PDA

View Full Version : The Incredible "triple vs. homerun" Thread Hijack Thread


Gammons Peter
11-14-2007, 12:35 PM
I wouldn't want to see Crawford in right. And those teams except the Red Sox are in a greater need of power than speed/ lead off hitter.

He is NOT a lead off hitter and you underestimate his power. He hits 10-15 triples a year on top of his 15+ homeruns. A triple is almost as valuable as a HR in my book, and sometimes more since HR's have been accused of being rally killers.

Craig Grebeck
11-14-2007, 01:03 PM
He is NOT a lead off hitter and you underestimate his power. He hits 10-15 triples a year on top of his 15+ homeruns. A triple is almost as valuable as a HR in my book, and sometimes more since HR's have been accused of being rally killers.
Ha

TDog
11-14-2007, 01:05 PM
He is NOT a lead off hitter and you underestimate his power. He hits 10-15 triples a year on top of his 15+ homeruns. A triple is almost as valuable as a HR in my book, and sometimes more since HR's have been accused of being rally killers.

I am more impressed with triples than home runs, but it's amazing the number of triples that don't lead to any runs when they're hit with the bases empty. There also are players that hit what should be triples but end up as doubles because of base runners. Often the team doesn't wave a runner in on a close play with less than two outs.

Where people hit in the order depends on what a team has to work with. A leadoff hitter is a hitter who leads off. If Crawford played for the White Sox, he would probably lead off because he would have the skills on the team best suited for leading off. The number two hitter would have part-time responsibilities of moving the runner for the power hitters, assuming the team still has power hitters.

Saying Crawford isn't a lead off man is like saying Granderson isn't a lead off man because he strikes out so much. Granderson struck out more than 140 times in 2007, which was an improvement because he struck out more than 170 times in 2006.

If Crawford is in the White Sox lineup, he definitely would have more triples as a leadoff man than as someone who hit deeper in the lineup. If he batted second or third and came up with no one on base, there wouldn't be a runner to slow him down, but if you're looking for two-out thunder from your best hitters, triples with no one on base aren't much better than doubles.

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 02:49 PM
He is NOT a lead off hitter and you underestimate his power. He hits 10-15 triples a year on top of his 15+ homeruns. A triple is almost as valuable as a HR in my book, and sometimes more since HR's have been accused of being rally killers.

Triples score only about 70% of the time. So they are about 30% less valuable than a home run.

munchman33
11-14-2007, 04:06 PM
Triples score only about 70% of the time. So they are about 30% less valuable than a home run.

In a vaccuum yes.

But pitchers pitch different with a runner on third. Throw different pitches. Throw more pitches. That has an effect over the course of a game.

Craig Grebeck
11-14-2007, 04:39 PM
In a vaccuum yes.

But pitchers pitch different with a runner on third. Throw different pitches. Throw more pitches. That has an effect over the course of a game.
Are you really going to ****ing argue that a triple is more effective than a home run? A home run scores runs 100% OF THE TIME. My head is spinning at your logic. How about a pitcher being rattled by the fact that he just served up a gopherball? I have no problem using intangibles to support the basis of an argument, but letting it be the crux of it (especially one as foolish and as goddamn ridiculous as this one) is incredibly stupid.

Nellie_Fox
11-14-2007, 04:46 PM
Are you really going to ****ing argue that a triple is more effective than a home run? A home run scores runs 100% OF THE TIME. My head is spinning at your logic. How about a pitcher being rattled by the fact that he just served up a gopherball? I have no problem using intangibles to support the basis of an argument, but letting it be the crux of it (especially one as foolish and as goddamn ridiculous as this one) is incredibly stupid.Take a deep breath and settle down.

Craig Grebeck
11-14-2007, 05:27 PM
Take a deep breath and settle down.
I apologize. Finals week for a freshman in college= lots of irrational and misplaced meltdowns. Won't happen again.

oeo
11-14-2007, 05:29 PM
I apologize. Finals week for a freshman in college= lots of irrational and misplaced meltdowns. Won't happen again.

Finals week before Thanksgiving?

Daver
11-14-2007, 05:35 PM
Finals week before Thanksgiving?

Not unusual in schools that use trimesters.

weareud
11-14-2007, 05:37 PM
Are you really going to ****ing argue that a triple is more effective than a home run? A home run scores runs 100% OF THE TIME. My head is spinning at your logic. How about a pitcher being rattled by the fact that he just served up a gopherball? I have no problem using intangibles to support the basis of an argument, but letting it be the crux of it (especially one as foolish and as goddamn ridiculous as this one) is incredibly stupid.

Take a deep breath and settle down.

I apologize. Finals week for a freshman in college= lots of irrational and misplaced meltdowns. Won't happen again.

Finals week before Thanksgiving?

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l14/el_boxer/banhimbanhimorc.jpg

munchman33
11-14-2007, 05:54 PM
Are you really going to ****ing argue that a triple is more effective than a home run? A home run scores runs 100% OF THE TIME. My head is spinning at your logic. How about a pitcher being rattled by the fact that he just served up a gopherball? I have no problem using intangibles to support the basis of an argument, but letting it be the crux of it (especially one as foolish and as goddamn ridiculous as this one) is incredibly stupid.

Yep. I certainly am. Unless we're talking about a young guy who gets flustered by things like that (who you're gonna hit anyway most likely), most pitchers will just shrug it off and face the next guy with a clean slate. Especially veterans. Young guys don't generally lead the league in home runs allowed, veteran hurlers do. When there's a guy on third, all sorts of adjustments have to be made. Infield plays in, pitcher has to put the ball either up and in or down and away to force a ground ball or a popup, if it's a breaking pitch, pitcher has to throw it harder than normal to ensure grounder is fielded easier by a drawn in infield...

All sorts of things go on when there's a runner on third. A pitcher has to completely change his approach. He will throw more pitches. He will throw pitches he probably hasn't all day. There's a likelyhood he'll miss his spots and make some key mistakes. And even if he pitches out of it, he's worked a heckuva lot harder to do it, and will probably leave the game earlier.

And that kind of stuff is exactly what we've been missing since 2005.

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 06:08 PM
In a vaccuum yes.

But pitchers pitch different with a runner on third. Throw different pitches. Throw more pitches. That has an effect over the course of a game.

It's not just in a vacuum. That is the real percentage, not some manipulated stat. A triple scores 70% of the time and a home run 100%. I can say a home run causes the pitcher to throw more pitches and to pitch differently because he doesn't want to give up another gopher ball. Really the only important thing is whether or not the runner scores. A home run does a better job of that.

Oblong
11-14-2007, 06:13 PM
Yep. I certainly am. Unless we're talking about a young guy who gets flustered by things like that (who you're gonna hit anyway most likely), most pitchers will just shrug it off and face the next guy with a clean slate. Especially veterans. Young guys don't generally lead the league in home runs allowed, veteran hurlers do. When there's a guy on third, all sorts of adjustments have to be made. Infield plays in, pitcher has to put the ball either up and in or down and away to force a ground ball or a popup, if it's a breaking pitch, pitcher has to throw it harder than normal to ensure grounder is fielded easier by a drawn in infield...

All sorts of things go on when there's a runner on third. A pitcher has to completely change his approach. He will throw more pitches. He will throw pitches he probably hasn't all day. There's a likelyhood he'll miss his spots and make some key mistakes. And even if he pitches out of it, he's worked a heckuva lot harder to do it, and will probably leave the game earlier.

And that kind of stuff is exactly what we've been missing since 2005.

But it still doesn't change the fact that triples only score 70% of the time. 7/10 is smaller than 1. The things you cite are valid and factor into the number being as high as 70%.

Are you suggesting that you'd rather a player hit a triple than a home run? That's not a rhetorical question or anything, or are you saying that a triple is worth more than 70% of a home run?

It'd be an interesting study, I just have to come up with a way to measure it.

weareud
11-14-2007, 06:15 PM
It'd be an interesting study,

Not really... A triple scores 70% of the time. A home run scores 100% of the time. What the **** is so hard to understand???

Oblong
11-14-2007, 06:27 PM
I'm talking about an entire game, which is what I assume munchman was talking about. Do teams score more runs in games if they hit a triple?

Comparable to the scoring effects of hitting a home run to lead off an inning vs leading off an inning with a walk. Which leads to more multi-run innings?

For 2006 it broke down like this:

1069 Leadoff HR lead to 260 2+ run innings. 24.32%
2154 Leadoff BB lead to 490 2+ run innings. 22.75%

I'm not surprised by that but I am surprised it's so close.

Craig Grebeck
11-14-2007, 06:29 PM
Not unusual in schools that use trimesters.
Yep, Knox College.

munchman33
11-14-2007, 06:29 PM
Not really... A triple scores 70% of the time. A home run scores 100% of the time. What the **** is so hard to understand???

I'm saying that having to deal with a runner on third has implications no one seems to realize. That's all.

That it scores 70% of the time on top of those other implications...yes. I would rather have a guy who is constantly a threat for triples. Because that guys is a threat for lots of other things. Especially getting the starting pitcher out of the game.

Triples start rallies. Homeruns usually end them. 1 run 100% of the time is nice. But what about the chance for a big inning?

FedEx227
11-14-2007, 06:33 PM
While a homer scores 100% of the time, lots of baseball purists will argue that a homer is the biggest rally killer of all.

I'd love to see a study on how a triple especially in the first couple of innings effects the amount of runs an entire team scores that game.

The benefit of a guy with triples is protection for the people around him, there is no doubt that people will pitch different when there's a man on third and a good threat up to the plate after him.

I'll put it in this context, the Soriano syndrome.

Would you rather have a Soriano get a leadoff home run and put the team up 1-0.

Or a guy get a triple and the guy after him hit a homer. 2-0.

It's an almost risk/reward type of deal. While you risk having the guy stay at third and not move, you could also get the potential reward of a 2-run lead to kick the game off as opposed to 1-0.

So it's all context and personal preference, while I consider myself a stat geek I'm not as gah-gah over HR as most of them. While homers are great, they are in my mind rally-killers. With homers also come longer swings, give me a guy who can hit 20-30 doubles with 20-30 home runs before I take a guy that can get me 40-50 HR.

So no reason for personal attacks, this is yet again another debate of personal preference. I've always been fond of guys with speed and gap power so I'd take them over a brute like Jim Thome but everyone is different.

munchman33
11-14-2007, 06:35 PM
While a homer scores 100% of the time, lots of baseball purists will argue that a homer is the biggest rally killer of all.

I'd love to see a study on how a triple especially in the first couple of innings effects the amount of runs an entire team scores that game.

The benefit of a guy with triples is protection for the people around him, there is no doubt that people will pitch different when there's a man on third and a good threat up to the plate after him.

I'll put it in this context, the Soriano syndrome.

Would you rather have a Soriano get a leadoff home run and put the team up 1-0.

Or a guy get a triple and the guy after him hit a homer. 2-0.

It's an almost risk/reward type of deal. While you risk having the guy stay at third and not move, you could also get the potential reward of a 2-run lead to kick the game off as opposed to 1-0.

So it's all context and personal preference, while I consider myself a stat geek I'm not as gah-gah over HR as most of them. While homers are great, they are in my mind rally-killers. With homers also come longer swings, give me a guy who can hit 20-30 doubles with 20-30 home runs before I take a guy that can get me 40-50 HR.

