clayton score 8 runs? The Tribe did. Nobody won that game certainly not assbag whaleschit Clayton. I jumped for joy when he hit the Homer but I am too often left shaking my head when hitless shows that batting ability of a 9 hole little leaguer.

Mathew
09-04-2001, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



royce clayton will end up with the numbers expected from him. Let it go and stop blaming the wrong player.....

We can't blame him for being bad because he always was? As a pro athelete who is paid by me I can expect him to hit better than a girl. he doesn't.

Kilroy
09-04-2001, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
GFHH is capable of anything extraordinary; that's the whole point to this excercise!


I don't recall that being part of the premise.

While I am not conceding it as part of what we were originally speculating, given that, I agree, there's no way his errors could outweigh his rbi.

But looking a little further, you can't even say that GFHH is the only one who is capable of anything extraordinary because he hits a salami every time up yet he still gets pitched to. That would mean that pitchers in this league are EXTRAORDINARILY STUPID. Walk in a run or give up 4. Hmmm. Tough choice.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-04-2001, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
But looking a little further, you can't even say that GFHH is the only one who is capable of anything extraordinary because he hits a salami every time up yet he still gets pitched to. That would mean that pitchers in this league are EXTRAORDINARILY STUPID. Walk in a run or give up 4. Hmmm. Tough choice.

EXACTLY! The opposing manager would give strict instructions to his pitcher to walk GFHH everytime he came to the plate. GFHH's manager would instruct GFHH to play in foul territory next to the third base coach's box, preferring 8 men in the field and his flawed hero doing the least harm. There is plenty of logical strategy that makes this whole scenario a fantasy.

But that's not the point, is it? The point is everything else being equal, the value of a superior run producer far out outweighs the disadvantages of defensive flaws. We prove the point by taking both situations to their logical extreme: homerun every at-bat, fielding error every chance. That's all this excercise was proving.

Now does it make sense?

LongDistanceFan
09-04-2001, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


EXACTLY! The opposing manager would give strict instructions to his pitcher to walk GFHH everytime he came to the plate.

Screwed that, hit the freaking hitter.

Kilroy
09-05-2001, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
But that's not the point, is it? The point is everything else being equal, the value of a superior run producer far out outweighs the disadvantages of defensive flaws. We prove the point by taking both situations to their logical extreme: homerun every at-bat, fielding error every chance. That's all this excercise was proving.

Now does it make sense?

It always made sense, but that doesn't necessarily prove it true. There's too many variables that aren't defined that make it impossible to measure. In the context of this debate, Clayton has 100 more chances in the field than Valentin has had at bats. While we know that a homerun every time is at least one run batted in, we don't know what happens after each error. How many would have been the 3rd out? What'd the next guy up do? I don't think that there's any way to draw a conclusion given that.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2001, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


It always made sense, but that doesn't necessarily prove it true. There's too many variables that aren't defined that make it impossible to measure. In the context of this debate, Clayton has 100 more chances in the field than Valentin has had at bats. While we know that a homerun every time is at least one run batted in, we don't know what happens after each error. How many would have been the 3rd out? What'd the next guy up do? I don't think that there's any way to draw a conclusion given that.

This doesn't even pass the smell test. You know as well as anybody that an error does not automatically result in an unearned run. Furthermore errors do not determine wins and losses while runs scored (i.e. like those scored from a homerun) most certainly do. The object of the game is to outscore your opponent, isn't that right?

And the ONLY reason Clayton has more chances than Valentin is because that idiot Jerry Manuel has insisted on playing Clayton at shortstop all season long. It's a documented FACT Valentin has far greater range than puss-armed Clayton.

This is really a pathetic attempt at counterpoint.

Kilroy
09-05-2001, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
And the ONLY reason Clayton has more chances than Valentin is because that idiot Jerry Manuel has insisted on playing Clayton at shortstop all season long. It's a documented FACT Valentin has far greater range than puss-armed Clayton.

This is really a pathetic attempt at counterpoint.

You may have misunderstood me in that I said that Clayton has had 100 more chances than Jose has had at-bats. Clayton also has over 100 more fielding chances than he himself has had at-bats. And even tho "that idiot Jerry Manuel insisted on playing Clayton at shortstop", Clayton has played in only 7 more games than Valentin this season. 110 to 103. And given that Jose was on the DL, that would explain that.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2001, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
You may have misunderstood me in that I said that Clayton has had 100 more chances than Jose has had at-bats. Clayton also has over 100 more fielding chances than he himself has had at-bats. And even tho "that idiot Jerry Manuel insisted on playing Clayton at shortstop", Clayton has played in only 7 more games than Valentin this season. 110 to 103. And given that Jose was on the DL, that would explain that.

Actually I did understand your chances vs. at-bats point. However it's a strawman argument. We've been debating the value of run production vs. the costs of errors for a over a day now. Suddenly you've changed the discussion to chances, where Clayton has fielded more and (presumably) his defensive ability becomes relatively more valuable.

That's nonsense. Clayton has more chances because he is playing shortstop day after day after day. You know as well as anybody Valentin has superior range to Clayton. If he was playing shortstop, he would be getting to more balls and turning more double-plays. Believe me, propping up Royce Clayton's value by talking about range and chances is NOT where you want to go with your argument.

We've been talking errors--that's the ONLY thing you've ever been able to point to that gives Clayton the nod over Valentin. Start talking chances, range, arm strength, batting average, slugging percentage, on-base percentage, run production and Clayton begins looking like the pathetic slug that I submit he's been since opening day.

Counter that.