PDA

View Full Version : Josh Fields Is Better Than Joe Crede


Jerksticks
12-26-2007, 06:17 AM
It's true folks. This dude's bat speed is faster and his swing is shorter. We all talk about how his offense is slightly better than Crede's but his defense is worse, which makes Crede more valuable. But does anybody else think we have an absolute monster developing here? Not 35-40 HR potential, but like 45-55. I'm predicting .285 44HR and 112 RBI next year, with 2009 being the Josh Fields show.

I just hope we can dump a healed up JoeCrede after ST so Fields can play the whole season at 3B. His defense was definitely improving toward the GOOD category, so lay off. Plus he goes Clark W. Griswold with his Christmas lights. We need to get more excited about this guy and this season- he might surprisingly end up carrying this team at points.

Some dude on SoxTalk.com made an amazing Tribute Video of Josh Fields and posted on YouTube. You gotta check it out if you haven't already. I'd copy the link but I don't know the rules about those shenanigans.

Merry Christmas,
JSticks

kittle42
12-26-2007, 06:18 AM
Did someone have a little too much holiday cheer?

Grzegorz
12-26-2007, 06:36 AM
"But does anybody else think we have an absolute monster developing here?"

An absolute monster, hardly.

A consistent, run producing ballplayer? I reserve the right to be cautiously optimistic.

"Not 35-40 HR potential, but like 45-55. I'm predicting .285 44HR and 112 RBI next year, with 2009 being the Josh Fields show."

I'll take the under on those offensive statistics.

misty60481
12-26-2007, 07:21 AM
I agree that we need Fields bat in our line-up but we also need Credes bat in there. Why cant Fields learn LF, as weak as our pitching is we need all the big bats we can get. Fields must be a good athlete to play QB at OK so I dont know why he cant pick up LF.

soxfanatlanta
12-26-2007, 07:34 AM
Fields could develop into a very good run-producer; possibly better than a healthy Crede. Defensively? He has a lot of work to do to get even close.

misty60481
12-26-2007, 07:39 AM
Isnt it worth it to try somebody we know can produce with the bat (Fields) than somebody as of yet unproven (Quenten). I think the whole thing is as always they dont want to pay Crede $5 if they can pay someone just above minimum. Also KW is scared to death of Baras.

SoxGirl4Life
12-26-2007, 07:57 AM
If Josh Fields didn't seem like such a humble guy, I'd swear that JSticks was his WSI sn.

DumpJerry
12-26-2007, 08:02 AM
Everyone, please give a warm :welcome: to Josh Field's dad.

Frater Perdurabo
12-26-2007, 08:15 AM
While I think you may be on the optimistic side, I hope you are right. Nothing would make me happier than to see Fields produce those kinds of numbers.

I think with enough flexibility Crede and Fields can get ABs. As another poster wrote, Fields would DH against LHP (since Thome struggles against LHP). Against RHP, Fields and Crede would platoon at 3B, with Fields also getting a start each week in LF against RHP.

Chez
12-26-2007, 09:20 AM
I disagree with JSticks assessment that Fields' abilities on offense are "slightly better" than Joe Crede's. Crede has proved what he can do over the long haul -- a consistent power threat with a knack for coming through in the clutch. While I hope that Fields develops into a solid major leaguer, the fact remains that he's not as battle-tested or as productive as a [healthy] Crede. Let's not under value how good Crede is when healthy -- with both the bat and glove. If the Sox can't move Crede for fair value, then stick Josh in left.

balke
12-26-2007, 09:33 AM
Everyone, please give a warm :welcome: to Josh Field's dad.

:D:

Rocky Soprano
12-26-2007, 10:02 AM
Everyone, please give a warm :welcome: to Josh Field's dad.

:D: Exactly.

A healthy Joe Crede > Josh Fields

Huisj
12-26-2007, 10:22 AM
Josh Fields needs to prove he can hit right handed pitchers before he is anointed king of offense.

santo=dorf
12-26-2007, 10:45 AM
:D: Exactly.

A healthy Joe Crede > Josh Fields
How can anyone make such a claim from either side?

for 2008 and beyond, Josh Fields is a better option than Joe Crede.

mw3C323WaXg

jabrch
12-26-2007, 10:52 AM
A healthy Joe Crede > Josh Fields


Sadly, a healthy Joe Crede may have to play on the same team as the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus - as it may be entirely possible that none of them exist.

I'm sure hoping Joe comes back healthy. We could use him either at 3B, to give Thome a rest from time to time or as trade bait. But I'm not holding my breath for that. It's unfortunately possible that we won't get much from Joe.

A.T. Money
12-26-2007, 10:55 AM
I would say Fields is a better athlete than Crede. I think overall he will be better than Crede in every facet of the game. Crede is pretty darn good defensively, but he's no Robin Ventura either. I think Fields has a better arm too.

balke
12-26-2007, 11:03 AM
Right now on paper you are talking about a guy who projects to hit about 30 hr's and 20-25 doubles in a full season of at-bats. His avg. last season was .244, and he hit below .300 in the minors.

Joe Crede had more power in the minors, a much higher avg., and also was able to hit 30 hr's and 30 doubles in 2006. So where this thread comes from, I don't really know.

I don't think Josh Fields is superman, I think his defense isn't in the same league as Crede. So, although I'm optimistic he can be a player who explodes, he hasn't really shown anything more than Crede at this point... at all.

soxfanatlanta
12-26-2007, 11:09 AM
Right now on paper you are talking about a guy who projects to hit about 30 hr's and 20-25 doubles in a full season of at-bats. His avg. last season was .244, and he hit below .300 in the minors.

Don't forget that Fields could have 200K's in a season; I'd hate to see him go through that. I prefer that he spends more time in Charlotte working on his fielding and getting more selective with his hitting, but I'm not sure thats gonna happen.

spiffie
12-26-2007, 11:11 AM
Sadly, a healthy Joe Crede may have to play on the same team as the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus - as it may be entirely possible that none of them exist.
The leadoff man for that team is Scott Podsednik, the man who will be breaking Cal Ripken's record for consecutive games.

santo=dorf
12-26-2007, 11:14 AM
Don't forget that Fields could have 200K's in a season; I'd hate to see him go through that. I prefer that he spends more time in Charlotte working on his fielding and getting more selective with his hitting, but I'm not sure thats gonna happen.
What's the difference between Fields K'ing 200 times a year and Crede popping out 200 times a year?

RedHeadPaleHoser
12-26-2007, 11:18 AM
What's the difference between Fields K'ing 200 times a year and Crede popping out 200 times a year?

One of those guys is actually making contact with the ball.

Juice16
12-26-2007, 11:21 AM
I agree that we need Fields bat in our line-up but we also need Credes bat in there. Why cant Fields learn LF, as weak as our pitching is we need all the big bats we can get. Fields must be a good athlete to play QB at OK so I dont know why he cant pick up LF.


I agree, he had the last month of the season, all winter and spring training to play left. I don't think the Sox gave him a chance. I'm not one for just throwing guys all over the field, but with his athleticism, i wonder how he'd do AT 2B? ( and before all the know it alls and arm chair managers flame me, It is an idea, not a solution)

the1tab
12-26-2007, 11:21 AM
The only things Josh Fields has done better than Joe Crede thus far are A) his age and B) his salary. He hasn't played 162 games yet, he hasn't played a gold-glove caliber 3B, and he hasn't been clutch in October. Could he be a nice 3B for a number of years... yes. But I think it's desperate to think that he's going to become Miguel Cabrera. If he does become such a monster, then shame on Kenny for not trading Crede when he was healthy a year ago and giving us a full season of the former Oklahoma State Cowboy QB.

southsideirish71
12-26-2007, 11:24 AM
Joe Crede's agent is Boras, so for whatever you think of Joe he is going to be going bye bye. So make sure you get his autograph on your Joe Crede memorial jersey this soxfest, because he is going. His agent is not going to give a hometown sweetheart deal, and he will go to FA without any compensation for our team. So he will be moved.

Another note, you realize that Josh Fields can in fact get better in the defense perspective. One comment over and over last year was that Josh was playing the infield with an outfielders mitt. Why this wasnt addressed before he got to the majors, who knows. But there are quotes that he has been working with Cora in the offseason to get used to his new smaller infield mitt and has been working on his fielding.

And on his hitting, for years we have had prospect after prospect come up and man can they rake the very straight ball, but the minute a change or a breaking pitch is thrown they look foolish, get exposed and disappear. Josh hits the breaking pitch very well, but has a problem with high and inside heat. To me this is a hell of a lot more fixable than a guy who cant hit breaking pitches.

spawn
12-26-2007, 11:26 AM
I agree that we need Fields bat in our line-up but we also need Credes bat in there. Why cant Fields learn LF, as weak as our pitching is we need all the big bats we can get. Fields must be a good athlete to play QB at OK so I dont know why he cant pick up LF.
By that logic, maybe we should try him in CF as well, or if Cabrera isn't signed long term, maybe we should throw him in at SS. You've just said our pitching is weak. We wouldn't be doing the pitching staff any favors by making Fields the starting LFer. He was brutal out there last season. I know, he was learning the position. I just don't see him being the long term answer at that position.

santo=dorf
12-26-2007, 11:29 AM
One of those guys is actually making contact with the ball.
So what? A non-productive out is still an out. Give me the guy who makes less of those. Of course, it's way too early to tell, but given the contract situations and health issues, I'll go with Fields.