Thanks. I was starting to feel alone in this. It isn't 1 run versus .7 runs like people are trying to make it seem.

Oblong
11-14-2007, 06:37 PM
but that's not something I'd rely on getting from a player. Triples are somewhat flukey things. I wouldn't be surprised if Curtis Granderson never hits 12 of them again in a season. I view them as things that just happen.

munchman33
11-14-2007, 06:39 PM
but that's not something I'd rely on getting from a player. Triples are somewhat flukey things. I wouldn't be surprised if Curtis Granderson never hits 12 of them again in a season. I view them as things that just happen.

Speed makes them happen. Guys with speed that can hit tend to get them.

I wouldn't be surprised if a guy like Granderson, with his speed and ability to use the bat, got 15 triples a year for the next five years.

Oblong
11-14-2007, 06:40 PM
While a homer scores 100% of the time, lots of baseball purists will argue that a homer is the biggest rally killer of all.

I'd love to see a study on how a triple especially in the first couple of innings effects the amount of runs an entire team scores that game.




So would I. I'm going to raise this with some people I know who are good at this stuff.

oeo
11-14-2007, 06:46 PM
Yep, Knox College.

So do you start your second trimester, have couple weeks of class, then get a couple off for Christmas?

The Immigrant
11-14-2007, 06:47 PM
Thanks. I was starting to feel alone in this. It isn't 1 run versus .7 runs like people are trying to make it seem.

You're not alone and of course it's not just 1 run versus .7.

I would like to see a comparison of total runs scored in innings that started with a triple vs. the total runs scored in innings that started with a solo HR.

FedEx227
11-14-2007, 06:50 PM
So would I. I'm going to raise this with some people I know who are good at this stuff.

Awesome, I'm sure if you look enough into it Tango has probably already done it, but my head would explode trying to read one of his graphs. :tongue:

Domeshot17
11-14-2007, 07:10 PM
Worst Hi Jack ever

munchman33
11-14-2007, 07:23 PM
You're not alone and of course it's not just 1 run versus .7.

I would like to see a comparison of total runs scored in innings that started with a triple vs. the total runs scored in innings that started with a solo HR.

While I would also like to see that, I'm implying that dealing with runners on base, especially third, affects a pitcher for his length of stay in the game as well.

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 07:36 PM
So it's all context and personal preference, while I consider myself a stat geek I'm not as gah-gah over HR as most of them. While homers are great, they are in my mind rally-killers. With homers also come longer swings, give me a guy who can hit 20-30 doubles with 20-30 home runs before I take a guy that can get me 40-50 HR.

Every baseball player who hit at least 30 homeruns in 2007 also hit at least 20 doubles except Jim Thome who hit 19. The average amount of doubles for those same 26 guys was 34.27.

So your power hitter who also doesn't hit doubles doesn't exist.

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 07:39 PM
Thanks. I was starting to feel alone in this. It isn't 1 run versus .7 runs like people are trying to make it seem.

Except that is exactly what it is. All the reasons that you state are why a triple scores 70% of the time, nothing more. A home run still scores 100%.

1 > .7

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 07:40 PM
I'm talking about an entire game, which is what I assume munchman was talking about. Do teams score more runs in games if they hit a triple?

Comparable to the scoring effects of hitting a home run to lead off an inning vs leading off an inning with a walk. Which leads to more multi-run innings?

For 2006 it broke down like this:

1069 Leadoff HR lead to 260 2+ run innings. 24.32%
2154 Leadoff BB lead to 490 2+ run innings. 22.75%

I'm not surprised by that but I am surprised it's so close.

Nice stats. May I ask where you found them?

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 07:42 PM
You're not alone and of course it's not just 1 run versus .7.

I would like to see a comparison of total runs scored in innings that started with a triple vs. the total runs scored in innings that started with a solo HR.

What you don't seem to be getting is that if the triple doesn't score, then no runs are scored that inning. So in an inning in which a triple is hit, there is a 30% chance that no runs cross the plate. Something about a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

munchman33
11-14-2007, 07:46 PM
What you don't seem to be getting is that if the triple doesn't score, then no runs are scored that inning. So in an inning in which a triple is hit, there is a 30% chance that no runs cross the plate. Something about a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

I don't think you've grasped the counterargument. No one is saying 1 < .7

We're saying that it isn't 1 < .7, because homeruns kill rallies. A triple gives you a better chance for a sustained rally. Or a double and a stolen base. Or hell, a walk.

You don't believe that? Rewatch our entire 2007 campaign. Watch our one dimensional sluggers get that guaranteed one. In all it's grandeur. And watch us lose because we can't get anything really going offensively.

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 07:57 PM
I don't think you've grasped the counterargument. No one is saying 1 < .7

We're saying that it isn't 1 < .7, because homeruns kill rallies. A triple gives you a better chance for a sustained rally. Or a double and a stolen base. Or hell, a walk.

You don't believe that? Rewatch our entire 2007 campaign. Watch our one dimensional sluggers get that guaranteed one. In all it's grandeur. And watch us lose because we can't get anything really going offensively.

I'm not going to buy your memory of the White Sox's crappy year in 2007 as proof that a triple is better than a homerun. Basically, I need real proof before I will believe this, above and beyond your gut.

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 07:58 PM
It's turned into a debate about whether Crawford's style of baseball is valueable.

First it turned into my assertion that healthy Dye > Crawford, and now its become your assertion that a triple > home run.

Frater Perdurabo
11-14-2007, 08:13 PM
Yep, Knox College.

Galesburg? My grandmother and two uncles/aunts live there. :smile:

munchman33
11-14-2007, 08:20 PM
I'm not going to buy your memory of the White Sox's crappy year in 2007 as proof that a triple is better than a homerun. Basically, I need real proof before I will believe this, above and beyond your gut.

The top three pitchers in allowing homeruns last year in the A.L.

AL
1. Santana, MIN 33
2. Vasquez, CHI 29
3. Shields, TAM 28

Yet somehow, those guys all managed to have ERA's amongst the lead leaders. Why? Because giving up a stinking homerun doesn't really phase a pitcher all that much. He can simply go about his business as usual.

Having runners on base is what really gets pitchers in trouble. Especially third base, as it forces fielders into different positions, and pitchers to limit what they can throw to the guy at the plate.

FedEx227
11-14-2007, 08:22 PM
The top three pitchers in allowing homeruns last year in the A.L.

AL
1. Santana, MIN 33
2. Vasquez, CHI 29
3. Shields, TAM 28

Yet somehow, those guys all managed to have ERA's amongst the lead leaders. Why? Because giving up a stinking homerun doesn't really phase a pitcher all that much. He can simply go about his business as usual.

Having runners on base is what really gets pitchers in trouble. Especially third base, as it forces fielders into different positions, and pitchers to limit what they can throw to the guy at the plate.

*Vazquez. He's been on our team for a couple of years now. But still good facts anyway, but how people still get his name wrong is beyond me.

munchman33
11-14-2007, 08:22 PM
*Vazquez. He's been on our team for a couple of years now. But still good facts anyway, but how people still get his name wrong is beyond me.

:redface:

FarWestChicago
11-14-2007, 08:23 PM
The top three pitchers in allowing homeruns last year in the A.L.

AL
1. Santana, MIN 33
2. Vasquez, CHI 29
3. Shields, TAM 28

Yet somehow, those guys all managed to have ERA's amongst the lead leaders. Why? Because giving up a stinking homerun doesn't really phase a pitcher all that much. He can simply go about his business as usual.

Having runners on base is what really gets pitchers in trouble. Especially third base, as it forces fielders into different positions, and pitchers to limit what they can throw to the guy at the plate.I'm not saying you are wrong. But, a correlation does not imply causality. :smile:

munchman33
11-14-2007, 08:24 PM
I'm not saying you are wrong. But, a correlation does not imply causality. :smile:

That's fair. But I believe it does here. Based more on just the empirical data, but also on watching what actually happens to pitchers over the course of baseball games.

Edit: Incidently, those three were also very good at keeping runners off base, amongst the leaders for starters in lowest opponent OBP.

santo=dorf
11-14-2007, 08:37 PM
I'm not going to buy your memory of the White Sox's crappy year in 2007 as proof that a triple is better than a homerun. Basically, I need real proof before I will believe this, above and beyond your gut.
I have only heard two people use this kind of logic of a home run being a bad thing, and it was Ed Farmer and Joe Carter. :o:

Not good company.
Guaranteed runs are awful.

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 08:38 PM
The top three pitchers in allowing homeruns last year in the A.L.

AL
1. Santana, MIN 33
2. Vasquez, CHI 29
3. Shields, TAM 28

Yet somehow, those guys all managed to have ERA's amongst the lead leaders. Why? Because giving up a stinking homerun doesn't really phase a pitcher all that much. He can simply go about his business as usual.

Having runners on base is what really gets pitchers in trouble. Especially third base, as it forces fielders into different positions, and pitchers to limit what they can throw to the guy at the plate.

They were also among the league leaders in strikeouts and K/9. Also, way to not include the NL and Danks in your stats.

Pitcher ----------- HR ----- ERA ----- K/9 ------ OBP

Woody Williams --- 35 ----- 5.27 ----- 4.84 ----- .341

Livan Hernandez - 34 ------ 4.93 ----- 3.96 ------ .371

Santana --------- 33 ----- 3.33 ------ 9.66 ----- .273

Chuck James ----- 32 ----- 4.24 ------ 6.47 ----- .327

Jamie Moyer ------ 30 ----- 5.01 ------ 6.01 ----- .342

Adam Eaton ------ 30 ----- 6.29 ------ 5.40 ----- .378

Vazquez ---------- 29 ---- 3.74 ------- 8.85 ----- .290

Dontrelle Willis -----29 ---- 5.17 ------- 6.40 ----- .369

Scott Olsen ------ 29 ----- 5.81 ------- 6.78 ----- .384

Ted Lilliy --------- 28------ 3.83 ------- 7.57 ----- .286

Bronson Arroyo --- 28 ----- 4.23 ------- 6.66 ----- .338

Aaron Harang ---- 28 ----- 3.73 ------- 8.47 ----- .289

Shields ----------- 28 ----- 3.85 ------- 7.70 ----- .285

Danks ------------28 ------ 5.50 ------- 7.06 ----- .354


It certainly seems like K/9 has a stronger correlation to pitching well than your theory that giving up a homerun is no big deal. Also opponents OBP, as you note, also lends itself to my arguement.

If you can keep your OBP below .300 and have a K/9 over 7, you can keep your ERA low while giving up copious amounts of long balls. Otherwise homeruns are going to burn you badly. Ask Adam Eaton.

Frater Perdurabo
11-14-2007, 08:45 PM
In any case, adding Crawford as a leadoff hitter would make the Sox lineup so much more potent.

First, he steals bases. Most Sox hitters can't do very well.

Second, his speed makes pitchers throw out of the stretch and throw more fastballs. This would help Thome, PK and Dye.

Third, he's still young and is likely to develop more power. Also, playing in the Cell, he'll probably have slightly fewer doubles and triples, but a few more homers.

A 1-2 of Crawford and Richar at the top would provide plenty of "RISP" RBI opportunities (and fewer GIDP opportunities) for the middle of the order.

munchman33
11-14-2007, 08:56 PM
They were also among the league leaders in strikeouts and K/9. Also, way to not include the NL and Danks in your stats.

