PDA

View Full Version : I miss the Uribe Bashing from last week


jabrch
06-14-2004, 09:51 AM
Let's recap...

A) He is inconsistent (despite having the highest avg on the team and a .375 obpp)

B) He doesn't walk enough (despite the fact that he does walk - when he is not being pitched to)

C) He is in a slump (well - sample size sure came into play with that one, huh? During his slump, where he was 4 for 33, he had a high walk rate - since then he is 9 for 23 - a better "streak" than the "slump" you guys were crying about.

D) He should be moved down in the order - He is "throwing a wet blanket over the hot top of the order" (ha ha ha)

E) He is "spinning on his back legs" - Well if this is how he hits - good for him.

F) We miss Aaron Miles - ok - well nobody said THAT :)

It makes me laugh how shortsighted some people are when it comes to this team. Remember the Lee sucks stuff earlier this year? Or those who wanted to bury Frank? It also makes me laugh when a single statistic over a short period of time is used to bury a player who doesn't fit into someone's mold of what a good player should do.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 10:05 AM
Let's recap...

It makes me laugh how shortsighted some people are when it comes to this team. Remember the Lee sucks stuff earlier this year? Or those who wanted to bury Frank? It also makes me laugh when a single statistic over a short period of time is used to bury a player who doesn't fit into someone's mold of what a good player should do.
Well anionting Uribe as the second coming is shortsided for it evaulates a players based on baseball played so far this year. Instead of looking at his career in total. You are also ignoring some facts, his numbers in April 61 AB .393/.439/.590, May 109 AB .303/.361/.523, June 39AB so far .231/.302/487. I would say in June he has been in a slump.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 10:25 AM
Well anionting Uribe as the second coming is shortsided for it evaulates a players based on baseball played so far this year.

Nobody ever did that - never

Instead of looking at his career in total.
Cuz no player EVER develops after age 24 when going to a clubhouse where he is infinitely more comfortable and where he actually has people who he can relate to. It made sense to talk about dropping the kid to 7 where he'd see worse pitches rather than wait and see if his 7 game slump was going to continue? *****


You are also ignoring some facts, his numbers in April 61 AB .393/.439/.590, May 109 AB .303/.361/.523, June 39AB so far .231/.302/487. I would say in June he has been in a slump.
First off - your stats are wrong - 44 AB - not 39 - you left out yesterday and in those extra 5 ABs, he was 2/5 with 2 RBI

Second, what player doesn't have 15 days where he won't hit the same .335 that he was hitting by June 1? What did you expect from this guy? Since it really only was 5 bad games in June (he is hitting .381 in the other 6 June games), how is that really a slump? For someone who uses the sample size arguement so often, I am shocked you'd do that.

Third, he plays very good D and can play 2B, SS or 3B.

Fourth, .318, .373, .542, .915 is pretty damn good.

The fact that you even are arguing with me about this is SHOCKING.

misty60481
06-14-2004, 10:39 AM
After watching Uribe so far he reminds me of Minnie Minoso when he first came to Sox he hit a lot of balls hard to the gaps---not a real pull hitter--I hope he can put up Minoso numbers...

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 10:41 AM
Nobody ever did that - never


Cuz no player EVER develops after age 24 when going to a clubhouse where he is infinitely more comfortable and where he actually has people who he can relate to. It made sense to talk about dropping the kid to 7 where he'd see worse pitches rather than wait and see if his 7 game slump was going to continue? *****



First off - your stats are wrong - 44 AB - not 39 - you left out yesterday and in those extra 5 ABs, he was 2/5 with 2 RBI

Second, what player doesn't have 15 days where he won't hit the same .335 that he was hitting by June 1? What did you expect from this guy? Since it really only was 5 bad games in June (he is hitting .381 in the other 6 June games), how is that really a slump? For someone who uses the sample size arguement so often, I am shocked you'd do that.

Third, he plays very good D and can play 2B, SS or 3B.

Fourth, .318, .373, .542, .915 is pretty damn good.

The fact that you even are arguing with me about this is SHOCKING.
Players do develop and there have been some clues about Uribe in the past, but good 2 months doesn't mean a player has fully developed or will continue to be a great player. That where your shortsightedness comes in.



What do you think a slump is other then a string of games where one doesnít perform on the level they previous have been or should be. What concerns me is his downward trend since he peaked in the first week of May. Since May 9th his OPS has fallen 1.002 to .915.


I am not arguing anything with you, just pointing out that Uribe has been in slump recently and has negative trend and hasn't plateau yet.

beckett21
06-14-2004, 10:51 AM
Nobody ever did that - never


Cuz no player EVER develops after age 24 when going to a clubhouse where he is infinitely more comfortable and where he actually has people who he can relate to. It made sense to talk about dropping the kid to 7 where he'd see worse pitches rather than wait and see if his 7 game slump was going to continue? *****



First off - your stats are wrong - 44 AB - not 39 - you left out yesterday and in those extra 5 ABs, he was 2/5 with 2 RBI

Second, what player doesn't have 15 days where he won't hit the same .335 that he was hitting by June 1? What did you expect from this guy? Since it really only was 5 bad games in June (he is hitting .381 in the other 6 June games), how is that really a slump? For someone who uses the sample size arguement so often, I am shocked you'd do that.

Third, he plays very good D and can play 2B, SS or 3B.

Fourth, .318, .373, .542, .915 is pretty damn good.

The fact that you even are arguing with me about this is SHOCKING.
Well put.

I think the only thing that is SHOCKING is that you did not put that last statement in teal. Uribe could hit .600 for the rest of the season and he would still be labeled *a fluke* by some because it is inconcievable that KW could have possibly found a diamond in the rough. That's what it ultimately boils down to.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 10:52 AM
What do you think a slump is other then a string of games where one doesnít perform on the level they previous have been or should be. What concerns me is his downward trend since he peaked in the first week of May. Since May 9th his OPS has fallen 1.002 to .915.

I am not arguing anything with you, just pointing out that Uribe has been in slump recently and has negative trend and hasn't plateau yet.
Are you kidding me? you are taking the first half of June and telling me that since the first half of that was bad, that he is in a slump? Have you seen his numbers the past 5 games? how the heck is that a slump? He is 9 for 23 - that is not a slump. that is also a crappyasssmall sample size - as is your proposal that since June 1 he is in a slump.

As far as the comment that his negative trends hasn't plateaud yet - I don't know what you are expecting from him, but 9 for 23 in his last 5 games is not a slump.

What's funny is that if this was D'Angelo Jimenez hitting like this, I just get the feeling that youd be gizzing your shorts over his stats because of the difference between his crappy batting average and his good OBP.

Newsflash - hits are still better than walks! Walks are better than outs, but hits are much much much better than outs.

CanOfCorn
06-14-2004, 11:36 AM
"Kenny Williams has compensated by picking up Juan Uribe in a trade, who seems to be D'Angelo Jimenez v2.0."

Those were my words in December. I like that he's making me eat them.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 11:37 AM
Well put.

I think the only thing that is SHOCKING is that you did not put that last statement in teal. Uribe could hit .600 for the rest of the season and he would still be labeled *a fluke* by some because it is inconcievable that KW could have possibly found a diamond in the rough. That's what it ultimately boils down to.
This has nothing to do with Kenny. It all about Uribe and some treating him like the second coming.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 11:42 AM
This has nothing to do with Kenny. It all about Uribe and some treating him like the second coming.

It is only you who is calling him that. NOBODY else here does it except you. NOBODY. All people are saying is we are thrilled with his performance, and we think he can be the starting SS for this team next year if we let Manos walk - or we can keep him at 2B and Harris in CF, or we can move him to 3B if Crede is a bust and we can expect good performance from him.

You are the one taking 6 bad games to try and trash him. Nobody else is puffing him as "the second coming" - ONLY YOU.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 11:46 AM
Are you kidding me? you are taking the first half of June and telling me that since the first half of that was bad, that he is in a slump? Have you seen his numbers the past 5 games? how the heck is that a slump? He is 9 for 23 - that is not a slump. that is also a crappyasssmall sample size - as is your proposal that since June 1 he is in a slump.

As far as the comment that his negative trends hasn't plateaud yet - I don't know what you are expecting from him, but 9 for 23 in his last 5 games is not a slump.

What's funny is that if this was D'Angelo Jimenez hitting like this, I just get the feeling that youd be gizzing your shorts over his stats because of the difference between his crappy batting average and his good OBP.

Newsflash - hits are still better than walks! Walks are better than outs, but hits are much much much better than outs.
You enjoy chasing your tail? Because not sure what you are saying other then no can question the great Juan Uribe.

Trends run longer then five games, and I said he has been in a slump. Which the last two games probally show him breaking out of it but he was in one. The first Philly game could have been the breakout game, everyone was hitting that night.

Jimenez does have a higher OBP then Uribe, but doesn't have the pop Uribe does. But you don't hear me harping on that, do you? Getting on base is the name of the games, it doesn't matter how as long as you get on.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 11:50 AM
It is only you who is calling him that. NOBODY else here does it except you. NOBODY. All people are saying is we are thrilled with his performance, and we think he can be the starting SS for this team next year if we let Manos walk - or we can keep him at 2B and Harris in CF, or we can move him to 3B if Crede is a bust and we can expect good performance from him.

You are the one taking 6 bad games to try and trash him. Nobody else is puffing him as "the second coming" - ONLY YOU.
LOL. I am not trashing him, the fact you think I am is funny. Merely pointing out there is a good chance that Uribe is playing over his head currently and he will regress into more average player. I don't think he is a hall of fame player and if he does continue his current production, he will have a legitimate chance to make the hall. So if you believe this is the real Juan Uribe then we have a Hall of Fame Short Stop on out hands.

TheBull19
06-14-2004, 11:55 AM
Nobody else is puffing him as "the second coming" - ONLY YOU.
Not so fast there buddy. You apparently are unaware of my newly formed denomination, Church of the Latter Day Bambinos. True, we haven't reached out to the community and created a broad base of awareness, that's why we need you! Minister liscences are available for only $25.

Not until you see that Uribe has sacrificed to get you to second base will you find the peace that will allow St. Thomas to drive you home, and the Holy Shingo to save your lead.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 11:57 AM
This has nothing to do with Kenny. It all about Uribe and some treating him like the second coming.No one said he was the second coming, but people feel the need to defend him when you make him out to be piece of ****. He's done enough to earn respect as well as an All Star appearance. For you to not recognize what he's done thus far as a positive is making me question this so called "reality" you live in over the rest of us.

Frater Perdurabo
06-14-2004, 12:01 PM
I don't believe Uribe is the second coming of anything, but I sure like having his pleasantly surprising production at the #2 spot in the lineup, and his defense has been very good as well. Let's just ride it out and see how long he can produce. Why rain on a parade? Sorry, I forgot, we are Sox fans after all. :o:

:bandance: :bandance: <--- Uribe

(Uribe is the second banana in the Sox hot lineup!)