JorgeFabregas
12-26-2007, 11:54 AM
Right now on paper you are talking about a guy who projects to hit about 30 hr's and 20-25 doubles in a full season of at-bats. His avg. last season was .244, and he hit below .300 in the minors.

Joe Crede had more power in the minors, a much higher avg., and also was able to hit 30 hr's and 30 doubles in 2006. So where this thread comes from, I don't really know.

I don't think Josh Fields is superman, I think his defense isn't in the same league as Crede. So, although I'm optimistic he can be a player who explodes, he hasn't really shown anything more than Crede at this point... at all.
Based on his rookie year numbers (assuming no improvement or backsliding), Fields projects to 25 doubles and 34 homeruns if he plays 150 games. While playing 100 games, he hit 23 homeruns--something Joe Crede has eclipsed in only one season. He SLGed at .480, a number Crede has beaten only twice. His OBP was about the same as Crede's career average--even slightly higher. He hit homeruns at a rate of 1 per every 16.2 ABs--better than any Crede season (although very similar to Crede's 2002 where he played only 50 games). So that's where this thread comes from.

That said, I don't know if Fields will ever be better than a below-average defender at 3B--and Crede can be GG-caliber if healthy. If Crede's healthy, I'd like to see them both on the field, but that doesn't look likely.

soxfanatlanta
12-26-2007, 11:58 AM
What's the difference between Fields K'ing 200 times a year and Crede popping out 200 times a year?

Your hyperbole is staggering :wink:

Bottom line: IF Crede is healthy, you put him at third and let Fields either platoon in LF/DH -OR- send him to learn his craft in Charlotte; the scenario I prefer. No sense in screwing up a good prospect by moving him around from one position to the next day to day. It does nobody any good.

RedHeadPaleHoser
12-26-2007, 12:42 PM
So what? A non-productive out is still an out. Give me the guy who makes less of those. Of course, it's way too early to tell, but given the contract situations and health issues, I'll go with Fields.

Santo - I meant that I'd prefer contact because of the ability to move a runner or bring someone in.

I have a feeling that Fields will be the guy...only because there's too much unknowns with JC....and I hate saying that.

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 01:01 PM
Joe Crede is not a very good hitter, in fact aside from 2006; he has been an awful to below average hitter. That said he also happens to be an exceptional defensive third baseman.

Josh Fields on the other hand, is an awful defensive third basemen. Over his minor league career he’s been a lesser hitter than Crede was at a similar age. Now while that certainly doesn’t mean that Fields will never be better than Crede, it is important to note that Fields had an absolutely horrible K/BB ratio (Crede was bad to, but not as bad). Given Field apparent lack of contact skills and lack of plate discipline it makes me quite skeptical that he’ll ever grow into a well above average offensive player. While last season Fields certainly displayed he has legitimate power, he also hit .244 while only walking 25 times that he’ll ever do that?in contrast to whiffing 125 times. Usually players who strike out 1/3 of the time don’t become productive unless they walk a ton (think Adam Dunn, Ryan Howard), do we have any reason to believe that Josh Fields will ever do that?

balke
12-26-2007, 01:36 PM
Based on his rookie year numbers (assuming no improvement or backsliding), Fields projects to 25 doubles and 34 homeruns if he plays 150 games. While playing 100 games, he hit 23 homeruns--something Joe Crede has eclipsed in only one season. He SLGed at .480, a number Crede has beaten only twice. His OBP was about the same as Crede's career average--even slightly higher. He hit homeruns at a rate of 1 per every 16.2 ABs--better than any Crede season (although very similar to Crede's 2002 where he played only 50 games). So that's where this thread comes from.

That said, I don't know if Fields will ever be better than a below-average defender at 3B--and Crede can be GG-caliber if healthy. If Crede's healthy, I'd like to see them both on the field, but that doesn't look likely.

I understand what you are saying, but IMO that's a pretty optimistic projection. Josh got on a good run of hitting in July, and the law of averages most likely would've cooled him down over a full season. Now, I'm hoping Josh can hit an insane amount of HR's, but right now I think its a little short sighted to assume he's going to hit over 30 every season. When he actually plays a full season and does it, then we can believe that.

This is similar to projecting Luis Terrero to hit 25+ HR's because he has 5 in 100 AB's. Baseball has too many droughts for hitting to just assume someone can do something.

And if he's going to hit .250 or below there's not much of a difference at all between him and Joe Crede, but there's a huge difference in the glove.

rdivaldi
12-26-2007, 02:01 PM
Josh Fields on the other hand, is an awful defensive third basemen.

That might have been the case 2 years ago, but that is no longer the case. Josh impressed just about everyone with his progress with the glove over the past couple of years. He is nowhere as good as Crede, but to say that he is "awful" is ridiculous. I'd say he is major league average or perhaps a tick below.

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 02:04 PM
I understand what you are saying, but IMO that's a pretty optimistic projection. Josh got on a good run of hitting in July, and the law of averages most likely would've cooled him down over a full season. Now, I'm hoping Josh can hit an insane amount of HR's, but right now I think its a little short sighted to assume he's going to hit over 30 every season. When he actually plays a full season and does it, then we can believe that.

This is similar to projecting Luis Terrero to hit 25+ HR's because he has 5 in 100 AB's. Baseball has too many droughts for hitting to just assume someone can do something.

And if he's going to hit .250 or below there's not much of a difference at all between him and Joe Crede, but there's a huge difference in the glove.

Again the problem with Fields isn’t lack of power. It’s his inability to make consistent contact as well as work the count. He’s going to be 25 on opening day and to this point has always had a horrific K/BB ratio.

Baseball history is littered with guys with impressive power who never really accomplished much as hitters due to their inability to make contract and lack discipline. Pete Incavigia had issues sticking as a starter; Wily Mo Pena has had issues as a starter. Hell Dave Kingman hit 442 career home runs all while never sticking as a starter. All those players had or have more raw power than Fields. He might have a good career as a hitter but it won’t come until he K/BB ratio starts to even out by either cutting down on the K's or walking 100 times a year.

JorgeFabregas
12-26-2007, 02:09 PM
This is similar to projecting Luis Terrero to hit 25+ HR's because he has 5 in 100 AB's. Baseball has too many droughts for hitting to just assume someone can do something.

Josh got on a good run of hitting in July, and the law of averages most likely would've cooled him down over a full season.
.
The thing is, I'm not projecting 100 ABs to 500 ABs--I'm projecting 100 games to 150--a much smaller jump. 50% instead of 400%.

I'm not sure what July has to do with it. He had more homeruns in August than in July and September was, by far, his best hitting month. So he was improving as the season went on--the law of averages hardly cooled him down.

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 02:12 PM
That might have been the case 2 years ago, but that is no longer the case. Josh impressed just about everyone with his progress with the glove over the past couple of years. He is nowhere as good as Crede, but to say that he is "awful" is ridiculous. I'd say he is major league average or perhaps a tick below.

He was the 5th worst fielder at third according to +/-, and was -3 FRAA, I don't see how anyone could think he's average at defense at third. He's not Ryan Bruan bad but he's far worse than most.

gogosox16
12-26-2007, 02:16 PM
He was the 5th worst fielder at third according to +/-, and was -3 FRAA, I don't see how anyone could think he's average at defense at third. He's not Ryan Bruan bad but he's far worse than most.
it also doesn't help when he started doing decent at 3rd and then they move him to the out field and then back to 3rd cause that really screwed him up for a week or 2/ So don't go by the #'s just go by what you saw.

CashMan
12-26-2007, 02:18 PM
Again the problem with Fields isn’t lack of power. It’s his inability to make consistent contact as well as work the count. He’s going to be 25 on opening day and to this point has always had a horrific K/BB ratio.

Baseball history is littered with guys with impressive power who never really accomplished much as hitters due to their inability to make contract and lack discipline. Pete Incavigia had issues sticking as a starter; Wily Mo Pena has had issues as a starter. Hell Dave Kingman hit 442 career home runs all while never sticking as a starter. All those players had or have more raw power than Fields. He might have a good career as a hitter but it won’t come until he K/BB ratio starts to even out by either cutting down on the K's or walking 100 times a year.


Josh Fields=Adam Dunn?

gogosox16
12-26-2007, 02:20 PM
Josh Fields=Adam Dunn?
Josh Fields>Adam Dunn
Fields will hit for better average and put up just the same amount of homers in a full season. And Fields doesn't strikeout or hit a homer like Dunn is. Fields is also younger with so much potential to be great.

