PDA

View Full Version : Shortstop (Not Choice vs. Manos)


kermittheefrog
02-17-2002, 10:41 PM
Okay amongst all this Manos/Choice battling it seems as if a lot of you have expressed the sentiment neither of our bevolved shortstops are so called "World Series caliber." So my question is who is World Series caliber? I'd say the D-Backs won last year with one of the worst shorstops in baseball, a guy who offensively is never on base and defensively is a converted right fielder. What do you guys want at short if it ain't a batter like Jose or a gloveman like Royce?

WinningUgly!
02-17-2002, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Okay amongst all this Manos/Choice battling it seems as if a lot of you have expressed the sentiment neither of our bevolved shortstops are so called "World Series caliber." So my question is who is World Series caliber? I'd say the D-Backs won last year with one of the worst shorstops in baseball, a guy who offensively is never on base and defensively is a converted right fielder. What do you guys want at short if it ain't a batter like Jose or a gloveman like Royce?

Womack flat out sucks. His offensive game has dropped off a little more in each of the last 3 seasons & he had 22 errors in only 119 games last year. I'd take Manos or Royce over that anyday. I guess Womack will do if you have Johnson & Schilling in the rotation, though.

Daver
02-17-2002, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!


Womack flat out sucks. His offensive game has dropped off a little more in each of the last 3 seasons & he had 22 errors in only 119 games last year. I'd take Manos or Royce over that anyday. I guess Womack will do if you have Johnson & Schilling in the rotation, though.

At this point I refuse to get involved in any more Jose vs Buddy Lee discussions.

kermittheefrog
02-17-2002, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by daver


At this point I refuse to get involved in any more Jose vs Buddy Lee discussions.

That's the idea Daver, to keep away from them. I'm targetting the guys who say neither one should be out there. They're almost as bad as the Buddy Lee supporters.

WinningUgly!
02-17-2002, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


That's the idea Daver, to keep away from them. I'm targetting the guys who say neither one should be out there. They're almost as bad as the Buddy Lee supporters.

OK, I'll say there are 6 shortstops in baseball that are significantly better than Jose Valentin or Royce Clayton.

1) A-rod
2) Nomar
3) Jeter
4) Tejada
5) Rich Aurilia
6) Jimmy Rollins

Outside of the above 6 SS, I'll take Manos. There really aren't many other SS in baseball that can bring much more than what Clayton does either...sad but true!

RichH55
02-17-2002, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!


OK, I'll say there are 6 shortstops in baseball that are significantly better than Jose Valentin or Royce Clayton.

1) A-rod
2) Nomar
3) Jeter
4) Tejada
5) Rich Aurilia
6) Jimmy Rollins

Outside of the above 6 SS, I'll take Manos. There really aren't many other SS in baseball that can bring much more than what Clayton does either...sad but true!

I think many forget just how good A-rod is....we are talking a guy who could be considered the best ever SS when all is said and done...Nomar(healthy) and Jeter are regarding with words like "All-Time" as well....And this list is impressive, but I still see people question Jeter(mainly for Defense)...How good a SS do you have to have to be considered for the World Series? Do we have to have a A-rod type talent with his production just to start? Or start cloning Hornsby/Wager types to play all over the place.....Get me some Ted Williams DNA Stat! Manos can play SS for me anyday and I can keep a straight face saying I'm a contender....we probably need more starting pitching, but that isnt a SS debate now is it

kermittheefrog
02-17-2002, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!


OK, I'll say there are 6 shortstops in baseball that are significantly better than Jose Valentin or Royce Clayton.

1) A-rod
2) Nomar
3) Jeter
4) Tejada
5) Rich Aurilia
6) Jimmy Rollins

Outside of the above 6 SS, I'll take Manos. There really aren't many other SS in baseball that can bring much more than what Clayton does either...sad but true!

I think I'd take Manos over Rollins for another couple years and then Rollins for the future. But I'd also take a healthy Rafael Furcal over Manos.

WinningUgly!
02-18-2002, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


I think I'd take Manos over Rollins for another couple years and then Rollins for the future. But I'd also take a healthy Rafael Furcal over Manos.