Pitcher ----------- HR ----- ERA ----- K/9 ------ OBP

Woody Williams --- 35 ----- 5.27 ----- 4.84 ----- .341

Livan Hernandez - 34 ------ 4.93 ----- 3.96 ------ .371

Santana --------- 33 ----- 3.33 ------ 9.66 ----- .273

Chuck James ----- 32 ----- 4.24 ------ 6.47 ----- .327

Jamie Moyer ------ 30 ----- 5.01 ------ 6.01 ----- .342

Adam Eaton ------ 30 ----- 6.29 ------ 5.40 ----- .378

Vazquez ---------- 29 ---- 3.74 ------- 8.85 ----- .290

Dontrelle Willis -----29 ---- 5.17 ------- 6.40 ----- .369

Scott Olsen ------ 29 ----- 5.81 ------- 6.78 ----- .384

Ted Lilliy --------- 28------ 3.83 ------- 7.57 ----- .286

Bronson Arroyo --- 28 ----- 4.23 ------- 6.66 ----- .338

Aaron Harang ---- 28 ----- 3.73 ------- 8.47 ----- .289

Shields ----------- 28 ----- 3.85 ------- 7.70 ----- .285

Danks ------------28 ------ 5.50 ------- 7.06 ----- .354


It certainly seems like K/9 has a stronger correlation to pitching well than your theory that giving up a homerun is no big deal. Also opponents OBP, as you note, also lends itself to my arguement.

If you can keep your OBP below .300 and have a K/9 over 7, you can keep your ERA low while giving up copious amounts of long balls. Otherwise homeruns are going to burn you badly. Ask Adam Eaton.

You mean if you have a high OBP allowed and don't strike anyone out on top of giving up a lot of homeruns, you're gonna suck? Who knew?

I think you've once again missed my point. Homeruns don't really win games as much as you think they do. Getting on base means so much more. Getting a home run scores one run and it's done. Getting on base is what really leads to runs, in bunches. You don't get that guaranteed run, sure. But the upside is significantly greater than having the next batter pitched to with the bases empty. There's a reason the league average with RISP is higher than without.

Craig Grebeck
11-14-2007, 09:12 PM
So do you start your second trimester, have couple weeks of class, then get a couple off for Christmas?
Our schedule is very unusual, but very typical of liberal arts schools on the trimester system: We go from early September until this week, and after this Friday I am off until January 2nd. We have the option of taking winter classes, but most kids opt to work during the break to make up for the 35,000$+ that tuition + fees set us back (granted almost no one pays in full, but it is still a lofty price).

Grzegorz
11-14-2007, 09:56 PM
In any case, adding Crawford as a leadoff hitter would make the Sox lineup so much more potent.

He's not a lead off hitter.

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 10:10 PM
You mean if you have a high OBP allowed and don't strike anyone out on top of giving up a lot of homeruns, you're gonna suck? Who knew?

I think you've once again missed my point. Homeruns don't really win games as much as you think they do. Getting on base means so much more. Getting a home run scores one run and it's done. Getting on base is what really leads to runs, in bunches. You don't get that guaranteed run, sure. But the upside is significantly greater than having the next batter pitched to with the bases empty. There's a reason the league average with RISP is higher than without.

No, you have missed my point. Homeruns score runs better than triples. Nothing you have said has proved otherwise.

munchman33
11-14-2007, 10:18 PM
No, you have missed my point. Homeruns score runs. Better than triples.

Ummm...I really don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to say.

Homeruns score a run. Yes. 100% of the time. I've conceded that. I'm not an idiot.

I'm saying that a player who can run and get triples, SBs, etc. is better because it can lead to more production. It might lead to less on occassion. Yes. But it can also lead to more. And tends to, because of the effect baserunners have on pitchers. Especially baserunners with speed. Or baserunners on third base. Not only in the next at bat. Or even in that inning. But over the course of the game.

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 10:54 PM
Ummm...I really don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to say.

Homeruns score a run. Yes. 100% of the time. I've conceded that. I'm not an idiot.

I'm saying that a player who can run and get triples, SBs, etc. is better because it can lead to more production. It might lead to less on occassion. Yes. But it can also lead to more. And tends to, because of the effect baserunners have on pitchers. Especially baserunners with speed. Or baserunners on third base. Not only in the next at bat. Or even in that inning. But over the course of the game.

And again, you have not proven that. You just state it without evidence.

Oblong
11-14-2007, 11:20 PM
According to the 2006 Hardball Times Annual, the "value" breaks down like this, ie number of runs

home run 1.394
triple 1.055
single .465
double .772
non-intentional walk .315
intentional walk .176
HBP .342

A. Cavatica
11-14-2007, 11:49 PM
According to the 2006 Hardball Times Annual, the "value" breaks down like this, ie number of runs

home run 1.394
triple 1.055
single .465
double .772
non-intentional walk .315
intentional walk .176
HBP .342

Thanks -- this is the kind of statistic I love. It doesn't claim that one player is better than another because of some ridiculous tendency over 15 at-bats, it just tells you what a walk's worth compared to a single, etc. I assume this was over many thousands of plate appearances? I am still a little suspicious because I don't see why a HBP would lead to more runs than a non-intentional walk.

pierzynski07
11-15-2007, 12:08 AM
If you're hitting players, you control is more than likely worse that if you're just walking them, so overall you're pitching worse, leading to more runs given up.

mjmcend
11-15-2007, 12:13 AM
According to the 2006 Hardball Times Annual, the "value" breaks down like this, ie number of runs

home run 1.394
triple 1.055
single .465
double .772
non-intentional walk .315
intentional walk .176
HBP .342

Outstanding. Thanks. I need to get that book.

Lorenzo Barcelo
11-15-2007, 12:39 AM
I am still a little suspicious because I don't see why a HBP would lead to more runs than a non-intentional walk.[/quote]

Perhaps players who would not normally steal a base do so to stick it to the pitcher for hitting him?

munchman33
11-15-2007, 03:07 AM
And again, you have not proven that. You just state it without evidence.

No, I've presented evidence. You've chosen to ignore it. When I say the league hits better with runners on base than without, that's evidence. Because it's empirical data you can find any season. It never changes.

You've simply chosen to ignore any evidence I've brought. Or attack it with really bad examples that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about (the Woody Williams/John Danks thing and the 1 > .7 thing when that isn't what I'm arguing).

munchman33
11-15-2007, 03:09 AM
According to the 2006 Hardball Times Annual, the "value" breaks down like this, ie number of runs

home run 1.394
triple 1.055
single .465
double .772
non-intentional walk .315
intentional walk .176
HBP .342

Interesting. How does Harball Times derive these numbers, by the inning at hand or over the course of the game?

UserNameBlank
11-15-2007, 03:16 AM
According to the 2006 Hardball Times Annual, the "value" breaks down like this, ie number of runs

home run 1.394
triple 1.055
single .465
double .772
non-intentional walk .315
intentional walk .176
HBP .342

I am still a little suspicious because I don't see why a HBP would lead to more runs than a non-intentional walk.

Perhaps players who would not normally steal a base do so to stick it to the pitcher for hitting him?[/quote]

I'm guessing because it includes intentional HBP and unintentional HBP? Walks add up to .491, whatever the **** that means, which I guess is more valuable than a basehit or soemthing. This is kind of dumb though. Are intentional walks not counting when a pitcher pitches around someone and walks them? Because that's the same thing basically.

None of this makes any sense. Not unlike communists, sometimes statheads take good ideas a little too far I think.

A. Cavatica
11-15-2007, 08:11 AM
I'm guessing because it includes intentional HBP and unintentional HBP? Walks add up to .491, whatever the **** that means, which I guess is more valuable than a basehit or soemthing. This is kind of dumb though. Are intentional walks not counting when a pitcher pitches around someone and walks them? Because that's the same thing basically.

None of this makes any sense. Not unlike communists, sometimes statheads take good ideas a little too far I think.

This is obviously the number of runs that, on average, will score after each type of event, based on the historical record. It's about as simple as a stat can be.

I think you confused yourself by trying to add unintentional walks and intentional walks. The stat is saying that intentional walks are far less likely to score than unintentional ones (since managers are good at picking their spots), and that an unintentional walk will produce 3/4 as many runs as a single.

I guess a HBP must lead to more runs because of adrenalin. Can't think of another reason.

Oblong
11-15-2007, 08:46 AM
Perhaps players who would not normally steal a base do so to stick it to the pitcher for hitting him?

I'm guessing because it includes intentional HBP and unintentional HBP? Walks add up to .491, whatever the **** that means, which I guess is more valuable than a basehit or soemthing. This is kind of dumb though. Are intentional walks not counting when a pitcher pitches around someone and walks them? Because that's the same thing basically.

None of this makes any sense. Not unlike communists, sometimes statheads take good ideas a little too far I think.[/quote]

Where are you getting that walks add up to .491?

As for the the difference between HBP and a regular walk, I think your reason is valid. It's not that much of a difference. Since intentional walks are so much lower and the pitching around walks are often used in the same scenario so they'd bring the figure down some.

I don't know how they came up with these figures or what time period it covers. I was given the figures via a reliable source, i.e. someone who wouldn't just make it up.

mjmcend
11-15-2007, 11:58 AM
No, I've presented evidence. You've chosen to ignore it. When I say the league hits better with runners on base than without, that's evidence. Because it's empirical data you can find any season. It never changes.

You've simply chosen to ignore any evidence I've brought. Or attack it with really bad examples that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about (the Woody Williams/John Danks thing and the 1 > .7 thing when that isn't what I'm arguing).

The Woody Williams numbers were to prove that you cherry picked your numbers showing that top pitchers give up homeruns without much negative consequence.

Just because the league hits better overall with men on base doesn't translate directly into scoring. Homeruns, however, do. All your other theories about the pitcher throwing more and unique pitches, and therefore tiring out earlier are without evidence. Oblong presented concrete numbers about the average runs scored after a non-out. I think that pretty much settles it for me. Homeruns > Triples.

munchman33
11-15-2007, 01:24 PM
The Woody Williams numbers were to prove that you cherry picked your numbers showing that top pitchers give up homeruns without much negative consequence.

Just because the league hits better overall with men on base doesn't translate directly into scoring. Homeruns, however, do. All your other theories about the pitcher throwing more and unique pitches, and therefore tiring out earlier are without evidence. Oblong presented concrete numbers about the average runs scored after a non-out. I think that pretty much settles it for me. Homeruns > Triples.

What do you want me to do, find empirical evidence on how throwing more pitches tires a pitcher? Evidence that more pitches thrown causes a pitcher to fade? I'm not going to go out and search for something that should be common sense even to people that know nothing about baseball.

mjmcend
11-15-2007, 02:06 PM
What do you want me to do, find empirical evidence on how throwing more pitches tires a pitcher? Evidence that more pitches thrown causes a pitcher to fade? I'm not going to go out and search for something that should be common sense even to people that know nothing about baseball.

How about proving that a triple causes more pitches to be thrown in the first place?

munchman33
11-15-2007, 02:40 PM
How about proving that a triple causes more pitches to be thrown in the first place?

Once again, I'm sorry. I can't do that for you. People don't generally waste time making studies in common sense. So I can't point you to one. If you know baseball, you know the adjustments made with a runner on third.

mjmcend
11-15-2007, 04:38 PM
Once again, I'm sorry. I can't do that for you. People don't generally waste time making studies in common sense. So I can't point you to one. If you know baseball, you know the adjustments made with a runner on third.