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 02:24 PM
it also doesn't help when he started doing decent at 3rd and then they move him to the out field and then back to 3rd cause that really screwed him up for a week or 2/ So don't go by the #'s just go by what you saw.

Yes because my eyes tell me more than data? Or in the case of +/- data that is comprised by charting what balls the fielder could get to and what balls they couldn't?

gogosox16
12-26-2007, 02:28 PM
Yes because my eyes tell me more than data? Or in the case of +/- data that is comprised by charting what balls the fielder could get to and what balls they couldn't?
Data is such bull cause just because a player can't get the ball or something it goes against him, if you actually watched Fields play you saw him get better and better everytime out there until they put him in left and back at 3rd, then he took a step back. He will become a above average fielder given time still. He is still very raw of a talent overall and he is a bigger help to this team than Crede is even if it takes some defense away.

Daver
12-26-2007, 02:30 PM
Data is such bull cause just because a player can't get the ball or something it goes against him, if you actually watched Fields play you saw him get better and better everytime out there until they put him in left and back at 3rd, then he took a step back. He will become a above average fielder given time still.

No.

santo=dorf
12-26-2007, 02:30 PM
Santo - I meant that I'd prefer contact because of the ability to move a runner or bring someone in.

I have a feeling that Fields will be the guy...only because there's too much unknowns with JC....and I hate saying that.
Crede's popups to the second baseman and short right field do not advance a runner. I'd also rather have a guy get on base and not make an out.

If you want to look at how well someone is at bringing someone in, why not look at RBI totals?

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 02:30 PM
Josh Fields>Adam Dunn
Fields will hit for better average and put up just the same amount of homers in a full season. And Fields doesn't strikeout or hit a homer like Dunn is. Fields is also younger with so much potential to be great.


You got to be kidding, Adam Dunn is all of 28 years of age and is on a career path that will likely lead to 500 home runs and maybe the HoF. When Adam Dunn was 24, Fields age last season, he posted an OPS+ of 146. Dunn has a career OBP of .381, Fields minor league OBP is lower, his career minor leage slugging percentage is also lower than Dunn's major league numbers.


In short for Josh Fields to be as good of a hitter as Dunn he'd either have to his .320 or walk 70 more times a season, or some combo of each. What the hell data is there to suggest that Fields will do that?

Josh Fields is a better athlete, he would likely be a much better LF than Dunn thus wouldn't have to be the same .900 OPS hitter year in and year out to be as good as Dunn, but to think that he is greater is to either way undersell Dunn or way overrate Fields.

gogosox16
12-26-2007, 02:33 PM
You got to be kidding, Adam Dunn is all of 28 years of age and is on a career path that will likely lead to 500 home runs and maybe the HoF. When Adam Dunn was 24, Fields age last season, he posted an OPS+ of 146. Dunn has a career OBP of .381, Fields minor league OBP is lower, his career minor leage slugging percentage is also lower than Dunn's major league numbers.


In short for Josh Fields to be as good of a hitter as Dunn he'd either have to his .320 or walk 70 more times a season, or some combo of each. What the hell data is there to suggest that Fields will do that?

Josh Fields is a better athlete, he would likely be a much better LF than Dunn thus wouldn't have to be the same .900 OPS hitter year in and year out to be as good as Dunn, but to think that he is greater is to either way undersell Dunn or way overrate Fields.
Dunn is the only hitter on Cincy and they have no one after him so they can walk him whenever. He's also in one of the greatest hitting parks. Fields is 2 but he hasn't played a whole season. I don't know about you but I would rather have Fields than Dunn.

EMachine10
12-26-2007, 02:37 PM
You got to be kidding, Adam Dunn is all of 28 years of age and is on a career path that will likely lead to 500 home runs and maybe the HoF.

Dunn hits some dingers, but the hall of fame??:rolleyes:

gogosox16
12-26-2007, 02:38 PM
Dunn hits some dingers, but the hall of fame??:rolleyes:
expecially with his .248 career average.

santo=dorf
12-26-2007, 02:38 PM
Again the problem with Fields isn’t lack of power. It’s his inability to make consistent contact as well as work the count. He’s going to be 25 on opening day and to this point has always had a horrific K/BB ratio.

Baseball history is littered with guys with impressive power who never really accomplished much as hitters due to their inability to make contract and lack discipline. Pete Incavigia had issues sticking as a starter; Wily Mo Pena has had issues as a starter. Hell Dave Kingman hit 442 career home runs all while never sticking as a starter. All those players had or have more raw power than Fields. He might have a good career as a hitter but it won’t come until he K/BB ratio starts to even out by either cutting down on the K's or walking 100 times a year.
*****

Take a look at the damn stats. Why do people here keep associating the amount of strikeouts to how well a guy works the count? In another thread the argument was made because he doesn't strikeout so much, Juan Pierre works the count well when in fact he was near the bottom of the MLB in Pitches per plate appearances.

Last year Josh saw 4 pitches per pa. Amongst 341 MLB players with at least 200 PA's, that tied him in 57th with guys like Joe Mauer and Mark Teixeria. You get that? Josh Fields was in the top 83% of players working the count with 4 pitches per plate appearances, and the year before that in his limited stint, he averaged 4.44 P/PA. :rolleyes:

Link (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?sort=pitchesPerPlateAppearance&split=0&league=mlb&season=2007&seasonType=2&type=exp&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&minpa=200&hand=a&pos=all&qual=false&count=41)

rdivaldi
12-26-2007, 02:40 PM
I don't see how anyone could think he's average at defense at third.

My eyes and scouting reports help me think. Meaningless defensive stats do not...

kittle42
12-26-2007, 02:41 PM
Data is such bull.

No one should ever base a decision or opinion on data.

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 02:43 PM
Dunn is the only hitter on Cincy and they have no one after him so they can walk him whenever. He's also in one of the greatest hitting parks. Fields is 2 but he hasn't played a whole season. I don't know about you but I would rather have Fields than Dunn.

Adam Dunn has 238 home runs at this point in his career. I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that Fields will hit less homers over the span of his entire career than that. Could he beat it, of course, but the odds have got to be less than 20%.

In 1400 PA's Dunn Posted a line of .304/.415/.515 and 63 home runs in the minor leagues while being far younger than Josh Fields.

Josh Fields posted a line of .280/.360/.464 with 52 home runs over 1600 PAs.

So let us look at this: In 200 more plate apperances while older, Josh Fields hit 10 fewer home runs than Adam Dunn.

Adam Dunn hit for a much better average while in the minors (at a much younger age)

Adam Dunn got on base at a much higher clip

Adam Dunn hit for more power.

At the age of 23, Josh Fields had the season that vaulted from ok prospect to good prospect with the line of .305/.379/.515 in AAA.

When Dunn was only a year older, he was 5th in the NL in total bases.

How anyone could see Fields as better than Dunn is beyond stupid.

Daver
12-26-2007, 02:43 PM
No one should ever base a decision or opinion on data.

I always consult with a magic 8 ball when making decisions.

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 02:46 PM
*****

Take a look at the damn stats. Why do people here keep associating the amount of strikeouts to how well a guy works the count? In another thread the argument was made because he doesn't strikeout so much, Juan Pierre works the count well when in fact he was near the bottom of the MLB in Pitches per plate appearances.

Last year Josh saw 4 pitches per pa. Amongst 341 MLB players with at least 200 PA's, that tied him in 57th with guys like Joe Mauer and Mark Teixeria. You get that? Josh Fields was in the top 83% of players working the count with 4 pitches per plate appearances, and the year before that in his limited stint, he averaged 4.44 P/PA. :rolleyes:

Link (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?sort=pitchesPerPlateAppearance&split=0&league=mlb&season=2007&seasonType=2&type=exp&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&minpa=200&hand=a&pos=all&qual=false&count=41)

Did not realize he had such a good P/PA, congrats on offering the only lucid point supporting Josh Fields as a hitter in this entire thread. That said, he still has an awful K/BB ratio. Name one good player who has a ratio as bad as Fields, it's hard, it really is.

Regarding the "Look at the stats point" have you read any of my other points in this thread. Do so and you'll see a pattern that would not suggest that I think Juan freak'n Pierre was a good hitter. I'm saying that Dunn is on the course for a boarderline HoF career, K's don't bother me, K's with no walks do.

rdivaldi
12-26-2007, 02:47 PM
I always consult with a magic 8 ball when making decisions.

Maybe that's we ran our draft the past couple of years...

gogosox16
12-26-2007, 02:47 PM
Adam Dunn has 238 home runs at this point in his career. I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that Fields will hit less homers over the span of his entire career than that. Could he beat it, of course, but the odds have got to be less than 20%.

In 1400 PA's Dunn Posted a line of .304/.415/.515 and 63 home runs in the minor leagues while being far younger than Josh Fields.

