PDA

View Full Version : Gio pitched for the A's today


rdivaldi
03-01-2008, 08:34 PM
A decent outing too: 2 IP, 3 H, 0 ER, 1 BB, 3 K.

For all those that remember him, Ryan Wing is on the A's as well, pitching one scoreless as well. There are an unusual amount of ex-White Sox pitching prospects in Oakland's camp.

California Sox
03-01-2008, 09:12 PM
Good for those guys. I think Wing has a shot as a lefty in the 'pen. The reports on Gio coming from the A's camp have been stellar.

DumpJerry
03-01-2008, 09:13 PM
Looks like a HOF performance.

Darn you, Kenny!:angry:

California Sox
03-01-2008, 09:27 PM
Looks like a HOF performance.

Darn you, Kenny! :angry:

Fixed it for you.

cards press box
03-06-2008, 11:09 AM
Good for those guys. I think Wing has a shot as a lefty in the 'pen. The reports on Gio coming from the A's camp have been stellar.

I expect Gonzalez to pitch well and make the majors some time soon. It's still a good deal for the White Sox. Don't forget, the Sox acquired Nick Swisher as he is going into his prime. If the Sox had dealt Gio for a 36 year old slugger on the downside, that would have been problematic (just as Bill Veeck's trades of Norm Cash, Johnny Callison, Earl Battey, Johnny Romano, Don Mincher, et al. after 1959 were problematic). But the Sox didn't do that in the Swisher deal. I hope and expect that Swisher will be a cornerstone of the franchise for years to come.

balke
03-06-2008, 12:20 PM
I expect Gio to pitch well in Oakland especially. That's a great place to get your start. ERA-wise at least.

btrain929
03-06-2008, 12:22 PM
Gio is getting the nod today against the Cubs.

My half-teal prediction: 3 innings, 9 k's, and a hit batsman (Fukudome, on his right hand, making him out of commision until July).

:D:

DeadMoney
03-06-2008, 01:13 PM
How come so many people get so obsessed with our prospects AFTER we trade them. Who cares what some prospect for the A's is doing? Heck, I have enough trouble keeping track of our own prospects.

Oh, I forgot: Now, since Gio's gone, he's the freaking second coming? Having seen him pitch (in person) last spring, he has good stuff and I really like his attitude/confidence on the mound. I don't know if he'll become something in the Majors; not many guys do. If he does, good for him and good for the A's (or whatever team he does well for), but the Sox organization and the fans should not be worried about him anymore. He's part of the past, and looking toward the future of the organization might be a good idea (for both us - as fans - and the organization).

btrain929
03-06-2008, 01:18 PM
How come so many people get so obsessed with our prospects AFTER we trade them. Who cares what some prospect for the A's is doing? Heck, I have enough trouble keeping track of our own prospects.

Oh, I forgot: Now, since Gio's gone, he's the freaking second coming? Having seen him pitch (in person) last spring, he has good stuff and I really like his attitude/confidence on the mound. I don't know if he'll become something in the Majors; not many guys do. If he does, good for him and good for the A's (or whatever team he does well for), but the Sox organization and the fans should not be worried about him anymore. He's part of the past, and looking toward the future of the organization might be a good idea (for both us - as fans - and the organization).

I just want him to throw at some of the Cub hitters and possibly hit one or two. Is that so bad? :D:

rdivaldi
03-06-2008, 01:46 PM
How come so many people get so obsessed with our prospects AFTER we trade them. Who cares what some prospect for the A's is doing? Heck, I have enough trouble keeping track of our own prospects.

When you follow these kids from day 1 you can appreciate what they've been through, thus I always follow guys from the Sox system. I hope Gio is successful, I always appreciated what he gave us day in and day out.

balke
03-06-2008, 01:58 PM
How come so many people get so obsessed with our prospects AFTER we trade them. Who cares what some prospect for the A's is doing? Heck, I have enough trouble keeping track of our own prospects.

Oh, I forgot: Now, since Gio's gone, he's the freaking second coming? Having seen him pitch (in person) last spring, he has good stuff and I really like his attitude/confidence on the mound. I don't know if he'll become something in the Majors; not many guys do. If he does, good for him and good for the A's (or whatever team he does well for), but the Sox organization and the fans should not be worried about him anymore. He's part of the past, and looking toward the future of the organization might be a good idea (for both us - as fans - and the organization).


Noone's done that in this thread so far. I think people will follow Gio because they were always anticipating him coming up to play for the Sox. Doesn't really mean anything, the player doesn't suck just because he was traded.

I hope he does well, and won't mind a bit if he turns out to be a stud because the Sox got Swisher.

spiffie
03-06-2008, 02:01 PM
Noone's done that in this thread so far. I think people will follow Gio because they were always anticipating him coming up to play for the Sox. Doesn't really mean anything, the player doesn't suck just because he was traded.

I hope he does well, and won't mind a bit if he turns out to be a stud because the Sox got Swisher.
Hell, I hope he does well because at some point people are going to start to wonder if its worth trading with this team. Everyone we ship out seems to either fail or break down (except for Chris Young). I wouldn't want the Sox to get a rep. as shady dealers.

kittle42
03-06-2008, 02:40 PM
Hell, I hope he does well because at some point people are going to start to wonder if its worth trading with this team. Everyone we ship out seems to either fail or break down (except for Chris Young). I wouldn't want the Sox to get a rep. as shady dealers.

Chicago White Sox: The guys we keep suck. The guys we give away suck more!

KRS1
03-06-2008, 02:52 PM
Dealing again today.

3IP 1H 1BB 2K 0ER

Tekijawa
03-06-2008, 03:51 PM
Dealing again today.

3IP 1H 1BB 2K 0ER

My keeper draft is looking Strong like the Ukraine!

ksimpson14
03-06-2008, 04:58 PM
How come so many people get so obsessed with our prospects AFTER we trade them. Who cares what some prospect for the A's is doing? Heck, I have enough trouble keeping track of our own prospects.

Oh, I forgot: Now, since Gio's gone, he's the freaking second coming? Having seen him pitch (in person) last spring, he has good stuff and I really like his attitude/confidence on the mound. I don't know if he'll become something in the Majors; not many guys do. If he does, good for him and good for the A's (or whatever team he does well for), but the Sox organization and the fans should not be worried about him anymore. He's part of the past, and looking toward the future of the organization might be a good idea (for both us - as fans - and the organization).

Evaluating trades, front office, scouts, minor leagues, talent, keeping up on guys you followed, the rest of the league, etc . Did this really need to be asked? Or is it only cool to rip or laugh on a guy who goes on to fail?

DeadMoney
03-06-2008, 05:18 PM
Evaluating trades, front office, scouts, minor leagues, talent, keeping up on guys you followed, the rest of the league, etc . Did this really need to be asked? Or is it only cool to rip or laugh on a guy who goes on to fail?

It's fine if people want to follow him, but to have an obsession-like fixation on guys is a little frustrating. Especially when there are people who are waiting to see ONE of these guys do well, just so they can call for KW's head or say, "see, I told everyone that was a bad trade." I have no problem with these guys going on and doing well. I just wish some people's obession with these guys began with when their beggining in our system ... not when they leave (which it seems like is a lot of times the case).

EDIT: And there are people on the other side of things too, who do just the opposite (like rip a guy and laugh at him when a guy fails). Both are just as frustrating. But to have an objective view of a guy when he's gone, that's fine with me.

kittle42
03-06-2008, 05:40 PM
It's fine if people want to follow him, but to have an obsession-like fixation on guys is a little frustrating. Especially when there are people who are waiting to see ONE of these guys do well, just so they can call for KW's head or say, "see, I told everyone that was a bad trade." I have no problem with these guys going on and doing well. I just wish some people's obession with these guys began with when their beggining in our system ... not when they leave (which it seems like is a lot of times the case).