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 12:04 PM
No one said he was the second coming, but people feel the need to defend him when you make him out to be piece of ****. He's done enough to earn respect as well as an All Star appearance. For you to not recognize what he's done thus far as a positive is making me question this so called "reality" you live in over the rest of us.
What a lark, I guess I am not homerish enough since I point some flaws which could hurt later on. Not sure where one thinks that I am saying Uribe is a piece of ****. One All Star appearance doesn't mean anything but one hot half; several all star appearances mean something.

elrod
06-14-2004, 12:05 PM
There's only one thing about Uribe that bothers me. His overall numbers are great. But his numbers with runners in scoring position are terrible - and that's all year long. His OPS with none on is .956; with RISP it's .741. Also, he is tremendous at home with a 1.088OPS. But on the road he is a miserable .662OPS. BA difference is .375 vs. .233. That's a HUGE difference. I do like his 1.277OPS in the Metrodome, however. Even if it was only over a four game series.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 12:11 PM
What a lark, I guess I am not homerish enough since I point some flaws which could hurt later on. Not sure where one thinks that I am saying Uribe is a piece of ****. One All Star appearance doesn't mean anything but one hot half; several all star appearances mean something.It's as if you want the guy to fail. It's one thing to criticize someone for a drop off after it happens, but I don't understand ripping on a guy who has done everything asked of him, and done it well. You can downplay him being a possible All Star, but the guy started the season as a utility player. What do you want from him? Anyway, in "reality" guys around his age typically come into their own. For you to ignore the factors that contributed to him struggling in Colorado shows how Mariottish you can be about your arguments.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 12:12 PM
You enjoy chasing your tail? Because not sure what you are saying other then no can question the great Juan Uribe.
NOBODY said that except you - NOBODY

Trends run longer then five games, and I said he has been in a slump. Which the last two games probally show him breaking out of it but he was in one. The first Philly game could have been the breakout game, everyone was hitting that night.
Well that is exactly 100% opposite to what you are saying - you said he is in a slump - a slump I assume is a negative downtrend. But you said that based on nothing more than the 8 games between 5/28 and 6/6. So is 6 games not a trend, but 8 games is a trend? Your logic is so circular and loaded with double standards it should even make you sick.

Jimenez does have a higher OBP then Uribe,
BY .001 - LET ME REPEAT THAT - BY .001 Tell me - is that significant?

but doesn't have the pop Uribe does. But you don't hear me harping on that, do you?
Thats a good thing - cuz it would be a moronic arguement to make. It is not based in the facts of their performance.

Getting on base is the name of the games, it doesn't matter how as long as you get on.
That is just not true. Scoring more runs than your opponent is the name of the game. Getting on base gets you nothing. Scoring runs wins you games. And to try and make the case that Jimenez' .374 obp with a .256 avg is worth even close to Uribe's .310 avg and .373 obp is assinine. It takes 4 walks to score a run. Runs can be scored with 1, 2 or 3 hits. And 4 hits will almost always score you a run. To say "it doesn't matter how as long as you get on" is completely astounding to me. In any given AB, a walk might be as good as a hit. When you lead off an inning, a walk is as good as a single. But you can make no reasonable case that the value of a .320 hitter is equal to the value of a .250 hitter with a .320 OBP. That makes absolutely no sense.

You calculator is broke - go out and buy more megapixels to fix it.

kittle42
06-14-2004, 12:14 PM
Not so fast there buddy. You apparently are unaware of my newly formed denomination, Church of the Latter Day Bambinos. True, we haven't reached out to the community and created a broad base of awareness, that's why we need you! Minister liscences are available for only $25.

Not until you see that Uribe has sacrificed to get you to second base will you find the peace that will allow St. Thomas to drive you home, and the Holy Shingo to save your lead.
You might think of combining with all those Ross Gload worshippers who are frustrated that Timo Perez is getting more of the Maggs-void playing time.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 12:19 PM
What a lark, I guess I am not homerish enough since I point some flaws which could hurt later on. Not sure where one thinks that I am saying Uribe is a piece of ****. One All Star appearance doesn't mean anything but one hot half; several all star appearances mean something.
All-star appearances? ***** - are you serious? Are you freaking serious? I don't give a damn how many all-star appearances he has. That's the dumbest metric of a player I have seen here yet. You should turn in your BP membership now and request a refund. Go read moneyball again - you missed a whole bunch of it. Geez - for that matter you should start at Baseball for Dummies if you think that all-star appearances are how players should be measured.

BTW - how many all-star appearances do D'Angelo Jimenez, Erubiel Durazo, Scott Hatteberg, and Eric Byrnes all have combined?

From your posts in this thread, I can only conclude that DaDawg's Axiom of Baseball must be true - You don't need power, you don't need speed, you don't even need a high batting average. Get walks, and you will make the all-star game - then you are good?

Do you see how circularly poor this logic that you throw out here is?

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 12:29 PM
NOBODY said that except you - NOBODY


Well that is exactly 100% opposite to what you are saying - you said he is in a slump - a slump I assume is a negative downtrend. But you said that based on nothing more than the 8 games between 5/28 and 6/6. So is 6 games not a trend, but 8 games is a trend? Your logic is so circular and loaded with double standards it should even make you sick.


BY .001 - LET ME REPEAT THAT - BY .001 Tell me - is that significant?


Thats a good thing - cuz it would be a moronic arguement to make. It is not based in the facts of their performance.


That is just not true. Scoring more runs than your opponent is the name of the game. Getting on base gets you nothing. Scoring runs wins you games. And to try and make the case that Jimenez' .374 obp with a .256 avg is worth even close to Uribe's .310 avg and .373 obp is assinine. It takes 4 walks to score a run. Runs can be scored with 1, 2 or 3 hits. And 4 hits will almost always score you a run. To say "it doesn't matter how as long as you get on" is completely astounding to me. In any given AB, a walk might be as good as a hit. When you lead off an inning, a walk is as good as a single. But you can make no reasonable case that the value of a .320 hitter is equal to the value of a .250 hitter with a .320 OBP. That makes absolutely no sense.

You calculator is broke - go out and buy more megapixels to fix it.
LOL, always good for a laugh. You are flatly wrong is diatribe at the end. Your laughable statement, that getting on base gets you nothing, is faulty at best. Getting on base gets you an opportunity to score. There are two components in scoring runs, getting on base and slugging, with OPB more valuable then SLG. Getting on base is the name of the game, since if you canít get on base then you canít score. As for your question, a .320 hitter should have some walks thus his OBP is higher then a guy with an OBP of .320 which isn't good in the first place.


It isn't. I was thinking short term when saying if Uribe was in a slump or not, while long term I think he is regressing to his mean not a slump but playing at levels more in line whith what he will do on a every day bases.

TheBull19
06-14-2004, 12:31 PM
You might think of combining with all those Ross Gload worshippers who are frustrated that Timo Perez is getting more of the Maggs-void playing time.I really can't risk the schism that might cause, the religion is just too young for that kind of inclusive forward thinking idea. If you pay that minister fee though I might consider it.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 12:38 PM
All-star appearances? ***** - are you serious? Are you freaking serious? I don't give a damn how many all-star appearances he has. That's the dumbest metric of a player I have seen here yet. You should turn in your BP membership now and request a refund. Go read moneyball again - you missed a whole bunch of it. Geez - for that matter you should start at Baseball for Dummies if you think that all-star appearances are how players should be measured.

BTW - how many all-star appearances do D'Angelo Jimenez, Erubiel Durazo, Scott Hatteberg, and Eric Byrnes all have combined?

From your posts in this thread, I can only conclude that DaDawg's Axiom of Baseball must be true - You don't need power, you don't need speed, you don't even need a high batting average. Get walks, and you will make the all-star game - then you are good?

Do you see how circularly poor this logic that you throw out here is?LOL, did you even read the post I was responding to, for context of why I mention ASG? LOL. I think it can go without arguing that if a player receives many trips to the All Star Game, the player are probably a good player. Thatís why Bill James and others use number of All Star Appearance in their Hall of Fame models.

LOL, totally misconstruing what I have said here and posted, but that is to be expected. If there were Axiom of Baseball by Da Dawg it would be, get on base and get as many bases as you can when getting on base. Slugging is important as is OBP. Speed is nice but a luxury

jabrch
06-14-2004, 12:59 PM
LOL, always good for a laugh. You are flatly wrong is diatribe at the end. Your laughable statement, that getting on base gets you nothing, is faulty at best. Getting on base gets you an opportunity to score. There are two components in scoring runs, getting on base and slugging, with OPB more valuable then SLG. Getting on base is the name of the game, since if you canít get on base then you canít score. As for your question, a .320 hitter should have some walks thus his OBP is higher then a guy with an OBP of .320 which isn't good in the first place.

Getting hits is worth more than getting walked - EVERY SINGLE TIME


It isn't. I was thinking short term when saying if Uribe was in a slump or not, while long term I think he is regressing to his mean not a slump but playing at levels more in line whith what he will do on a every day bases.
No - see that might be nice if it were true - but you are now talking about a 6 game chunk between June 1 and june 6. That is not only not current, but it is not a short term slump since he has, since then, been hitting back ABOVE where he was before. Unless you can conveniently discount any possibility that he is a better player at 24 in a clubhouse where he is more comfortable than at 22 where nobody except one coach spoke his language, and you can discount 45 of the 55 games he has played this year, you can not make the arguement at all logical that he is regressing to any historical mean or that he is slumping. Selecting 10 a string of 10 games in the middle of 55 games this season to draw any conclusions is HORRENDOUS. Stats 101 should have taught you that.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 01:09 PM
[/color]

Getting hits is worth more than getting walked - EVERY SINGLE TIME


[color=black]
No - see that might be nice if it were true - but you are now talking about a 6 game chunk between June 1 and june 6. That is not only not current, but it is not a short term slump since he has, since then, been hitting back ABOVE where he was before. Unless you can conveniently discount any possibility that he is a better player at 24 in a clubhouse where he is more comfortable than at 22 where nobody except one coach spoke his language, and you can discount 45 of the 55 games he has played this year, you can not make the arguement at all logical that he is regressing to any historical mean or that he is slumping. Selecting 10 a string of 10 games in the middle of 55 games this season to draw any conclusions is HORRENDOUS. Stats 101 should have taught you that.
I disagree a single without anyone on, is the same as a walk and you rather take a walk then swing at a bad pitch.

I am not making conclussion based on just 10 games, but you could say a player had a bad string of games there, it means nothing in the overall picture. The fact still remains that Uribe is regressing from his peak even with three good games.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 01:14 PM
I disagree a single without anyone on, is the same as a walk and you rather take a walk then swing at a bad pitch.

I am not making conclussion based on just 10 games, but you could say a player had a bad string of games there, it means nothing in the overall picture. The fact still remains that Uribe is regressing from his peak even with three good games.
Over his last 5 games he is 9 for 23. How is that regressing? Unless you chose to take a very limited sample, you can't draw a significant conclusion that he is regressing - that just doesn't work statistically.

And since you have completely discounted (and ignored) the fact that a 24 year old in a comfortable situation could do a lot better than that person did as an uncomfortable 22 year old, then you are deliberately trying to ignore any arguement that doesn't validate your hypothesis.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 01:24 PM
I disagree a single without anyone on, is the same as a walk and you rather take a walk then swing at a bad pitch.


No ****? But that's not what we said. We said a HIT. A HIT has potential to be a single, a double, a triple or a HR. We were talking in the context of avg vs obp. So for Uribe, the expected value of that hit in terms of bases = TB/H = 1.25 bases. Now tell me - is a Uribe hit as good as a Uribe walk, without anyone on?

And nobody was talking about swinging at a bad pitch. You can not control what you are thrown - but you can't go to the plate and not be swinging. Pitchers catch on to that. If the arguement you are trying to get in with that comment is that Uribe has poor command of the strike zone you are spending too much time with your calculator and not enough time watching games. He has decent command of the strikezone for a young hitter and his K/PA rate is not bad considering his avg/obp/slg.

But for some reason I think you still would rather have D'Angelo Jimenez - despite empirical evidence that he has been of less value than Uribe YTD - because you think Uribe (.318/.373/.542) is due to regress - while Jimenez (career .267/.351/.367) is for some reason going to generate more runs due to his walks. You'd really rather have Jimenez's walks than Uribe's hits? That is amazing to me. (and lets not even bring defense and baserunning blunders into the equation)

FarWestChicago
06-14-2004, 01:45 PM
Well put.

