PDA

View Full Version : Juan Uribe's OBP will be .265 if he starts 140+ games this season


Lukin13
04-11-2008, 10:37 PM
the title says it all....

His at-bats are worse than ever.

I am predicting an unprecedented new low OBP for an everday player.



You gotta love the arm he brings to second base;

You gotta love the extra pop you get out of your second baseman with Juan;

But Juan has gotta go.

Thanks for the most memorable catch in White Sox history, but good riddance.

WhiteSox5187
04-11-2008, 10:40 PM
While I agree that Juan is not a very good ball player, you can't go off of these predictions so early in the season. I mean right now Quentin is on pace to hit 164 RBIs and I think I read on here earlier that the Tigers are on pace to go 18-144. Though that might have changed after tonight.

oeo
04-11-2008, 10:42 PM
I'm much more pissed off with the production (or lack thereof) that we're getting from our #3 and #4 hitters.

Uribe is our best option at 2B right now, so what are we going to do?

WhiteSox5187
04-11-2008, 10:43 PM
I'm much more pissed off with the production (or lack thereof) that we're getting from our #3 and #4 hitters.

Uribe is our best option at 2B right now, so what are we going to do?
I agree, for some reason Juan's lack of production isn't bothering me that much right now.

voodoochile
04-11-2008, 10:48 PM
Yeah, need Paulie, Thome and Dye to start driving men in. Dye and Thome left 8 men on tonight. This game could have been a lot different if they put some wood on the ball in key situations.

That's far more important than Uribe, but eventually Richar will be healthy and will be playing 2B for the Sox and of course they can always give Ramirez a shot, though I am more hoping he gets sent down and gets the chance to work things out.

Uribe is a stop gap the only reason he's still here is because Richar got hurt and he's the best everyday option the Sox currently have.

oeo
04-11-2008, 10:51 PM
Yeah, need Paulie, Thome and Dye to start driving men in. Dye and Thome left 8 men on tonight. This game could have been a lot different if they put some wood on the ball in key situations.

With the exception of tonight, Dye has been great...one of our hottest hitters. It's the other two. Although, he did piss me off trying to stretch that single into a double in the 8th...that's stupid 2007 baseball.

Paulie swings at the first pitch after Swisher just had a lengthy AB against Bautista in the 8th...way to go Paularino.

I wish we had 9 Swishers in our lineup; I love that guy. He knows when to take his hacks, and when he should be patient.

Lukin13
04-11-2008, 10:52 PM
I'm much more pissed off with the production (or lack thereof) that we're getting from our #3 and #4 hitters.




I hear ya but just because Paulie and JD don't hit until the temp reaches 75 degrees, doesn't give Juan a free pass.

My main problem with Juan is his approach... it is obvious that he will NEVER have what it takes to be a productive offensive player. Struggling at the plate is one thing, struggling to mentally have even a remotely effective approach at the plate is another.

WhiteSox5187
04-11-2008, 10:58 PM
With the exception of tonight, Dye has been great...one of our hottest hitters. It's the other two. Although, he did piss me off trying to stretch that single into a double in the 8th...that's stupid 2007 baseball.

Paulie swings at the first pitch after Swisher just had a lengthy AB against Bautista in the 8th...way to go Paularino.

I wish we had 9 Swishers in our lineup; I love that guy. He knows when to take his hacks, and when he should be patient.
A team full of .265 hitters? No thank you. Paulie is a good hitter and usually knows when to swing (he JUST missed that pitch) but he's inconsistency IS maddening.

jabrch
04-11-2008, 10:59 PM
Leave it to some people to bitch about our 8 hitter when our 3 and 4 hitters are hitting .156 and .214.

WhiteSox5187
04-11-2008, 11:01 PM
Leave it to some people to bitch about our 8 hitter when our 3 and 4 hitters are hitting .156 and .214.
Yea but Paulie and Thome have a nice track record at least, Juan does not and seems to be getting worse with every passing year.

voodoochile
04-11-2008, 11:02 PM
With the exception of tonight, Dye has been great...one of our hottest hitters. It's the other two. Although, he did piss me off trying to stretch that single into a double in the 8th...that's stupid 2007 baseball.

Paulie swings at the first pitch after Swisher just had a lengthy AB against Bautista in the 8th...way to go Paularino.

I wish we had 9 Swishers in our lineup; I love that guy. He knows when to take his hacks, and when he should be patient.

Dye did the same thing with a 2-0 count and the bases loaded in the 5th I think. Grilli is struggling, Thome has just been thrown out, Paulie walks on 5 pitches and the first two pitches to Dye are balls... WHY do you swing at the next pitch?