Of course adjustments are made. However, do those adjustments lead to more pitches and, more importantly, more runs over the course of a game?

Nothing you have said or implied proves Oblong's stats wrong. I would say the burden of proof is on the guy who states that a homerun is less valuable than a triple. The way I see it, all common sense is on my side.

Nellie_Fox
11-15-2007, 04:49 PM
This major hijack has now been made into its own thread because it was giving me a headache.

rdivaldi
11-15-2007, 04:56 PM
I would say the burden of proof is on the guy who states that a homerun is less valuable than a triple. The way I see it, all common sense is on my side.

But the real question is whether or not a churro is more valuable than a beer...

Gammons Peter
11-15-2007, 05:08 PM
Wow, I can't believe I started this pissing contest,......I did say ALMOST.
I just want Crawford in left and Owens in center. A five, six or seven year deal for Hunter is a bad bad idea. Hunter is average at best at the plate and at this point in his career not that much better than Owens in the field (certainly not 90,000,000 better)

Nellie_Fox
11-15-2007, 05:14 PM
Wow, I can't believe I started this pissing contest,......I did say ALMOST.
I just want Crawford in left and Owens in center. A five, six or seven year deal for Hunter is a bad bad idea. Hunter is average at best at the plate and at this point in his career not that much better than Owens in the field (certainly not 90,000,000 better)So now you're going to hijack the hijack?????

santo=dorf
11-15-2007, 06:10 PM
Once again, I'm sorry. I can't do that for you. People don't generally waste time making studies in common sense. So I can't point you to one. If you know baseball, you know the adjustments made with a runner on third.
..and that runner already scores from third on a home run. Who the **** cares already?

With two outs would you rather have a homer or a triple? Thought so.

So now you're going to hijack the hijack?????

If you really wanted to, you could split the trimester talk.:tongue:

johnr1note
11-15-2007, 06:11 PM
I'm jus ttrying to wrap my arms around this argument. So I decided to check some stats, and tracked the team that led each league in triples, and the team that led each league in HR's since 2003. (There was never a time when it was the same team).

The results -- the average number of total team triples for teams that led the league in triples was 48.1, and those same teams scored an average of 806.4 runs per year.

The average number of total team HRs for teams that led the league in HRs was 232.3, and those teams scored and average of 867 runs per year.

Even looking at general team stats regarding HRs hit and triples hit, I came to realize that:

1. Its all about how many runs you score. The team with the most runs at the end of the game wins! And, teams that hit a lot of HRs also tend to score a lot of runs. Teams that hit more triples and fewer HRs tend to score fewer runs. Invairably, the team that hits the most HRs is a contending team. Several times, the team with the most triples was a sub .500 team.

2. The triple is one of the rarest events in a baseball game. There are many, many more HRs hit than triples, so HRs will be more valuable to a team if a particular player hits a lot of them. A player who hits 15 triples in a season could drive in a maximum of 45 runs with those hits, if the bases were loaded every time, and he would then be able to score an additional 15 runs himself if he was driven in by a subsequent batter, for a maximum value of 60. On the flip side, a batter who hits 30 home runs in a year (a much more common feet) has the possibility of driving in a maximum of 120 runs. Yes, no more runs will score after him, but the concept of the possibility of driving in more runs is there from the moment the HR guy steps up to the plate.

Is this logical?

A triple is exciting and can keep a rally going. But it only results in a run scored 70% of the time. Plus the odds of getting a triple are pretty remote. A major leaguer in the starting lineup has what, an average of 650 plate appearances in a given season? The average league leader for triples is about 12-15 (a rare 20 or more on occasion). Carl Crawford (the original subject of this discussion) has often led the league in triple with 12-15. Even if we take 15 as the number, that's an average of .023 -- or a little more than 2 plate appearances in every hundred will result in a triple.

Now lets take a typical good power hitter, and lets say 20 HRs is the number. You could have 2, 3, 4 guys like this in your lineup. That's 3 Abs in every hundred that's a homerun. But for a guy like Konerko or Thome, where 35 or 40 HRs is a possibility, your getting up to 7 plate appearances in a hundred result in a HR.

That doesn't sound like much, but in the course of a season, the run production you get out of a good HR hitter is exponentially better than a triples hitter.

munchman33
11-15-2007, 06:23 PM
1. Its all about how many runs you score.

No, it's about outscoring your opponents more often than they outscore you. Sabermetric dorks never seem to get that. Runs scored over a season is a pretty meaningless stat, because most teams with lots of power tend pummel bad pitching and get shut down by good pitching. They have huge run differentials but that's it. For years the Twins beat us with a lower runner differential. Heck, just this year the Diamondbacks led the National League in wins, but only had a +20 run differential for the season. Their offense didn't score a ton of runs. But they had speed. And speed allowed them to score consistently. Very much like what we had here in 2005.

munchman33
11-15-2007, 06:32 PM
..and that runner already scores from third on a home run. Who the **** cares already?

With two outs would you rather have a homer or a triple? Thought so.



I would rather have the homerun. Obviously. But I'd rather have a guy that could hit a triple at the plate hitting it, not a baseclogging, one dimensional slugger who more times than not kills rallies.

mjmcend
11-15-2007, 06:36 PM
No, it's about outscoring your opponents more often than they outscore you. Sabermetric dorks never seem to get that. Runs scored over a season is a pretty meaningless stat, because most teams with lots of power tend pummel bad pitching and get shut down by good pitching. They have huge run differentials but that's it. For years the Twins beat us with a lower runner differential. Heck, just this year the Diamondbacks led the National League in wins, but only had a +20 run differential for the season. Their offense didn't score a ton of runs. But they had speed. And speed allowed them to score consistently. Very much like what we had here in 2005.

If its about winning games how do you explain this then?


1. Its all about how many runs you score. The team with the most runs at the end of the game wins! And, teams that hit a lot of HRs also tend to score a lot of runs. Teams that hit more triples and fewer HRs tend to score fewer runs. Invairably, the team that hits the most HRs is a contending team. Several times, the team with the most triples was a sub .500 team.

santo=dorf
11-15-2007, 06:45 PM
I would rather have the homerun. Obviously. But I'd rather have a guy that could hit a triple at the plate hitting it, not a baseclogging, one dimensional slugger who more times than not kills rallies.
Yeah, what good are walk off or game tying homers?

You honestly think the next batter won't try to get on base to keep the game going because the last guy just homered? *****. Like I mentioned earlier, that's Joe Carter logic.

TDog
11-15-2007, 07:07 PM
A lot of the generalizations and percentages ignore the fact that players still have to execute, sometimes concede outs, to score triples. Many pitchers, especially inexperienced pitchers, walk the hitter who follows a home run. Many pitchers are able to bear down and concentrate on getting people out. Baseball isn't about stats, although it can be so defined. It's a human game.

The first person I ever heard posit that a home run was a rally killer was Jim Kaat, and people thought it was a silly idea at the time. Of course, a home run scores everyone who is on base, so, if it is a rally killer at the expense of runs scoring. (I was listening to a game on the radio once when Carlos May didn't score on a home run he hit, but that's part of the fun of being a long-time Sox fan.) Since Kaat said that in the 1970s, home runs are more common, and I see more multihomer innings. There were lots of games last year where Sox pitching gave up more than one additional run after surrendering a home run. I went to a game against the Indians a few years ago that the White Sox tied with a two-out Frank Thomas three-run homer and, four-hitters later, Joe Crede won with a bases-loaded single.

As I posted earlier, I love triples. I would rather see a player hit a triple than a home run in many situations because triples are more exciting to watch. Percentages aside, there were innings last season when the White Sox hit a triple and didn't score any runs and even ended up losing the game, despite the additional pressure it put on a pitcher. Some of them were lead-off triples. It couldn't have been many because the White Sox only hit 20 triples all season. In the AL, only the A's hit fewer.

In fact, the only Sox game I got to see at all season (I had no opportunity to see the Sox on television) was in Oakland, when the A's scored two runs in the ninth to win the game 2-1. That game effectively had two leadoff triples that didn't score. Cintron's "triple" ended up going as a three-base error, I believe, even though it was a tough play down the right-field line. The Sox had already scored their run at that point in the game. Stranding an Oakland runner at third after Buck led off the fifth with a triple had nothing to do with Garland not pitching in the ninth when the Sox closer came in to be hit hard.

I love to see the Sox hit triples. Some of my favorite ballpark memories are of bases-loaded triples. I would love to have seen the Sox hit 210 triples and no home runs instead of 20 triples and 190 home runs because that would have been an exciting season. That might have been a team that could have scored runners from second on singles -- a novelty that would have improved the Sox record immensely. But the idea that a triples result in more scoring than home runs is ridiculous.

santo=dorf
11-15-2007, 07:12 PM
I love to see the Sox hit triples. Some of my favorite ballpark memories are of bases-loaded triples. I would love to have seen the Sox hit 210 triples and no home runs instead of 20 triples and 190 home runs because that would have been an exciting season. That might have been a team that could have scored runners from second on singles -- a novelty that would have improved the Sox record immensely. But the idea that a triples result in more scoring than home runs is ridiculous.
My gut reaction was, and the numbers support it, that it would be an exciting losing season.

I rather have my batters jog around the bases instead of running hard, and possibly risking injury with a slide (since lots of triples are close plays.)

Craig Grebeck
11-15-2007, 07:55 PM
I would rather have the homerun. Obviously. But I'd rather have a guy that could hit a triple at the plate hitting it, not a baseclogging, one dimensional slugger who more times than not kills rallies.
Haha, it's funny that you mention "killing rallies" considering Crawford is one of the more prodigious out-makers in the game.

munchman33
11-15-2007, 07:59 PM
My gut reaction was, and the numbers support it, that it would be an exciting losing season.

I rather have my batters jog around the bases instead of running hard, and possibly risking injury with a slide (since lots of triples are close plays.)


Well I guess we're all set for next year then. No need to acquire speedy guys or leadoff guys, guys who bunt, hit and run, or anything like that. Let's just go into next year with the same god damn collection of slow ****ing sluggers that do absolutely nothing else except try to hit home runs. Because hitting home runs mean so god damn much that we obviously don't need to do anything else to win.

Hitting homeruns is great. But I'm not going to take slow sluggers over fast guys with pop. Your injury risk reasoning is ridiculous billy beane garbage. A slugger could just as easily injure himself swinging for the fences every pitch.

munchman33
11-15-2007, 07:59 PM
If its about winning games how do you explain this then?

Because the Devil Rays don't have pitching.

santo=dorf
11-15-2007, 08:04 PM
Because the Devil Rays don't have pitching.
Must be all those base stealers on first base that the Yankees and Red Sox have. :rolleyes:

mjmcend
11-15-2007, 08:27 PM
Well I guess we're all set for next year then. No need to acquire speedy guys or leadoff guys, guys who bunt, hit and run, or anything like that. Let's just go into next year with the same god damn collection of slow ****ing sluggers that do absolutely nothing else except try to hit home runs. Because hitting home runs mean so god damn much that we obviously don't need to do anything else to win.

Hitting homeruns is great. But I'm not going to take slow sluggers over fast guys with pop. Your injury risk reasoning is ridiculous billy beane garbage. A slugger could just as easily injure himself swinging for the fences every pitch.