I think the only thing that is SHOCKING is that you did not put that last statement in teal. Uribe could hit .600 for the rest of the season and he would still be labeled *a fluke* by some because it is inconcievable that KW could have possibly found a diamond in the rough. That's what it ultimately boils down to.You hit that nail on the head. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/nod.gif

beckett21
06-14-2004, 01:53 PM
You hit that nail on the head. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/nod.gif
Anyone who hasn't figured out that this argument transcends Uribe has missed the boat.....:rolleyes:

FOBB will use any means necessary to spread their gospel of hate.

FarWestChicago
06-14-2004, 01:54 PM
Anyone who hasn't figured out that this argument transcends Uribe has missed the boat.....:rolleyes:

FOBB will use any means necessary to spread their gospel of hate.This is true. And they think they are so clever. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

JasonC23
06-14-2004, 02:08 PM
jabrch, why do you hate stats and people who like stats and GMs who like stats so much? I've noticed a recurring theme in your posts, and it's really starting to disturb me. All you do is bring up A) someone who is well-respected by "statheads" like Billy Beane or Theo Epstein (or a player like Jimenez) that you don't like or B) someone who was, in the past, not well respected by statheads but is doing well right now like Kenny Williams (or a player like Juan Uribe) that you like, and then you A) rip on everyone who said the opposite of what you think and B) rip on anyone who likes stats (witness your "You calculator is broke - go out and buy more megapixels to fix it" quote from earlier in this thread).

You do it so consistently, I feel like an intervention is needed. jabrch, what brought you to this blind hatred of stats? Seriously, I'd love to know, because it gets tiresome seeing you beat the same old horse every single time you post.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 02:20 PM
Anyone who hasn't figured out that this argument transcends Uribe has missed the boat.....:rolleyes:

FOBB will use any means necessary to spread their gospel of hate.
Are you guys ever going to get off your damn soap box. This nothing to do with Kenny. If you choose to belive that, well that your own damn fault.

jeremyb1
06-14-2004, 02:22 PM
Anyone who hasn't figured out that this argument transcends Uribe has missed the boat.....:rolleyes:

FOBB will use any means necessary to spread their gospel of hate.

You know I have to stop and say that I think these types of posts are simply repugnant and completely unacceptable. You're destroying any potential for debate by sidestepping facts and issues to label and stereotype people. It's an ad hominem attack you're attacking the poster not the argument. Because DaDawg, myself, and others on this board happen to believe in sabermetrics and therefore share some beliefs with Billy Beane, every post we make is illegitimate? Now that is hateful and unfair. Round us all up and put us on ignore if you like but I think it's really cheap to make blanket statements without even examining the facts. I for one have been extremely supportive of a number of KW moves such as acquiring Loaizawhen they happened such as acquiring Colon, Loaiza, Jimenez, and even Juan Uribe! But hey why consider any points made by a FOBB.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 02:27 PM
No ****? But that's not what we said. We said a HIT. A HIT has potential to be a single, a double, a triple or a HR. We were talking in the context of avg vs obp. So for Uribe, the expected value of that hit in terms of bases = TB/H = 1.25 bases. Now tell me - is a Uribe hit as good as a Uribe walk, without anyone on?

And nobody was talking about swinging at a bad pitch. You can not control what you are thrown - but you can't go to the plate and not be swinging. Pitchers catch on to that. If the arguement you are trying to get in with that comment is that Uribe has poor command of the strike zone you are spending too much time with your calculator and not enough time watching games. He has decent command of the strikezone for a young hitter and his K/PA rate is not bad considering his avg/obp/slg.

But for some reason I think you still would rather have D'Angelo Jimenez - despite empirical evidence that he has been of less value than Uribe YTD - because you think Uribe (.318/.373/.542) is due to regress - while Jimenez (career .267/.351/.367) is for some reason going to generate more runs due to his walks. You'd really rather have Jimenez's walks than Uribe's hits? That is amazing to me. (and lets not even bring defense and baserunning blunders into the equation)
Other then response to your post, I have never compared Jimenez to Uribe. So not sure where you are getting that thought.



Uribe at the plate is Vlad Jr., if he can produce like Vlad, great. Just that most players don't.



Avg is just a component of OPB. Like if you have a great CD player but a crappy receiver, your sound system would be lacking. You are trying to compare walks to doubles which is quite ridiculous as 2 is greater then 1.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 02:31 PM
Are you guys ever going to get off your damn soap box. This nothing to do with Kenny. If you choose to belive that, well that your own damn fault.If you can falsely presume we think Uribe is the second coming, I don't see how it is far-fetched to presume your motives stem further out then just saying Uribe is a fluke.

beckett21
06-14-2004, 02:35 PM
You know I have to stop and say that I think these types of posts are simply repugnant and completely unacceptable. You're destroying any potential for debate by sidestepping facts and issues to label and stereotype people. It's an ad hominem attack you're attacking the poster not the argument. Because DaDawg, myself, and others on this board happen to believe in sabermetrics and therefore share some beliefs with Billy Beane, every post we make is illegitimate? Now that is hateful and unfair. Round us all up and put us on ignore if you like but I think it's really cheap to make blanket statements without even examining the facts. I for one have been extremely supportive of a number of KW moves such as acquiring Loaizawhen they happened such as acquiring Colon, Loaiza, Jimenez, and even Juan Uribe! But hey why consider any points made by a FOBB.
The guy in question is hitting .318.

You are free to post and believe anything you like. Sorry if you took it as a personal attack. At what point do people stop calling Uribe a fluke and just enjoy the spark he is giving this team? 2008??

Maybe it's just because I have never been any good at math I am releasing some pent-up frustrations. The arguments just strike me as a broken record, playing the same old tune over and over and over and over.....

If I offended anyone (which apparently I did) for that I apologize. However I still don't understand why some people seem to want Uribe to fail in order to prove a point.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 02:35 PM
You know I have to stop and say that I think these types of posts are simply repugnant and completely unacceptable. You're destroying any potential for debate by sidestepping facts and issues to label and stereotype people. It's an ad hominem attack you're attacking the poster not the argument. Because DaDawg, myself, and others on this board happen to believe in sabermetrics and therefore share some beliefs with Billy Beane, every post we make is illegitimate? Now that is hateful and unfair. Round us all up and put us on ignore if you like but I think it's really cheap to make blanket statements without even examining the facts. I for one have been extremely supportive of a number of KW moves such as acquiring Loaizawhen they happened such as acquiring Colon, Loaiza, Jimenez, and even Juan Uribe! But hey why consider any points made by a FOBB.You're twisting the argument. No one is saying that sabermetrics aren't useful. We're saying that using them to predict Uribe is a fluke is just dumb. The guy is flat out playing great on both sides of the ball, and we have these goof balls telling us that he didn't walk when he was 22 years old so therefore we can conclude that his performance will come to an abrupt stop in a never ending spiral of sucking.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 02:36 PM
If you can falsely presume we think Uribe is the second coming, I don't see how it is far-fetched to presume your motives stem further out then just saying Uribe is a fluke.
I get second coming belief from the fact when I put out the question of whether has been Uribe playing above his head at this point and his production will regress, you, FWC, Beckett and jabrch try to rip off my head like I am a heretic.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 02:41 PM
I get second coming belief from the fact when I put out the question of whether has been Uribe playing above his head at this point and his production will regress, you, FWC, Beckett and jabrch try to rip off my head like I am a heretic. It's the manner that you present it. You don't put it out there as a possibility. You present your argument as if it has already happened. It's fine to have your opinion, but to say he is going to suck when he has done nothing but perform well is going to step on people's toes. If you merely said it's possible, or that you're skeptical about the level he plays it is one thing. To say he is going to suck because of what he did in Colorado is just way too premature, and frankly a negative attitude that is unneccessary until he shows it to be the case.

jeremyb1
06-14-2004, 02:44 PM
As far as this actual thread goes it is completely ridiculous in my opinion. No one has ever really said anything negative about Uribe. DaDawg said he would be a better player if he walked more (in my opinion a statement that is not refutable and holds true for most MLB players outside of perhaps Bonds) and that he had begun to regress to the mean somewhat (it is undeniable that he's no longer hitting as well as he was in April when he hit .400).

The only debatable argument is whether Uribe was and is an inconsistent hitter and I don't really think it's worth anyone's time. I think it is important to note that Uribe was critisized in the past for coasting in Colorado and that such concerns about makeup aren't completely worthless. I do think that hitting 2 for 19 is a slump, that doesn't mean it's a long slump. DaDawg never said that it was indicative of a long term downward trend so it's silly to accuse him of doing so.

There's really just not that much in disagreement here so I think it's ridiculous to continuously start threads like this to attack the "FOBB" who people seem to think are bashing Uribe and think he's a poor player because KW acquired him when NO ONE HAS EVER MADE SUCH CLAIMS!!! Look throughout this thread and the last Uribe thread. No one thinks Uribe is anything less than a good player who has and should continue to make valuable contributions to this team. While some may not want to admit it the underlying tension here seems to be related to this notion of whether or not Uribe is a good player when everyone agrees that he is one. I wonder if Jbrch alledged hatred of "statheads" as discussed in a post above isn't leading him to percieve disagreement that doesn't actually exist.

As far as two ideas discussed in this thread:

1) A walk is not only as good as a single, it's often better because it will typically require the opposing pitcher to throw more pitches extending his pitch count and removing him from the game earlier (if he's a good starter) or at least getting him out of the game earlier and getting to face the back end of a team's pen (if he's a bad starter). Extra base hits are unrelated to this discussion because we don't need AVG to measure extra base hits we have slugging. Yes, Uribe is more valuable than Jiminez this season because they have similar OBPs and Uribe has a higher SLG. However, if the SLGs were equal, Uribe's higher AVG wouldn't be better because it allows for a higher potential for extra base hits because he's getting extra bases at the same rate as Jimenez since they have the same SLG.

2) I agree that 20 at bats is a small sample size but you have to realize that even the first half of a season is a relatively small sample size. DaDawg I believe unintentionally touched on a point that illustrates this when he mentions the All-Star game. While some of the problems can be attributed to poor selection methods and the requirement of one team per player, do you realize how many mediocre to bad players have made the All-Star team based on a hot first half? Kent Bottenfield, James Baldwin, Ricky Botallico, Jay Bell, Ed Sprague, Dean Palmer, Walt Weiss, Joe Girardi, Jeffery Hammonds. You could make a much longer list. The point is its far from unheard of for a player to have a great half that is not in line with the rest of his career. Sox fans should know this after Paully's '02 first half. Does this mean I think Uribe is going to hit .220 in the second half? Of course not. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a shock if he ends up hitting .280 this season.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 02:45 PM
The guy in question is hitting .318.

You are free to post and believe anything you like. Sorry if you took it as a personal attack. At what point do people stop calling Uribe a fluke and just enjoy the spark he is giving this team? 2008??

Maybe it's just because I have never been any good at math I am releasing some pent-up frustrations. The arguments just strike me as a broken record, playing the same old tune over and over and over and over.....

If I offended anyone (which apparently I did) for that I apologize. However I still don't understand why some people seem to want Uribe to fail in order to prove a point.
After Juan keeps up this production on consisitancy basis over a long period of time, thatís when. Uribe showed some power before but that is it but this increase was out of the blue. That is why there is a question on it. When Frank Thomas was producing when he first started, you saw the trend the in the minors so it wasnít shock but expected. Juanís increase production wasnít expected, thus is questioned more.