I might overrate Rollins a little because of his base stealing ablity. 46 SB only caught 8 times....shweeeeet!

longshot7
02-18-2002, 12:10 AM
Good point, Kerm. It does seem easy from our vantage point to be the armchair GM. I do think people like to easily fault Choice for last year's collapse (although to be honest, he isn't completely blameless). If every other cylinder is firing, then whoever plays SS won't matter.

cornball
02-18-2002, 12:10 AM
The issue with SS with me is ...we are half- assing it. We are playing Clayton mainly because of salary (although he is our best defesive SS) and playing out his contract. By doing so we have Jose out of postion and keep Crede waiting again.

The players need to know their role. What do we expect Jose to switch postions again next year. 3 spots in 3 years...not fair to him or the team.

The SS position has a huge range in offensive capabilities depending on what you want. They all have differences in their game on the offensive side. Some are speed...some are defensive...some are all around.. we can win with what we have. I would also take,besides the 6 mentioned, Vizquel above the two we have and perhaps several others depending on our offensive needs. The point is and so typical of the Sox over the years, is having a good player with no decision where to place him.

While Jose may have impressive offensive numbers at SS, they may not be so impressive when compared to the third baseman in the league.

RichH55
02-18-2002, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by cornball


While Jose may have impressive offensive numbers at SS, they may not be so impressive when compared to the third baseman in the league.

I decieded to look into this last comment....before we accept this myth as a message board truth....took a little more time than I thought since apparently if you ever looked at 3B ESPN lists your numbers for there....but heres what I got:

C. Jones 1.032 OPS Moved to LF in offseason-doesnt count and Castilla doesnt hit better than Jose

Pujols 1.013 OPS Is he a 3B? Maybe next year, maybe not in 3 years....Last Year : 39 G RF, 39 G LF, 43 1B, 55 3B(not exactly an everyday 3B though a great great rookie year)...Question Marks abound on how to rank Pujols

Nevin .976 OPS Moved to 1B(talked about moving him to 2B), not a 3B for the future

Millar .931 OPS RF, not 3B, doesnt count except to ESPN

Glaus .898 OPS Pretty Sure he isnt going to win the Gold Glove, but that OPS actually looks low to me, so hes going to be a stud for a long time

Ramirez .885 OPS Part of a crop of potential stud young 3B....always had great potential, finally showed it, might look like a down year after 2002

Cattanalonotto .882 OPS Played a bunch of spots...3B really not in the mix for the future..so he gets thrown out

Rolen .876 OPS Has the tools, and hitting arent even his best, also comes with back concerns, attitude concerns, contract concerns and the fact that you probably have to give up some pretty good talent to get him.....All things being equal you take him over Jose in a second, you take him over Jose even with his problems but not by quite the same amount

Chavez .878 OPS Jose isnt competing with Chavez

Koskie .850 OPS Not as young as I thought he was and enjoyed a nice spike in power numbers last year....getting pretty close ot a pick em with Jose

Jose Valentin .845 OPS



So that puts:
Pujols(counting him at 3B for now)
Glaus
Ramirez
Rolen
Chavez
and then the Koskie pick ahead of Jose with the stick for 3B

Not too shabby, but i could be missing things...I didnt rank Mueller because he only played 70 Games and his numbers pre-2001 didnt warrant inclusion....This also doesnt count the crop of really promising youngsters out there, but I tried to give the benefit of the doubt to Jose competitors to balance out any bias.....Rather Interesting No?

cornball
02-18-2002, 06:57 AM
Rich it is very interesting and when i look fantasy baseball mags that rate the offensive players...nothing to do with defense ...which Jose qualifies for 3 spot due to 66 g at 3B, 43 at SS and 24 in the OF. Here is one example from Fantasy Sports Mag, April 2002 addition.

They have him rated the 16th best at SS.

17th at 3rd and 72nd in the OF.. i think that is very interesting...dont you

czalgosz
02-18-2002, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


I think I'd take Manos over Rollins for another couple years and then Rollins for the future. But I'd also take a healthy Rafael Furcal over Manos.

I didn't used to like Rafael Furcal, but in retrospect, he's quite a valuable player to have - a good middle infielder who has leadoff potential (true leadoff potential, not a Ray Durham type.) He is quite error-prone, but perhaps that will go away with more experience.