EDIT: And there are people on the other side of things too, who do just the opposite (like rip a guy and laugh at him when a guy fails). Both are just as frustrating. But to have an objective view of a guy when he's gone, that's fine with me.

You're right, and these same folks generally won't pay attention to an Egbert or someone who is still actually with the organization until, *shudder*, he gets traded and THEN this guy is an instant celebrity around here.

Sox fans (including me) are generally the biggest bunch of mopers and whiners.

Optipessimism
03-06-2008, 10:23 PM
How come so many people get so obsessed with our prospects AFTER we trade them. Who cares what some prospect for the A's is doing? Heck, I have enough trouble keeping track of our own prospects.

Oh, I forgot: Now, since Gio's gone, he's the freaking second coming? Having seen him pitch (in person) last spring, he has good stuff and I really like his attitude/confidence on the mound. I don't know if he'll become something in the Majors; not many guys do. If he does, good for him and good for the A's (or whatever team he does well for), but the Sox organization and the fans should not be worried about him anymore. He's part of the past, and looking toward the future of the organization might be a good idea (for both us - as fans - and the organization).

I've been at WSI since 2003 and in all that time I've hardly seen what you're talking about. In fact the only time I can recall a Sox fan falling in love with a prospect and then not shutting up about it after he was traded was that one guy whose handle I can't recall who became a legend on here complaining about giving up Jeremy Reed in the Freddy Garcia trade. I'm sure someone else remembers who that was, and I'm truly surprised that I can't.

Usually, the people who follow the minors post in the minors forum and there aren't many of us comparatively. And usually, when a prospect one or more of us likes gets traded you don't see those people going all bonkers about it. You see frustration at times, but that's pretty much it. For example, I didn't like the fact that we gave up our best pitching prospects for another bat instead of a starting pitcher, but I wasn't out bitching about it saying that Gio and DLS were going to be HOF's. In fact I don't recall reading any post from anyone anywhere saying that either of these guys were sure-fire superstars, but I have seen a lot of posts claiming that was a common sentiment around here.

Anyway, I've seen a ****load more posts that are basically carbon copies of yours (i.e. why are people so obsessed with a prospect?) than I have seen of people who followed a prospect harping on a trade months later. Actually it seems like every time someone who follows the minors starts a thread here about a traded prospect it is just meant as an update for those who care, yet it gets filled with comments from people who didn't follow that player asking others to let it go, like it's some big deal or something. For example, if someone starts a thread about a talented young player who has never been part of the Sox organization then everything is fine, but if someone starts a thread about Chris Young's progress it gets filled with comments from people who are automatically locked and loaded for Vazquez trade defense mode. Then it devolves, then Aaron Rowand comes up, and blah blah blah, same old ****.

My point is this: over time, baseless accusatory posts mostly from people who never cared much to begin with start to add up, and it all creates this illusion that like half of the board was in love with some prospect and bitched and moaned for months after his departure, but that actually isn't true. Most people I'm sure realize that there are more important aspects of life than sports and really do have better things to do than cry about some trade made months or years before.

End of rant.

MISoxfan
03-07-2008, 03:23 AM
Stating that there are members claiming that our prospects are future HOFers after we trade them is not baseless. In fact its not even an exaggeration.

There is a poster here right now who says that DLS is 50% shot at the HOF. 100% if he doesn't get injured.

skottyj242
03-07-2008, 08:39 AM
Looks like a HOF performance.

Darn you, Kenny!:angry:

I was in the airport and heard the guy that makes the plaques for the HOF taking the order on his cell phone.

skottyj242
03-07-2008, 08:42 AM
If Gio is so good why was he traded three times?

TomBradley72
03-07-2008, 10:04 AM
Sox fans (including me) are generally the biggest bunch of mopers and whiners.

What a bunch of bull****.

The hardcore fans of ANY MLB team will follow the performances of top prospects that are traded way. We traded three of our top ten prospects for a single outfielder. I think this will be a good short term move for the WSox...if you're going to re-sign your veterans (Buehrle, Dye, AJ, etc.) than you need to stay committed to going for it now.

Following Gio, DLS, Sweeney is part of assessing this trade...natural for any hard core fan.

btrain929
03-07-2008, 10:09 AM
If Gio is so good why was he traded three times?

Is this supposed to be in teal?

If you suck, nobody wants you and you won't be involved in trades. You'll be released, picked up, released, etc.

Gio has been involved in trades for Thome, Garcia, and Swisher. The quality of players right there should show you that he has amazing talent and upside that so many teams value him, whether on their team or as big parts of a trade to acquire a proven MLB'er.

doublem23
03-07-2008, 10:55 AM
If you suck, nobody wants you and you won't be involved in trades. You'll be released, picked up, released, etc.


If you're that good, nobody would want to give you away, either.

kittle42
03-07-2008, 10:59 AM
If you're that good, nobody would want to give you away, either.

I have this same attitude - which is why I always lose in fantasy ball. Too unwilling to give something in order to get something.

FedEx227
03-07-2008, 11:07 AM
I was in the airport and heard the guy that makes the plaques for the HOF taking the order on his cell phone.

I think you mean the woman... aka Aaron Rowand's wife, she does all the plaque orders.

rdivaldi
03-07-2008, 11:10 AM
If you're that good, nobody would want to give you away, either.

True, but when you look at the major league players involved in the deals, it's obvious that Gio has never been "given" away.

jabrch
03-16-2008, 10:54 PM
Gio didn't look so good this last outing. He's off to Sacramento...

LoveYourSuit
03-16-2008, 11:17 PM
Gio didn't look so good this last outing. He's off to Sacramento...


Wasn't he suppose to replace Buehrle this year in our rotation had we not retained Buehrle? And now he can't even make that very young/thin roster in Oakland?

He's still young, but that to me is kind of odd.


Kenny is bum, how could he trade this guy....twice.

jabrch
03-16-2008, 11:19 PM
Wasn't he suppose to replace Buehrle this year in our rotation had we not retained Buehrle? And now he can't even make that very young/thin roster in Oakland?

He's still young, but that to me is kind of odd.


Kenny is bum, how could he trade this guy....twice.

I love Gio. He's got a bright future...but giving him and DLS up for Swish doesn't bother me one bit.

LoveYourSuit
03-16-2008, 11:26 PM
I love Gio. He's got a bright future...but giving him and DLS up for Swish doesn't bother me one bit.


I was excited too even when I heard what we gave up, DLS was the only guy that I thought twice about but who cares when you can get a long term talent like Swish.

gobears1987
03-16-2008, 11:39 PM
I love Gio. He's got a bright future...but giving him and DLS up for Swish doesn't bother me one bit.amen

Even if Gio and DLS pan out and do well, we needed a proven MLB hitter like Swisher.

munchman33
03-17-2008, 12:08 AM
I was excited too even when I heard what we gave up, DLS was the only guy that I thought twice about but who cares when you can get a long term talent like Swish.

And if Swisher continues to hit .260/25hr will you continue to say that? Sure he's young, but he's no more certain to become what you all believe he will than any of the other guys in that trade.

LoveYourSuit
03-17-2008, 12:15 AM
And if Swisher continues to hit .260/25hr will you continue to say that? Sure he's young, but he's no more certain to become what you all believe he will than any of the other guys in that trade.

Yes because of his age and relatively cheap contract.