No one wants to Juan to fail to prove a point, I would happily eat crow. Just I donít feel like I will have to. Remember, this debate started when Juan was hitting .350.



Actually the arguments of Friends of the Abacas strike me as being a broken record. But this debate has been rehashed in well over 100 post on the board.

jeremyb1
06-14-2004, 02:47 PM
You're twisting the argument. No one is saying that sabermetrics aren't useful. We're saying that using them to predict Uribe is a fluke is just dumb. The guy is flat out playing great on both sides of the ball, and we have these goof balls telling us that he didn't walk when he was 22 years old so therefore we can conclude that his performance will come to an abrupt stop in a never ending spiral of sucking.

The guy in question is hitting .318.

You are free to post and believe anything you like. Sorry if you took it as a personal attack. At what point do people stop calling Uribe a fluke and just enjoy the spark he is giving this team? 2008??

Maybe it's just because I have never been any good at math I am releasing some pent-up frustrations. The arguments just strike me as a broken record, playing the same old tune over and over and over and over.....

If I offended anyone (which apparently I did) for that I apologize. However I still don't understand why some people seem to want Uribe to fail in order to prove a point.

But that's the thing. You didn't even post anything as illuminating as the fact that he's hitting .318 in the thread. If you want to demonstrate the arguments made in this thread to be ridiculous and unfoundationless and then attribute them to biased FOBB, I can handle that. I just severely dislike attacking people's alledged biases and motives without attacking the arguments because it hinders any kind of actual debate over facts and issues. As I say in my post above, I don't think anyone feels Uribe is a "fluke" in the sense that you view the word. That's more an accusation made by other posters in my opinion.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 02:47 PM
It's the manner that you present it. You don't put it out there as a possibility. You present your argument as if it has already happened. It's fine to have your opinion, but to say he is going to suck when he has done nothing but perform well is going to step on people's toes. If you merely said it's possible, or that you're skeptical about the level he plays it is one thing. To say he is going to suck because of what he did in Colorado is just way too premature, and frankly a negative attitude that is unneccessary until he shows it to be the case.
I did present as a possibility when asking you if that happens what your view of the trade would be. The walks part came up later as I pointed the fact he doesn't walk as being a bad sign.

beckett21
06-14-2004, 02:48 PM
I get second coming belief from the fact when I put out the question of whether has been Uribe playing above his head at this point and his production will regress, you, FWC, Beckett and jabrch try to rip off my head like I am a heretic.
I for one don't think that Uribe is the second coming, and he may be playing over his head.

That is not to mean that I expect him to turn into Royce Clayton anytime soon either.

When they signed him initially, I expected him to be Jimenez-lite. If that were the case, I think we would know that by now. Obviously I was wrong in my initial assessment.

There are very few players who can keep up a .350 clip for a whole season. In so much as the first two months he may have been playing over his head, I see no reason to expect him to revert to his previous career averages either. Perhaps it is possible that he has actually matured as a hitter and improved. That is what I would like to believe, rather than wait for the floor to drop out from under him. As far as numbers go, you guys are on a different level than I am so I guess we are speaking a different language. Unfortunately I don't have time to dissect the numbers like some of you. Let's just say then that ignorance is bliss for me.

Not to disrespect your philosophies. I guess I just don't believe in them. Not trying to rip anyone's head off here.

jeremyb1
06-14-2004, 02:51 PM
No one wants to Juan to fail to prove a point, I would happily eat crow. Just I don’t feel like I will have to. Remember, this debate started when Juan was hitting .350. [/font][/size]

This is the key to the entire debate if you ask me. No one is on the same page here. When DaDawg and I say we're not sure that Uribe can keep up his production it doesn't mean we think he's a bad player or that he's going to be horrific from now on. A guy who is "a fluke" when he's hitting .400 can fall a long way and still be a very good player. I think it needs to be understood that saying a guy might drop off a bit when he's been out of this world is not an insult. But yeah the point is Uribe was hitting .350 and that was above his head. Personally I find it unlikely he raise his average back up to .350. Whether it will stay at .318 remains to be seen. I woudln't put my house on it either way.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 02:52 PM
2) I agree that 20 at bats is a small sample size but you have to realize that even the first half of a season is a relatively small sample size. DaDawg I believe unintentionally touched on a point that illustrates this when he mentions the All-Star game. While some of the problems can be attributed to poor selection methods and the requirement of one team per player, do you realize how many mediocre to bad players have made the All-Star team based on a hot first half? Kent Bottenfield, James Baldwin, Ricky Botallico, Jay Bell, Ed Sprague, Dean Palmer, Walt Weiss, Joe Girardi, Jeffery Hammonds. You could make a much longer list. The point is its far from unheard of for a player to have a great half that is not in line with the rest of his career. Sox fans should know this after Paully's '02 first half. Does this mean I think Uribe is going to hit .220 in the second half? Of course not. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a shock if he ends up hitting .280 this season.
There was nothing unintentional about that, I was hoping readers would know that there have been many one time wonders that have made the ASG. The reason I mention multiple trips means something is you don't make it twice on flukes.

beckett21
06-14-2004, 02:53 PM
But that's the thing. You didn't even post anything as illuminating as the fact that he's hitting .318 in the thread. If you want to demonstrate the arguments made in this thread to be ridiculous and unfoundationless and then attribute them to biased FOBB, I can handle that. I just severely dislike attacking people's alledged biases and motives without attacking the arguments because it hinders any kind of actual debate over facts and issues. As I say in my post above, I don't think anyone feels Uribe is a "fluke" in the sense that you view the word. That's more an accusation made by other posters in my opinion.
Fair enough. I agree to disagree then. I just don't buy fully into the whole argument of past performance when we are dealing with young players. Esteban Loaiza, I could buy that one. But not with a young guy still learning the game at the major league level who has never really had that much of a chance to begin with. It takes a couple years to get comfortable in the bigs.

Not trying to dodge the issue, but have to get back to work. Carry on! :)

jeremyb1
06-14-2004, 02:56 PM
There are very few players who can keep up a .350 clip for a whole season. In so much as the first two months he may have been playing over his head, I see no reason to expect him to revert to his previous career averages either. Perhaps it is possible that he has actually matured as a hitter and improved. That is what I would like to believe, rather than wait for the floor to drop out from under him.

See I think everyone in this thread can agree on this point which is what makes this bickering so absurd. Most of us can agree that Uribe isn't a .350 hitter and most of us can agree that 24 year olds often improve. BP's PECTOA projected Uribe to hit .260/.301/.417 this season which is an improvement from his career line of .258/.298/.401 and a much bigger one than it appears when you consider park effects so the "statheads" didn't think Uribe was a terrible player limited to his career numbers when the season began and don't believe so now either.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 02:56 PM
This is the key to the entire debate if you ask me. No one is on the same page here. When DaDawg and I say we're not sure that Uribe can keep up his production it doesn't mean we think he's a bad player or that he's going to be horrific from now on. A guy who is "a fluke" when he's hitting .400 can fall a long way and still be a very good player. I think it needs to be understood that saying a guy might drop off a bit when he's been out of this world is not an insult. But yeah the point is Uribe was hitting .350 and that was above his head. Personally I find it unlikely he raise his average back up to .350. Whether it will stay at .318 remains to be seen. I woudln't put my house on it either way.You're sugar coating after the fact. This debate comes from several threads. However, if you have taken it upon yourself to speak for Dadawg and that both of you are saying that Uribe is a good player, who may or may not experience a drop off based on your opinions. I'm fine with that. Saying that he will drop off and become a mediocre player because of his early years in Colorado, I won't except that argument until he proves that he is a so called "fluke". No matter how nicely you want to define the word fluke.

jeremyb1
06-14-2004, 02:57 PM
There was nothing unintentional about that, I was hoping readers would know that there have been many one time wonders that have made the ASG. The reason I mention multiple trips means something is you don't make it twice on flukes.

Oh. Very good point then. Haha.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 03:00 PM
I for one don't think that Uribe is the second coming, and he may be playing over his head.

That is not to mean that I expect him to turn into Royce Clayton anytime soon either.

When they signed him initially, I expected him to be Jimenez-lite. If that were the case, I think we would know that by now. Obviously I was wrong in my initial assessment.

There are very few players who can keep up a .350 clip for a whole season. In so much as the first two months he may have been playing over his head, I see no reason to expect him to revert to his previous career averages either. Perhaps it is possible that he has actually matured as a hitter and improved. That is what I would like to believe, rather than wait for the floor to drop out from under him. As far as numbers go, you guys are on a different level than I am so I guess we are speaking a different language. Unfortunately I don't have time to dissect the numbers like some of you. Let's just say then that ignorance is bliss for me.

Not to disrespect your philosophies. I guess I just don't believe in them. Not trying to rip anyone's head off here.
Me and other statheads, as you like to call us, like to get into the numbers and see what is driving what. Wins are the end all be all outcome. So ask yourself what drives wins; scoring runs and preventing runs. Now leaving out preventing runs for another thread, what drives scoring runs; OBP and SLG. What drives SLG,; ISO power. What drives OBP; Walks and AVG. So we start to look at walk rate, pitches per at bat, ISO power because we want to see how a player is doing at a component level, for it may point out a weakness of a player that is being covered up at a higher level.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 03:02 PM
See I think everyone in this thread can agree on this point which is what makes this bickering so absurd. Most of us can agree that Uribe isn't a .350 hitter and most of us can agree that 24 year olds often improve. BP's PECTOA projected Uribe to hit .260/.301/.417 this season which is an improvement from his career line of .258/.298/.401 and a much bigger one than it appears when you consider park effects so the "statheads" didn't think Uribe was a terrible player limited to his career numbers when the season began and don't believe so now either.Well if all you were trying to argue was that he wasn't going to hit .350 all season, there would have never been an argument. Saying that he can't bat better than .260 and have a better OBP than .301 is drastically underestimating what he has shown this year IMO. He isn't getting cheap hits. He's driving the ball. Would it be nice if he gets a lot of walks, sure, especially with those who folow him in the order. Am I going to tell him to take a passive approach at the plate with the way he's hitting, no way. If it's a "fluke", ride it out. Make adjustments as needed, and not before. He has shown the ability to take walks, and has shown good plate discipline. It's one to just check the stats, but nothing is better than watching the games and seeing how he performs day in and day out. Right now, there is no reason for him to change his approach.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 03:04 PM
jabrch, why do you hate stats and people who like stats and GMs who like stats so much? I've noticed a recurring theme in your posts, and it's really starting to disturb me.
Actually, I have an Econ degree from U of I, and took 2 grad level stats course in B-School. I have no problem with stats. I just find it funny how much some people take it overboard and somehow find that stats are the end-all be-all control factor of baseball.

All you do is bring up A) someone who is well-respected by "statheads" like Billy Beane or Theo Epstein (or a player like Jimenez) that you don't like or B) someone who was, in the past, not well respected by statheads but is doing well right now like Kenny Williams (or a player like Juan Uribe) that you like, and then you A) rip on everyone who said the opposite of what you think and B) rip on anyone who likes stats (witness your "You calculator is broke - go out and buy more megapixels to fix it" quote from earlier in this thread).
Well - you must not read most of my posts if you think that is all that I do. As far as me ripping on people, you must not read to many of my posts - cuz I hardly EVER rip on anyone. And if you didn't get the humor in the calculator comment with respect to the thread - then I apologize deeply for DISTURBING you.