RichH55
02-18-2002, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by cornball
Rich it is very interesting and when i look fantasy baseball mags that rate the offensive players...nothing to do with defense ...which Jose qualifies for 3 spot due to 66 g at 3B, 43 at SS and 24 in the OF. Here is one example from Fantasy Sports Mag, April 2002 addition.

They have him rated the 16th best at SS.

17th at 3rd and 72nd in the OF.. i think that is very interesting...dont you

Oh yeah...I forgot about that....Lets deal Jose now and compete for the mythical Fantasy League Championship!

RichH55
02-18-2002, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by RichH55


I decieded to look into this last comment....before we accept this myth as a message board truth....took a little more time than I thought since apparently if you ever looked at 3B ESPN lists your numbers for there....but heres what I got:

C. Jones 1.032 OPS Moved to LF in offseason-doesnt count and Castilla doesnt hit better than Jose

Pujols 1.013 OPS Is he a 3B? Maybe next year, maybe not in 3 years....Last Year : 39 G RF, 39 G LF, 43 1B, 55 3B(not exactly an everyday 3B though a great great rookie year)...Question Marks abound on how to rank Pujols

Nevin .976 OPS Moved to 1B(talked about moving him to 2B), not a 3B for the future

Millar .931 OPS RF, not 3B, doesnt count except to ESPN

Glaus .898 OPS Pretty Sure he isnt going to win the Gold Glove, but that OPS actually looks low to me, so hes going to be a stud for a long time

Ramirez .885 OPS Part of a crop of potential stud young 3B....always had great potential, finally showed it, might look like a down year after 2002

Cattanalonotto .882 OPS Played a bunch of spots...3B really not in the mix for the future..so he gets thrown out

Rolen .876 OPS Has the tools, and hitting arent even his best, also comes with back concerns, attitude concerns, contract concerns and the fact that you probably have to give up some pretty good talent to get him.....All things being equal you take him over Jose in a second, you take him over Jose even with his problems but not by quite the same amount

Chavez .878 OPS Jose isnt competing with Chavez

Koskie .850 OPS Not as young as I thought he was and enjoyed a nice spike in power numbers last year....getting pretty close ot a pick em with Jose

Jose Valentin .845 OPS



So that puts:
Pujols(counting him at 3B for now)
Glaus
Ramirez
Rolen
Chavez
and then the Koskie pick ahead of Jose with the stick for 3B

Not too shabby, but i could be missing things...I didnt rank Mueller because he only played 70 Games and his numbers pre-2001 didnt warrant inclusion....This also doesnt count the crop of really promising youngsters out there, but I tried to give the benefit of the doubt to Jose competitors to balance out any bias.....Rather Interesting No?


Well I found interesting that so many of the top 3Bs will be playing differently next year....Does anyone have the MLE for these next crop of young studs at 3B for 2002, might help in my rankings of Jose

bjmarte
02-18-2002, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by RichH55


Oh yeah...I forgot about that....Lets deal Jose now and compete for the mythical Fantasy League Championship!

They already won the championship in my fantasy, right after I slept with the chick with all the rose petals in American Beauty. I would like to see them win it for real once.

czalgosz
02-18-2002, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte


They already won the championship in my fantasy, right after I slept with the chick with all the rose petals in American Beauty. I would like to see them win it for real once.

I believe her name is Mena Suvari. My spelling could be way off.

bjmarte
02-18-2002, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


I believe her name is Mena Suvari. My spelling could be way off.

Who cares what her name is :smile:

RichH55
02-18-2002, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by cornball
Rich it is very interesting and when i look fantasy baseball mags that rate the offensive players...nothing to do with defense ...which Jose qualifies for 3 spot due to 66 g at 3B, 43 at SS and 24 in the OF. Here is one example from Fantasy Sports Mag, April 2002 addition.

They have him rated the 16th best at SS.