Now those numbers and a price tag of $12 million per year (Rowand), then we have a problem,

FedEx227
03-17-2008, 01:41 AM
And if Swisher continues to hit .260/25hr will you continue to say that? Sure he's young, but he's no more certain to become what you all believe he will than any of the other guys in that trade.

But please do continue to ignore his career .361 OBP or his .381 last year which put him in the upper 3rd of all major league players.

Nellie_Fox
03-17-2008, 01:58 AM
But please do continue to ignore his career .361 OBP or his .381 last year which put him in the upper 3rd of all major league players.
And the fact that he put up those numbers playing in one of the worst hitters' parks in baseball.

FedEx227
03-17-2008, 02:00 AM
And the fact that he put up those numbers playing in one of the worst hitters' parks in baseball.

You, your stupid logic and slight amount of research can go to hell.

fquaye149
03-17-2008, 06:02 AM
Wasn't he suppose to replace Buehrle this year in our rotation had we not retained Buehrle? And now he can't even make that very young/thin roster in Oakland?

no

munchman33
03-17-2008, 10:21 AM
But please do continue to ignore his career .361 OBP or his .381 last year which put him in the upper 3rd of all major league players.

Yes but how much of that OBP is because pitchers work around lefties in key situations? He's Adam Dunn without the immense power (but more speed). If he eventually becomes Dunn at the plate, great. But Adam Dunn is not a superstar. There's a lot to be said about getting the ball in play.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mind having Swisher. I just think we paid a price that isn't commiserate with his value.

balke
03-17-2008, 11:05 AM
Yes but how much of that OBP is because pitchers work around lefties in key situations? He's Adam Dunn without the immense power (but more speed). If he eventually becomes Dunn at the plate, great. But Adam Dunn is not a superstar. There's a lot to be said about getting the ball in play.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mind having Swisher. I just think we paid a price that isn't commiserate with his value.

And if the Sox turn around and trade him tomorrow for the same package, they will not have gotten enough for a young superstar like Swisher. Because with some fans, you just can't ever win.

FedEx227
03-17-2008, 11:12 AM
Yes but how much of that OBP is because pitchers work around lefties in key situations? He's Adam Dunn without the immense power (but more speed). If he eventually becomes Dunn at the plate, great. But Adam Dunn is not a superstar. There's a lot to be said about getting the ball in play.

A walk is just as good as a single.

I'll take a 5-pitch walk over a first pitch single any day.

...
03-17-2008, 11:33 AM
Yes but how much of that OBP is because pitchers work around lefties in key situations? He's Adam Dunn without the immense power (but more speed). If he eventually becomes Dunn at the plate, great. But Adam Dunn is not a superstar. There's a lot to be said about getting the ball in play.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mind having Swisher. I just think we paid a price that isn't commiserate with his value.

Who ****ing cares? When you get on base, you're on base.

How many of Frank Thomas' HR's were a result of poor pitching?

Does it really matter?

Man you're annoying!

Mod edit: Tone down the personal nature of the posts.

guillen4life13
03-17-2008, 01:01 PM
A walk is just as good as a single.

I'll take a 5-pitch walk over a first pitch single any day.

Even with a man (or men) on base? There I don't think there's no question what I'd rather have.

fquaye149
03-17-2008, 02:09 PM
Even with a man (or men) on base? There I don't think there's no question what I'd rather have.

UNLESS IT'S AN INFIELD SINGLE!:bandance::bandance::bandance:

munchman33
03-17-2008, 02:10 PM
Even with a man (or men) on base? There I don't think there's no question what I'd rather have.

People forget about that. They are not equal. And hitters like Swisher tend to walk more in key situations. Yes, that's better than an out. But it's not better than driving in the run.

fquaye149
03-17-2008, 02:15 PM
People forget about that. They are not equal. And hitters like Swisher tend to walk more in key situations. Yes, that's better than an out. But it's not better than driving in the run.

So how many HR, 2B and RBI has he had in years past? He must not have very many, since all he's doing is walking

jabrch
03-17-2008, 04:10 PM
What amazes me is that some of the people that most talk about walks and OBP really have no clue what the value of a walk is.

fquaye149
03-17-2008, 04:11 PM
What amazes me is that some of the people that most talk about walks and OBP really have no clue what the value of a walk is.

Not sure at all what this post is trying to say

rdivaldi
03-17-2008, 04:37 PM
Not sure at all what this post is trying to say

That too many people are wannabe Sabregeeks?

munchman33
03-17-2008, 04:38 PM
What amazes me is that some of the people that most talk about walks and OBP really have no clue what the value of a walk is.

You know that saying "don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it"

It's the same for walks. A left handed hitter isn't going to see pitches easy to hit in late game situations, because the bulk of good relievers are right handed. That's just the way it is. They're going to pitch around them. So his numbers are skewed a little. And that walk definately isn't as powerful as a walk earlier in the game. Because, in that scenerio, the walk is playing to the pitcher's advantage.

fquaye149
03-17-2008, 05:11 PM
You know that saying "don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it"

It's the same for walks. A left handed hitter isn't going to see pitches easy to hit in late game situations, because the bulk of good relievers are right handed. That's just the way it is. They're going to pitch around them. So his numbers are skewed a little. And that walk definately isn't as powerful as a walk earlier in the game. Because, in that scenerio, the walk is playing to the pitcher's advantage.

Unless you plan on charting out every single at bat throughout the season, I think it's probably preferable to just operate under the generally correct assumption that OBP is a better measure of a hitter's value than BA

munchman33
03-17-2008, 05:27 PM
Unless you plan on charting out every single at bat throughout the season, I think it's probably preferable to just operate under the generally correct assumption that OBP is a better measure of a hitter's value than BA

I don't think it's preferable at all. Especially when the guy doesn't have a particularly good batting average. Why on earth should I just assume that's not playing into it, when that's the most obvious scenerio?

Are you arguing that lefties don't get pitched around late in games on a consistent basis? Because if you are, I am vehemently disagreeing with you.

jabrch
03-17-2008, 05:37 PM
That too many people are wannabe Sabregeeks?


I couldn't have said it any better myself. A walk is great - when it means something. But a hit, when it means something, will be worth at least as much, if not more. Possibly much much much more.

There are walks with meaning, and meaningless walks.

Unless someone charts out each AB and measures its true contribution, most of these statistics are just raw numbers with little contextual value.

I know some people don't like the folksyness of it, but Hawk is right. Don't tell me what you hit - tell me when you hit it. a 2 out bases empty walk and a 2 out bases loaded single are of VERY different value.

fquaye149
03-17-2008, 05:56 PM
I couldn't have said it any better myself. A walk is great - when it means something. But a hit, when it means something, will be worth at least as much, if not more. Possibly much much much more.

There are walks with meaning, and meaningless walks.

Unless someone charts out each AB and measures its true contribution, most of these statistics are just raw numbers with little contextual value.

I know some people don't like the folksyness of it, but Hawk is right. Don't tell me what you hit - tell me when you hit it. a 2 out bases empty walk and a 2 out bases loaded single are of VERY different value.

Good grief.

How the hell are you supposed to have a 2 out bases loaded single with the bases empty.

Baseball is a series of at bats. Your goal in each at bat is to do the best possible thing.

Obviously a HR is the best possible outcome, followed by 3B, then 2B, then 1B, then BB

However, the difference b/t BB and 1B is not nearly as big a difference as 2B and 1B since in many cases a 1B and a BB are nearly identical outcomes (i.e. with no runner on) and in some cases a BB is slightly preferable to a 1B, (i.e. a first pitch single vs. a 7 pitch walk with the bases empty in both cases)

It seems to me that it's not as much a discrepancy that BA should be regarded that much more highly than OPS, which not just tells how often you got on base, but also how often you hit for extra bases

fquaye149
03-17-2008, 05:57 PM
Are you arguing that lefties don't get pitched around late in games on a consistent basis? Because if you are, I am vehemently disagreeing with you.