How about we acquire guys who can get on base in anyway? I don't give a damn how they get on. Slap singles, walks, HBP, triples, ect. Then those game losing homeruns from our awful hall-of-fame-bound 3rd hitter and our crappy franchise slugger and captain won't be solo shots.

The OBP of our #1 and #2 hitters this year was terrible. If we can return those to 2006 levels (or even 2005 levels) that will go a long way to correcting our problems on offense.

2007 OBP
#1 - .321
#2 - .311

2006 OBP
#1 - .332
#2 - .349

2005 OBP
#1 - .338
#2 - .335

munchman33
11-15-2007, 08:30 PM
Must be all those base stealers on first base that the Yankees and Red Sox have. :rolleyes:

I was waiting for someone to say something like that. Because the Yankees did lead the AL in homers last year (guess who was second? That's right, us). But that's not what made their offense good. As a team, they batted .290. Their lineup produced hits of all kinds. They didn't simply swing for the fences. Arod hits homers, yes. But he can also run the god damn bases. Jeter is more of a hit machine than a slugger. The Yankees might hit a ton of homeruns, but they also hit a ton of everything else too, and they know what to do on base.

By comparison, we finished only 11 homers short of the Yankees. But batted 54 points lower. Because our guys are old, slow, and one dimensional. 3-9. And it gets us nowhere.

But wow. Look at all the homeruns. Who needs Carl Crawford. Who needs anyone. We've got Juan Uribe. 20 homers at short. Wow.

munchman33
11-15-2007, 08:32 PM
How about we acquire guys who can get on base in anyway? I don't give a damn how they get on. Slap singles, walks, HBP, triples, ect. Then those game losing homeruns from our awful hall-of-fame-bound 3rd hitter and our crappy franchise slugger and captain won't be solo shots.

The OBP of our #1 and #2 hitters this year was terrible. If we can return those to 2006 levels (or even 2005 levels) that will go a long way to correcting our problems on offense.

2007 OBP
#1 - .321
#2 - .311

2006 OBP
#1 - .332
#2 - .349

2005 OBP
#1 - .338
#2 - .335

While getting runners on base helps, we'd still be playing for the three run homer. We need guys that can do things on the basepaths. And control the bat. Hit and run, bunt, steal, etc.

mjmcend
11-15-2007, 08:37 PM
While getting runners on base helps, we'd still be playing for the three run homer. We need guys that can do things on the basepaths. And control the bat. Hit and run, bunt, steal, etc.

Those three run homers instead of solo shots would have won a lot more games for us last year.

munchman33
11-15-2007, 08:41 PM
Those three run homers instead of solo shots would have won a lot more games for us last year.

Haha...true. Three run homers are nicer than one run homers.

I mean with or without guys on base, we've got guys coming up that are either going to homer or do nothing. I'd much rather see guys with bat control, speed, and a little pop coming up. Your sluggers aren't going to homer most of the time. That's just a fact. You need your players to be able to do other things.

mjmcend
11-15-2007, 08:44 PM
I was waiting for someone to say something like that. Because the Yankees did lead the AL in homers last year (guess who was second? That's right, us). But that's not what made their offense good. As a team, they batted .290. Their lineup produced hits of all kinds. They didn't simply swing for the fences. Arod hits homers, yes. But he can also run the god damn bases. Jeter is more of a hit machine than a slugger. The Yankees might hit a ton of homeruns, but they also hit a ton of everything else too, and they know what to do on base.

By comparison, we finished only 11 homers short of the Yankees. But batted 54 points lower. Because our guys are old, slow, and one dimensional. 3-9. And it gets us nowhere.

But wow. Look at all the homeruns. Who needs Carl Crawford. Who needs anyone. We've got Juan Uribe. 20 homers at short. Wow.

Yankees
Runs Scored - 968 1st in the MLB
OBP - .366 1st in the MLB
Overall SB - 123 7th in the MLB

White Sox
Runs Scored - 693 - 28th in the MLB
OBP - .318 Last in the MLB
SB - 78 20th in the MLB

Since the homerun numbers were about equal what do you think was more responsible for the vast differences in our offenses? The marginal difference in SB or the vast difference in OBP?

Frater Perdurabo
11-15-2007, 08:58 PM
For crying out loud, can't we all agree that in a perfect world, the Sox lineup would be filled with guys who have great extra base power and can run like the wind?

Then they would clobber lots of homers and when their frozen rope line drives don't make it over the fence, they bounce off the wall and allow the hitter to run all the way to third base.

mjmcend
11-15-2007, 08:59 PM
For crying out loud, can't we all agree that in a perfect world, the Sox lineup would be filled with guys who have great extra base power and can run like the wind?

Then they would clobber lots of homers and when their frozen rope line drives don't make it over the fence, they bounce off the wall and allow the hitter to run all the way to third base.

But where is the fun in that?

itsnotrequired
11-15-2007, 09:08 PM
If a ball is hit so hard that it explodes, does it count as a home run?

Frater Perdurabo
11-15-2007, 09:15 PM
If a ball is hit so hard that it explodes, does it count as a home run?

Would you please write that in iambic pentameter?

Frater Perdurabo
11-15-2007, 09:18 PM
But where is the fun in that?

True. Agreement on common ground would make it much harder for all of us to spam up our post counts. :D:

And not having to moderate arguments and split thread definitely would make it harder for mods to troll their way to higher post counts. :tongue:

Daver
11-15-2007, 09:22 PM
True. Agreement on common ground would make it much harder for all of us to spam up our post counts. :D:

And not having to moderate arguments and split thread definitely would make it harder for mods to troll their way to higher post counts. :tongue:


I am seriously considering doing away with post counts.

itsnotrequired
11-15-2007, 09:29 PM
I am seriously considering doing away with post counts.

You should freeze the totals and have each new post deduct one from a member's total.

Frater Perdurabo
11-15-2007, 09:52 PM
I am seriously considering doing away with post counts.

I think you should charge by post and by word. :tongue:

munchman33
11-15-2007, 10:18 PM
Yankees
Runs Scored - 968 1st in the MLB
OBP - .366 1st in the MLB
Overall SB - 123 7th in the MLB

White Sox
Runs Scored - 693 - 28th in the MLB
OBP - .318 Last in the MLB
SB - 78 20th in the MLB

Since the homerun numbers were about equal what do you think was more responsible for the vast differences in our offenses? The marginal difference in SB or the vast difference in OBP?

Probably both. A portion of that OBP/BA difference has to do with the plate approach of a slugger. Another portion with the speed of the players, being able to beat out hits. Still more has to do with speed, in that you pitch differently to really speedy players, because you don't want them putting the ball in play at all, especially on the ground. Speed hitters see more high pitches. If they're a speedy hitter who can hit, that's to there benefit.

ChiSoxFan35
11-15-2007, 10:28 PM
I haven't read this entire post but I wouldn't call it crazy to like triples better.

- Your player would be more likely to have an extra tool of speed that will still prove valuable when the HR doesn't count
- If a guy is a good triples hitter, you'd have to assume the same for doubles right? (I haven't checked #'s, but you figure there are so many hits that are close to being triples or are affected by a ballpark). Meanwhile, plenty of HR hitters are HR or nothing (flyout/K)

mjmcend
11-15-2007, 10:59 PM
Probably both. A portion of that OBP/BA difference has to do with the plate approach of a slugger. Another portion with the speed of the players, being able to beat out hits. Still more has to do with speed, in that you pitch differently to really speedy players, because you don't want them putting the ball in play at all, especially on the ground. Speed hitters see more high pitches. If they're a speedy hitter who can hit, that's to there benefit.

I asked which was more responsible, and you dodged the question. No doubt the speed of the Yankees played a role, but it was a minor role. The difference in speed of the two teams is not vast, however their OBP is. Speed is a useful part of a winning team, but to get back to the core of the argument power trumps speed. Therefore (and for many other reason, like basic math) a homerun > triple.

Why do teams pay a premium for power?

mjmcend
11-15-2007, 11:01 PM
I haven't read this entire post but I wouldn't call it crazy to like triples better.

- Your player would be more likely to have an extra tool of speed that will still prove valuable when the HR doesn't count
- If a guy is a good triples hitter, you'd have to assume the same for doubles right? (I haven't checked #'s, but you figure there are so many hits that are close to being triples or are affected by a ballpark). Meanwhile, plenty of HR hitters are HR or nothing (flyout/K)

No doubt that speed is a useful tool and that's why 5 tool players are so valuable.

About your second point, there is no such thing as a power hitter who doesn't hit doubles. To copy from an earlier post of mine: Every baseball player who hit at least 30 homeruns in 2007 also hit at least 20 doubles except Jim Thome who hit 19. The average amount of doubles for those same 26 guys was 34.27.

So your power hitter who also doesn't hit doubles doesn't exist.

KyWhiSoxFan
11-15-2007, 11:03 PM
A triple is the most exciting play because that's what it takes to drive in Konerko from second.

mealfred13
11-16-2007, 12:18 AM
A triple is the most exciting play because that's what it takes to drive in Konerko from second.

On that note, this thread should just be locked now. Nothing more to see here.

Nellie_Fox
11-16-2007, 12:58 AM
If you really wanted to, you could split the trimester talk.:tongue:I considered it.

munchman33
11-16-2007, 02:03 AM
I asked which was more responsible, and you dodged the question. No doubt the speed of the Yankees played a role, but it was a minor role. The difference in speed of the two teams is not vast, however their OBP is. Speed is a useful part of a winning team, but to get back to the core of the argument power trumps speed. Therefore (and for many other reason, like basic math) a homerun > triple.

Why do teams pay a premium for power?

No, I argued that speed has a big role in the OBP. In both beating out extra hits and causing pitchers to pitch differently to guys that can move. If a guy is likely to beat out a grounder, I'm gonna pitch to strike him out instead. Or maybe my infield is going to take a step in, causing balls not normally hits to become hits. There's so many intangibles that are caused simply by speed. Intangibles not created by one dimensional sluggers.

Teams pay a premium for whatever they think they need. The Yankees gave Johnny Damon a ridiculous contract based on his leadoff skills. The Dodgers did the same for Rafael Furcal. Heck, just last year the Cubs gave Alfonso Soriano and his low lifetime OBP a boatload of money to leadoff for them. I guarantee it wasn't to see him leadoff games with homeruns. They paid for his speed.

munchman33
11-16-2007, 02:04 AM
A triple is the most exciting play because that's what it takes to drive in Konerko from second.

Not without a play at the plate. :cool:

FarWestChicago
11-16-2007, 09:23 AM
A triple is the most exciting play because that's what it takes to drive in Konerko from second.

On that note, this thread should just be locked now. Nothing more to see here.

Not without a play at the plate. :cool:I don't think I'll ever get tired of Konerko "speed" jokes. :redneck

balke
11-16-2007, 09:45 AM
I think Triples appear so valuable because of what they bring with them. It takes a great bat and great speed to get a lot of triples. I'd love for the Sox to have a guy who hits triples on this team, because he more than likely has a high avg., can fight off pitches, and has speed to steal or score from 1st.

Triples CAN be more valuable than Hr's, as they don't kill a rally, and they have a higher chance at starting a rally. Also, it is much easier to acquire a power threat for a team, than to find a speedy hitter IMO.

drewcifer
11-16-2007, 10:06 AM
How do you define a "rally"? If you're defining it as scoring runs, you are dead wrong. It's been beat to death already. A triple, at best, scores a run 70% of the time. A HR is 100%.