17th at 3rd and 72nd in the OF.. i think that is very interesting...dont you


Also why dont you tell me who is ranked ahead of him (ar 3rd and SS) and what stats they are using? Fantasy Baseball is far from an exact science...I gave you my criterias and I am hoping you will do me the same curteousy....Is not OPS a good indicator for hitting? Is not a double better than a single? Is not a walk better than an out?

kermittheefrog
02-18-2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by RichH55



Also why dont you tell me who is ranked ahead of him (ar 3rd and SS) and what stats they are using? Fantasy Baseball is far from an exact science...I gave you my criterias and I am hoping you will do me the same curteousy....Is not OPS a good indicator for hitting? Is not a double better than a single? Is not a walk better than an out?

Last year the Baseball Prospectus had Jose as the 9th best offensive third baseman after:

Jones
Pujols
Nevin
Glaus
Chavez
Rolen
Koskie
Ramirez

That's not too shabby but I still want Manos at short and Crede at third.

RichH55
02-18-2002, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Last year the Baseball Prospectus had Jose as the 9th best offensive third baseman after:

Jones
Pujols
Nevin
Glaus
Chavez
Rolen
Koskie
Ramirez

That's not too shabby but I still want Manos at short and Crede at third.

As usual we agree Kermit, but I was just pointing out to cornball that his belief that Jose puts up sub-par/average numbers for a 3B isnt exactly true......and that Baseball Prospectus list: Jones and Nevin aren't 3B anymore, and I question whether Pujols will be in the future...Plus Koskie and Jose is essentially a pick'em situation...So 5 Definately better than Jose(one of those might not be a 3B) and one that can go either way...so 6th/7th Best Hitter for a 3B going into the year....not too shabby....though we agree Manos at SS and Crede at 3B is the way to go....What is Crede's MLE again? Especially the expected OPS?

kermittheefrog
02-18-2002, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by RichH55


As usual we agree Kermit, but I was just pointing out to cornball that his belief that Jose puts up sub-par/average numbers for a 3B isnt exactly true......and that Baseball Prospectus list: Jones and Nevin aren't 3B anymore, and I question whether Pujols will be in the future...Plus Koskie and Jose is essentially a pick'em situation...So 5 Definately better than Jose(one of those might not be a 3B) and one that can go either way...so 6th/7th Best Hitter for a 3B going into the year....not too shabby....though we agree Manos at SS and Crede at 3B is the way to go....What is Crede's MLE again? Especially the expected OPS?

His MLE OPS was 792 but MLE's aren't projections they are translations of minor league stats to put them in the context of the majors. The Baseball Prospectus projects an 825 major league OPS for Crede if he gets the opportunity.

cornball
02-18-2002, 04:15 PM
Rich .... you have Jose in the hall of fame....he is a bad fielder with range....he is a bad hitter for average, that hits homeruns...... on base percentage is great but the name of the game is pitching, defense and scoring runs.....

I gave you the issue (April 2002)they and they also have a web site at fantasysportsmag.com

I just find it interesting that you use Jose's stats to fit your needs and ignore other stats....Baseball Prospectus is fine, but their word is not the end all. I also never ranked these guys i said the magazine did, based on history and projections...strictly offensive catagories.

I told you i have nothing against Jose, it is just i dont have a bias....told him or against Clayton

His defensive numbers at 3rd base were bad last year....but he is the best we have at this point.

RichH55
02-18-2002, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by cornball
Rich .... you have Jose in the hall of fame....he is a bad fielder with range....he is a bad hitter for average, that hits homeruns...... on base percentage is great but the name of the game is pitching, defense and scoring runs.....

I gave you the issue (April 2002)they and they also have a web site at fantasysportsmag.com

I just find it interesting that you use Jose's stats to fit your needs and ignore other stats....Baseball Prospectus is fine, but their word is not the end all. I also never ranked these guys i said the magazine did, based on history and projections...strictly offensive catagories.

I told you i have nothing against Jose, it is just i dont have a bias....told him or against Clayton

His defensive numbers at 3rd base were bad last year....but he is the best we have at this point.


You know...at this point I'm done debating this with you...I never put him in the Hall of Fame...if me thinking he is better than Royce Clayton or looking over what at this point is an average crop of 3B in the majors and saying Jose is top 10 of that group consistitutes the Hall of Fame than I guess we agree to disagree....I have used nothing but facts here and watching Jose play here for 2 years and one year of Royce.