Josh Fields posted a line of .280/.360/.464 with 52 home runs over 1600 PAs.

So let us look at this: In 200 more plate apperances while older, Josh Fields hit 10 fewer home runs than Adam Dunn.

Adam Dunn hit for a much better average while in the minors (at a much younger age)

Adam Dunn got on base at a much higher clip

Adam Dunn hit for more power.

At the age of 23, Josh Fields had the season that vaulted from ok prospect to good prospect with the line of .305/.379/.515 in AAA.

When Dunn was only a year older, he was 5th in the NL in total bases.

How anyone could see Fields as better than Dunn is beyond stupid.
1st off stop making up percentages
and 2nd
Dunn as of right now is a better player than Fields cause he has more experience and is proven but over the long haul Fields is more valuable to his team than Dunn. I would rather have Fields than Dunn cause hes more valuable and stop making such a big deal out of it.

rdivaldi
12-26-2007, 02:52 PM
Name one good player who has a ratio as bad as Fields, it's hard, it really is.

Carl Crawford? Alfonso Soriano?

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 02:53 PM
1st off stop making up percentages
and 2nd
Dunn as of right now is a better player than Fields cause he has more experience and is proven but over the long haul Fields is more valuable to his team than Dunn. I would rather have Fields than Dunn cause hes more valuable and stop making such a big deal out of it.

I take it you’ve never read “the structure of argument”

Apparently you wish me to stop supporting my arguments with pesky little facts and to admit that Fields is more valuable because he is younger (barely) and has less experience (again) barely. Are you by any chance working with the current administration in Washington?

Mod edit: political comments are a big no-no.

Why the hell should I stop using percentages? In the end baseball is all about scoring more runs than ones opponent. If someone gets on base more, they give their team a better chance of scoring. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 02:58 PM
Carl Crawford? Alfonso Soriano?

Yup two rare players indeed, however while both valuable both highly overrated. Crawford has a career OPS+ of 103, Soriano clocks in at 116, but that’s due to his ability to slug over .500 every year (something Fields did all of once in the minors)

gogosox16
12-26-2007, 02:58 PM
I take it you’ve never read “the structure of argument”

Apparently you wish me to stop supporting my arguments with pesky little facts and to admit that Fields is more valuable because he is younger (barely) and has less experience (again) barely. Are you by any chance working with the current administration in Washington?

Why the hell should I stop using percentages? In the end baseball is all about scoring more runs than ones opponent. If someone gets on base more, they give their team a better chance of scoring. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Their's no point in even responding to anything you say. If your so down on Fields and like Dunn so much why don't you go join the Reds bandwagon this year, cause I can truly tell by what you have been saying you know little about the Whitesox.

balke
12-26-2007, 03:03 PM
The thing is, I'm not projecting 100 ABs to 500 ABs--I'm projecting 100 games to 150--a much smaller jump. 50% instead of 400%.

I'm not sure what July has to do with it. He had more homeruns in August than in July and September was, by far, his best hitting month. So he was improving as the season went on--the law of averages hardly cooled him down.

My eyes got a little crossed looking at the stats. I was referring to his big August, where he hit 9 HR's as opposed to the 6 he did in September and July.

The point remains, 500+ AB's in a season is much different than 300+. Ask Paul Konerko, Jermaine Dye, Torii Hunter, or pretty much any baseball player. one hot (or cold) month and a half can skew statistics. He's not a 30 or 40 Hr hitter until he does it.

spiffie
12-26-2007, 03:04 PM
No one should ever base a decision or opinion on data.
I believe that is the WSI motto.

gogosox16
12-26-2007, 03:05 PM
I believe that is the WSI motto.
and its a good one

SoxGirl4Life
12-26-2007, 03:07 PM
If your so down on Fields and like Dunn so much why don't you go join the Reds bandwagon this year, cause I can truly tell by what you have been saying you know little about the Whitesox.

I think he's bored. :dunno: He's not a White Sox fan.

santo=dorf
12-26-2007, 03:08 PM
Did not realize he had such a good P/PA, congrats on offering the only lucid point supporting Josh Fields as a hitter in this entire thread. That said, he still has an awful K/BB ratio. Name one good player who has a ratio as bad as Fields, it's hard, it really is.

Josh Fields BB/K = .28
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?sort=walkToStrikeoutRatio&split=0&league=mlb&season=2007&seasonType=2&type=sab&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&minpa=200&hand=a&pos=all&qual=false&count=302
Some notable names:
Ivan Rodriguez: .09
Delmon Young: .20
Craig Biggio: .21
Soriano: .24
Jarrod Saltalamacchia: .25
Kahlil Greene: .25
Ryan Braun : .26
Brandon Phillips: .30
Chris Young: .30
..and WSI's biggest crush, Carl Crawford: .29

Here's another fun one: Joe Crede in his career: .39 Not too much of a drop off I'd say

Of course you've hardly addressed the importance of BB/K(you mistakenly linked it to working the count,) and why it's more important of a stat over OBP, SLG% or home runs.
Give it a rest already.

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 03:08 PM
Their's no point in even responding to anything you say. If your so down on Fields and like Dunn so much why don't you go join the Reds bandwagon this year, cause I can truly tell by what you have been saying you know little about the Whitesox.


What kind of argument is that? Because I think a player is on a different team is better than someone on my favorite team I should root for the other team*? I guess you believe Fields is better than A-Rod. I can truly tell how little you know about baseball, logic and reasoning by rereading this exchange.



For the record, I’m not even a white sox fan, never claimed to be; in fact I’ve freely admitted it in a couple other threads.
Also, I’m not even “that down” on Josh Fields, if every draft pick turned out as successful as Fields the White Sox system would be the class of the league. He’s likely going to be a pretty good player for a couple years and a good back up for several more. Additionally, while I think the chances are low, his skill set is so advanced in some areas he could one day be a star (he’s like an infield Wily Mo Pena in a sense)
I would never join the Reds Bandwagon, I wouldn’t switch alliances to join a team that would shell out such a stupid deal for Cordero
I actually respect Kenny Williams, while his first couple seasons seemed to be full of growing pains I think he’s done a lot of good things. His draft strategy has sucked, but that’s more of an organizational philosophy thing (that appears to be changing anyway).

spawn
12-26-2007, 03:11 PM
I think he's bored. :dunno: He's not a White Sox fan.
A little on the belligerent side too. Obviously if you don't see things as he does, you're an idiot...at least that's the vibe I get from his posts. :dunno:

Jerksticks
12-26-2007, 03:14 PM
Adam Dunn doesn't play for the Chicago White Sox.

A note about his K/BB ratio.

In September Fields posted a 14/23 K/BB. If I'm not mistaken(which I very well may be) Josh hit from the 2 hole in most of September. If this is the case, then this shows VAST improvement in plate discipline due to the fact that the last thing an opposing pitcher would want to do is walk Fields before Thome, Konerko, and Dye come to the plate. He also posted a .368 OBP in this position.

But then again I could be wrong about his spot in the lineup in September.

JSticks

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 03:19 PM
Josh Fields BB/K = .28
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?sort=walkToStrikeoutRatio&split=0&league=mlb&season=2007&seasonType=2&type=sab&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&minpa=200&hand=a&pos=all&qual=false&count=302
Some notable names:
Ivan Rodriguez: .09
Delmon Young: .20
Craig Biggio: .21
Soriano: .24
Jarrod Saltalamacchia: .25
Kahlil Greene: .25
Ryan Braun : .26
Brandon Phillips: .30
Chris Young: .30
..and WSI's biggest crush, Carl Crawford: .29


Here's another fun one: Joe Crede in his career: .39 Not too much of a drop off I'd say

Of course you've hardly addressed the importance of BB/K(you mistakenly linked it to working the count,) and why it's more important of a stat over OBP, SLG% or home runs.
Give it a rest already.

Many look at that collection of fearsome hitters!

Player OPS+
Ivan 85
Young 91
Biggio 71
Soriano 123
Salty 91
Greene 100
Braun 153
Phillips 105
Young 89

Thanks for proving my point, that would be an awful line up. Braun and Soriano are freaks of nature, beyond that, Brandon Phillips is your best hitter? Wow.

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 03:21 PM
A little on the belligerent side too. Obviously if you don't see things as he does, you're an idiot...at least that's the vibe I get from his posts. :dunno:

Only got that way to people who called me out on "knowing nothing" or told me to "give it a rest". Anyone who wants to talk baseball and not ignore valid points is ok by my book.

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 03:25 PM
Adam Dunn doesn't play for the Chicago White Sox.

A note about his K/BB ratio.

In September Fields posted a 14/23 K/BB. If I'm not mistaken(which I very well may be) Josh hit from the 2 hole in most of September. If this is the case, then this shows VAST improvement in plate discipline due to the fact that the last thing an opposing pitcher would want to do is walk Fields before Thome, Konerko, and Dye come to the plate. He also posted a .368 OBP in this position.

But then again I could be wrong about his spot in the lineup in September.