WhiteSox5187
04-11-2008, 11:05 PM
Dye did the same thing with a 2-0 count and the bases loaded in the 5th I think. Grilli is struggling, Thome has just been thrown out, Paulie walks on 5 pitches and the first two pitches to Dye are balls... WHY do you swing at the next pitch?
I was thinking that too, but 2-0 is a hitter's count and he has been one of our best hitters of late. I don't remember if that was a fastball, but I'm thinking JD thought "He's gotta lay it in there now..." and tried to hit the hell out of it.

EndemicSox
04-11-2008, 11:49 PM
As old as it gets, bitching about Ozzie trotting out one of the worst, if not the worst "hitter" in MLB will always be fun, in a twisted way, of course. We all know the boppers in the middle of the lineup will at least produce at an acceptable level for a MLB player, Juan Uribe, on the other hand, simply doesn't belong on a MLB roster, imo. If there isn't a better option in the organization, as sad as that would be, Kenny should be on the phone trying to find one as I type this.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/u/uribeju01.shtml

Heck, go sign the 2nd baseman playing for St. Paul...an OBP under .300 just shouldn't be tolerated. I gave up trying to see what they see in Juan long ago, he must be a really nice guy.

fram40
04-12-2008, 08:45 AM
Uribe Haters!!

You don't realize how good this kid can be!

Madvora
04-12-2008, 09:02 AM
Uribe has gotten by somewhat unnoticed while the rest of the team was hitting the hell out of the ball, but after a loss, he really stands out. Konerko and Thome definitely need to get their **** together though.
As for Dye, he's hitting .382 with a .432 OBP right now. I think we can find bigger problems with this team.

fquaye149
04-12-2008, 09:04 AM
While I agree that Juan is not a very good ball player, you can't go off of these predictions so early in the season. I mean right now Quentin is on pace to hit 164 RBIs and I think I read on here earlier that the Tigers are on pace to go 18-144. Though that might have changed after tonight.

Normally that would be true, that it's too early, but at the same time, Uribe has been awful since 2004, and even an all-time worst season wouldn't be too too far off his career

santo=dorf
04-12-2008, 09:19 AM
Uribe is our best option at 2B right now, so what are we going to do?
Hold management accountable for this situation? :tongue:

if Uribe puts up a .265 OBP this year, it wouldn't even be a career low.

cheezheadsoxfan
04-12-2008, 09:24 AM
I agree, for some reason Juan's lack of production isn't bothering me that much right now.

For some reason I'm the same way and I've bitched about Uribe constantly. Maybe because he's looked so great working with Cabrera he's easier to take so far. We need the rest of the lineup to get going (Paulie, Jim) before we worry about Juan.

slowlearner
04-12-2008, 09:41 AM
I agree, for some reason Juan's lack of production isn't bothering me that much right now.

Agreed. I imagine it's just because I expected so little of him this year. I don't know if he's the worst offensive 2B in the AL, but I'll bet he's in the discussion. Granted, his HR numbers are nice from a middle infielder, but everything else pretty much sucks and the homers don't nearly make up for it.

Lukin13
04-12-2008, 10:02 AM
Agreed. I imagine it's just because I expected so little of him this year. I don't know if he's the worst offensive 2B in the AL, but I'll bet he's in the discussion. Granted, his HR numbers are nice from a middle infielder, but everything else pretty much sucks and the homers don't nearly make up for it.


I don't really get you guys....

You are more upset with guys that are struggling that have a proven track record (that also have a track record of not hitting in the cold, early in the year).

But you are willing to let slide: A guy who has a track record for being THE WORST ALL AROUND OFFENSIVE EVERYDAY PLAYER IN BASEBALL... and once again is back to his same approach.

slowlearner
04-12-2008, 10:16 AM
I don't really get you guys....

You are more upset with guys that are struggling that have a proven track record (that also have a track record of not hitting in the cold, early in the year).

But you are willing to let slide: A guy who has a track record for being THE WORST ALL AROUND OFFENSIVE EVERYDAY PLAYER IN BASEBALL... and once again is back to his same approach.

Not willing to let anything slide. I expect Juan Uribe to OBP well under .300 and swing at anything within ten feet of the plate. That's what Juan has done for the last 2 years or so. He's not going to change. You can't "fix" Juan Uribe, you can only replace him.

The middle of the order will (probably) get their numbers sooner or later. I'm not really that frustrated yet. I just hope they start hitting before it's too late. Paulie's gotten himself into some pretty terrible 1st half slumps in the past, I just hope that's not what we're seeing the beginning of.

soxfanreggie
04-12-2008, 10:29 AM
Keeping Juan in the line-up takes away a position that is prime to fill with a lead-off hitter or someone to hit in the 2-hole. Even if not, it is someone who will most likely give you more quality at-bats than Uribe. Uribe is like a player I currently coach, as in he can give you a great quality game at the plate with 3 hits in 4 at-bats, 2 of them being homers. He can also make a couple spectacular games in the field. However, over the next 9 games, maybe only gets a handful of hits and makes some real questionable defensive plays.