I really dont want to say anymore because it might come back to bite me in the ass, so I guess I end here...But have soem consistency to your arguments and read more into the game

cornball
02-18-2002, 08:02 PM
You know Rich i have been consistent through our discussion...and i believe i know the game better than most people ...it is ok to disagree if you like Jose fine, but you dont need to bash Clayton...

I am pointing out a different opinion then yours of Jose, as compared to the league in a published magazine report...just so you can maybe catch someone elses view and maybe "read more into the game" as you say.

And yes, you were the one with the sarcastic of " mythical fantasy championship" which is fine...but the point stands a good defense wins championships...that holds true in all sports and in baseball it is pitching and defense...

and when i think of Jose and look at the stats...i just see things differently than you.....

kermittheefrog
02-18-2002, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by cornball
You know Rich i have been consistent through our discussion...and i believe i know the game better than most people ...it is ok to disagree if you like Jose fine, but you dont need to bash Clayton...

I am pointing out a different opinion then yours of Jose, as compared to the league in a published magazine report...just so you can maybe catch someone elses view and maybe "read more into the game" as you say.

And yes, you were the one with the sarcastic of " mythical fantasy championship" which is fine...but the point stands a good defense wins championships...that holds true in all sports and in baseball it is pitching and defense...

and when i think of Jose and look at the stats...i just see things differently than you.....

Yeah but they were fantasy baseball rankings, those are generally trash as what's important in fantasy baseball has little correlation to real baseball.

RichH55
02-18-2002, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Yeah but they were fantasy baseball rankings, those are generally trash as what's important in fantasy baseball has little correlation to real baseball.


I don't know Kermit...from reading another thread earlier I was told that Frank Thomas not being able to steal bases would come back to hurt us(especially around playoff time) and since Fantasy rankings love SBs...there is your correlation...cmon use your head kermit!

cornball
02-19-2002, 09:26 AM
Fantasy rankings have alot to do with offensive stats with each category weighted equally (AVE,HRS,RBI,SB sometimes TB and RUNS).....unfortunately nothing on defense.....being as "well read" as you are ...you should know that

RichH55
02-19-2002, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by cornball
Fantasy rankings have alot to do with offensive stats with each category weighted equally (AVE,HRS,RBI,SB sometimes TB and RUNS).....unfortunately nothing on defense.....being as "well read" as you are ...you should know that



Fantasy numbers are a horrible way to judge players...plain and simple........You think that SB should be weighted equally with HRs? Or that Runs and TBs are less important than average or SB? OPS is a good measure...we can stick with that...not perfect, but in general a double is better than a single and getting on base is better than getting out, no? Hence On-Base % and Slugging %......Fantasy numbers should never be in a conversation about a players worth unless we are talking about Fantasy Worth! What was Tony Womack ranked at SS with these nubmers of yours?

kermittheefrog
02-19-2002, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by RichH55




Fantasy numbers are a horrible way to judge players...plain and simple........You think that SB should be weighted equally with HRs? Or that Runs and TBs are less important than average or SB? OPS is a good measure...we can stick with that...not perfect, but in general a double is better than a single and getting on base is better than getting out, no? Hence On-Base % and Slugging %......Fantasy numbers should never be in a conversation about a players worth unless we are talking about Fantasy Worth! What was Tony Womack ranked at SS with these nubmers of yours?

Yeah Fantasy is pretty pathetic. Womack becomes valuable because walks don't matter in fantasy and he steals a lot of bases. Garret Anderson is another big roto guy, he has a high average and gets RBIs because they keep putting him in the middle of the lineup but he doesn't have enough walks or power to play left for a good team.

RichH55
02-19-2002, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Yeah Fantasy is pretty pathetic. Womack becomes valuable because walks don't matter in fantasy and he steals a lot of bases. Garret Anderson is another big roto guy, he has a high average and gets RBIs because they keep putting him in the middle of the lineup but he doesn't have enough walks or power to play left for a good team.