Sure, but unless you want to chart that up in terms of how Swisher's stats were compiled, you might as well just go with what is easily accessible.

There's no reason to assume Swisher's walks came in late innings at a higher rate than any other player's, so why not just concede he's a fine hitter since he gets on base and hits for power at a rate consistent with some of the better players in the game

munchman33
03-17-2008, 05:58 PM
I couldn't have said it any better myself. A walk is great - when it means something. But a hit, when it means something, will be worth at least as much, if not more. Possibly much much much more.

There are walks with meaning, and meaningless walks.

Unless someone charts out each AB and measures its true contribution, most of these statistics are just raw numbers with little contextual value.

I know some people don't like the folksyness of it, but Hawk is right. Don't tell me what you hit - tell me when you hit it. a 2 out bases empty walk and a 2 out bases loaded single are of VERY different value.

I completely agree.

That's why I'm not ready to proclaim Swisher a star in the making. The guy's a .260 hitter. He walks a lot. Fine. That's good. But he's also got a hell of a hole in his swing. Lots of guys walk a lot and still manage to put the ball in play. Swisher is yet to prove he can do that.

munchman33
03-17-2008, 06:03 PM
Sure, but unless you want to chart that up in terms of how Swisher's stats were compiled, you might as well just go with what is easily accessible.

There's no reason to assume Swisher's walks came in late innings at a higher rate than any other player's, so why not just concede he's a fine hitter since he gets on base and hits for power at a rate consistent with some of the better players in the game

I believe you're using faulty logic. You're asking me to negate the most obvious and frequent cause of walks for left-handed power hitters. I don't think you realize how significant this is. He's probably picking up anywhere from 20-50 meaningless walks that he wouldn't have had he been right-handed. And that's assuming he isn't being pitched around more than just late in games. If there's two outs and bases empty, no matter what inning, I'm probably not gonna let the lefty beat me when there's a righty on deck.

voodoochile
03-17-2008, 06:16 PM
I completely agree.

That's why I'm not ready to proclaim Swisher a star in the making. The guy's a .260 hitter. He walks a lot. Fine. That's good. But he's also got a hell of a hole in his swing. Lots of guys walk a lot and still manage to put the ball in play. Swisher is yet to prove he can do that.

Munch if they threatened to kill your dog unless you proclaimed Swisher a star, you'd hold out for the return of DLS and it would be so long poochie.

The fact is that for the price and years he is signed at, Swisher is a huge value - massive.

voodoochile
03-17-2008, 06:19 PM
I believe you're using faulty logic. You're asking me to negate the most obvious and frequent cause of walks for left-handed power hitters. I don't think you realize how significant this is. He's probably picking up anywhere from 20-50 meaningless walks that he wouldn't have had he been right-handed. And that's assuming he isn't being pitched around more than just late in games. If there's two outs and bases empty, no matter what inning, I'm probably not gonna let the lefty beat me when there's a righty on deck.

I'm interested in where you get those stats. Seems to me, guys like Thome are more likely to walk early in the game when the manager is going with his RH starter. Rather than walk Thome/Swisher late in the game, they'd bring in a loogie and take their chances.

Are you just making this stuff up based on your memory or is there an actual breakdown of when guys like Swisher and Thome walk most often?

munchman33
03-17-2008, 06:20 PM
Munch if they threatened to kill your dog unless you proclaimed Swisher a star, you'd hold out for the return of DLS and it would be so long poochie.

The fact is that for the price and years he is signed at, Swisher is a huge value - massive.

If he doesn't improve, I disagree. Then he's just worth the contract.

Swisher is not a bad player. And his contract is fine. But I'm not gonna go gaga over his skill set. He's a lefty with power that walks. Great. But he also doesn't make a lot of contact. That's bad. He's just a good player. I'm happy to have him. But I'm not gonna pretend like he was worth any more than Gio in a trade. Because he wasn't.

munchman33
03-17-2008, 06:25 PM
I'm interested in where you get those stats. Seems to me, guys like Thome are more likely to walk early in the game when the manager is going with his RH starter. Rather than walk Thome/Swisher late in the game, they'd bring in a loogie and take their chances.

Are you just making this stuff up based on your memory or is there an actual breakdown of when guys like Swisher and Thome walk most often?

Out of my ass. :D:

I feel confident in that range. I'd be surprised if it was any lower.

Thome is a different beast entirely. Because, when healthy, he can hit pitches out of the zone. From what I've seen of Swisher, he isn't that player.

BadBobbyJenks
03-17-2008, 06:59 PM
Sure, but unless you want to chart that up in terms of how Swisher's stats were compiled, you might as well just go with what is easily accessible.

There's no reason to assume Swisher's walks came in late innings at a higher rate than any other player's, so why not just concede he's a fine hitter since he gets on base and hits for power at a rate consistent with some of the better players in the game

I believe you're using faulty logic. You're asking me to negate the most obvious and frequent cause of walks for left-handed power hitters. I don't think you realize how significant this is. He's probably picking up anywhere from 20-50 meaningless walks that he wouldn't have had he been right-handed. And that's assuming he isn't being pitched around more than just late in games. If there's two outs and bases empty, no matter what inning, I'm probably not gonna let the lefty beat me when there's a righty on deck.


I checked out some split stats for Swisher. Last year he walked 100 times and 21 were of "Close and Late" 7th inning on in a game that is tied or the batting team at least has the tying run on deck. the whole situational stats are here: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=5937
36 were with nobody on and 1 or 2 outs. (didnt see a two out only one)
37 were with runners in scoring position.

munchman33
03-17-2008, 07:18 PM
I checked out some split stats for Swisher. Last year he walked 100 times and 21 were of "Close and Late" 7th inning on in a game that is tied or the batting team at least has the tying run on deck. the whole situational stats are here: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=5937
36 were with nobody on and 1 or 2 outs. (didnt see a two out only one)
37 were with runners in scoring position.

I'm not surprised by any of that.

Thanks for doing the research!

Tragg
03-17-2008, 07:50 PM
I know some people don't like the folksyness of it, but Hawk is right. Don't tell me what you hit - tell me when you hit it. a 2 out bases empty walk and a 2 out bases loaded single are of VERY different value. I think walking can be overrated. Ultimately, you need someone to drive in the runs. But the answer certainly isn't slapping and hacking. Also, yours is a stilted example. 2 out bases empty single and a 2 out bases loaded walk are completely different as well. Where a walk is absolutely equivalent to a single is when leading off an inning. And slappers don't have the ability to do much better than a single, so they need to walk...low opportunity cost; but they are thrown striks because the best they can do is single and it's hard to walk when you aren't thrown balls. Anyway you slice it, via average or walking, the slapper needs a .350 obp to not be a liability, and very few slappers can accomplish that.

munchman33
03-17-2008, 08:46 PM
I think walking can be overrated. Ultimately, you need someone to drive in the runs. But the answer certainly isn't slapping and hacking. Also, yours is a stilted example. 2 out bases empty single and a 2 out bases loaded walk are completely different as well. Where a walk is absolutely equivalent to a single is when leading off an inning. And slappers don't have the ability to do much better than a single, so they need to walk...low opportunity cost; but they are thrown striks because the best they can do is single and it's hard to walk when you aren't thrown balls. Anyway you slice it, via average or walking, the slapper needs a .350 obp to not be a liability, and very few slappers can accomplish that.

False. Have you forgotten 2005 already? Moving a runner over is pretty dang important.