You do it so consistently, I feel like an intervention is needed. jabrch, what brought you to this blind hatred of stats? Seriously, I'd love to know, because it gets tiresome seeing you beat the same old horse every single time you post.
I don't hate stats - contrary to your post. I do not like when people try to simplify it all to calculators - where the game is proposed to be formulaic or mathematical - and then worship those who agree with them and bash those who dont.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 03:07 PM
You are trying to compare walks to doubles which is quite ridiculous as 2 is greater then 1.
No - we were comparing OBP to AVG - which is comparing walks to HITS. You were arguing that a walk is as good as a hit while I say it is (with a few exceptions - guys with no power or speed whatsoever) not possible for a walk to be as good as a hit since the batter will be expected to get more bases and the runners will also be expected to get more bases.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 03:08 PM
I get second coming belief from the fact when I put out the question of whether has been Uribe playing above his head at this point and his production will regress, you, FWC, Beckett and jabrch try to rip off my head like I am a heretic.
But, again, YOU are the only person to call him the second coming.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 03:10 PM
See I think everyone in this thread can agree on this point which is what makes this bickering so absurd. Most of us can agree that Uribe isn't a .350 hitter and most of us can agree that 24 year olds often improve. BP's PECTOA projected Uribe to hit .260/.301/.417 this season which is an improvement from his career line of .258/.298/.401 and a much bigger one than it appears when you consider park effects so the "statheads" didn't think Uribe was a terrible player limited to his career numbers when the season began and don't believe so now either.
He is smoking the 90% level, .293/.335/.480 which is something that calls attention to itself. But his components havenít improved in such a great deal to explain it, like E Loís did last year. Guess if we can't explain something, like everyone else, we are skeptical about it. That may be the only bias here is there is no real reason we can see for the huge jump in his production. We can speculate that is because Sox clubhouse is more Spanish friendly then the Rockies clubhouse but it is still speculation.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 03:11 PM
After Juan keeps up this production on consisitancy basis over a long period of time, thatís when.
I don't get it still...

Uribe has to do it over a long period of time - but a 10 day "slump" in the middle of 55 games to date is enough time for you to draw conclusions? And guys who you may like (call them the Jimenezes of the world) who have not done it over any sort of long period of time are good because...? why? exactly?

jabrch
06-14-2004, 03:12 PM
I did present as a possibility when asking you if that happens what your view of the trade would be. The walks part came up later as I pointed the fact he doesn't walk as being a bad sign.
Again, if that were true - it would make a nice story. But during his 10 game "slump", when he was not seeing pitches, he walked at a very good rate.

round and round and round we goooooooo.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 03:14 PM
Well if all you were trying to argue was that he wasn't going to hit .350 all season, there would have never been an argument. Saying that he can't bat better than .260 and have a better OBP than .301 is drastically underestimating what he has shown this year IMO. He isn't getting cheap hits. He's driving the ball. Would it be nice if he gets a lot of walks, sure, especially with those who folow him in the order. Am I going to tell him to take a passive approach at the plate with the way he's hitting, no way. If it's a "fluke", ride it out. Make adjustments as needed, and not before. He has shown the ability to take walks, and has shown good plate discipline. It's one to just check the stats, but nothing is better than watching the games and seeing how he performs day in and day out. Right now, there is no reason for him to change his approach.
I do think you are overrating his plate discipline. In chat during the first game of Philly series on Juan's first homer (I think that was the pitch) several including me, chatter remarks how low that pitch was. You on the other hand, I think said it was strike or at least not that low. Now, I wasn't watching on TIVO so I couldn't go back and watch it again, but that pitch defiantly looked low to me.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 03:15 PM
Again, if that were true - it would make a nice story. But during his 10 game "slump", when he was not seeing pitches, he walked at a very good rate.

round and round and round we goooooooo.
It is true.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 03:16 PM
I don't get it still...

Uribe has to do it over a long period of time - but a 10 day "slump" in the middle of 55 games to date is enough time for you to draw conclusions? And guys who you may like (call them the Jimenezes of the world) who have not done it over any sort of long period of time are good because...? why? exactly?
Are you even reading the post? I mean you keep harping on this 10 day thing, which was minor point if at all. If you are tried of going in circles, stop getting yourself dizzy. Nothing was based on that.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 03:20 PM
But his components havenít improved in such a great deal to explain it
The components you choose to look at have not improved. But the fact that he is getting more hits should be a significant component. His walks have also improved - but not to the Jimenez level - possibly because he is a better hitter than Jimenez. When he gets pitches, he hits them. Jimenez gets pitches, and fouls them off. Does that make Jimenez worthless since he fouls off a ton of pitches and takes walks? no - of course not. But the fact that Uribe doesn't do that and he instead hits those balls that Jimenez is fouling off does mean he has a greater positive impact on his team.

What I find funny is that if you took the Beane/Depodesta/Epstein crowd, and asked them if they'd take Uribe or Jimenez on their team today, I imagine they would all say "screw my computer - give me the better player". But some folks here are so overwhelmed by some microstatistics that they don't see the forrest through the trees.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 03:21 PM
I do think you are overrating his plate discipline. In chat during the first game of Philly series on Juan's first homer (I think that was the pitch) several including me, chatter remarks how low that pitch was. You on the other hand, I think said it was strike or at least not that low. Now, I wasn't watching on TIVO so I couldn't go back and watch it again, but that pitch defiantly looked low to me.It was low, but his swing and body structure allows him to attack the ball there if he sees it well. He's hit several like that this year. If it works for him, I don't see it as a bad thing. Pitch recognition is more than only swinging at strikes. It's swinging at pitches you are able to drive. He lays off a lot of pitches up in the zone that others have trouble with, as well as pitches well off the plate. You're going to swing at balls, that's just baseball. However if you can drive those pitches, then it is worthy to swing at, as long as you can indeed drive them and were generally looking for a pitch in that location.

jeremyb1
06-14-2004, 03:22 PM
You're sugar coating after the fact. This debate comes from several threads. However, if you have taken it upon yourself to speak for Dadawg and that both of you are saying that Uribe is a good player, who may or may not experience a drop off based on your opinions. I'm fine with that. Saying that he will drop off and become a mediocre player because of his early years in Colorado, I won't except that argument until he proves that he is a so called "fluke". No matter how nicely you want to define the word fluke.

I'm not trying to speak for DaDawg but personally I haven't seen anything from the other threads he's said that conflicts my statement there and I have read the other threads.

jeremyb1
06-14-2004, 03:24 PM
Well if all you were trying to argue was that he wasn't going to hit .350 all season, there would have never been an argument. Saying that he can't bat better than .260 and have a better OBP than .301 is drastically underestimating what he has shown this year IMO. He isn't getting cheap hits. He's driving the ball. Would it be nice if he gets a lot of walks, sure, especially with those who folow him in the order. Am I going to tell him to take a passive approach at the plate with the way he's hitting, no way. If it's a "fluke", ride it out. Make adjustments as needed, and not before. He has shown the ability to take walks, and has shown good plate discipline. It's one to just check the stats, but nothing is better than watching the games and seeing how he performs day in and day out. Right now, there is no reason for him to change his approach.

I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying. That's PECOTA's projection from prior to the season. I was using it to illustrate two points 1) that everyone is in agreement Uribe is a young and therefore still improving player and that he's not limited to his past performance and 2) the "statheads" projected Uribe to perform as well and I believe probably even better than just about any poster on this board prior to the start of the season. This isn't some phenomenon where statheads of FOBB hate Juan Uribe as has been suggested.

jeremyb1
06-14-2004, 03:27 PM
What I find funny is that if you took the Beane/Depodesta/Epstein crowd, and asked them if they'd take Uribe or Jimenez on their team today, I imagine they would all say "screw my computer - give me the better player". But some folks here are so overwhelmed by some microstatistics that they don't see the forrest through the trees.

I think "their computer" would tell them that Uribe has been a better player this season but I doubt they need a computer to tell them that.

JasonC23
06-14-2004, 03:30 PM
Actually, I have an Econ degree from U of I, and took 2 grad level stats course in B-School. I have no problem with stats. I just find it funny how much some people take it overboard and somehow find that stats are the end-all be-all control factor of baseball.


Well - you must not read most of my posts if you think that is all that I do. As far as me ripping on people, you must not read to many of my posts - cuz I hardly EVER rip on anyone. And if you didn't get the humor in the calculator comment with respect to the thread - then I apologize deeply for DISTURBING you.


I don't hate stats - contrary to your post. I do not like when people try to simplify it all to calculators - where the game is proposed to be formulaic or mathematical - and then worship those who agree with them and bash those who dont.
You hardly ever rip on anyone? Are you saying you aren't the jabrch who continuously bashes Billy Beane? The jabrch who called the Boston GM "Theo Oopstein"? The jabrch who in this very thread repeatedly rips apart other posters because they refuse to say that because Juan Uribe's had a couple of awesome months, that he's automatically now a great player and anything negative they ever said or thought about him was just so stupid as to be beyond ridiculous?

Maybe I'm just forgetting the rest of your posts, but it seems like every time I read an uninformed post blindly ripping anyone associated with or using stats, there's your name at the top. I don't recall you ever saying anything nice about anyone, in or out of baseball, who likes to use stats to back up their opinions. That, to me, is not "humor," it's a pattern of behavior that leads me to believe that I, among others, will never be able to have a rationale discourse with you because you so hate our point of view that no matter what we say, the argument will degenerate into "stop worshipping stats." And that's just not productive.

Please, prove me wrong. Say something nice about Billy Beane, that overrated stat-worshipping egomaniac who somehow, in between ghost-writing books about himself, manages to always get his team into the playoffs.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 03:30 PM
The components you choose to look at have not improved. But the fact that he is getting more hits should be a significant component. His walks have also improved - but not to the Jimenez level - possibly because he is a better hitter than Jimenez. When he gets pitches, he hits them. Jimenez gets pitches, and fouls them off. Does that make Jimenez worthless since he fouls off a ton of pitches and takes walks? no - of course not. But the fact that Uribe doesn't do that and he instead hits those balls that Jimenez is fouling off does mean he has a greater positive impact on his team.

What I find funny is that if you took the Beane/Depodesta/Epstein crowd, and asked them if they'd take Uribe or Jimenez on their team today, I imagine they would all say "screw my computer - give me the better player". But some folks here are so overwhelmed by some microstatistics that they don't see the forrest through the trees.
The thing with hits is there is nice amount of luck involved. 7 out times is consider good success rate. Why because hits are matter of centimeters. If your bat gets under or over a ball by just a couple of centimeters you just created an out. Plus you can smack a ball but right at someone or someone makes a great play. Hits fluctuate a great deal.

jeremyb1
06-14-2004, 03:31 PM
He is smoking the 90% level, .293/.335/.480 which is something that calls attention to itself. But his components haven’t improved in such a great deal to explain it, like E Lo’s did last year. Guess if we can't explain something, like everyone else, we are skeptical about it. That may be the only bias here is there is no real reason we can see for the huge jump in his production. We can speculate that is because Sox clubhouse is more Spanish friendly then the Rockies clubhouse but it is still speculation.



Well it certainly doesn't explain the entire improvement but his plate discipline has improved from roughly .5 BBs per plate appearance the last couple seasons to roughly .8 BB/PA this season. Also, his power is way up and he wouldn't be the first guy to develop power at 24. More than anything my best explanation is that he was rushed through the minors and called up at a really young age so there's a lot of room for improvement at this point in his career.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 03:40 PM
You hardly ever rip on anyone? Are you saying you aren't the jabrch who continuously bashes Billy Beane? The jabrch who called the Boston GM "Theo Oopstein"? The jabrch who in this very thread repeatedly rips apart other posters because they refuse to say that because Juan Uribe's had a couple of awesome months, that he's automatically now a great player and anything negative they ever said or thought about him was just so stupid as to be beyond ridiculous?