If you're defining it as inning involving more hits, then please show some proof that innings where a triple takes place produce more hitting than those that involve a HR. Higher averages across the league with RISP does NOT make that case, either. Triples are the rarest of them all, so you can not cast this huge net saying that averages with RISP is a direct corrlelation to triples. Two walks, a hit and a walk, a double, a single and a steal, errors, etc. are FAR more likely to produce a RISP situation than a triple.

If you like triples, and your feeling is that is some kind of emotional boost that's one thing, but:

Triples CAN be more valuable than Hr's, as they don't kill a rally, and they have a higher chance at starting a rally.

is nothing but conjecture unless you can back it up.

balke
11-16-2007, 10:26 AM
How do you define a "rally"? If you're defining it as scoring runs, you are dead wrong. It's been beat to death already. A triple, at best, scores a run 70% of the time. A HR is 100%.

If you're defining it as inning involving more hits, then please show some proof that innings where a triple takes place produce more hitting than those that involve a HR. Higher averages across the league with RISP does NOT make that case, either. Triples are the rarest of them all, so you can not cast this huge net saying that averages with RISP is a direct corrlelation to triples. Two walks, a hit and a walk, a double, a single and a steal, errors, etc. are FAR more likely to produce a RISP situation than a triple.

If you like triples, and your feeling is that is some kind of emotional boost that's one thing, but:



is nothing but conjecture unless you can back it up.

I define rally in this case as a play that sparks runs behind it. Mainly referring to leadoff situations when a team is down by multiple runs and comes back to win the game. Triples and doubles are both good for this. Nothing is more depressing than a leadoff hr that is followed by 3 straight groundouts when down by 3-4 runs in the 7th.

I'll say the same thing back to you. Where are your #'s to prove Hr innings provide better rallies than triples? I think it matters on timing of either. I'd rather see a triple leadoff an inning, but I'd rather see a Hr with 2 outs.

I think players who can produce triples are extremely rare and extremely valuable. I'd take a team of 9 guys who can hit 20 triples based on what kind of defensive play and bat and speed is associated with that player, over 9 guys who can hit 40 HR's based on what kind of defensive play, and speed, and bat that is normally associated with them.

You would like to have both on a team either way, as baseball is a balance. I think we can all agree its much more difficult to find and acquire a player with the attributes of a triple hitter, than it is to find a hr hitter.

fquaye149
11-16-2007, 10:50 AM
Speed makes them happen. Guys with speed that can hit tend to get them.

I wouldn't be surprised if a guy like Granderson, with his speed and ability to use the bat, got 15 triples a year for the next five years.

Only with one out is it even worthwhile to try to stretch a double into a triple

so only 33% of the time will speed make a difference.

The only time you should "hit a triple" with no outs or two outs is if it's a slam-dunk standup triple, which is one of the flukiest things in baseball

downstairs
11-16-2007, 10:52 AM
I'm talking about an entire game, which is what I assume munchman was talking about. Do teams score more runs in games if they hit a triple?

Comparable to the scoring effects of hitting a home run to lead off an inning vs leading off an inning with a walk. Which leads to more multi-run innings?

For 2006 it broke down like this:

1069 Leadoff HR lead to 260 2+ run innings. 24.32%
2154 Leadoff BB lead to 490 2+ run innings. 22.75%

I'm not surprised by that but I am surprised it's so close.

This is really not all that meaningful.

The error in your logic here is that you merely stopped at "2 runs or more".

If a leadoff home run leads to, say an average of three runs per inning... and a BB leads to an average of 2 runs per inning... the home run is still much, much better.

fquaye149
11-16-2007, 10:57 AM
I am seriously considering doing away with post counts.

That is a great idea--I've seen it work before

downstairs
11-16-2007, 10:58 AM
I define rally in this case as a play that sparks runs behind it. Mainly referring to leadoff situations when a team is down by multiple runs and comes back to win the game. Triples and doubles are both good for this. Nothing is more depressing than a leadoff hr that is followed by 3 straight groundouts when down by 3-4 runs in the 7th.

No player or group of players plays any "better" statistically when there are lots of hits and runs happening in a row (a rally) as compared to if nothing is happening (say they lead off an inning, or its just a slow game).

Ever hear of "past results to not predict future returns"? Same idea.

"Rallys" are fun to watch and great for scoring runs... but they don't affect any future batters as they're going on.

Lets pretend they did. So a Jim Thome would hit .300 during a rally, and .250 when a rally isn't happening? No way. That would be a sign of bad mental fortitude. I guaruntee a player goes to the plate with the same attitude during a rally as compared to any other time. That's their responsibility! And I bet most players take that seriously.

johnr1note
11-16-2007, 11:06 AM
One point I didn't make (though I meant to) when I looked at the difference in run production between the team who led the league in HRS vs the team that led the league in triples was that while the homer happy team scored more runs than the the team that led in triples, the difference wasn't that great. The difference was often only about 20 to 40 runs in some instances.

My analysis is also flawed if the team that led the league in triples had the league leader. One guy could put the team over the top, while the rest of the lineup had no more than one or two apiece, if any.

Teams that hit a lot of home runs tend to do well. But there are a lot of other factors. Munchman pointed out that while the Yankees led the league in HRs, the White Sox were second. Why didn't the Sox do better? It could be that more HRs are hit at the Cell then just about any MLB park. So even if the Sox hit a lot of HRs, thier park allows a lot. That factor could become a wash for us.

Obviously, a balanced attack is the answer. While i love a team that has some big time thumpers in the middle of the lineup, a team generally does not succeed without table setters at the top of the order. If these guys are triples hitters, singles hitters, or have a penchant to draw a walk, they need to get on base and run the bases well in order to for the thumpers to drive `em in, whether by a HR, triple or otherwise.

The perfect example for us was Podsednik in 2005. Whatever his detractors might say, and whatever anyone can say about the stolen base being overrated, Scott got on base and helped ignite our offense. I believe the success of the 2003 Cubs team was largely due to Kenny Loften's efforts as a lead off man.

The argument here really isn't whether a triple is better than a HR, or if HRs kill rallies. Its about the need for a balanced offensive attack.

the1tab
11-16-2007, 11:06 AM
Speed is meaningful when the perception of speed causes unforced errors by the defense. If memory serves, Pods ran all over the league for 2 months in 2004. After the break... not so much. But every time he led off and looked serious about it, the pitcher thought about him too much and the catcher watched him too much and the middle infield leaned towards second. Vince Carter did the same thing in St Louis back in the day. There will never be another Rickey Henderson (in numbers or ego), so forget 100 steals. But if the 9 guys with gloves on think you're going and think about it and not the batter, it improves the batter's odds.

I am, however, interested to see how long it takes for someone to notice that Theo Epstein read Moneyball and then laughed at Billy Beane for being too literal with the numbers obsession. Epstein built a Moneyball team with pitching and he's won. 85% of players in the majors can go 1st to 3rd if the ball is hit in the right place... and getting on base and then running the bases well leads to 5 run innings. This is way more important than whether or not a leadoff walk or home run leads to 2 or 3 run innings. Just get to first, and then have the next guy hit the ball to right. Where has that gone in baseball?

:gulp:

fquaye149
11-16-2007, 11:06 AM
No player or group of players plays any "better" statistically when there are lots of hits and runs happening in a row (a rally) as compared to if nothing is happening (say they lead off an inning, or its just a slow game).

Ever hear of "past results to not predict future returns"? Same idea.

"Rallys" are fun to watch and great for scoring runs... but they don't affect any future batters as they're going on.

Lets pretend they did. So a Jim Thome would hit .300 during a rally, and .250 when a rally isn't happening? No way. That would be a sign of bad mental fortitude. I guaruntee a player goes to the plate with the same attitude during a rally as compared to any other time. That's their responsibility! And I bet most players take that seriously.

It would be interesting to see how players hit with two outs in innings when no hits have happened as opposed to in innings when runs have scored

but even that would be skewed because the fact that a pitcher has given up a lot of runs in an inning would likely be a sign that the pitcher is not throwing as well as a pitcher that gave up no runs in an inning.

Triples are nice--they're 2 more bases than a single, but to act like it's something to look for in a player is silly because even the best triples hitters have their triples totals fluctuate wildly in a year and will likely not hit more than 12-15. Whereas a HR is a guaranteed run and HR hitters are capable of hitting 20-40 a year. Even a hitter with mediocre power will hit 12-15 HR.

Even if a triple itself, we can assume will lead to twice as many runs as a HR( a huge leap of faith) due to rallies, that would mean an exceptional triples hitter who hit 15 triples woudl still be worth, at the MINIMUM 10 less runs than a 40 HR hitter (and that's assuming HR don't lead to more runs...which is not a logically sound assumption)

Oblong
11-16-2007, 11:08 AM
This is really not all that meaningful.

The error in your logic here is that you merely stopped at "2 runs or more".

If a leadoff home run leads to, say an average of three runs per inning... and a BB leads to an average of 2 runs per inning... the home run is still much, much better.

The original question that produced this data set wasn't which one was better. It was a discussion about the old adage "leadoff walks will kill you" and Tim McCarver expressed surprise that a HR leads to more multirun innings than leadoff walks so the numbers were calculated. My only point was to use it as an example that something that seems obvious may not be as obvious at it appears as it relates to the triples vs. HR discussion. But I don't want to hijack this on homers vs. walks.

I think munchman is partially right. I won't go so far as to say a triple is preferable, which I don't know if he has done, I haven't read this all the way through. But I do think there's some effects that are at least worth discussing. I'd love to get someone like Orel Hershiser's take on this.

Oblong
11-16-2007, 11:12 AM
Epstein built a Moneyball team with pitching and he's won.
:gulp:

The principles in moneyball do not apply to a team with a payroll of like $200 million or whatever it is.

Moneyball wasn't about the characteristics of team you put on the field, it was an economics book about exploiting inefficiencies in the market because you are on a tight budget. At the time the team Beane put on the field represented thsoe inefficiencies. They don't really apply anymore.

fquaye149
11-16-2007, 11:13 AM
The principles in moneyball do not apply to a team with a payroll of like $200 million or whatever it is.

Moneyball wasn't about the characteristics of team you put on the field, it was an economics book about exploiting inefficiencies in the market because you are on a tight budget. At the time the team Beane put on the field represented thsoe inefficiencies. They don't really apply anymore.

Boston still attempts to find value with underrated players...

i.e. David Ortiz...

the1tab
11-16-2007, 11:18 AM
The BoSox also break from convention to put OBP higher than classic batting-order-position traits... like batting Youkilis 2nd or leadoff when he would be in the catchers heat of the 100 yd dash. While I agree that Moneyball tried to show Beane's blueprint for winning w/out paying, and Epstein has an open checkbook, he has taken the core set of beliefs that the book/school of thought hold as being sacred (OBP, bat control, bad facial hair) and built a team around it. He threw out Beane's greatest falicy, being that pitching doesn't matter, and has been successful with it.

drewcifer
11-16-2007, 12:11 PM
I define rally in this case as a play that sparks runs behind it.

Ok

I'll say the same thing back to you. Where are your #'s to prove Hr innings provide better rallies than triples? I think it matters on timing of either. I'd rather see a triple leadoff an inning, but I'd rather see a Hr with 2 outs.