Nobody out. Runner on second. Slap him over to third. Whereas a walk risks a double play.

fquaye149
03-17-2008, 09:20 PM
False. Have you forgotten 2005 already? Moving a runner over is pretty dang important.

Sure. Almost as important as having a ridiculously good pitching staff.

I think I would take Nick Swisher's bat over pretty much everyone but Dye and Konerko's bat on that 2005 team. But straw men are fun.


Nobody out. Runner on second. Slap him over to third. Whereas a walk risks a double play.

We're assuming people can just plain decide to get a hit.

We're talking about singles, which are usually line drives or ground balls. Those can easily find gloves. Walks very seldom find gloves. That "hit" could just as easily be played which would result in a runner on second with one out if the defense makes a nice play

FedEx227
03-17-2008, 10:26 PM
We're talking about singles, which are usually line drives or ground balls. Those can easily find gloves. Walks very seldom find gloves. That "hit" could just as easily be played which would result in a runner on second with one out if the defense makes a nice play

Exactly. People make it seem as if even when you put the bat on the ball you're immediately going to be rewarded with a hit, that's usually not the case.

And I just want to say my statements didn't mean to overvalue walks that much, I said they are similar, but I was talking situationally. Obviously runners on 2nd and 3rd in the 9th inning I'd probably rather take a hit, but people are on here acting like Swisher walking is a bad thing. It's not as if he's sitting there with the bat on his shoulder for the sole purpose of drawing a walk. If a walk comes, great... if you get a cookie, or a pitch you believe you can hit, great by all means do it.

But one thing Swisher does exceptionally well is not swing at too many bad pitches. He averaged 4.3 pitchers per plate appearance in 2007, on last year's Sox team the only two guys near that were Jim Thome (4.2) and Jermaine Dye (4.0), Fields (4.0) and was fourth in the AL in pitches seen.

kittle42
03-17-2008, 11:17 PM
A great manager once told me that walks clog up the bases.

munchman33
03-17-2008, 11:18 PM
We're assuming people can just plain decide to get a hit.

We're talking about singles, which are usually line drives or ground balls. Those can easily find gloves. Walks very seldom find gloves. That "hit" could just as easily be played which would result in a runner on second with one out if the defense makes a nice play

No, I'm talking about the ability to simply put the ball in a place to, at the very least, move the runner over.

Let's put it this way. Tied ballgame. Late. Runner on second, no outs. Would you rather have runners on first and second with no outs (which your walk causes) or a runner at third with one out (any ground ball to the right side)?

If you say the former, you should look at percentages of runners scoring in those situations.

Now, what I've been trying to say: Nick Swisher is the kind of guy that takes a walk in that situation. He doesn't extend his zone. He works within the strike zone. Partially because of a good eye, partially because he can't handle pitches outside of the zone. Like I said before, not a bad player. But let's not make him something he isn't. He's not a superstar.

voodoochile
03-17-2008, 11:38 PM
No, I'm talking about the ability to simply put the ball in a place to, at the very least, move the runner over.

Let's put it this way. Tied ballgame. Late. Runner on second, no outs. Would you rather have runners on first and second with no outs (which your walk causes) or a runner at third with one out (any ground ball to the right side)?

If you say the former, you should look at percentages of runners scoring in those situations.

Now, what I've been trying to say: Nick Swisher is the kind of guy that takes a walk in that situation. He doesn't extend his zone. He works within the strike zone. Partially because of a good eye, partially because he can't handle pitches outside of the zone. Like I said before, not a bad player. But let's not make him something he isn't. He's not a superstar.

Couldn't you then bunt the two runners over to put men on 2nd and third with one out and up your odds of scoring even more? If it's not the bottom of the ninth, why would you want to limit your output to one run?

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 08:03 AM
No, I'm talking about the ability to simply put the ball in a place to, at the very least, move the runner over.

Let's put it this way. Tied ballgame. Late. Runner on second, no outs. Would you rather have runners on first and second with no outs (which your walk causes) or a runner at third with one out (any ground ball to the right side)?

Even in this very specific and very rare situation, it's probably only slightly preferable to sacrifice the runner over than to walk. This is almost the ONLY situation imaginable where it's better to put the ball in play with an ~ 30% success rate than to take a walk at a 100% success rate


Now, what I've been trying to say: Nick Swisher is the kind of guy that takes a walk in that situation. He doesn't extend his zone. He works within the strike zone. Partially because of a good eye, partially because he can't handle pitches outside of the zone. Like I said before, not a bad player. But let's not make him something he isn't. He's not a superstar.And you're basing this on absolutely nothing.

By your logic, if a player makes a lot of outs they have BETTER bat control.

Ok...:rolleyes:

JohnTucker0814
03-18-2008, 08:13 AM
Now, what I've been trying to say: Nick Swisher is the kind of guy that takes a walk in that situation. He doesn't extend his zone. He works within the strike zone. Partially because of a good eye, partially because he can't handle pitches outside of the zone. Like I said before, not a bad player. But let's not make him something he isn't. He's not a superstar.

The quote above reminds me of another player that didn't work outside of the strike zone and he was considered a superstar and a great hitter... FRANK THOMAS!

Elephant
03-18-2008, 08:57 AM
No, I'm talking about the ability to simply put the ball in a place to, at the very least, move the runner over.

Let's put it this way. Tied ballgame. Late. Runner on second, no outs. Would you rather have runners on first and second with no outs (which your walk causes) or a runner at third with one out (any ground ball to the right side)?

If you say the former, you should look at percentages of runners scoring in those situations.

Now, what I've been trying to say: Nick Swisher is the kind of guy that takes a walk in that situation. He doesn't extend his zone. He works within the strike zone. Partially because of a good eye, partially because he can't handle pitches outside of the zone. Like I said before, not a bad player. But let's not make him something he isn't. He's not a superstar.

You're faulting a guy for having a good eye? :rolleyes:

Get real. Think of all the other times throughout the year when a less discriminating eye would hurt the team.

You'd rather have more of an aggressive hitter up there and by nature, that guy is much more prone to swing away and not make any contact...or swing at ball four and pop it up.

A walk is always as good as a hit, even if it doesn't always produce an immediate run. And pitchers like Papelbon don't walk people in crucial situations. If you manage to make a guy like that sweat, it's only a good thing. The next guy (who might be this hypothetical, free swinging, situational hitter you'd rather have) is immediately at a greater advantage than he would be otherwise.

It's beyond a proven fact that more pitches seen = better offensive team. But if you want, go ahead and latch on to one hypo scenario, but don't expect any of us to care about your analysis.

FedEx227
03-18-2008, 10:22 AM
A great manager once told me that walks clog up the bases.

http://fantasy411.mlblogs.com/photos/uncategorized/dusty.jpg
"Keep on swingin!"

kjhanson
03-18-2008, 11:26 AM
How come when our relievers walk somebody late in the game we're ready to send them down to AAA - and when Swisher walks late in the game it's because the pitcher is being smart and working around him?

If a pitcher throws four pitches out of the strike zone, do you expect Swisher to swing at one of them to please somebody on WSI? I'd rather have the walk and let Fields or Crede try to knock in the runs with an extra man on base.

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 11:35 AM
How come when our relievers walk somebody late in the game we're ready to send them down to AAA - and when Swisher walks late in the game it's because the pitcher is being smart and working around him?

If a pitcher throws four pitches out of the strike zone, do you expect Swisher to swing at one of them to please somebody on WSI? I'd rather have the walk and let Fields or Crede try to knock in the runs with an extra man on base.

Rational argumentation is not something that interests those who espouse BA as the ultimate measure of a hitter.