Maybe I'm just forgetting the rest of your posts, but it seems like every time I read an uninformed post blindly ripping anyone associated with or using stats, there's your name at the top. I don't recall you ever saying anything nice about anyone, in or out of baseball, who likes to use stats to back up their opinions. That, to me, is not "humor," it's a pattern of behavior that leads me to believe that I, among others, will never be able to have a rationale discourse with you because you so hate our point of view that no matter what we say, the argument will degenerate into "stop worshipping stats." And that's just not productive.

Please, prove me wrong. Say something nice about Billy Beane, that overrated stat-worshipping egomaniac who somehow, in between ghost-writing books about himself, manages to always get his team into the playoffs.
Wait a sec - so you say I always rip on people - when I doubt you can find too many threads where I actively rip on anyone present here - I won't apologize for ripping on opposing GMs, sorry -but in the process you essentially call me uniformed, mean and ignorant?

Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 03:42 PM
The thing with hits is there is nice amount of luck involved. 7 out times is consider good success rate. Why because hits are matter of centimeters. If your bat gets under or over a ball by just a couple of centimeters you just created an out. Plus you can smack a ball but right at someone or someone makes a great play. Hits fluctuate a great deal.You call that luck, I call it skill and talent. That's the difference. I don't believe any of it has to do with luck. I believe good hitters hit, bad hitters dont. Can you hit a ball well and get an out? of course. can you hit it poorly and get a hit? sure - but that's not luck. luck implies arbitrary and random outcomes with no control of the inputs by the participant. Rolling dice is luck. Drawing a card in blackjack is luck. Hitting a baseball is not luck. Over the course of a month, a season, a career, those incidents that you might say are lucky even themselves out and it is all about skill. Nobody gets lucky enough to have a MLB career. They are skillful enough to have careers.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 03:47 PM
Well it certainly doesn't explain the entire improvement but his plate discipline has improved from roughly .5 BBs per plate appearance the last couple seasons to roughly .8 BB/PA this season. Also, his power is way up and he wouldn't be the first guy to develop power at 24. More than anything my best explanation is that he was rushed through the minors and called up at a really young age so there's a lot of room for improvement at this point in his career.That's what I've been trying to illustrate. I don't see a reason to feud either as long as you recognize that.

JasonC23
06-14-2004, 03:49 PM
Wait a sec - so you say I always rip on people - when I doubt you can find too many threads where I actively rip on anyone present here - I won't apologize for ripping on opposing GMs, sorry -but in the process you essentially call me uniformed, mean and ignorant?

Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Except that I never called you mean, I said some of your posts (not you) are uninformed (there's a big difference), and I don't see where I said you were ignorant. What I'm trying to point out (apparently very poorly) is that you have yet to acknowledge that anyone (other posters or, yes, GMs) who at any point used or said they like stats has ever made a good point or a good decision. That attitude gets tiresome, because while you rail on "statheads" for not being able to see beyond their stats, you turn into someone who can't see beyond their dislike of people who use stats. A "here's what the stats say" vs "oh, yeah, well, here's what I think" debate can be a lot of fun, but not when one side quickly becomes, "All of you stat-worshippers need to put your calculators down." Once the subject of the debate is put aside in favor of broad generalizations, there's no point in debating, because it's no longer about "Uribe's current performance vs future performance," it's about "FOBB" vs "stats suck."

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 03:50 PM
The thing with hits is there is nice amount of luck involved. 7 out times is consider good success rate. Why because hits are matter of centimeters. If your bat gets under or over a ball by just a couple of centimeters you just created an out. Plus you can smack a ball but right at someone or someone makes a great play. Hits fluctuate a great deal.Walks fluctuate as well. If you are getting pitches to hit and are trying to draw a walk, you'll be in trouble. Uribe isn't getting pitched around because of the people batting behind him. If he starts looking for walks in the majority of his at bats, his strikeouts are going to increase dramatically, because he's going to be facing a lot of 1-2, 0-2 counts. As you have Ted Williams saying, you have one good pitch to hit. If Uribe sees the pitch he likes, I say rip it and drive it.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 04:00 PM
Except that I never called you mean, I said some of your posts (not you) are uninformed (there's a big difference), and I don't see where I said you were ignorant. What I'm trying to point out (apparently very poorly) is that you have yet to acknowledge that anyone (other posters or, yes, GMs) who at any point used or said they like stats has ever made a good point or a good decision. That attitude gets tiresome, because while you rail on "statheads" for not being able to see beyond their stats, you turn into someone who can't see beyond their dislike of people who use stats. A "here's what the stats say" vs "oh, yeah, well, here's what I think" debate can be a lot of fun, but not when one side quickly becomes, "All of you stat-worshippers need to put your calculators down." Once the subject of the debate is put aside in favor of broad generalizations, there's no point in debating, because it's no longer about "Uribe's current performance vs future performance," it's about "FOBB" vs "stats suck."
First, i didn't say you called me that - I said you "essentially" called me that. When you tell me my posts are uninformed, and I am the one making thoes posts, you have to own up to what you are implying.

Second, it is the same thing as when i get told to "get out of the dark ages" or when I get told that I don't understand components and statistics just because I don't believe they apply 100% every time to managing a baseball team, to projecting player performance or to evaluating baseball talent - right?

Finally, I have never said I hate stats. I have never said stats suck. I have a good understanding of them - and use them at work often. I believe stats have value. I have said this over and over again. You obviously didn't hear that - but I have said it. (What I have said is that I hate when stats are overused and that people try to boil the game down sheerly to numbers - as if that can be a tool to select all players - mathematically designed projections and all.

But if you read the point of this thread - That peopel wanted to bench/drop Uribe down in the order last week based on 10 "slumping" games and follow that train of thought - before it became Dawg telling me that I don't understand why Uribe is likely to regress to some lower level of performance making him unworthy of hitting where he is, then you'd understand a bit better where this thread WAS going. I didn't intend on this discussion. All I wanted was to prove the point that we can't bitch about small samplesizes of performance to make stupid-a$$ decisions about the roster or the lineup that would have negative impacts on the team. It quickly became a lesson in what I don't know about statistics and how those statistics would lead us to believe that Uribe is so flawed that he has nearly no chance of performing not only at this level, but even at a lower level - that he is due to regress to his colorado, 22 year old, uncomfortable level.

JasonC23
06-14-2004, 04:09 PM
First, i didn't say you called me that - I said you "essentially" called me that. When you tell me my posts are uninformed, and I am the one making thoes posts, you have to own up to what you are implying.

Second, it is the same thing as when i get told to "get out of the dark ages" or when I get told that I don't understand components and statistics just because I don't believe they apply 100% every time to managing a baseball team, to projecting player performance or to evaluating baseball talent - right?

Finally, I have never said I hate stats. I have never said stats suck. I have a good understanding of them - and use them at work often. I believe stats have value. I have said this over and over again. You obviously didn't hear that - but I have said it. (What I have said is that I hate when stats are overused and that people try to boil the game down sheerly to numbers - as if that can be a tool to select all players - mathematically designed projections and all.

But if you read the point of this thread - That peopel wanted to bench/drop Uribe down in the order last week based on 10 "slumping" games and follow that train of thought - before it became Dawg telling me that I don't understand why Uribe is likely to regress to some lower level of performance making him unworthy of hitting where he is, then you'd understand a bit better where this thread WAS going. I didn't intend on this discussion. All I wanted was to prove the point that we can't bitch about small samplesizes of performance to make stupid-a$$ decisions about the roster or the lineup that would have negative impacts on the team. It quickly became a lesson in what I don't know about statistics and how those statistics would lead us to believe that Uribe is so flawed that he has nearly no chance of performing not only at this level, but even at a lower level - that he is due to regress to his colorado, 22 year old, uncomfortable level.
Unless I'm just an idiot (please, hold all comments :smile: ), no one is saying that one day soon, Uribe will remember he's still a 22-year-old in Colorado and start sucking. What everyone is saying is that his past performance didn't lead anyone to believe he could be this good, so he's likely over his head and will regress some. "Regress some" does not equal "The sky is falling, he's really a .220 hitter, run, run!" like you seem to be saying it does. It's possible to say something negative about a player (he's likely to regress) without saying the extreme (he sucks). No one here is saying the extreme, but you seem to think they are. I guess my point is, even though some people's use of stats leads them to conclusions that you don't like, try not to immediately take their logic to the extreme and rip it apart.

OK, enough of that. Here's my constructive contribution to the thread...:smile:

Uribe is having a fantastic season. I was skeptical that he was anything more than a glove man when KW traded for him, and I'm glad that so far, he's proven me wrong. I think Ozzie should ride his hot hitting as far as possible, but I'm worried that because he appears to be above his head as far as both established performance and reasonable expectations would suggest, he may slump enough that hitting him first or second no longer makes sense. But since that slump hasn't come, keep on keepin' on, Ozzie and Juan.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 04:25 PM
But if you read the point of this thread - That peopel wanted to bench/drop Uribe down in the order last week based on 10 "slumping" games and follow that train of thought - before it became Dawg telling me that I don't understand why Uribe is likely to regress to some lower level of performance making him unworthy of hitting where he is, then you'd understand a bit better where this thread WAS going. I didn't intend on this discussion. All I wanted was to prove the point that we can't bitch about small samplesizes of performance to make stupid-a$$ decisions about the roster or the lineup that would have negative impacts on the team. It quickly became a lesson in what I don't know about statistics and how those statistics would lead us to believe that Uribe is so flawed that he has nearly no chance of performing not only at this level, but even at a lower level - that he is due to regress to his colorado, 22 year old, uncomfortable level.
Other then the fact I never said that, and to put those words in my mouth is a complete fabrication, I agree with you. For the record I said that one should expect Uribe to regress, how far is unknown, but one shouldnít judge the Uribe-Miles trade till the book is closed, which it is far from being. I have stated many of times if a player is hot you need to ride him for all he is worth, then you need to know when lay off as the player cools down. I never said anything specific about Uribeís case.

jabrch
06-14-2004, 04:32 PM
Unless I'm just an idiot (please, hold all comments :smile: ), no one is saying that one day soon, Uribe will remember he's still a 22-year-old in Colorado and start sucking. What everyone is saying is that his past performance didn't lead anyone to believe he could be this good, so he's likely over his head and will regress some. "Regress some" does not equal "The sky is falling, he's really a .220 hitter, run, run!" like you seem to be saying it does. It's possible to say something negative about a player (he's likely to regress) without saying the extreme (he sucks). No one here is saying the extreme, but you seem to think they are. I guess my point is, even though some people's use of stats leads them to conclusions that you don't like, try not to immediately take their logic to the extreme and rip it apart.

OK, enough of that. Here's my constructive contribution to the thread...:smile:

Uribe is having a fantastic season. I was skeptical that he was anything more than a glove man when KW traded for him, and I'm glad that so far, he's proven me wrong. I think Ozzie should ride his hot hitting as far as possible, but I'm worried that because he appears to be above his head as far as both established performance and reasonable expectations would suggest, he may slump enough that hitting him first or second no longer makes sense. But since that slump hasn't come, keep on keepin' on, Ozzie and Juan.

Jason, the talk last week here was that he should be moved to 7 or even benched based on "slump" that indicated that he would likely regress to his prior performance. I don't recall your posts if you had any on that thread, but I found it ridiculous then - using any logic, and even moreso ridiculous now in hindsight. That's all

It is very easy to say negative things about players and not say they suck. I do it all the time. But it only makes sense in the context of a player who is actually not performing over some extended period of time - not based on old history that doesn't look to apply to much to him anymore. I never said he was great. I never said he'd hit .360. I just said there was no reason to bench him. Others have since jumped into this thread and tried to make a whole lot more out of it. That's fine if that's what they want to do. But I just don't buy the arguement that Uribe is going to regress enough to A) make me miss Miles B) make me move him out of the top of the order C) bench him D) have his numbers even resemble either his numbers from last year, or the projections that were made by prognosticators.