Timing is everything, I agree but for the sake of sorting this out, let's stick with the value of a leadoff triple vs. a lead off HR to determine if there's any validity behind you preferring them:


Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 >5
1B 183468 104074 35868 22726 11329 5375 2415 1681
2B 48364 17671 17657 6772 3427 1632 683 522
3B 6573 984 3696 1019 467 228 101 78
HR 27205 0 19690 4130 1816 871 386 312
BB 82637 46794 15837 10481 5167 2503 1100 755
HP 6217 3453 1209 776 427 203 93 56
INT 81 56 9 7 6 1 0 2
E 12105 6427 2726 1580 744 355 159 114
OUT 734369 616379 70656 28839 11379 4441 1679 996
Total 1101019 795838 167348 76330 34762 15609 6616 4516


On the left, you see 8 categories representing the possible outcomes from being a lead-off batter (they can single, double, walk, make an out etc, etc.). The row on the top, indicate how many "runs" (which you have confirmed that you define as rallies) are recorded and to what magnitude they are rallies (i.e. - 1 run, 2 run, etc.)

Looking at just HRs, you first see that there are "0" times a run can not score when a HR is hit, vs. 984 times when 6573 times triples started an innning (i.e. - leadoff triples didn't lead to a scoring inning 14% of the time; runs or rallies occurred 100% for HRs).

To take it a step further, we can translate out whether a lead-off triple is a more or less effective means of igniting a "rally". This will put triples vs. HRs on a level playing field since one is so rare, and the other is less:


Triples:
0 runs scored - (as I stated before) occur 14% of the time
1 run scored - 56% of the time
2 runs scored - 15% of the time
3 runs scored - 7% of the time
4 runs scored - 3% of the time
5 runs scored - 1.53% of the time
>5 runs scored - 1.18%

Home Runs:
0 runs scored - 0% (or conversely, 100% scoring)
1 runs scored - 72% of the time (meaning, 72% of the time it is a 2+ run "rally killer")
2 runs scored - 15% of the time
3 runs scored - 6% of the time
4 runs scored - 3% of the time
5 runs scored - 1.4% of the time
>5 runs scored - 1.14% of the time

So I stand by my original point. What this shows after you translate the results to adjust for the rarity of 3Bs, is that the HRs have NO more rally killing potential than do triples. In fact, in cases of "rallies" (where runs are being scored), they have nearly identical value/results for 2 runs or more....except of course that triples DO NOT SCORE 14% of the time, where HRs always do. This means they have more "rally" value.

Further, the "rally" benefit of triples in scoring 2 runs or more in an inning absolutely does not provide any measurable increased value over HRs, either.

So you can like the excitement of a triple to lead-off an inning, but just realize that a lead-off HR has a better chance of "rallying" the team for a run, and EQUAL value for multiple runs.

*source (http://www.diamond-mind.com/newsletter/en021213.htm)

fquaye149
11-16-2007, 02:04 PM
Wwow...this is the kind of analysis I like to see!

balke
11-16-2007, 02:23 PM
Ok



Timing is everything, I agree but for the sake of sorting this out, let's stick with the value of a leadoff triple vs. a lead off HR to determine if there's any validity behind you preferring them:


Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 >5
1B 183468 104074 35868 22726 11329 5375 2415 1681
2B 48364 17671 17657 6772 3427 1632 683 522
3B 6573 984 3696 1019 467 228 101 78
HR 27205 0 19690 4130 1816 871 386 312
BB 82637 46794 15837 10481 5167 2503 1100 755
HP 6217 3453 1209 776 427 203 93 56
INT 81 56 9 7 6 1 0 2
E 12105 6427 2726 1580 744 355 159 114
OUT 734369 616379 70656 28839 11379 4441 1679 996
Total 1101019 795838 167348 76330 34762 15609 6616 4516


On the left, you see 8 categories representing the possible outcomes from being a lead-off batter (they can single, double, walk, make an out etc, etc.). The row on the top, indicate how many "runs" (which you have confirmed that you define as rallies) are recorded and to what magnitude they are rallies (i.e. - 1 run, 2 run, etc.)

Looking at just HRs, you first see that there are "0" times a run can not score when a HR is hit, vs. 984 times when 6573 times triples started an innning (i.e. - leadoff triples didn't lead to a scoring inning 14% of the time; runs or rallies occurred 100% for HRs).

To take it a step further, we can translate out whether a lead-off triple is a more or less effective means of igniting a "rally". This will put triples vs. HRs on a level playing field since one is so rare, and the other is less:


Triples:
0 runs scored - (as I stated before) occur 14% of the time
1 run scored - 56% of the time
2 runs scored - 15% of the time
3 runs scored - 7% of the time
4 runs scored - 3% of the time
5 runs scored - 1.53% of the time
>5 runs scored - 1.18%

Home Runs:
0 runs scored - 0% (or conversely, 100% scoring)
1 runs scored - 72% of the time (meaning, only 28% of the time is it a "rally killer)
2 runs scored - 15% of the time
3 runs scored - 6% of the time
4 runs scored - 3% of the time
5 runs scored - 1.4% of the time
>5 runs scored - 1.14% of the time

So I stand by my original point. What this shows after you translate the results to adjust for the rarity of 3Bs, is that the HRs have NO more rally killing potential than do triples. In fact, in cases of "rallies" (where runs are being scored), they have nearly identical value/results for 2 runs or more....except of course that triples DO NOT SCORE 14% of the time, where HRs always do. This means they have more "rally" value.

Further, the "rally" benefit of triples in scoring 2 runs or more in an inning absolutely does not provide any measurable increased value over HRs, either.

So you can like the excitement of a triple to lead-off an inning, but just realize that a lead-off HR has a better chance of "rallying" the team for a run, and EQUAL value for multiple runs.

*source (http://www.diamond-mind.com/newsletter/en021213.htm)

My definition was "multiple" or "3-4 runs", and Triples get you there at a higher rate (though not by a great amount, they still get you there at a higher rate). So by my definition I am correct. But if down by 1 run, or maybe 2 I'd take a HR over a triple, and the evidence here supports that. In a game where the deficit is greater, I'd rather see the leadoff triple or double. Hell, even a walk or single.

My greater point is that guys who hit triples are rare and valuable. Guys who hit a great amount of hr's are generally easier to acquire and typically fall short in other areas of baseball. (depending which guys you are talking about of course). And the more Hr guys you have that are slow, the greater your need for a speedy hitter who can drive in runs without the longball (this as well works the other way around).

I believe this whole debate started with the talk of how valuable Crawford is when you take into account his triples and SB's. I would argue that his triple stats are very valuable, and the stats you posted support that. In terms of generating a big rally, they are as good or better than the longball. He's more the all-around hitter which would probably make him the most valuable player on this Sox team. His 20 Hrs, plus his 20 doubles, and 16 triples with 50-60 SB's would beat out PK's 35-40 Hr's, 25 doubles, and 0 SB's with 0 triples.

Not to mention he'd be about the only +.300 hitter this team has, a stat that generally is associated with the great triples hitters http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/alltime/leaders?breakdown=2&type=0&sort=7&year=0



Offensively speaking alone, Crawford is the exact kind of player the Sox would like to have in the lineup. There are 7-8 guys on this team who hit a HR pretty well for their position. How many can hit .300 and steal 30 SB's? And how many can accumulate 50+ extra base hits at the same time? none.

Thanks for the stats though. (no teal)

itsnotrequired
11-16-2007, 02:37 PM
My definition was "multiple" or "3-4 runs", and Triples get you there at a higher rate (though not by a great amount, they still get you there at a higher rate). So by my definition I am correct. But if down by 1 run, or maybe 2 I'd take a HR over a triple, and the evidence here supports that. In a game where the deficit is greater, I'd rather see the leadoff triple or double. Hell, even a walk or single.

The marginally higher rate for triples (7% vs. 6%? 1.53% vs. 1.4%?) means very little as home runs happen 4 times as often as a triple.

balke
11-16-2007, 02:55 PM
The marginally higher rate for triples (7% vs. 6%? 1.53% vs. 1.4%?) means very little as home runs happen 4 times as often as a triple.

It means that Hr's aren't so cut and dry better than the lowly triple. Both are obviously important. Triples are nice because they are indicative of other attributes that player may have of value. Range, a good eye, speed. The fact that they are just as potent as a hr in a rally situation and actually more potent per occurrence, only shows that they are undervalued by those who think HR's are the end all be all of the sport.

Perhaps when I think of the triple I think of what this team specifically doesn't have. I often reflect on innings for the White Sox that begin with a #8 or #9 or #1 or #2 hitter swinging for the fences, instead of trying to get on base for the real HR hitters, like Dye and Thome and Konerko.

itsnotrequired
11-16-2007, 03:04 PM
It means that Hr's aren't so cut and dry better than the lowly triple. Both are obviously important. Triples are nice because they are indicative of other attributes that player may have of value. Range, a good eye, speed. The fact that they are just as potent as a hr in a rally situation and actually more potent per occurrence, only shows that they are undervalued by those who think HR's are the end all be all of the sport.

Perhaps when I think of the triple I think of what this team specifically doesn't have. I often reflect on innings for the White Sox that begin with a #8 or #9 or #1 or #2 hitter swinging for the fences, instead of trying to get on base for the real HR hitters, like Dye and Thome and Konerko.

No doubt a player who hits a lot of triples brings other skills to the table (speed, etc.) but in terms of a rally situation, it really doesn't matter due to the lower rate at which triples occur.

It is sort of like how when trying to boil water, cold water heats at a faster rate than hot water. It doesn't really mean much though as the hot water is going to boiler sooner than the cold despite its slower rate of heating. That being said, I'm personally a big fan of cold water.

drewcifer
11-16-2007, 03:13 PM
The marginally higher rate for triples (7% vs. 6%? 1.53% vs. 1.4%?) means very little as home runs happen 4 times as often as a triple.

Correct. In fact, we're talking about .071 vs .067 (less 1/2 % actually, OVER THE LAST 29 YEARS!!!!)

It means that Hr's aren't so cut and dry better than the lowly triple. Both are obviously important. Triples are nice because they are indicative of other attributes that player may have of value. Range, a good eye, speed. The fact that they are just as potent as a hr in a rally situation and actually more potent per occurrence, only shows that they are undervalued by those who think HR's are the end all be all of the sport.


Nobody argued that a HR was the end all be all in the sport. You stated that you preferred an inning to start with a triple over a HR, and 29 years of baseball history shows that you are more likely BY FAR to score 0 runs, than you are ever to score MORE runs in a rally than you would with a lead-off HR.

balke
11-16-2007, 03:33 PM
Correct. In fact, we're talking about .071 vs .067 (less 1/2 % actually, OVER THE LAST 29 YEARS!!!!)



Nobody argued that a HR was the end all be all in the sport. You stated that you preferred an inning to start with a triple over a HR, and 29 years of baseball history shows that you are more likely BY FAR to score 0 runs, than you are ever to score MORE runs in a rally than you would with a lead-off HR.

Per situation I'd like to see one or the other. When rallying from a multi-run deficit, I'd like to see any kind of hit before a HR. When leading off an inning depending who is behind the batter, I'd prefer to see a triple.

Say your #2 hitter leads off with a triple. For this Sox team, that leaves PK, Dye, and Thome all to follow with the full intent to hit a HR to drive 2 runs home, rather than 1. If they pop-up, they still have a great chance to drive the runner on 3rd home. If they hit a double, a runner scores. If they hit a single a runner scores. That runner gets home and gives the batter more freedom to use his bat.