"it's just common sense that BA is the best measure of a hitter because it's your job as a hitter" is a much preferred form of argumentation

That said, I think BA's an important component of measuring a hitter, but to say Swisher's a .261 hitter with no regard for his .380 OBP is just ridiculous

eriqjaffe
03-18-2008, 12:09 PM
If a pitcher throws four pitches out of the strike zone, do you expect Swisher to swing at one of them to please somebody on WSI?Well, he is supposed to be quite the crowd-pleaser...

jabrch
03-18-2008, 12:42 PM
How come when our relievers walk somebody late in the game we're ready to send them down to AAA - and when Swisher walks late in the game it's because the pitcher is being smart and working around him?

If a pitcher throws four pitches out of the strike zone, do you expect Swisher to swing at one of them to please somebody on WSI? I'd rather have the walk and let Fields or Crede try to knock in the runs with an extra man on base.

You can't make a generalization either way. It is dependent on the situation. There are times when the right thing to do is to swing at a hittable pitch that is on the margins of the strike zone. There are times when the right thing to do is to take that pitch. Trying to boil it down to a number and use that number to categorically evaluate good and bad leaves you making a very broad based statement that can easily be refuted by looking at the details that underly the data used to make the assumptions.

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 01:40 PM
You can't make a generalization either way. It is dependent on the situation. There are times when the right thing to do is to swing at a hittable pitch that is on the margins of the strike zone. There are times when the right thing to do is to take that pitch. Trying to boil it down to a number and use that number to categorically evaluate good and bad leaves you making a very broad based statement that can easily be refuted by looking at the details that underly the data used to make the assumptions.

Yeah stats of all kinds stink.

It's a good thing baseball fans traditionally don't care about stats.

Numbers like 755, 61, 300, .400, .367 and so forth don't matter at all to REAL fans because they know that all those numbers were put up in situations that you HAD TO BE THERE to understand.

You can't say that Hank Aaron's a better home run hitter than, say, Stan Musial, because maybe a bunch of Aaron's home runs came at meaningless points of the game. Trying to boil ability to hit home runs down to a number and using that number to make a broad statement about who was the better HR hitter, Musial or Aaron, leaves you making a very broad based statement that can easily be refuted by looking at the details that underly the HR data used to make that assumption.

The only way to generally evaluate players is by badass-ness of goatee, how hard he runs out ground balls to SS, and size of heart.

Hank Aaron didn't have a goatee. Neither did Musial. That already puts them both a step behind, say, Aaron Rowand.

Look: I know this goes against every last stat-hating bone in your body, but here's the bottom line:

Walks are always a good result of an at-bat

Usually base hits are better, but a single is only better than a walk with runners on base, and even then only marginally better than a walk.

Furthermore, most singles put the result of the play in the hands of the fielders, whereas walks don't rely on that variable. Therefore a guy who can walk a lot can be relied upon to get on base more readily than a slap hitter can be relied upon to "hit it where they ain't".

If you are unwilling to admit that, fine, but realize that basically everyone involved at baseball at pretty much every level has come to terms with the fact that a walk is MORE OR LESS as good as a hit

spiffie
03-18-2008, 01:59 PM
Yeah stats of all kinds stink.

It's a good thing baseball fans traditionally don't care about stats.

Numbers like 755, 61, 300, .400, .367 and so forth don't matter at all to REAL fans because they know that all those numbers were put up in situations that you HAD TO BE THERE to understand.

You can't say that Hank Aaron's a better home run hitter than, say, Stan Musial, because maybe a bunch of Aaron's home runs came at meaningless points of the game. Trying to boil ability to hit home runs down to a number and using that number to make a broad statement about who was the better HR hitter, Musial or Aaron, leaves you making a very broad based statement that can easily be refuted by looking at the details that underly the HR data used to make that assumption.

The only way to generally evaluate players is by badass-ness of goatee, how hard he runs out ground balls to SS, and size of heart.

Hank Aaron didn't have a goatee. Neither did Musial. That already puts them both a step behind, say, Aaron Rowand.

Look: I know this goes against every last stat-hating bone in your body, but here's the bottom line:

Walks are always a good result of an at-bat

Usually base hits are better, but a single is only better than a walk with runners on base, and even then only marginally better than a walk.

Furthermore, most singles put the result of the play in the hands of the fielders, whereas walks don't rely on that variable. Therefore a guy who can walk a lot can be relied upon to get on base more readily than a slap hitter can be relied upon to "hit it where they ain't".

If you are unwilling to admit that, fine, but realize that basically everyone involved at baseball at pretty much every level has come to terms with the fact that a walk is MORE OR LESS as good as a hit
Somewhere Shoota is nodding his head in agreement at all of this. He was ahead of the curve in deciding which stats really count and which ones do not. :D:

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 02:02 PM
The great irony of it all is that if Shoota were still around he'd probably be one of the ones screaming that replacing Crede with Fields is a monumentally stupid decision

munchman33
03-18-2008, 05:33 PM
The quote above reminds me of another player that didn't work outside of the strike zone and he was considered a superstar and a great hitter... FRANK THOMAS!

When Frank was great, he poked pitches six inches outside into right field for singles.

munchman33
03-18-2008, 05:34 PM
Couldn't you then bunt the two runners over to put men on 2nd and third with one out and up your odds of scoring even more? If it's not the bottom of the ninth, why would you want to limit your output to one run?

You could. But a bad bunt leads to a double play, or the lead runner out.

munchman33
03-18-2008, 05:38 PM
Even in this very specific and very rare situation, it's probably only slightly preferable to sacrifice the runner over than to walk. This is almost the ONLY situation imaginable where it's better to put the ball in play with an ~ 30% success rate than to take a walk at a 100% success rate

And you're basing this on absolutely nothing.

By your logic, if a player makes a lot of outs they have BETTER bat control.

Ok...:rolleyes:

I disagree with that first part, and for two reasons.

One, you should always maximize your chance to score a run. More innings end without a run being scored than innings that have runs. Scoring a run isn't that easy. Maximize your opportunity.

Two, a ground ball to the right side does not mean an automatic out. It just means the worst case scenerio is runner on third, one out.

As for the last part you wrote, I don't remember coming to that conclusion.

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 05:41 PM
When Frank was great, he poked pitches six inches outside into right field for singles.

This is the most ridiculous claim I've seen in a long time.

When Frank was at his best (1991-1997) he would have nearly as many extra base hits as singles, and most of his singles were rifled. He would also walk more than 100 times in a season.

It was excellent that he would hit in the low to mid .300's, but it was even better that nearly half of those hits were XBH and it was even BETTER that his OBP's were consistently in the low to mid .400's.

Poke hits? GMAMFB. Frank rarely swung outside the strike zone and that is precisely what made him one of the best RH hitters since Jimmy Foxx and the best hitter since Ted Williams (also an incredible walker)

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 05:43 PM
I disagree with that first part, and for two reasons.

One, you should always maximize your chance to score a run. More innings end without a run being scored than innings that have runs. Scoring a run isn't that easy. Maximize your opportunity.

If you want to look at #'s more runs score when more runners are on base


Two, a ground ball to the right side does not mean an automatic out. It just means the worst case scenerio is runner on third, one out.No, it would, I would guess, mean an out about 70% of the time though. Best case scenario is a single about 30% of the time. Worst case scenario is a double play. Most likely scenario is one MORE out and one LESS baserunner, albeit 90 feet closer to home plate.