10 games of a "slump" were all it took for a bunch of people to draw some pretty falacious conclusions. I don't get why things like that didn't bother you - yet you seem to condone that despite 10 weeks of good ball that there is some degree of likelihood that he will regress some (assumedly that means his end numbers will be at some level of unacceptability - not regressing from .360 to .320 which really can't be considered regressing by any standard - since they are well ahead of his historical pace anynow - and nobody's definition of regression seemed to be .285 or more - rather regression to his historical or his PECOTA projected numbers)

jabrch
06-14-2004, 04:33 PM
Other then the fact I never said that, and to put those words in my mouth is a complete fabrication, I agree with you. For the record I said that one should expect Uribe to regress, how far is unknown, but one shouldnít judge the Uribe-Miles trade till the book is closed, which it is far from being. I have stated many of times if a player is hot you need to ride him for all he is worth, then you need to know when lay off as the player cools down. I never said anything specific about Uribeís case.

Well - at least you agree with me! :smile:

maurice
06-14-2004, 04:36 PM
Okay, enough of the I-said, you-said, he-said, she-said crap.

Returning to the actual topic of this thread, a small sub-set of the stat-head camp feels that any measure other than sustained performance at the MLB level is meaningless. These folks thus refuse to recognize any of the tools (some of them statistical) used to evaluate young talent and tend to attribute KW's skill in this regard to "luck" or insufficient sample size. There's no arguing with this position, because it refuses to consider anything about young players as evidence.

The bottom line is that you just never know. That's why they play the games. However, good scouts ARE able to make fairly accurate predictions about young players, notwithstanding their lack of MLB stats. If you're going to criticise them when a move doesn't work out, you have to give them credit when it does (particularly when they give up very little in return).

Nice work on Uribe, KW.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 04:45 PM
Okay, enough of the I-said, you-said, he-said, she-said crap.

Returning to the actual topic of this thread, a small sub-set of the stat-head camp feels that any measure other than sustained performance at the MLB level is meaningless. These folks thus refuse to recognize any of the tools (some of them statistical) used to evaluate young talent and tend to attribute KW's skill in this regard to "luck" or insufficient sample size. There's no arguing with this position, because it refuses to consider anything about young players as evidence.

The bottom line is that you just never know. That's why they play the games. However, good scouts ARE able to make fairly accurate predictions about young players, notwithstanding their lack of MLB stats. If you're going to criticise them when a move doesn't work out, you have to give them credit when it does (particularly when they give up very little in return).

Nice work on Uribe, KW.
It isn't refusal to recognize anything but a wait and see approach.

jeremyb1
06-14-2004, 09:39 PM
Returning to the actual topic of this thread, a small sub-set of the stat-head camp feels that any measure other than sustained performance at the MLB level is meaningless. These folks thus refuse to recognize any of the tools (some of them statistical) used to evaluate young talent and tend to attribute KW's skill in this regard to "luck" or insufficient sample size. There's no arguing with this position, because it refuses to consider anything about young players as evidence.

The bottom line is that you just never know. That's why they play the games. However, good scouts ARE able to make fairly accurate predictions about young players, notwithstanding their lack of MLB stats. If you're going to criticise them when a move doesn't work out, you have to give them credit when it does (particularly when they give up very little in return).

Nice work on Uribe, KW.

My suggestion to all the posters on this board is to stop telling everyone what "the statheads" think. If there's an argument a poster makes on this board that you want to address, quote the argument and then respond to the posters words. Don't put agendas or words into any posters mouth because you consider the person to be a "stathead". This post about is a great example because it goes on and on about what statheads believe while completely misrepresenting any sabermetric view point I've ever heard. "Statheads" believe the exact opposite of the argument that you can never tell with young players since they don't have proven track records. Statheads are known for believing that players and position players in particular can be evaluated by examining minor league statistics. Players like Joe Mauer or Miguel Cabrerra might be considered difficult to evaluate because they lack many comparable players but not guys like Juan Uribe.

Maurice, if DaDawg or myself made an argument in this thread you disagree with, quote it and then post your rebuttal below the quote. Don't write long winded posts about what "small subsets" of the stathead community believe because no one has any clue who or what argument you're talking about.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 09:46 PM
My suggestion to all the posters on this board is to stop telling everyone what "the statheads" think. If there's an argument a poster makes on this board that you want to address, quote the argument and then respond to the posters words. Don't put agendas or words into any posters mouth because you consider the person to be a "stathead". This post about is a great example because it goes on and on about what statheads believe while completely misrepresenting any sabermetric view point I've ever heard. "Statheads" believe the exact opposite of the argument that you can never tell with young players since they don't have proven track records. Statheads are known for believing that players and position players in particular can be evaluated by examining minor league statistics. Players like Joe Mauer or Miguel Cabrerra might be considered difficult to evaluate because they lack many comparable players but not guys like Juan Uribe.

Maurice, if DaDawg or myself made an argument in this thread you disagree with, quote it and then post your rebuttal below the quote. Don't write long winded posts about what "small subsets" of the stathead community believe because no one has any clue who or what argument you're talking about.I think many here feel you guys should adhere to this advice as well. Telling us that we feel Uribe is the second coming is the same as the agenda or putting words in our mouths you're proposing others are making about you.

TaylorStSox
06-14-2004, 09:50 PM
I'm not going to get into this debate.

The only comment I have is regarding the ball that Uribe hit out the other day. It was out of the zone. However, it's okay for guys to swing at balls out of the zone as long as they can handle them. Vlad's made a pretty decent career out of it.

beckett21
06-14-2004, 09:57 PM
I'm not going to get into this debate.

The only comment I have is regarding the ball that Uribe hit out the other day. It was out of the zone. However, it's okay for guys to swing at balls out of the zone as long as they can handle them. Vlad's made a pretty decent career out of it.
Too late--you're in it now! :D:

As the saying goes, *you can't walk off the island....you have to hit your way off*

That's why so many of these guys are free swingers. Scouts aren't looking for a guy who can work a count--they want a guy who can mash.

Guerrero and Alfonso Soriano are two good examples. Jose Guillen another. Heady company for Uribe perhaps, but the same principle applies.

Dadawg_77
06-15-2004, 10:50 AM
Too late--you're in it now! :D:

As the saying goes, *you can't walk off the island....you have to hit your way off*

That's why so many of these guys are free swingers. Scouts aren't looking for a guy who can work a count--they want a guy who can mash.

Guerrero and Alfonso Soriano are two good examples. Jose Guillen another. Heady company for Uribe perhaps, but the same principle applies.
There are exemptions to every rule, a great majority of baseball players can't succeed on a consistently by swinging at pitches outside the zone. Also Jose Guillen is perfect example for my point. Last year, his OPS was .928, 1.014 posted in Cin while finishing up the year in Oakland at .770. In 2002 he was bad producing .654 with Zona and Cin.

beckett21
06-15-2004, 11:52 AM
There are exemptions to every rule, a great majority of baseball players can't succeed on a consistently by swinging at pitches outside the zone. Also Jose Guillen is perfect example for my point. Last year, his OPS was .928, 1.014 posted in Cin while finishing up the year in Oakland at .770. In 2002 he was bad producing .654 with Zona and Cin.
Guillen is also another young player who has never enjoyed regular PT until last year. He has looked pretty good so far this year as well.

I'm not saying you are wrong, nor am I saying Uribe is the next Vlad Guerrero. Uribe is in an environment now which he seems to thrive under, and perhaps that was all he needed. That, and a couple years of major league pitching under his belt. Throw the Colorado numbers out of the equation. I would not base his future performance on what he did his first two years. That is my point. To me, those stats are irrelevant at this point in time.

Dadawg_77
06-15-2004, 12:38 PM
Guillen is also another young player who has never enjoyed regular PT until last year. He has looked pretty good so far this year as well.

I'm not saying you are wrong, nor am I saying Uribe is the next Vlad Guerrero. Uribe is in an environment now which he seems to thrive under, and perhaps that was all he needed. That, and a couple years of major league pitching under his belt. Throw the Colorado numbers out of the equation. I would not base his future performance on what he did his first two years. That is my point. To me, those stats are irrelevant at this point in time.
He was 27 last year, that is no longer young but mid age for a baseball player when they should be hitting there peak. But look at his Oak, Cin split, some of that is explained by new pitchers and changing leagues, but not all of it.

Uribe could have turned the corner but I think it is wrong just to toss out things because they don't fit with your preception. You can weight his production with the Sox heavier then what he did in Colorado, but you can't completly throw out his preformance in Colorado.

beckett21
06-15-2004, 12:49 PM
He was 27 last year, that is no longer young but mid age for a baseball player when they should be hitting there peak. But look at his Oak, Cin split, some of that is explained by new pitchers and changing leagues, but not all of it.

Uribe could have turned the corner but I think it is wrong just to toss out things because they don't fit with your preception. You can weight his production with the Sox heavier then what he did in Colorado, but you can't completly throw out his preformance in Colorado.
Guillen is older, but Uribe is only 24 IIRC, no? I'm too lazy to actually look it up but I believe that is the number I have been seeing.

I still expect Uribe to be developing. I expect him to improve, not regress. Can't re-write history I guess, but I still don't put much stock into his Rockie days (no pun intended!)

Guillen was jacked around with Pittsburgh and a few other teams. He is now finally getting a chance to see his name in the lineup on an everyday basis and it has made a difference in his game both physically and mentally. I expect the same phenomenon is occuring with Uribe. Neither guy is going to the Hall of Fame anytime soon, but I expect that as Uribe matures further and no longer has the feeling that he has to perform to keep his job he will continue to improve. His plate discipline should improve as well, but you don't want him to lose all of his aggressiveness at the plate. That is what makes guys like Soriano, Guerrero, Guillen, Tejada, et. al. so dangerous.

As long as he is having success, let's enjoy the ride.

maurice
06-15-2004, 01:53 PM
Maurice, if DaDawg or myself made an argument in this thread you disagree with, quote it and then post your rebuttal below the quote. Don't write long winded posts about what "small subsets" of the stathead community believe because no one has any clue who or what argument you're talking about.Speak for yourself or ****. It's clear that YOU have no clue, but Dadawg has better reading comprehension skills. He's also articulate enough to speak for himself and to correct me if I misrepresented his views. In fact, you might notice that he replied to my post before you did.

BTW, the fact that YOU of all people accused somebody else of being "long winded" has to be the most ridiculous statment posted here in a long while. As usual, your reply is longer than the allegedly long-winded post you responded to.

jeremyb1
06-15-2004, 02:41 PM
Speak for yourself or ****.

Good. Way to keep it civilized.

It's clear that YOU have no clue, but Dadawg has better reading comprehension skills. He's also articulate enough to speak for himself and to correct me if I misrepresented his views.

Well this was the problem with your previous post, leveling accusations without explaining what you're responding too. Lets at least function at an 8th grade level of debate and explain to me HOW I have poor comprehension and HOW I was not articulate enough to "speak for myself" when you misrepresented my views.

In fact, you might notice that he replied to my post before you did.

Oh no! I lost the race. I saw his post but sometimes people respond multiple times to a single post when they have a point that hasn't previously been made.

BTW, the fact that YOU of all people accused somebody else of being "long winded" has to be the most ridiculous statment posted here in a long while. As usual, your reply is longer than the allegedly long-winded post you responded to.