In this situation the pitcher will be tempted to walk one batter at least to get a third batter up for a GIDP. Even a GIDP would most likely score that run on 3rd.

Conversely, let's say PK leads off an inning batting 5th. I'd much rather see him hit a HR than do anything. He can only logjam bases and there's a smaller chance for him to score on a pop-fly.

It's all situational, but both have their places. To make it all simple, I value triples for the type of players who hit them, and for the options it leaves open. In a large deficit, I would root for a leadoff hitter to hit a triple (especially with a big bat behind him). With men on base, I may root for the same to keep the inning going.

Oblong
11-16-2007, 04:15 PM
It means that Hr's aren't so cut and dry better than the lowly triple. Both are obviously important. Triples are nice because they are indicative of other attributes that player may have of value. Range, a good eye, speed. The fact that they are just as potent as a hr in a rally situation and actually more potent per occurrence, only shows that they are undervalued by those who think HR's are the end all be all of the sport.

Perhaps when I think of the triple I think of what this team specifically doesn't have. I often reflect on innings for the White Sox that begin with a #8 or #9 or #1 or #2 hitter swinging for the fences, instead of trying to get on base for the real HR hitters, like Dye and Thome and Konerko.

But nobody really tries to hit triples. A lot of times they just happen. The ball is hit to the right spot, the ball takes a funny bounce off a wall, a player misjudges it. I am not even sure it's a skill. The necessary skills required to hit a triple are not the be all end all. It's not something that would be near the top of the list in players I look for. If you see the list of league leaders throughout the years I see lots of guys like Christian Guzman, Jose offerman, Chuck Knoblauch, Jack Wilson, Steve Finley, Lance Johnson ..... not sure I'd pick those guys over someone who is slow and hits 20-25 homers a year soley on the basis of an ability to hit triples.

And certainly in a game situation I'd pick the homer every time. After looking at lots of data I don't see any scenario where a triple is better than a HR.

I didn't know that Fisk lead the league one year.

balke
11-16-2007, 04:50 PM
But nobody really tries to hit triples. A lot of times they just happen. The ball is hit to the right spot, the ball takes a funny bounce off a wall, a player misjudges it. I am not even sure it's a skill. The necessary skills required to hit a triple are not the be all end all. It's not something that would be near the top of the list in players I look for. If you see the list of league leaders throughout the years I see lots of guys like Christian Guzman, Jose offerman, Chuck Knoblauch, Jack Wilson, Steve Finley, Lance Johnson ..... not sure I'd pick those guys over someone who is slow and hits 20-25 homers a year soley on the basis of an ability to hit triples.

And certainly in a game situation I'd pick the homer every time. After looking at lots of data I don't see any scenario where a triple is better than a HR.

I didn't know that Fisk lead the league one year.

Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Stan Musial, Roberto Clemente, Ed Roush, Joe Jackson. All the yawners of baseball.

You know You're essentially saying Juan Uribe or Joe Crede are more valuable than Chuck Knoblauch or Lance Johnson or Jose Offerman offensively, right?

itsnotrequired
11-16-2007, 04:54 PM
Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Stan Musial, Roberto Clemente, Ed Roush, Joe Jackson. All the yawners of baseball.

You know You're essentially saying Juan Uribe or Joe Crede are more valuable than Chuck Knoblauch or Lance Johnson or Jose Offerman right offensively, right?

Last season, Iguchi had more triples and a higher OBP when compared to Jermaine Dye. More stolen bases as well.

DFA Dye!:redneck

Also, the guys you listed were complete hitters that were leading the league in essentially every offensive category. It isn't like they hit a lot of triples but brought nothing else to the table.

balke
11-16-2007, 04:58 PM
Last season, Iguchi had more triples and a higher OBP when compared to Jermaine Dye. More stolen bases as well.

DFA Dye!

:redneck

We're talking about great triples hitters v. great hr hitters. Iguchi played better D for his position last season too BTW.. And 4 career triples doesn't make him someone prone to hitting triples.

Oblong
11-16-2007, 05:02 PM
You know You're essentially saying Juan Uribe or Joe Crede are more valuable than Chuck Knoblauch or Lance Johnson or Jose Offerman offensively, right?

Have you ever heard a GM say "Yeah let's get this guy. He can hit 12 triples a year"

Getting a guy because he hits a lot of triples would be like getting a pitcher because he picks off a lot of hitters. Yes it's a nice thing to do but it's not something that should be the focus.

drewcifer
11-16-2007, 05:03 PM
Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Stan Musial, Roberto Clemente, Ed Roush, Joe Jackson. All the yawners of baseball.


Now your going WAY WAY outside the box. Nobody plays in the caverns those guys did anymore.

balke
11-16-2007, 05:05 PM
Last season, Iguchi had more triples and a higher OBP when compared to Jermaine Dye. More stolen bases as well.

DFA Dye!:redneck

Also, the guys you listed were complete hitters that were leading the league in essentially every offensive category. It isn't like they hit a lot of triples but brought nothing else to the table.

Which is essentially what the majority of guys on the all-time list of triples leaders brought. Look at last season's leaders in triples. Jimmy Rollins, and Curtis Granderson. I don't think there is such a thing as a guy who can only hit triples. Guys who hit triples aren't "Getting lucky on a fluke" they are hitting the ball to the gaps and down the line. That's what good hitters do, and if you hit it right you'll get your fair share of triples, especially if you have speed.

balke
11-16-2007, 05:07 PM
Now your going WAY WAY outside the box. Nobody plays in the caverns those guys did anymore.

"All things considered Rollins made have had the best overall year of any player in the National League. Rollins finished with a .296 average, 30 homers and 94 RBI. He also had 212 hits, 38 doubles, 139 runs, 41 stolen bases and an OPS of .875. Rollins was the leader of the Phillies during their climb back into the playoff hunt both on and off the field."

Oblong
11-16-2007, 05:14 PM
Which is essentially what the majority of guys on the all-time list of triples leaders brought. Look at last season's leaders in triples. Jimmy Rollins, and Curtis Granderson. I don't think there is such a thing as a guy who can only hit triples. Guys who hit triples aren't "Getting lucky on a fluke" they are hitting the ball to the gaps and down the line. That's what good hitters do, and if you hit it right you'll get your fair share of triples, especially if you have speed.

But now I tink you are changing the argument from "would you rather have a triple or a home run" to "Would you rather have Curtis Granderson/Jimmy Rollins up or Matt Stairs up?"

The question should be "Would you rather have Curtis Granderson hit a triple or a home run?"

balke
11-16-2007, 05:22 PM
But now I tink you are changing the argument from "would you rather have a triple or a home run" to "Would you rather have Curtis Granderson/Jimmy Rollins up or Matt Stairs up?"

The question should be "Would you rather have Curtis Granderson hit a triple or a home run?"

I'm not changing the argument, that was in my first post. I think this whole thread started with the argument of how significant Crawford's triples are. Maybe I'm wrong but yesterday I'm pretty sure some idiots were fighting over how valuable they are. I think triples are valuable, and the guys who lead the league in triples are some of the best hitters in the MLB. Triples have high value, and the guys who can hit a lot of them are generally some of the best hitters in baseball. I like extra base hits, and depending on the situation I think they can be just as, or more valuable than Hr's. There are many more situations where a HR is more valuable though.

itsnotrequired
11-16-2007, 06:49 PM
There are many more situations where a HR is more valuable though.

If by "many more" you mean "all".

mjmcend
11-16-2007, 06:55 PM
I'm not changing the argument, that was in my first post. I think this whole thread started with the argument of how significant Crawford's triples are. Maybe I'm wrong but yesterday I'm pretty sure some idiots were fighting over how valuable they are. I think triples are valuable, and the guys who lead the league in triples are some of the best hitters in the MLB. Triples have high value, and the guys who can hit a lot of them are generally some of the best hitters in baseball. I like extra base hits, and depending on the situation I think they can be just as, or more valuable than Hr's. There are many more situations where a HR is more valuable though.

Your reading comprehension is a bit off. The sub-thread has been a debate about which is more valuable, a triple or a homer. Never was my argument (one of those idiots) that a triple wasn't valuable, just that it was not worth as much as a homerun. It has been shown in this thread (thanks to Oblong and drewifcer among others) that a homerun always trumps a triple.

Oblong
11-16-2007, 07:12 PM
I honestly think people are mixing up the arguments. A player who hits a lot of triples is probably a decent player. But it's not because of the triples. The triples are a by product. They'd be as good iif half the triples were merely doubles. They hit the triples because they are good baserunners and have gap power. So when the argument is about triples I think posters have that player in mind, Rollins/Granderson. Of course I'd like to have those players up to bat beause they are good.

The debate between a 3B and a HR relates to that at bat, inning, and game. The future. Asking whether you'd rather have a guy who hit 13 triples or a guy who hit 25 homers is an incomplete question. Which one would you rather have up to the plate? Again, an incomplete question. We're excluding the chances that the triple guy could get a single, double, or HR.

But from either player at bat, would you rather have a homer or a triple? A homer. Easy.

fquaye149
11-16-2007, 08:19 PM
No doubt a player who hits a lot of triples brings other skills to the table (speed, etc.) but in terms of a rally situation, it really doesn't matter due to the lower rate at which triples occur.

It is sort of like how when trying to boil water, cold water heats at a faster rate than hot water. It doesn't really mean much though as the hot water is going to boiler sooner than the cold despite its slower rate of heating. That being said, I'm personally a big fan of cold water.

also, you shouldn't boil hot water because the water heater puts minerals in it that you will not want in your food

true story

Daver
11-16-2007, 08:31 PM
also, you shouldn't boil hot water because the water heater puts minerals in it that you will not want in your food

true story

No it does not. The anode rod in the water heater takes out certain minerals, leaving their by product behind, that is the stuff you wouldn't want in your food.

A. Cavatica
11-16-2007, 08:40 PM
Have you ever heard a GM say "Yeah let's get this guy. He can hit 12 triples a year"

I think that's why we got Lance Johnson.

chaerulez
11-17-2007, 03:23 AM
There is no possible situation in a baseball game where I would rather see the team I want to win hit a triple as opposed to a home run.

munchman33
11-17-2007, 03:43 AM
There is no possible situation in a baseball game where I would rather see the team I want to win hit a triple as opposed to a home run.

You're up by 20, it's the top of the ninth, and the man at the plate needs a triple for the cycle.

FarWestChicago
11-17-2007, 08:29 AM
You're up by 20, it's the top of the ninth, and the man at the plate needs a triple for the cycle.:walnuts

I'm hitting it to the wall and watch me fly!!

fquaye149
11-17-2007, 08:38 AM
No it does not. The anode rod in the water heater takes out certain minerals, leaving their by product behind, that is the stuff you wouldn't want in your food.

so is that an old wive's tale then, not to cook with hot water?

ENLIGHTEN ME DAVER

TDog
11-17-2007, 01:23 PM
:walnuts

I'm hitting it to the wall and watch me fly!!

I didn't see Konerko's inside-the-park home run. I was listening to the game on the radio. I don't remember if there was even a play at the plate.

And I don't know if a triples hitter would have felt obligated to stop at third because it would have been better for the team.

Ex-Chicagoan
11-17-2007, 08:43 PM
All I know is I am now wishing I had taken "Sabermetric Dork" when I changed my name.