Shush!! If you offset the fantasy numbers than you have to look at things like OPS and the actual game of baseball...and then you aren't allowed to bad mouth Jose as much(especially when the criteria is hitting only)...and we cant have that can we??!?!?!?

cornball
02-19-2002, 11:07 PM
Actually fantasy baseball is fun....and it is over a billion dollar industry (in terms of mags..ect.) ...i think it incorporates the team concept, in other words, all teams need speed, RBI guys, power hitters ect... fortunately for you and your stance in this debate, they dont count defense with Jose's .926 fielding ave. at third last year he wouldnt rank to high

Is it real, no but it is fun you should try it you may learn something. The OPS is not the measuring stick of a player either.

kermittheefrog
02-19-2002, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by cornball
Actually fantasy baseball is fun....and it is over a billion dollar industry (in terms of mags..ect.) ...i think it incorporates the team concept, in other words, all teams need speed, RBI guys, power hitters ect... fortunately for you and your stance in this debate, they dont count defense with Jose's .926 fielding ave. at third last year he wouldnt rank to high

Is it real, no but it is fun you should try it you may learn something. The OPS is not the measuring stick of a player either.

OPS may not be the absolute measure of a player but no such thing exists. At least OPS is 50x better than numbers like RBI and SB.

cornball
02-20-2002, 07:31 AM
Personally i am a traditionalist and 99% of American baseball fans are......

Lets see when Yaz won the triple-crown was it for ave-hrs and OPS...Rickey Henderson is the king of stolen bases...through the ages people have been talking about Ty Cobb stealing..and many others, in fact, i can tell you Frank Isbell lead the Sox in stolen bases in 1901....i cant tell you the OPS leader....

OPS is fine, take it in context...... most people here dont even know what it is...personally i prefer to look at the slugging percentage and on base percentage seperately.

Most publications publish it this way..newspapers, pressguides ect.

I think RBI and SB are very good stats..tradition is on this side too. All stats are good if look at in total.

kermittheefrog
02-20-2002, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by cornball
Personally i am a traditionalist and 99% of American baseball fans are......

Lets see when Yaz won the triple-crown was it for ave-hrs and OPS...Rickey Henderson is the king of stolen bases...through the ages people have been talking about Ty Cobb stealing..and many others, in fact, i can tell you Frank Isbell lead the Sox in stolen bases in 1901....i cant tell you the OPS leader....

OPS is fine, take it in context...... most people here dont even know what it is...personally i prefer to look at the slugging percentage and on base percentage seperately.

Most publications publish it this way..newspapers, pressguides ect.

I think RBI and SB are very good stats..tradition is on this side too. All stats are good if look at in total.

I think the worst/most desparate arguement I've ever heard is "we've been doing it for a long time so why change?" And that's exactly the arguement you've giving me right here. To me it makes little difference looking at OPS or looking at OBP and slugging for that matter, OPS is just one number, I like that if I'm making a post on a message baord. RBIs just don't tell a lot about an individual because they are depenant on other palyers getting on base. OPS is the way to go unless of course you are putting together a fantasy team.

RichH55
02-20-2002, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by cornball
Personally i am a traditionalist and 99% of American baseball fans are......

Lets see when Yaz won the triple-crown was it for ave-hrs and OPS...Rickey Henderson is the king of stolen bases...through the ages people have been talking about Ty Cobb stealing..and many others, in fact, i can tell you Frank Isbell lead the Sox in stolen bases in 1901....i cant tell you the OPS leader....

OPS is fine, take it in context...... most people here dont even know what it is...personally i prefer to look at the slugging percentage and on base percentage seperately.

Most publications publish it this way..newspapers, pressguides ect.

I think RBI and SB are very good stats..tradition is on this side too. All stats are good if look at in total.



Answer me this....A double is better than a single right? And getting on-base is better than getting out, correct? Which measures that better OPS or batting average? And please don't mistake traditionalist with fool.....I'd like to see the schuedled double header return doesn't mean I think the game has stayed constant in all its forms since 1901....and for a traditionalist to post Fantasy Numbers seems wrong to me...Were those around since 1901 as well? Are they how you know the SB king for the White SOx in 1901? Or are you just sort of talking out of your ass>?

RichH55
02-20-2002, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


I think the worst/most desparate arguement I've ever heard is "we've been doing it for a long time so why change?" And that's exactly the arguement you've giving me right here. To me it makes little difference looking at OPS or looking at OBP and slugging for that matter, OPS is just one number, I like that if I'm making a post on a message baord. RBIs just don't tell a lot about an individual because they are depenant on other palyers getting on base. OPS is the way to go unless of course you are putting together a fantasy team.