I post my share of long posts but I think your post was long winded in context since you weren't responding to any posts or points made in the thread and instead rambling on about a preceived "subset of the stathead community" you still haven't explained.

maurice
06-15-2004, 02:55 PM
explain to me HOW I have poor comprehension and HOW I was not articulate enough to "speak for myself" when you misrepresented my views.
Well, this pretty much sums it up. You don't know who I'm talking about so you assume that I must be talking about you. If you were slightly less narcissistic you might recognize the possibility that I'm talking about somebody else and, thus, did not remotely misrepresent your views . . . but don't let that stop you from launching into another long-winded and misdirected rant.

rahulsekhar
06-15-2004, 03:05 PM
He was 27 last year, that is no longer young but mid age for a baseball player when they should be hitting there peak. But look at his Oak, Cin split, some of that is explained by new pitchers and changing leagues, but not all of it.

Uribe could have turned the corner but I think it is wrong just to toss out things because they don't fit with your preception. You can weight his production with the Sox heavier then what he did in Colorado, but you can't completly throw out his preformance in Colorado.
Per ESPN, Uribe's birthday is 7/22/1979, making him almost 25. The age when, inferring from your comment above, he's still on the uptick.

For the record, Uribe's stats:

2001: 273 AB / 8HR / 3SB / .300AVG / .325OBP / 8BB (.03BB/AB)
2002: 566AB / 6HR / 9SB / .240AVG / .286OBP / 34BB (.06 BB/AB)
2003: 316AB / 10HR / 7SB / .253AVG / .297OBP / 17BB (.05BB/AB)
2004: 214AB / 9HR / 7SB / .318AB / .373OBP / 18BB (.08 BB/AB)

Now in 2003, it's notable that he was out for the first half of the year with a broken foot, and platooned in the 2d half. So when you talk about his "history in Colorado", you're really talking about 1 good 1/2 year, 1 bad year, and 1 bad 1/2 year platooning while coming off of an injury.

Based on all of that, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a significant improvement. It can easily be argued that this is the equivalent of his 2d full year in the bigs. And even in 2002, his BB/AB improved (and has improved again to this year), showing a pattern that I like to call "development" in that area. It's simply a matter of a player coming up and doing well, then given time & tape, pitchers adjusting to him, and him learning how to adjust to them. But the power, improving plate discipline, and average are all there (not to mention pretty awesome D).

IMO, Juan will be a .300-.315 hitter with 20HR-15SB type of stats while playing great D. To me, that's pretty awesome and would put him at or near the top of the "2d echelon" of SSs (below ARod, Nomar, Miggy).

beckett21
06-15-2004, 03:12 PM
That public poll is a nice touch....no hiding behind anonymity there *GULP* :smile:

jabrch
06-15-2004, 03:20 PM
That public poll is a nice touch....no hiding behind anonymity there *GULP* :smile:
That's a cool feature! I like it!

beckett21
06-15-2004, 03:37 PM
That's a cool feature! I like it!
I agree...it's sure gonna scare some people off though.

Not me! :cool:

eurotrash35
06-15-2004, 03:46 PM
ALL HAIL JUAN URIBE, THE SECOND COMING



I can't believe that I was the first person to vote for the second coming. :redneck

jeremyb1
06-15-2004, 04:06 PM
Well, this pretty much sums it up. You don't know who I'm talking about so you assume that I must be talking about you. If you were slightly less narcissistic you might recognize the possibility that I'm talking about somebody else and, thus, did not remotely misrepresent your views . . . but don't let that stop you from launching into another long-winded and misdirected rant.

That's my point! If no one can understand who and what you're talking about your posts have little worth. You wrote a post about "a small subset of the stathead community" which I'm guessing applies to myself or DaDawg in this thread or has absolutely nothing to do with any comments made in this thread! I don't know!!! No one knows!!

maurice
06-15-2004, 05:57 PM
I don't know!!! No one knows!!
Wow, what an ego! This thread is not all about you. In fact, until you started replying to my posts, nothing I said in this thread was about you. You're not the center of the universe.

Stop projecting your confusion on everybody else. Nobody else shares your ignorance. Go back to re-directing your misplaced anger at the cub faithful on chicagosports.com.

maurice
06-15-2004, 05:59 PM
And, for the record . . .


:tomatoaward

jeremyb1
06-15-2004, 06:15 PM
Wow, what an ego! This thread is not all about you. In fact, until you started replying to my posts, nothing I said in this thread was about you. You're not the center of the universe.

Stop projecting your confusion on everybody else. Nobody else shares your ignorance. Go back to re-directing your misplaced anger at the cub faithful on chicagosports.com.

I'm the one with anger problems? I wrote what I believe was a civilized post and you responded with all these "****", "Speak for yourself" personal attacks against me.

Let's go over this one more time 1) Thread is started about "Uribe" bashing 2) DaDawg and I are the only two posters to take the stance that Uribe may be somewhat overrated at the current times and draw the ire of several other posters 3) on the third page you jump in critisizing those with negative points of view on Uribe, referring only to a "small subset of the stathead community". Clearly you were either arguing against the point of view represented by DaDawg and myself or you were addressing arguments that were not brought up at any point in the first three pages of the thread. If you were addressing DaDawg or myself as I've said I think it would be helpful to address specific arguments with the quote feature. If you were just randomly addressing arguments that weren't in the thread I find that to be confusing. Either way I don't think your post was particularly easy to understand and I don't think that's my fault.

maurice
06-15-2004, 08:48 PM
I wrote what I believe was a civilized post and you responded with all these "****", "Speak for yourself" personal attacks against me.
Actually, you responded to a post that (for the fourth time) was not directed at you, narcissistically accused said post of being long-winded and misrepresenting your views, and then tried to speak for another poster. I gave you the choice to "[s]peak for yourself or ****" . . . but, then again, facts aren't your strong point.

on the third page you jump in critisizing those with negative points of view on Uribe
This never happened either. You're hallucinating again.

I find that to be confusing. . . . I don't think that's my fault.
Let's see. You were confused but nobody else was. You apparently still are confused, though it's been explained to you four times. I'd say it's definitely your fault.

Your martyr complex has caused you to completely jack this thread. Take a deep breath, and let it go.

TaylorStSox
06-15-2004, 08:56 PM
Also, Uribe's development has come in the majors, not the minors. He came up extremely young and he probably wasn't ready. That has to be accounted for.

jeremyb1
06-15-2004, 09:06 PM
Actually, you responded to a post that (for the fourth time) was not directed at you, narcissistically accused said post of being long-winded and misrepresenting your views, and then tried to speak for another poster. I gave you the choice to "[s]peak for yourself or ****" . . . but, then again, facts aren't your strong point.

And yet again you prove my point. The relevance of your post in the thread and who or what the post was in response to was completely ambigious. I don't know how I was supposed to discern who the posted was directed towards.

This never happened either. You're hallucinating again.

Yeah, or yet again you were just being extremely unclear. This quote seems to summarize your argument in your first post in this thread a small sub-set of the stat-head camp feels that any measure other than sustained performance at the MLB level is meaningless Presumably "a small subset of the stathead camp" is referring to some people, most likely posters in this thread (otherwise I'm not sure why it is at all relevant).

Let's see. You were confused but nobody else was.

How do you know that no one else was confused? There was one post which commented on a statement you made but that post didn't indicate any understanding of how your post was intended to fit into the discussion. No one else has replied to your post and I haven't seen any indications that anyone else knew what your post was addressing.

You apparently still are confused, though it's been explained to you four times. I'd say it's definitely your fault.

No, you've told me that I'm the only one who didn't understand the point of the post four times. You've never tried to illuminate what the post was in response to other than saying it wasn't directed at me.

Your martyr complex has caused you to completely jack this thread. Take a deep breath, and let it go.

Haha. That's rich. I have a martyr complex? What am I sitting here replying to my own posts over and over again? It's not like you've continuously attempted to end the discussion by ceasing to post on the issue. You continue to go back and forth with me. You're every bit as responsible for escalating this as I am.

Dadawg_77
06-15-2004, 09:19 PM
And, for the record . . .


:tomatoaward
Any time the FOBB try to educate the Flat Earthers it is 100 post thread at least.

SEALgep
06-15-2004, 09:20 PM
Any time the FOBB try to educate the Flat Earthers it is 100 post thread at least.Because you have trouble stating your point and moving on the first time?

Dadawg_77
06-15-2004, 09:22 PM
Because you have trouble stating your point and moving on the first time?
No because I have to refute some stupid assumtions of Flat Earthers, and you have to hammer it in sometimes.

beckett21
06-15-2004, 09:22 PM
Because you have trouble stating your point and moving on the first time?
I knew someone would take the bait....I made a conscious decision that it would not be me.

SEALgep
06-15-2004, 09:28 PM
I knew someone would take the bait....I made a conscious decision that it would not be me.I'm a sucker, what can I say.:D:

beckett21
06-15-2004, 09:42 PM
No because I have to refute some stupid assumtions of Flat Earthers, and you have to hammer it in sometimes.
T y p e s l o o o o w e r , p l e e z ...c a n n o t u n d e r s t a n d ...d u h .

Thanks for taking your time to *enlighten* those of us who are less fortunate than yourself....and BTW it is spelled assum-p-tions.

But don't mind me, I'm well-known for my vicious ad-hominem attacks. AARGH!

:redneck

beckett21
06-15-2004, 09:43 PM
I'm a sucker, what can I say.:D:
As you can see, I'm not too good at keeping my mouth shut either.

*slaps self on forehead*

Dadawg_77
06-15-2004, 09:43 PM
T y p e s l o o o o w e r , p l e e z ...c a n n o t u n d e r s t a n d ...d u h .

Thanks for taking your time to *enlighten* those of us who are less fortunate than yourself....and BTW it is spelled assum-p-tions.

But don't mind me, I'm well-known for my vicious ad-hominem attacks. AARGH!

:redneck
Hey I think West took away the spell checker to get at me. :) I like I said that is my crutch, I am horrible speller.

beckett21
06-15-2004, 09:48 PM
I am horrible speller.
Your grammar's not so hot either! :)

jabrch
06-16-2004, 12:45 AM
He went 0 for 4 today! Where are all the people saying he is slumping and going to regress to he minor league numbers? I miss them - they were so fun to laugh at!

Dadawg_77
06-16-2004, 01:01 AM
He went 0 for 4 today! Where are all the people saying he is slumping and going to regress to he minor league numbers? I miss them - they were so fun to laugh at!
LOL. Glad you are obessed with us.

maurice
06-16-2004, 03:41 PM
Any time the FOBB try to educate the Flat Earthers it is 100 post thread at least.
But now that jeremy has become the 4th member of my "ignore" list, it only shows up as a 30-post thread on my computer.

:gulp:

jeremyb1
06-16-2004, 07:19 PM
But now that jeremy has become the 4th member of my "ignore" list, it only shows up as a 30-post thread on my computer.

:gulp:

Well I guess you can't read this then but good for you. Way to finally heed your own advice after five posts.

fquaye149
06-16-2004, 07:37 PM
It isn't refusal to recognize anything but a wait and see approach.
I've arrived a little late BUT

wait and see approach? Isn't that the opposite of what you advocated in analyzing the olivo/bradford trade?

There is probably a good deal of truth to the circular argument accusations

Dadawg_77
06-16-2004, 07:39 PM
I've arrived a little late BUT

wait and see approach? Isn't that the opposite of what you advocated in analyzing the olivo/bradford trade?

There is probably a good deal of truth to the circular argument accusations
Well yes and no, Olivo can stil make it a good trade for the Sox, but Bradfor has provide a few year of high quality production for the A's. It has been a lot longer then 2 and half month of baseball between trade and talking about it.