With the money we have invested in him, I wouldn't mind dumping him once we get someone else who can play 2B...Richar?...as Uribe most likely won't be back next year. His money comes off the books, and maybe we can make a run at someone like Brian Roberts.

I think most of the money we get from Thome (assuming we pay the $3M buyout, whether or not we try and re-sign him) coming off the books will go to starting pitching, but we could use some of the money, if we don't re-sign Crede, to combine with the Uribe money and pay Roberts.

I'm not saying Roberts is the solution, but he is a definite upgrade over Uribe and anyone else we currently have.

jabrch
04-12-2008, 11:46 AM
Keeping Juan in the line-up takes away a position that is prime to fill with a lead-off hitter or someone to hit in the 2-hole.

Like who? The intention was to give the job to Richar, but between getting in late, and being hurt, that wasn't an option. Ramirez didn't look like a suitable option defensively. If we had Brian Roberts, he'd be playing every day and Uribe would be gone.

WhiteSox5187
04-12-2008, 02:42 PM
Like who? The intention was to give the job to Richar, but between getting in late, and being hurt, that wasn't an option. Ramirez didn't look like a suitable option defensively. If we had Brian Roberts, he'd be playing every day and Uribe would be gone.
Agreed, if we were able to land a guy like Roberts Uribe and Richar would probably be out the door. Although I don't think we're going to land a guy like Roberts.

Tragg
04-12-2008, 02:54 PM
Leave it to some people to bitch about our 8 hitter when our 3 and 4 hitters are hitting .156 and .214.
That's because Uribe, in contrast to those hitters, has proven to be a poor hitter throughout his career. His O is okay for SS, but well below par for a 2B. We have a chance to contend, so there's no need or reason to tolerate such a weakness which is easy to shore up. We had a far superior 2B last year - he had, and I quote: "no value"; if a superior 2B has no value, it shouldn't be a problem to upgrade there. What value Uribe has is at SS, not 2B.

Hopefully, Richar will get back soon.

balke
04-12-2008, 02:58 PM
You guys really need to get over complaining about the guy. The lineup is going to be fine as far as run production goes. There's already been many key double plays Uribe has turned that have prevented big innings from starting up.

Great defense in the infield is worth so much more overall to this team right now than one player being able to hit bettter.

HomeFish
04-12-2008, 03:06 PM
Send Alexei Ramirez to AAA where he belongs, let him learn how to hit American pitching, and that will be the end of our 2B woes.

JorgeFabregas
04-13-2008, 12:41 PM
For what it's worth, Uribe leads all second basemen with an outrageous 8.19 range factor.

balke
04-13-2008, 12:46 PM
For what it's worth, Uribe leads all second basemen with an outrageous 8.19 range factor.

Its worth a lot. Sox look offensively strong. Its worth more to keep 2B as strong as possible defensively to protect the Sox from being scored on, and to get pitchers out of jams.

TomBradley72
04-13-2008, 01:10 PM
Its worth a lot. Sox look offensively strong. Its worth more to keep 2B as strong as possible defensively to protect the Sox from being scored on, and to get pitchers out of jams.

Agreed.

We're #2 in the AL in OBP so I don't know it that's really an area to focus on with this team, we're also #2 in double plays turned and #3 in team defense and Uribe is a big contributor to that. Uribe is a streaky hitter....but the double plays they are turning are having a HUGE benefit for the pitching staff and are a big reason we're 6-4 instead of 4-6.

Uribe is flawed player....but I'll take the defense, range, pennant race/post season experience and the unique arm strength he brings to 2B over a more typical 2B who gets on base a little bit more. Richar hit .230 (w/.290 OBP) in extended time last season...so I'm not sure about the logic that says he would be the answer.

Uribe is also our best insurance if Cabrera gets injured. Does anyone want to see Ramirez as our everyday SS if Cabrera gets injured? Maybe down the road, but he's not ready for that role right now. There's no help available anywhere in the farm system.

TomBradley72
04-13-2008, 01:16 PM
Like who? The intention was to give the job to Richar, but between getting in late, and being hurt, that wasn't an option. Ramirez didn't look like a suitable option defensively. If we had Brian Roberts, he'd be playing every day and Uribe would be gone.

I like Richar's potential...but I'm not ready to hand him the starting 2B role when he's healthy. A .230 average over almost 200 ABs last year is not enough for me to say he's the guy. I could see him in a platoon with Uribe...Richar hit .205 against lefties last year....so I would only want him in there against RH starters.

santo=dorf
04-13-2008, 01:29 PM
You guys really need to get over complaining about the guy. The lineup is going to be fine as far as run production goes. There's already been many key double plays Uribe has turned that have prevented big innings from starting up.