JSticks

That’s interesting if true (and I don’t doubt you), however we are talking about a fairly small statistical sample. While there has been a lot of research done about line up composition, I’m not smart enough to figure out where I stand on the issue.

the1tab
12-26-2007, 03:35 PM
That’s interesting if true (and I don’t doubt you), however we are talking about a fairly small statistical sample. While there has been a lot of research done about line up composition, I’m not smart enough to figure out where I stand on the issue.

Why do you keep beating the dead horse that is Adam Dunn? Do you have a secret mancrush on all former Big 12 quarterbacks now playing major league baseball (Fields - OK St, Dunn - Texas)?

All I know is that if you get all wound up in how many times a guy walks vs how many times a guy strikes out, and you think about all of the wonderful things stats have done for those that get bent out of shape over tiny numbers, then you miss the point: Numbers don't win games. Ballers do. Just ask Billy Beane what all his calculater-based scouting has won him. And Adam Dunn, for all the big, long, into-a-different-state home runs he's hit, has never sniffed a post season game; he got closer as a Longhorn. Granted, neither has Fields. Joe Crede has, and he was a Baller for three weeks in October a few years ago. Also, the Arizona Diamondbacks had the best record in the National League last year with a negative run differential. How'd they pull that off? They have some clutch Ballers on their roster. Counter that idea by the run differential of the NY Mets last year, and look at who did what after the end of September.

I don't care about Adam Dunn. He's tall, great. And you can post every statistical hoo-rah you want about how wonderful he is. Maybe he would show up for the Bulls next week (Ben Wallace probably won't). But he's not on my White Sox and he's not the best thing since sliced bread, so let's move on to pressing thoughts, like....

Anyone have an idea who's going to be our #3 starter next year in April? June? August?

Daver
12-26-2007, 03:41 PM
Anyone have an idea who's going to be our #3 starter next year in April? June? August?


Put me in coach.....



:chopper

SoxGirl4Life
12-26-2007, 03:44 PM
Why do you keep beating the dead horse that is Adam Dunn?

And honestly, as far as Adam Dunn goes.. I don't mind him. In fact, its kinda cool when he beats up the Cubs.

But he kinda got wrapped up into this thread comparing Josh Fields and Joe Crede..I think that's where we went astray :(:

esbrechtel
12-26-2007, 04:12 PM
I am one of the biggest supporters of Crede there is...that being said...Josh had some flashes last year...however, I can think of a few games that he cost us because his defense is not consistent, if he can consistently play solid D then I will back him until that consistency I will look fondly at the days when Crede carried this team through game 1 of the 05 WS (and by solid I dont mean 1 diving stop and then boots the next grounder right to him...)

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 04:13 PM
Why do you keep beating the dead horse that is Adam Dunn? Do you have a secret mancrush on all former Big 12 quarterbacks now playing major league baseball (Fields - OK St, Dunn - Texas)?

All I know is that if you get all wound up in how many times a guy walks vs how many times a guy strikes out, and you think about all of the wonderful things stats have done for those that get bent out of shape over tiny numbers, then you miss the point: Numbers don't win games. Ballers do. Just ask Billy Beane what all his calculater-based scouting has won him. And Adam Dunn, for all the big, long, into-a-different-state home runs he's hit, has never sniffed a post season game; he got closer as a Longhorn. Granted, neither has Fields. Joe Crede has, and he was a Baller for three weeks in October a few years ago. Also, the Arizona Diamondbacks had the best record in the National League last year with a negative run differential. How'd they pull that off? They have some clutch Ballers on their roster. Counter that idea by the run differential of the NY Mets last year, and look at who did what after the end of September.

I don't care about Adam Dunn. He's tall, great. And you can post every statistical hoo-rah you want about how wonderful he is. Maybe he would show up for the Bulls next week (Ben Wallace probably won't). But he's not on my White Sox and he's not the best thing since sliced bread, so let's move on to pressing thoughts, like....

Anyone have an idea who's going to be our #3 starter next year in April? June? August?

The comment about line up composition had nothing to do with Adam Dunn; it had to do with Josh Fields who this thread is about. The other poster commented that Fields hit better from the 2 spot. I have no idea if there is any real predictive value to that, it’s an interesting question as to whether or not Fields ability to get onto base would be significantly affected by where in the line up he bats. Typically I’m skeptical of “baseball truisms” such as line up protection but I’m open to hear evidence to why it could impact a player’s statistics over the long run.

As far as the statistics comment, typically good teams score more runs than their opponents (2007 Arizona Diamondbacks excepted of course), getting on base at an above average clip is pivotal in scoring runs. The New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, and the 2005 Chicago White Sox were incredibly talented teams that did an excellent job of out scoring their opponents by either our slugging them, out pitching them or some combination of both. Looking at teams like these (good teams) one usually sees good statistics. How this doesn’t make intuitive sense is beyond me.

Daver
12-26-2007, 04:17 PM
The comment about line up composition had nothing to do with Adam Dunn; it had to do with Josh Fields who this thread is about. The other poster commented that Fields hit better from the 2 spot. I have no idea if there is any real predictive value to that, it’s an interesting question as to whether or not Fields ability to get onto base would be significantly affected by where in the line up he bats. Typically I’m skeptical of “baseball truisms” such as line up protection but I’m open to hear evidence to why it could impact a player’s statistics over the long run.

As far as the statistics comment, typically good teams score more runs than their opponents (2007 Arizona Diamondbacks excepted of course), getting on base at an above average clip is pivotal in scoring runs. The New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, and the 2005 Chicago White Sox were incredibly talented teams that did an excellent job of out scoring their opponents by either our slugging them, out pitching them or some combination of both. Looking at teams like these (good teams) one usually sees good statistics. How this doesn’t make intuitive sense is beyond me.

I don't care how a player hits, but rather when a player hits, what's the stat for that?

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 04:22 PM
I don't care how a player hits, but rather when a player hits, what's the stat for that?

The clutchness index? (I'm kidding)

Some people argue WPA does that (and I suspect you've probably heard that) but I don't know enough behind the methods behind that equation to believe in it or not. For the most part I suspect players Batting Averages or OPS or what ever are probably close to their overall lines, I'd suspect if you were to map out players batting averages in the bottom of the 9th, with 2 down and a man on third we'd see a bell shaped curve centered around the league average, not sure though.

Daver
12-26-2007, 04:29 PM
The clutchness index? (I'm kidding)

Some people argue WPA does that (and I suspect you've probably heard that) but I don't know enough behind the methods behind that equation to believe in it or not. For the most part I suspect players Batting Averages or OPS or what ever are probably close to their overall lines, I'd suspect if you were to map out players batting averages in the bottom of the 9th, with 2 down and a man on third we'd see a bell shaped curve centered around the league average, not sure though.

Then you just answered your own question on the validity of basing anything on stats, you don't have the proper data to make a decision, it gives you a fuzzy at best determination.

Throwing darts would be just about as valid.

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 04:33 PM
Then you just answered your own question on the validity of basing anything on stats, you don't have the proper data to make a decision, it gives you a fuzzy at best determination.

Throwing darts would be just about as valid.


Not really, I just stated the null hypothesis. (For those who have not taken a stats course, the null hypothesis is one of the first actions taken in the procedure one undertakes when trying to analyze data. Essentially it is simply given the info we expect to find that the sample will have a center of X even if you add Y to the equation. You then test the data (and the tests differ depending on what types of data one is comparing) and if the results are significantly different one can reject the null hypothesis and begin formulating theories as to why.)

roadrunner
12-26-2007, 04:55 PM
I don't care how a player hits, but rather when a player hits, what's the stat for that?

how about this stat as an aside:

Rowand career with 2 outs, RISP:

330 ABs 10 HRs 123 RBI .291/.379/.442

Rowand in 2005 with 2 outs RISP:

.354/.417/.508

Yet surprisingly, rarely do I read anyone here giving him credit for being a clutch hitter. (sorry, I couldn't resist)

spawn
12-26-2007, 05:05 PM
http://www.lifealert.net/articles/FreezeAlarm_clip_image002.jpg

Not really, I just stated the null hypothesis. (For those who have not taken a stats course, the null hypothesis is one of the first actions taken in the procedure one undertakes when trying to analyze data. Essentially it is simply given the info we expect to find that the sample will have a center of X even if you add Y to the equation. You then test the data (and the tests differ depending on what types of data one is comparing) and if the results are significantly different one can reject the null hypothesis and begin formulating theories as to why.)
Thanks Professor.

spiffie
12-26-2007, 05:22 PM
I don't care how a player hits, but rather when a player hits, what's the stat for that?
That would be the Shoota Factor. The mystical formula by which the observer decides exactly which single moments they will use to make their argument, and which other singular moments they will ignore as they do not fit their argument.