Here is some statistical information as it pertains to college ball: http://books.google.com/books?id=1s7TpKpGWPMC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=what+percentage+of+base+hits+are+ground+balls&source=web&ots=KGefv0UkhS&sig=ySUOhfICuR5FGvv2itdATKUQQs0&hl=en

nb: that 3 out of 10 number is skewed against this situation for 2 reasons

1.) metal bats lead to more ground ball base hits
2.) in an "advance the runner" situation, you are going to have less of a chance of driving ground balls through the hole since opposite field ground balls are generally not as hard-hit as pull ground balls.


As for the last part you wrote, I don't remember coming to that conclusion.Well read your post again, because that's the position you're espousing.

kittle42
03-18-2008, 05:45 PM
Poke hits? GMAMFB. Frank rarely swung outside the strike zone and that is precisely what made him one of the best RH hitters since Jimmy Foxx and the best hitter since Ted Williams (also an incredible walker)

Amen.

It just dawned on me that people in this thread are basically arguing for the worthlessness of walks. I am ashamed to be a Sox fan!

ilsox7
03-18-2008, 06:00 PM
Amen.

It just dawned on me that people in this thread are basically arguing for the worthlessness of walks. I am ashamed to be a Sox fan!

I'll lay it out plain and simple: a walk is worthless b/c it only gets you 90 feet. Singles, though, often lead to about 100 feet, as most singles are out of the infield and involve the "rounding" of 1st base.

kittle42
03-18-2008, 06:03 PM
I'll lay it out plain and simple: a walk is worthless b/c it only gets you 90 feet. Singles, though, often lead to about 100 feet, as most singles are out of the infield and involve the "rounding" of 1st base.

It is all clear to me now! Does this also make a double more valuable than a ground-rule double? :cool:

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 06:04 PM
grinderball leaves no room for "walking"

Now, if you were to HUSTLE on your base-on-balls like Pete Rose used to....

ilsox7
03-18-2008, 06:11 PM
It is all clear to me now! Does this also make a double more valuable than a ground-rule double? :cool:

The most valuable doubles are those when the runner gets thrown out trying to stretch it into a triple. I mean, the dude ran 270 feet, not some paltry 180.

munchman33
03-18-2008, 06:20 PM
This is the most ridiculous claim I've seen in a long time.

When Frank was at his best (1991-1997) he would have nearly as many extra base hits as singles, and most of his singles were rifled. He would also walk more than 100 times in a season.

It was excellent that he would hit in the low to mid .300's, but it was even better that nearly half of those hits were XBH and it was even BETTER that his OBP's were consistently in the low to mid .400's.

Poke hits? GMAMFB. Frank rarely swung outside the strike zone and that is precisely what made him one of the best RH hitters since Jimmy Foxx and the best hitter since Ted Williams (also an incredible walker)

Part of the reason Frank was such a great hitter was because the inside pitch was never called on him. So he extended his arms into the zone. It also meant that he could reach out and poke pitches away when he wanted/needed to. This isn't meant as an attack on Frank. It's a testimant to his ability. Because Frank meant to do this, when he knew pitchers where pitching him away to try and produce a ground ball. Frank was such a great hitter, he could line those pitches to right. I said poke, because in essence he was trying to do that. But even with a half swing, it was quite the shot off of Frank's bat.

munchman33
03-18-2008, 06:23 PM
How come when our relievers walk somebody late in the game we're ready to send them down to AAA - and when Swisher walks late in the game it's because the pitcher is being smart and working around him?


Did you bother to look at those stats earlier? Swisher is getting walks in those close and late situations with runners on. Instead of driving guys in. Why count that as anything but playing into the pitcher's hands? :dunno:

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 06:26 PM
Part of the reason Frank was such a great hitter was because the inside pitch was never called on him. So he extended his arms into the zone. It also meant that he could reach out and poke pitches away when he wanted/needed to. This isn't meant as an attack on Frank. It's a testimant to his ability. Because Frank meant to do this, when he knew pitchers where pitching him away to try and produce a ground ball. Frank was such a great hitter, he could line those pitches to right. I said poke, because in essence he was trying to do that. But even with a half swing, it was quite the shot off of Frank's bat.

Frank had power to all fields. The fact that he could smash pitches on the outside part of the plate didn't mean that he was the kind of hitter who would chase pitches out of the zone

munchman33
03-18-2008, 06:26 PM
If you want to look at #'s more runs score when more runners are on base

No, it would, I would guess, mean an out about 70% of the time though. Best case scenario is a single about 30% of the time. Worst case scenario is a double play. Most likely scenario is one MORE out and one LESS baserunner, albeit 90 feet closer to home plate.

Here is some statistical information as it pertains to college ball: http://books.google.com/books?id=1s7TpKpGWPMC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=what+percentage+of+base+hits+are+ground+balls&source=web&ots=KGefv0UkhS&sig=ySUOhfICuR5FGvv2itdATKUQQs0&hl=en

nb: that 3 out of 10 number is skewed against this situation for 2 reasons

1.) metal bats lead to more ground ball base hits
2.) in an "advance the runner" situation, you are going to have less of a chance of driving ground balls through the hole since opposite field ground balls are generally not as hard-hit as pull ground balls.

Well read your post again, because that's the position you're espousing.

You are also operating under the premise that a walk is 100% efficient, when a hitter like Swisher, who intends to walk in these situations, does not always. He could strike out. Trying to walk is a risky proposition as well. I'd take my chances trying to get the runner to third. That double play proposition ends the rally.

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 06:27 PM
Did you bother to look at those stats earlier? Swisher is getting walks in those close and late situations with runners on. Instead of driving guys in. Why count that as anything but playing into the pitcher's hands? :dunno:

:rolleyes:

He's getting walks at a rate consistent with his overall OBP according to those stats

FarWestChicago
03-18-2008, 06:27 PM
Somewhere Shoota is nodding his head in agreement at all of this. He was ahead of the curve in deciding which stats really count and which ones do not. :D:What a great observation. Munch has become something like shoota's cousin. Crede made shoota lose his mind. DLS has sent munch off the deep end. There is nothing Swisher, or the rest of the Sox for that matter, could ever do that wouldn't suck in munch's world. This really is up there with shoota level entertainment. Kudo's to you for making the connection! :thumbsup:

munchman33
03-18-2008, 06:28 PM
Frank had power to all fields. The fact that he could smash pitches on the outside part of the plate didn't mean that he was the kind of hitter who would chase pitches out of the zone

He did reach outside of the zone though. You just don't realize because:

1. He had no inside strike
2. He still got hits there

This became a lot more obvious once the inside strike started to get called on him.

munchman33
03-18-2008, 06:35 PM
:rolleyes:

He's getting walks at a rate consistent with his overall OBP according to those stats

My argument is you don't want a guy walking in those situations. They are harmful. You are maximizing the pitcher's opportunity to end a rally.

He's also walking a lot with two outs and no one on. I'm sure you'll say he earned that walk too. :rolleyes:

Swisher's a good player, but he isn't the guy you're all making him out to be. For a guy that got on base as much as he did, he sure didn't score that many runs in comparison (only 84 times, about average for a guy with his plate appearances). But that's because of the A's lineup, not because a lot of his walks were meaningless.

munchman33
03-18-2008, 06:38 PM
What a great observation. Munch has become something like shoota's cousin. Crede made shoota lose his mind. DLS has sent munch off the deep end. There is nothing Swisher, or the rest of the Sox for that matter, could ever do that wouldn't suck in munch's world. This really is up there with shoota level entertainment. Kudo's to you for making the connection! :thumbsup:

I don't think Swisher sucks. I just don't think he's a superstar. Or a centerfielder. Or appreciably better than Carlos Quentin, who he is displacing.

And watch it West. DLS can hear you. :cool:

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 06:45 PM
My argument is you don't want a guy walking in those situations. They are harmful. You are maximizing the pitcher's opportunity to end a rally.