Well Said

cornball
02-21-2002, 07:52 AM
The beautiful thing of baseball, which you two do not understand is the game has basically stayed the same for well over 100 years.. the name of the game is scoring runs and preventing runs...your double is fine but if you are not driven in or if you dont score it is just a double...apparently things like strikeouts and fielding percentage are meaningless to you because it makes your stance meaningless..

The players make more money, are bigger, faster, stronger, but the game has been constant.....each team needs a blend of speed, power, clutch hitting, ect.... just because it is a newer stat doesnt make it better....the saves category is relatively new and it is a flawed statistic.....

I have yet to hear one GM, one manager say we needed this guy because his OPS is strong...i have heard .....he drives in runs, he makes things happen on the bases...he is a great fielder, he puts the ball in play....and so on.......

Fantasy stats are fun something you two know little about...it takes traditional stats and makes a game of it..being so well read and informed you should know this ...the game is simple dont make it harder than it needs to be...new stats are fine but the game doesnt need to be reinvented...it has been constant.

RichH55
02-21-2002, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by cornball
The beautiful thing of baseball, which you two do not understand is the game has basically stayed the same for well over 100 years.. the name of the game is scoring runs and preventing runs...your double is fine but if you are not driven in or if you dont score it is just a double...apparently things like strikeouts and fielding percentage are meaningless to you because it makes your stance meaningless..

The players make more money, are bigger, faster, stronger, but the game has been constant.....each team needs a blend of speed, power, clutch hitting, ect.... just because it is a newer stat doesnt make it better....the saves category is relatively new and it is a flawed statistic.....

I have yet to hear one GM, one manager say we needed this guy because his OPS is strong...i have heard .....he drives in runs, he makes things happen on the bases...he is a great fielder, he puts the ball in play....and so on.......

Fantasy stats are fun something you two know little about...it takes traditional stats and makes a game of it..being so well read and informed you should know this ...the game is simple dont make it harder than it needs to be...new stats are fine but the game doesnt need to be reinvented...it has been constant.


Well I've been in fantasy leagues before, but judging on where I finished you might be right about me not understanding them:) THey are still an awful way to judge players(and since they dont take into account K's or Fielding Percentage usually your post would seem to agree)

The game has changed alot from 100 years ago...I'm sure some of the posters can put that into better words than I(especially the Columnist Hal since he has seen all 100 of those years:))

And I'm very aware that the name of the game is Runs....but since this was strictly an offensive discussion I will stick with that....If you hit a double you have a better chance of driving someone in and/or are in a better position to be driven in yourself(Hence why a double is better than a single...and yes I'm shocked I actually have to put emphasis on that point)...and Strikeouts as one of your end-all be-all catergories for scoring runs is iffy at best, especially if you are choosing to deemphasis OBP.....The name of the game is scoring runs...Correct....to score runs you need to get on Base..hence OBP...the Walks he took was one of the reasons that Rickey Henderson was the best leadoff man ever............OPS is a newer stat, but just since it is newer doesn't make it worse(and I have heard a few GMs talk about it)

Though if we continue down these talks I think it would be best for me to put consisely what I think of your arguments

:troll

bc2k
02-21-2002, 03:04 PM
The game of baseball has slightly changed to a more emphesis on power hitters and the home run. I don't like it. This is why I want to see at least 6 teams contracted, hopefully getting rid of terrible pitching. This would bring back the game the way it was played for so long; low scoring games where pitching, defense, and the idea of playing for one run is the norm.

Daver
02-21-2002, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
The game of baseball has slightly changed to a more emphesis on power hitters and the home run. I don't like it. This is why I want to see at least 6 teams contracted, hopefully getting rid of terrible pitching. This would bring back the game the way it was played for so long; low scoring games where pitching, defense, and the idea of playing for one run is the norm.

Contract six teams?http://users.pandora.be/p0p0/youare.swf.
You could accomplish the same thing without contrcting any teams,raise the mound back up to where it was in the 70's.

czalgosz
02-21-2002, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by daver


Contract six teams?http://users.pandora.be/p0p0/youare.swf.
You could accomplish the same thing without contrcting any teams,raise the mound back up to where it was in the 70's.