Ergo, Joe Crede had a clutch hit in Sept. 2005, and an even more clutch hit in Oct. 2005, thus he is a total clutch hitter. The fact that Crede and Aramis Ramirez have the same OPS basically (818 to 816) in close and late situations becomes meaningless. We have seen Joe hit when it REALLY counted, thus he is clutch, while Ramirez is a choke artist. All those other times are kind of just filler. When you really really need Joe to come through, he does. And that's the kind of thing no number in the world will give you.

Shoota would of course be appalled at the idea that his peculiar way of looking at the world is being used in defense of Crede.

Daver
12-26-2007, 05:25 PM
That would be the Shoota Factor. The mystical formula by which the observer decides exactly which single moments they will use to make their argument, and which other singular moments they will ignore as they do not fit their argument.

Ergo, Joe Crede had a clutch hit in Sept. 2005, and an even more clutch hit in Oct. 2005, thus he is a total clutch hitter. The fact that Crede and Aramis Ramirez have the same OPS basically (818 to 816) in close and late situations becomes meaningless. We have seen Joe hit when it REALLY counted, thus he is clutch, while Ramirez is a choke artist. All those other times are kind of just filler. When you really really need Joe to come through, he does. And that's the kind of thing no number in the world will give you.

Shoota would of course be appalled at the idea that his peculiar way of looking at the world is being used in defense of Crede.

I wasn't specifically pointing out Crede, it applies to any player in the context I was using it in.

spiffie
12-26-2007, 05:26 PM
I wasn't specifically pointing out Crede, it applies to any player in the context I was using it in.
I know. I just wanted to use Crede since I was referencing Shoota, and really, Captain Clutch Crede is the perfect example of when a hit happens being more important than averages that factor a meaningless game in June the same as a pressure packed game in a Sept. pennant race.

santo=dorf
12-26-2007, 05:41 PM
Many look at that collection of fearsome hitters!

Player OPS+
Ivan 85
Young 91
Biggio 71
Soriano 123
Salty 91
Greene 100
Braun 153
Phillips 105
Young 89

Thanks for proving my point, that would be an awful line up. Braun and Soriano are freaks of nature, beyond that, Brandon Phillips is your best hitter? Wow.
That's not too bad of collection, and you were only asking for ONE player. There are 4 of them on that list that are at least average, and the man you highlighted is a hall of famer (although it was not a hall of fame season, but you were asking for a single player.)

Like I said, give it a rest already. I imagine when you ride your bike to Fenway Park you sit the otherway because you sure like to back peddle.
I don't care how a player hits, but rather when a player hits, what's the stat for that?
For as much as you rag on Hawk Harrelson, I'm surprised to see you make a comment like this.

Daver
12-26-2007, 05:46 PM
For as much as you rag on Hawk Harrelson, I'm surprised to see you make a comment like this.

Ken Harrelson didn't come up with that, it is an old scout's phrase that has been around for years.

Billy Ashley
12-26-2007, 05:46 PM
That's not too bad of collection, and you were only asking for ONE player. There are 4 of them on that list that are at least average, and the man you highlighted is a hall of famer (although it was not a hall of fame season, but you were asking for a single player.)

Like I said, give it a rest already. I imagine when you ride your bike to Fenway Park you sit the otherway because you sure like to back peddle.

Biggio for his career was slightly better at drawing walks... you've done nothing but help my point. Most hitters who have such crap K/BB rates don't have good numbers. I admitted some do (Kingman, a couple others), the point was to show that Josh Fields needs to improve his K/BB rates if he wants to be a starter for long, why is that so hard to argee with? Does that mean he'll suck, hell no, but you have to admit it that his K/BB ratio is a concern.



PS- Who said I watch baseball at Fenway

ma-gaga
12-26-2007, 07:29 PM
Not really, I just stated the null hypothesis.
...

So you know how to define null hypothesis and can't explain what WPA is?

I really like WPA to look at "clutch-ness". But it's a fun stat. It tells what happens and how much it helps the team win a game.

Basically, each situation (up by one, runner on first, bottom of the seventh inning, two outs) in MLB history has been mapped. Each one has a specific "Winning Percentage" based on historic data. If the batter gets a hit, he will "add" to his teams winning percentage (up by one, runner on first, runner on third, bottom of the seventh inning, two outs). If he makes an out, he subtracts from his teams winning percentage (three outs, other team batting).

Fan Graphs 2007 WPA Link. (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=0&season=2007)

The Top 10 look like the usual suspects:
Alex Rodriguez - 7.51
Magglio Ordonez - 6.27
Vladimir Guerrero - 5.94
Prince Fielder - 5.24
Matt Holliday - 5.06
David Ortiz - 4.81
Todd Helton - 4.80
Albert Pujols - 4.65
Miguel Cabrera - 4.61
Aramis Ramirez - 4.55


The 2006 list (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=0&season=2006) looks similar:
Albert Pujols - 9.63
Ryan Howard - 8.64
David Ortiz - 8.03
Derek Jeter - 6.03
Lance Berkman - 5.74
Carlos Beltran - 5.21
Jermaine Dye - 5.05
Bobby Abreu - 4.96
David Wright - 4.64
Miguel Cabrera - 4.56
Justin Morneau - 4.53

I like this system. It has no defensive adjustments. It does not take into account position, or what league you are in, what ballpark you are playing in, or what era you play in. All factors that I think are important, but hard to quantify and easy to dispute.

If you want the, “when the player hits [it]” quantified, here it is. This rewards the ‘big hits in the bottom of the ninth inning’ players, and ignores the ‘piling it on when we’re already up by 5 runs’ type of players.

[flies out of the room] :gulp:

Daver
12-26-2007, 07:35 PM
So you know how to define null hypothesis and can't explain what WPA is?

I really like WPA to look at "clutch-ness". But it's a fun stat. It tells what happens and how much it helps the team win a game.

Basically, each situation (up by one, runner on first, bottom of the seventh inning, two outs) in MLB history has been mapped. Each one has a specific "Winning Percentage" based on historic data. If the batter gets a hit, he will "add" to his teams winning percentage (up by one, runner on first, runner on third, bottom of the seventh inning, two outs). If he makes an out, he subtracts from his teams winning percentage (three outs, other team batting).

Fan Graphs 2007 WPA Link. (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=0&season=2007)

The Top 10 look like the usual suspects:
Alex Rodriguez - 7.51
Magglio Ordonez - 6.27
Vladimir Guerrero - 5.94
Prince Fielder - 5.24
Matt Holliday - 5.06
David Ortiz - 4.81
Todd Helton - 4.80
Albert Pujols - 4.65
Miguel Cabrera - 4.61
Aramis Ramirez - 4.55


The 2006 list (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=0&season=2006) looks similar:
Albert Pujols - 9.63
Ryan Howard - 8.64
David Ortiz - 8.03
Derek Jeter - 6.03
Lance Berkman - 5.74
Carlos Beltran - 5.21
Jermaine Dye - 5.05
Bobby Abreu - 4.96
David Wright - 4.64
Miguel Cabrera - 4.56
Justin Morneau - 4.53

I like this system. It has no defensive adjustments. It does not take into account position, or what league you are in, what ballpark you are playing in, or what era you play in. All factors that I think are important, but hard to quantify and easy to dispute.

If you want the, “when the player hits [it]” quantified, here it is. This rewards the ‘big hits in the bottom of the ninth inning’ players, and ignores the ‘piling it on when we’re already up by 5 runs’ type of players.

[flies out of the room] :gulp:


Cool, a whole new pile of meaningless crap I can ignore, since it measures basically nothing,

Jerksticks
12-26-2007, 08:18 PM
Cool, a whole new pile of meaningless crap I can ignore, since it measures basically nothing,

Blah blah, who cares. Hope your Christmas sucked. This dude is interestd by WPA, you aren't. Other people probly are, other people probly aren't.

What stat measures meaningless, whiny dribble inserted per total message board area?

JSticks

jabrch
12-26-2007, 08:32 PM
Cool, a whole new pile of meaningless crap I can ignore, since it measures basically nothing,

:hawk
"I love it when you analyze!!!"

Daver
12-26-2007, 08:37 PM
Blah blah, who cares. Hope your Christmas sucked. This dude is interestd by WPA, you aren't. Other people probly are, other people probly aren't.

What stat measures meaningless, whiny dribble inserted per total message board area?

JSticks

If you knew anything about the history of this community, you would see exactly how stupid and ridiculous this post was.

FarWestChicago
12-26-2007, 09:17 PM
Hope your Christmas sucked.You've certainly lived up to your name.

the1tab
12-26-2007, 09:31 PM
blah blah big word blah blah Adam Dunn blah blah WPA blah blah I know baseball blah blah Moneyball reference blah blah.

I like Joe Crede. My wife thinks he's cute and I think he throws the best leather at third that this whole city has seen since Robin Ventura left. Fields is nice, and it just plain sucks that the one guy that's ready to step into the lineup is replacing a cult hero. I just hope we get someone who can locate the strike zone when we trade someone.

Does that put this thread to rest?