He's also walking a lot with two outs and no one on. I'm sure you'll say he earned that walk too. :rolleyes:

Swisher's a good player, but he isn't the guy you're all making him out to be. For a guy that got on base as much as he did, he sure didn't score that many runs in comparison (only 84 times, about average for a guy with his plate appearances). But that's because of the A's lineup, not because a lot of his walks were meaningless.

I'd rather have a guy walking than making outs.

There are like 30 possible things that can happen in terms of the outcome your at-bat. Of them only

HR, 3B, 2B, 1B, BB, E, SAC, and HBP are positive things.

If you can find me a guy who gets a hit every time up in a close-and-late situation, fine.

You're talking about a guy who walks 37 % of the time close-and-late plus whatever hits he gets?

That means at least 40% of the time the guy is doing something positive in late game situations and you're trying to twist that into a bad thing?

You need to get a ****ing grip and check reality

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 06:46 PM
He did reach outside of the zone though. You just don't realize because:

1. He had no inside strike
2. He still got hits there

This became a lot more obvious once the inside strike started to get called on him.

I just don't realize this because it's not ****ing true

kittle42
03-18-2008, 06:46 PM
My argument is you don't want a guy walking in those situations. They are harmful. You are maximizing the pitcher's opportunity to end a rally.

You also maximize the pitcher's chances at ending a rally by swinging at sucks pitches outside the zone. Oh, unless you're Frank Thomas.

I don't think Swisher sucks. I just don't think he's a superstar. Or a centerfielder. Or appreciably better than Carlos Quentin, who he is displacing.

Not appreciably better than pretty much completely unknown commodity Carlos Quentin? You should stop basing everything you know about baseball on minor league stats.

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 06:46 PM
I don't think Swisher sucks. I just don't think he's a superstar. Or a centerfielder. Or appreciably better than Carlos Quentin, who he is displacing.

And watch it West. DLS can hear you. :cool:

:rolling:

:rolling:

:rolling:

:rolling:

This is perhaps one of the top 10 stupidest things I've seen in a long long long long time

santo=dorf
03-18-2008, 06:57 PM
It is all clear to me now! Does this also make a double more valuable than a ground-rule double? :cool:
Ground rule doubles often screw teams out of a run, so yes.
My argument is you don't want a guy walking in those situations. They are harmful. You are maximizing the pitcher's opportunity to end a rally.
A walk continues the inning adding more pressure on the pitcher.

He's also walking a lot with two outs and no one on. I'm sure you'll say he earned that walk too. :rolleyes:
He worked the count, didn't he? It's better than swinging at the first two garbage pitches and being down 0-2

Swisher's a good player, but he isn't the guy you're all making him out to be. For a guy that got on base as much as he did, he sure didn't score that many runs in comparison (only 84 times, about average for a guy with his plate appearances). But that's because of the A's lineup, not because a lot of his walks were meaningless.
It's based on the rest of the lineup and the spot in the order. If you're hitting third, you're not going to score a great deal of runs unless you hit a lot of homers. In 2005.... Carl Everett scored 37 runs in about 350 PA's in the #3 spot.


Of course I'm arguing with someone who thinks a triple is better than a home run. :scratch:

Daver
03-18-2008, 07:06 PM
Hey munch, can you write down directions on how to get to your little world, so I can steer quite clear of it?

munchman33
03-18-2008, 07:08 PM
:rolling:

:rolling:

:rolling:

:rolling:

This is perhaps one of the top 10 stupidest things I've seen in a long long long long time

Quentin can't hit .260 with 20 homers and walk alot? I happen to think he'll do better than that, given the chance. And I don't think I'm alone in that assessment.

munchman33
03-18-2008, 07:14 PM
You also maximize the pitcher's chances at ending a rally by swinging at sucks pitches outside the zone. Oh, unless you're Frank Thomas.



Not appreciably better than pretty much completely unknown commodity Carlos Quentin? You should stop basing everything you know about baseball on minor league stats.

Are you maximizing the pitcher's chance at ending the inning? It's all situational. Sometimes you want to ground the ball, or hit it in a certain place. Baseball is far more than just numbers. And the most misunderstood figure is walks.

I've seen Quentin hit in person. Not this year, but I have no doubts about him. If you want to say maybe not because of injury, okay. But he's got a better swing than Swisher does.

munchman33
03-18-2008, 07:17 PM
In 2005.... Carl Everett scored 37 runs in about 350 PA's in the #3 spot.



I don't ever remember arguing that Carl was a good player. But if you want to talk about 2005, we can talk about manufacturing runs and moving guys over and scoring few runs but situational runs and bad OBP from most of the lineup and how that led to a championship.

But that's okay. I don't completely buy it either. You need both.

munchman33
03-18-2008, 07:19 PM
I just don't realize this because it's not ****ing true

Hawk used to mention this like every other game...

Daver
03-18-2008, 07:26 PM
Hawk used to mention this like every other game...

Now there is a reliable scouting source for you!


Ken Harrelson can't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight.

munchman33
03-18-2008, 07:34 PM
Now there is a reliable scouting source for you!


Ken Harrelson can't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Oh come on. Daver I'm usually pretty okay with most of what you say, but surely you're not arguing the baseball prowess of Hawk Harrelson? He might be a homer, but the man forgot more about baseball than anybody on this board knows.

edit: Unless DLS lurks here.

wsgdf
03-18-2008, 07:40 PM
My argument is you don't want a guy walking in those situations. They are harmful. You are maximizing the pitcher's opportunity to end a rally.


Dusty... is that you?

munchman33
03-18-2008, 07:42 PM
My argument is you don't want a guy walking in those situations. They are harmful. You are maximizing the pitcher's opportunity to end a rally.


Dusty... is that you?


I'm not saying walks are bad. I'm saying that they're a situational statistic, and taking them as a total is taking them out of context. Guys that walk are great. Guys that know when to walk are MUCH better.

Daver
03-18-2008, 07:46 PM
Oh come on. Daver I'm usually pretty okay with most of what you say, but surely you're not arguing the baseball prowess of Hawk Harrelson? He might be a homer, but the man forgot more about baseball than anybody on this board knows.


He certainly proved that in his brief stint as general manager, he did an excellent job of setting the organization back five years.

Give it up, really, you're digging your hole mighty deep.

wsgdf
03-18-2008, 07:47 PM
Guys that walk are great. Guys that know when to walk are MUCH better.

:whiner:

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 07:51 PM
Quentin can't hit .260 with 20 homers and walk alot? I happen to think he'll do better than that, given the chance. And I don't think I'm alone in that assessment.

He can probably hit .260. I doubt he'll hit 30+ HR, and I doubt he'll put up anything resembling a .380 OBP. There's certainly no reason in hell to expect that he will

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 07:52 PM
Hawk used to mention this like every other game...


:rolling:

:rolling:

:rolling:

You keep outdoing yourself in this thread

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 07:54 PM
I'm not saying walks are bad. I'm saying that they're a situational statistic, and taking them as a total is taking them out of context. Guys that walk are great. Guys that know when to walk are MUCH better.

You're saying the most obvious thing in the world

"I'd rather have a guy drive in a run than walk"

No ****, sherlock. However, just because a walk isn't the #1 desired outcome of an atbat, doesn't mean anything about OBP vs. BA

munchman33
03-18-2008, 08:29 PM
You're saying the most obvious thing in the world

"I'd rather have a guy drive in a run than walk"

No ****, sherlock. However, just because a walk isn't the #1 desired outcome of an atbat, doesn't mean anything about OBP vs. BA

We're talking in circles here.

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 10:23 PM
We're talking in circles here.

No, that would be you