Oh, I would love it if they did that. They were discussing raising it a couple inches, to 12 or 14 inches - whatever happened to that idea?

kermittheefrog
02-21-2002, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by cornball

I have yet to hear one GM, one manager say we needed this guy because his OPS is strong...i have heard .....he drives in runs, he makes things happen on the bases...he is a great fielder, he puts the ball in play....and so on.......



You clearly don't listen hard enough then. Ten years ago you could say such crap and get by with it as an arguement but if you use your ears (and eyes when you're looking at quotes) you'll notice GMs talkign about on base percentage and slugging percentage. I've seen mentions of OPS. It's not some isolated case either, it's all over. Oakland is the king of statheads in the front office but it's spreading, other teams are seeing their success and duplicating it. Their assistants are being swooped up throughout baseball. If you haven't heard GMs talking about the wonders of OBP, slugging and/or OPS then it's because you don't believe in it and it goes in one ear, out the other. Driving in runs is not a "talent" it is timing and opporunity mostly. Hitting doubles, homers, drawing walks, those are talents. I'm not saying RBI and runs are useless but hey there are a lot more useful things out there.

bc2k
02-22-2002, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by daver


Contract six teams?http://users.pandora.be/p0p0/youare.swf.
You could accomplish the same thing without contrcting any teams,raise the mound back up to where it was in the 70's.

No, you cannot accomplish the same thing by raising the mound. The gap between Pedro and Parque will stay the same by giving them both the same mound. They will probably both have better stats, but raising the mound will not close the gap between good and bad pitchers.

Contract 6 or so teams, and the best pitchers continue to play, the bad ones do not. Survival of the fittest or best. All-around better talent, more exciting game to watch.

RedPinStripes
02-22-2002, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by bc2k


No, you cannot accomplish the same thing by raising the mound. The gap between Pedro and Parque will stay the same by giving them both the same mound. They will probably both have better stats, but raising the mound will not close the gap between good and bad pitchers.

Contract 6 or so teams, and the best pitchers continue to play, the bad ones do not. Survival of the fittest or best. All-around better talent, more exciting game to watch.

Do you have any idea of what you're talking about?

kermittheefrog
02-22-2002, 12:25 PM
Rob Neyer has great timing. This a good one for cornball to read, especially the end:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/42798.html

czalgosz
02-22-2002, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Rob Neyer has great timing. This a good one for cornball to read, especially the end:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/42798.html

Well, Neyer is saying that Neifi Perez is a bad hitter, which I thought that everyone knew. But then again, a lot of "experts" say that Alfonso Soriano is a good hitter, which is clearly not true.

The one problem I have with OPS is that it tends to skew towards power hitters, because the difference between the leaders and the pack in SLG is more than the difference between the leaders and the pack in OBP. In a lot of ways, OBP is a much more important stat than SLG, but OPS makes it seem less important.

cornball
02-22-2002, 08:46 PM
It is amazing to me how things are turned around...too funny...as i sit here and look how Rich, changes the discussion and pull statistics that favor Jose and ignore the stats he falters in. I agree, all the numbers are interesting...however they all need to be looked at in their totality. Just because a stat is newer doesnt make it better, either. Some statistics favor certain types of players and as a team game, you need to have a balance.

The style of the game has changed, the game hasnt. More homers, smaller parks, stronger players, possible live ball are indeed differences....but the game has been the same, that is why it is the grand old game.

Driving in runs is opportunity but certain players have a flair for it. Clutch hitting.

I told you from the beginning i had nothing againt Valintin, just because you like him doesnt mean you can't see his faults, and when they are mentioned you take offense.....as far as you telling me what you think of "my arguments" as you put it......hey pal, i dont think to much of yours either.

Hey Rich, we dont have to agree, and i never got personal with you. I am a Sox fan, i played the game through my college years and been very active coaching the past 10...i love the game and think i know it pretty well. I am open to new ideas but apparently you arent, if that is the case, fine....but let me tell you one thing...and it is true..no matter how well you think you know the game...everytime you hit the field or talk to people around the game you can learn something, everyone has a different presective......you might want to try it.