FielderJones
12-26-2007, 09:55 PM
Some dude on SoxTalk.com made an amazing Tribute Video of Josh Fields and posted on YouTube. You gotta check it out if you haven't already. I'd copy the link but I don't know the rules about those shenanigans.

It was a nice tribute video, but I'd take him more seriously if he had not also created an Andy Gonzales tribute.

MetroPD
12-26-2007, 11:35 PM
Crede will never get any better, he won't even return to what he was just two years ago. Joe, I loved ya guy, but its time to move forward. With that being said, Fields is not at this point better than Crede in any way other than he's healthy. Give Josh a shot, I do not think we will be dissappointed. This of course is only purely speculative and based off last year. We certainly could do worse.

Nellie_Fox
12-27-2007, 12:56 AM
Blah blah, who cares. Hope your Christmas sucked. This dude is interestd by WPA, you aren't. Other people probly are, other people probly aren't.

What stat measures meaningless, whiny dribble inserted per total message board area?

JSticksI was all set to whack you for the personal attack, but then saw that West decided to let it go. Daver let it go because it was against him; I don't know why West let it go. I'm just letting you know not to do it again, against anybody.

By the way, the words are "probably" and "drivel," not "probly" and "dribble."

kittle42
12-27-2007, 01:54 AM
By the way, the words are "probably" and "drivel," not "probly" and "dribble."

:cool:

Jerksticks
12-27-2007, 02:18 AM
Relax bub, I never lay a mean hand on anyone here. But, the daver guy ripped into some dude's opinion just to be a prick. The guy obviously put some time and thought into his post, including links and charts to support his opinion. I don't necessarily agree with his post, but I don't comment like a prick either. There's just no reason to act like that, especially hidden behind a computer screen.

So my comments stand. Also, I can shorthand the word probably anyway I feel like. Sometimes you get probly, other times prolly, but I'd be willing to bet that you probably know what I mean.

Goodbye Joe Crede. Hellllllllo Josh Fields!

JSticks

kittle42
12-27-2007, 03:40 AM
Relax bub, I never lay a mean hand on anyone here. But, the daver guy ripped into some dude's opinion just to be a prick. The guy obviously put some time and thought into his post, including links and charts to support his opinion. I don't necessarily agree with his post, but I don't comment like a prick either. There's just no reason to act like that, especially hidden behind a computer screen.

So my comments stand. Also, I can shorthand the word probably anyway I feel like. Sometimes you get probly, other times prolly, but I'd be willing to bet that you probably know what I mean.

Goodbye Joe Crede. Hellllllllo Josh Fields!

JSticks

Methinks someone is not taking the hint(s).

TornLabrum
12-27-2007, 06:53 AM
Relax bub, I never lay a mean hand on anyone here. But, the daver guy ripped into some dude's opinion just to be a prick. The guy obviously put some time and thought into his post, including links and charts to support his opinion. I don't necessarily agree with his post, but I don't comment like a prick either. There's just no reason to act like that, especially hidden behind a computer screen.

So my comments stand. Also, I can shorthand the word probably anyway I feel like. Sometimes you get probly, other times prolly, but I'd be willing to bet that you probably know what I mean.

Goodbye Joe Crede. Hellllllllo Josh Fields!

JSticks

Your comments may stand, but you're sitting things out. See you in a month. Let's hope you learn some etiquette by then.

the1tab
12-27-2007, 09:14 AM
Your comments may stand, but you're sitting things out. See you in a month. Let's hope you learn some etiquette by then.

** applause **

:gulp:

Frater Perdurabo
12-27-2007, 09:53 AM
:tomatoaward:

ma-gaga
12-27-2007, 04:16 PM
Cool, a whole new pile of meaningless crap I can ignore, since it measures basically nothing,

Somehow I knew you'd say something like that. :cool:

I like WPA. It's not an end-all-be-all stat, but I think it's a great way of capturing the moment or even capturing a baseball season. It's certainly better than relying on some old sport-writers memory to tell me who is "clutch" and who isn't.

FarWestChicago
12-27-2007, 05:33 PM
SIt's certainly better than relying on some old sport-writers memory to tell me who is "clutch" and who isn't.I don't mind the "sport-writers" part, but watch the "old" comments. :D:

Daver
12-27-2007, 06:49 PM
Somehow I knew you'd say something like that. :cool:

I like WPA. It's not an end-all-be-all stat, but I think it's a great way of capturing the moment or even capturing a baseball season. It's certainly better than relying on some old sport-writers memory to tell me who is "clutch" and who isn't.

How does it measure it on the defensive side Mr. Genius?


:)

35th&Shields
12-27-2007, 07:12 PM
I agree that we need Fields bat in our line-up but we also need Credes bat in there. Why cant Fields learn LF, as weak as our pitching is we need all the big bats we can get. Fields must be a good athlete to play QB at OK so I dont know why he cant pick up LF.
Seriously. These are professional athletes. Fields played baseball AND football at a high level. Is it really that much of a stretch to play the left side of the infield AND the left side of the outfield? His nickname could be Josh "All" Fields.

sullythered
12-27-2007, 07:34 PM
come on. I like josh, but he holds,maybe, a slight power advantage over joe. Nothing else.

RedPinStripes
12-27-2007, 09:47 PM
Crede wasn't the defensive player he turned into and didn't hit MLB pitching well at all the first few years. He's turned into arguably the best defensive 3b in the game. Fields looks like he's going to catch on quicker with the bat, but it's going to be tough to come near what Crede can do with the glove.

I like Fields, but I'll never say he's better until I see a good glove and consistany hitting after MLB pitchers get to figure him out.

Remember, Crede took about 7 years to develop what he did in 05 including the minors. We're in trouble if Josh takes that long.

SBSoxFan
12-27-2007, 11:05 PM
Remember, Crede took about 7 years to develop what he did in 05 including the minors. We're in trouble if Josh takes that long.

I think that's part of the point. Fields is way ahead of where Crede was at his age offensively. Defensively, it's a whole other story, and Fields will likely never be as good.

gogosox16
12-27-2007, 11:20 PM
come on. I like josh, but he holds,maybe, a slight power advantage over joe. Nothing else.
Slight? Fields hit 23 homers in 373 atbats and Crede hit (best overall homerun season) 30 homers in 544 atbats.
Fields = Homer every 16.217391 atbats
Crede = Home every 18.133333 atbats

If Josh Were to have 544 atbats like Crede in his best homerun year Fields would have aprox. 33 homers. Doesn't sound like a big difference, but it is when its your first year in the league and you have a ton of potential to be even better, so....

Power
Fields > Crede

Overall Hitter
Fields _ Crede (tough to say cause you got to put a lot of things into it but Fields will probably hit for better average and has a chance to steal some bases (like 10 at the most)

Defense
Fields <<<<Crede
no doubt about it, it's tough to say who is more valuable because we already got the big powerful guys in the lineup and Crede saves a lot of extra basehits. But Fields is a better fit for this team that Crede because of the power advantage over Crede in a hitters park, he comes cheaper and doesn't have back problems, and we wouldn't have to deal with boras.

BadBobbyJenks
12-28-2007, 02:12 AM
Fields could develop into a very good run-producer; possibly better than a healthy Crede. Defensively? He has a lot of work to do to get even close.






Possibly better offensively? Joe Crede will never put up his 06 numbers again. I will say Fields in another year will be better already.

ma-gaga
12-28-2007, 09:26 AM
How does it measure it on the defensive side Mr. Genius?


:)


It doesn't, Mr. Guns-ablazing, :cool: it's strictly an "offensive" tool and you have to add in your own subjective adjustment for defense (and yes, I see the pun). Which is why the players that dominate this stat are LF'ers, DH's, and 1B.

This is why I didn't throw the "Pitching WPA" stat around, because there's a defensive component that isn't taken into account.

My favorite use of this is the graphs that are put together:

http://www.fangraphs.com/tgraphs/20070625_Rockies_Cubs_0.png

This kind of stuff is my "cup of tea".

soxinem1
12-28-2007, 11:58 AM
I like both players, but don't you think that it is a bit premature to say who is better right now?

Anyone is better than Crede at this time, because no one knows what Crede will do in 2008.

And Fields is no shoo-in either, as he needs to cut down on the K's, boost the average, and improve defensively. However, in all fairness, Crede made himself into a solid defensive 3B, so we shall see. Now that the league knows him, he will have to adjust.

If Crede is an average of 2005-2006, he will be fine.

Fields can be a 30 HR, 20+ SB guy, which Crede will never be. Or he can be the next Eric Munson.

We shall see. All I know is that this is a far cry from the decades when the White Sox couldn't either develop or keep a 3B worth a damn. I'd rather be in this situation than in the 70's, 80's, and 1999-2001 timeframe when 3B was a revolving door was the most common sight at 3B.

kittle42
12-28-2007, 02:01 PM
Fields can be a 30 HR, 20+ SB guy, which Crede will never be. Or he can be the next Eric Munson.

Amen. These people ready to annoint him the next Brooks Robinson are jumping the gun. Let's see what he does this year - hopefully, those people are right.

Brian26
12-28-2007, 02:06 PM
come on. I like josh, but he holds,maybe, a slight power advantage over joe. Nothing else.

They both need to drastically cut down on their strikeouts.

gamblinkenny
12-28-2007, 02:55 PM
Fields had a high K count because it was his first year seeing consistent MLB pitching. If you noticed early on in the year pitchers were just blowing fastballs by him, but as he grew more accustomed to the speed of the Big Leagues, he started turning those fastballs around and hitting serious bombs. Crede will always have a flawed swing, whereas Fields has one of the more beautifully compact swings i've seen in a while. The defense WILL come, maybe not to a gold glove level ala crede, but his glove will at the very least be serviceable.

WAR FIELDS

balke
12-28-2007, 03:52 PM
Fields had a high K count because it was his first year seeing consistent MLB pitching. If you noticed early on in the year pitchers were just blowing fastballs by him, but as he grew more accustomed to the speed of the Big Leagues, he started turning those fastballs around and hitting serious bombs. Crede will always have a flawed swing, whereas Fields has one of the more beautifully compact swings i've seen in a while. The defense WILL come, maybe not to a gold glove level ala crede, but his glove will at the very least be serviceable.

WAR FIELDS

The Defense will come is a pretty bold statement. Just because it came for Joe doesn't mean that's easy. From what I've seen from Josh, he doesn't seem to have any kind of instinct or initial attack on a laser hit his way. There was a couple instances of slow mo last season of him initially moving right to a ball hit to his left.

I've never heard someone say Joe Crede's swing is flawed either. In fact, I always hear Hawk talk about him and Konerko's swings being the swings Walker tries to model the Sox hitters after.

Crede has a great swing, there's a lot of pop behind it. Unfortunately he pops out and lines at a near Frank Thomas rate.

soxinem1
12-28-2007, 04:08 PM
They both need to drastically cut down on their strikeouts.

I think Crede's OBP is more of a concern than his K's, he actually doesn't K a lot.

gamblinkenny
12-28-2007, 05:33 PM
To Balke (sorry i dont know how to quote stuff like everyone else),

how is saying his "defense will come around" a bold statement. i said specifically that it will most likely not ever become gold glove caliber, but rather serviceable(average). it was his first year in the bigs, give the guy a break. while he did mis-judge his fair share of lineas, he made some pretty tough plays as well. if you think it is BOLD to say that josh fields will develop at least an average glove at third, you got problems. fields is miles ahead of crede offensively compared to how long it took crede to come around offensively, so have some faith in the defense.

crede's swing is flawed, and Hawk has NEVER said anything about players modeling their swings after his, unless of course they want to fly out 90% of the time. his swing is ungodly long and Hawk HAS said that for years, and konerko changes his swing about 3-5 times a season too.

Daver
12-28-2007, 05:38 PM
To Balke (sorry i dont know how to quote stuff like everyone else),

how is saying his "defense will come around" a bold statement. i said specifically that it will most likely not ever become gold glove caliber, but rather serviceable(average). it was his first year in the bigs, give the guy a break. while he did mis-judge his fair share of lineas, he made some pretty tough plays as well. if you think it is BOLD to say that josh fields will develop at least an average glove at third, you got problems. fields is miles ahead of crede offensively compared to how long it took crede to come around offensively, so have some faith in the defense.

crede's swing is flawed, and Hawk has NEVER said anything about players modeling their swings after his, unless of course they want to fly out 90% of the time. his swing is ungodly long and Hawk HAS said that for years, and konerko changes his swing about 3-5 times a season too.

If Ken Harrelson knew his ass from third base about anything remotely related to coaching he wouldn't be in the booth.

Fields has been playing third base since HS, he's about as good as he is going to get, below average.

Brian26
12-28-2007, 05:43 PM
Fields had a high K count because it was his first year seeing consistent MLB pitching.

I love your sig, man. That still makes me chuckle to this day. Classic Hawk.

gamblinkenny
12-28-2007, 05:46 PM
daver, thanks for pointing that out about him playing 3rd since HS, i didnt know he was fielding MLB screamers in HS, you must be right then. :rolleyes:

To say that his defensive ability has topped out after his rookie season at the age of 24 is ludicrous and you know that...at least, you should. there is a pretty sweet josh fields HL vid on youtube in which he makes some pretty tough plays. now obviously even a blind squirrel finds a....ya know, but to me that is him flashing he true potential.

agree to disagree i suppose.

gamblinkenny
12-28-2007, 05:47 PM
Brian26, thanks man. I have the audio on my Ipod, and i honestly listen to it about 5 times a day.

Daver
12-28-2007, 05:50 PM
daver, thanks for pointing that out about him playing 3rd since HS, i didnt know he was fielding MLB screamers in HS, you must be right then. :rolleyes:

To say that his defensive ability has topped out after his rookie season at the age of 24 is ludicrous and you know that...at least, you should. there is a pretty sweet josh fields HL vid on youtube in which he makes some pretty tough plays. now obviously even a blind squirrel finds a....ya know, but to me that is him flashing he true potential.

agree to disagree i suppose.

That is not what I said, you don't learn reaction and reflexes, you have what you have.

gamblinkenny
12-28-2007, 06:03 PM
daver, you are correct in that assessment. but, in my opinion it isn't his reflexes that give him problems. his problem seems to be how to approach the ball or the route he takes to get it. his hands aren't the problem, his footwork is the problem. luckily footwork can be worked on. Fields held his own at the hot corner last year, and with experience he WILL get sharper.

they wouldn't have brought him up as a 3rd baseman if they thought he would be a below average fielder. the only reason they even entertain the thought of him in the outfield is because crede has such a sick glove, and they need/want his bat in the lineup.

Fields rookie year > crede rookie year

Grzegorz
12-28-2007, 09:28 PM
his problem seems to be how to approach the ball or the route he takes to get it. his hands aren't the problem, his footwork is the problem. luckily footwork can be worked on. Fields held his own at the hot corner last year, and with experience he WILL get sharper.

A former Big 12 quarterback and he's struggling with footwork? Footwork should be the least of his problems.

Just think; some folks want Fields to play first base.

champagne030
12-28-2007, 09:39 PM
To Balke (sorry i dont know how to quote stuff like everyone else),

how is saying his "defense will come around" a bold statement. i said specifically that it will most likely not ever become gold glove caliber, but rather serviceable(average). it was his first year in the bigs, give the guy a break. while he did mis-judge his fair share of lineas, he made some pretty tough plays as well. if you think it is BOLD to say that josh fields will develop at least an average glove at third, you got problems. fields is miles ahead of crede offensively compared to how long it took crede to come around offensively, so have some faith in the defense.

crede's swing is flawed, and Hawk has NEVER said anything about players modeling their swings after his, unless of course they want to fly out 90% of the time. his swing is ungodly long and Hawk HAS said that for years, and konerko changes his swing about 3-5 times a season too.

Josh is Rob Deer at this point. He needs to lay off the breaking ball in the dirt, which he swings at because he needs to start his swing so early to catch the fastball, or he'll break the strikeout record next season. I like his potential, but he needs to make some serious adjustments or maturity with pitch recognition.

DickAllen72
12-28-2007, 10:00 PM
I just hope Fields learns to hit fastballs.

kittle42
12-29-2007, 02:57 AM
Josh is Rob Deer at this point. He needs to lay off the breaking ball in the dirt, which he swings at because he needs to start his swing so early to catch the fastball, or he'll break the strikeout record next season. I like his potential, but he needs to make some serious adjustments or maturity with pitch recognition.

That's ludicrous. He'll hit .280 at least!

rdivaldi
12-29-2007, 01:06 PM
That's ludicrous. He'll hit .280 at least!

:?:

Shouldn't that be in deep pink?

kittle42
12-29-2007, 02:12 PM
:?:

Shouldn't that be in deep pink?

I stand corrected.

gamblinkenny
12-29-2007, 03:28 PM
josh fields is rob deer? haha, nice hyperbole. i know you are serious, but that doesn't mean it's a serious statement.

footwork at 3rd is a little different than a five step drop at the collegiate level in a completely different sport. :rolleyes:

he most definitely must cut down on his K's, but the people that think he has topped out his big league potential are just ignorant. This kid has a lot to improve on, but come on, he does hit some absolute BOMBS. gaurantee he hits at least .275 next season. remove crede's arthritic nuts from your mouth please. :gulp:

kittle42
12-29-2007, 07:14 PM
gaurantee he hits at least .275 next season.

"Gamblin" Kenny, I'll take the under on that bet.

gogosox16
12-29-2007, 07:47 PM
"Gamblin" Kenny, I'll take the under on that bet.
2nd that bet

the1tab
12-29-2007, 10:12 PM
2nd that bet

I've got the under for a third...