Great defense in the infield is worth so much more overall to this team right now than one player being able to hit bettter.
Wow, this sounds like the exact same things people were saying about Brian Anderson before, during and after 2006.

"Great defense up the middle."
"Doesn't matter what he hits because lower in the lineup."
"Strong defense makes up for his lack of hitting."

Some of the same people saying this stuff about Uribe hold the same standards against Anderson. :rolleyes: I don't want this turn into another BA thread, but why the double standard? Uribe's bat is a liability whereever he's hitting in the lineup and saying "his defense is fine, and offense is fine" reeks of what people were saying during the 2006 about both BA and Uribe.

Uribe isn't some punk kid either. We're paying him $4 million to be a major league baseball player.

voodoochile
04-13-2008, 01:36 PM
Wow, this sounds like the exact same things people were saying about Brian Anderson before, during and after 2006.

"Great defense up the middle."
"Doesn't matter what he hits because lower in the lineup."
"Strong defense makes up for his lack of hitting."

Some of the same people saying this stuff about Uribe hold the same standards against Anderson. :rolleyes: I don't want this turn into another BA thread, but why the double standard? Uribe's bat is a liability whereever he's hitting in the lineup and saying "his defense is fine, and offense is fine" reeks of what people were saying during the 2006 about both BA and Uribe.

Uribe isn't some punk kid either. We're paying him $4 million to be a major league baseball player.

In a vacuum, you'd have a point, but given the lack of other players who can legitimately play 2B for the Sox right now and the fact that the Sox have like 4 guys who can play a solid CF right now it's not a fair comparison. If/when Richar comes back or Ramirez figures out how to play 2B, this will be a valid comparison until then it's meaningless, IMO.

jabrch
04-13-2008, 01:59 PM
For what it's worth, Uribe leads all second basemen with an outrageous 8.19 range factor.


Very very little in my book. RF is sillyness.

jabrch
04-13-2008, 02:00 PM
You guys really need to get over complaining about the guy. The lineup is going to be fine as far as run production goes. There's already been many key double plays Uribe has turned that have prevented big innings from starting up.

Great defense in the infield is worth so much more overall to this team right now than one player being able to hit bettter.

I'm all for a better 2B than Uribe. We just don't have anyone available who is sure to be such.

jabrch
04-13-2008, 02:15 PM
I like Richar's potential...but I'm not ready to hand him the starting 2B role when he's healthy. A .230 average over almost 200 ABs last year is not enough for me to say he's the guy. I could see him in a platoon with Uribe...Richar hit .205 against lefties last year....so I would only want him in there against RH starters.

I don't disagree - just saying that the plan was Richar originally. At this point, nobody can say Richar is a better or worse option than Uribe. You can make a strong case against either of them.

fusillirob1983
04-13-2008, 02:27 PM
A less drastic version of Homefish's AJ graph, sadly, is applicable to Juan Uribe.

I say "sadly" because just looking at that graph, you'd have to think the only people it could possibly apply to are guys between the age of 40 and 44.

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 02:37 PM
Very very little in my book. RF is sillyness.

Right, because there are more important statisitcs, like Fielding Percentage and Errors (which is a judgment call made by different people about what they think should have happened), than RF. Who would ever want to know how many balls that were hit into a defender's area were actually gotten to?

....wait a minute, you think Derek Jeter is a great defensive SS still, don't you? You're right, RF is stupid...those ****ing number-crunching, every-play-watching stat nerds. Those guys don't know ****.

balke
04-13-2008, 03:14 PM
Wow, this sounds like the exact same things people were saying about Brian Anderson before, during and after 2006.

"Great defense up the middle."
"Doesn't matter what he hits because lower in the lineup."
"Strong defense makes up for his lack of hitting."

Some of the same people saying this stuff about Uribe hold the same standards against Anderson. :rolleyes: I don't want this turn into another BA thread, but why the double standard? Uribe's bat is a liability whereever he's hitting in the lineup and saying "his defense is fine, and offense is fine" reeks of what people were saying during the 2006 about both BA and Uribe.

Uribe isn't some punk kid either. We're paying him $4 million to be a major league baseball player.


Its not a double standard because I've said the same thing about Anderson. So these people don't exist to which you refer. Plus you are comparing different positions.

If there were a Swisheresque offensive/defensive 2Bman on the team with this lineup, the Sox probably could get by with Anderson in the lineup. There's that much offense.

2 grand slams today can help contribute to that argument.

WhiteSox5187
04-13-2008, 03:25 PM
Right, because there are more important statisitcs, like Fielding Percentage and Errors (which is a judgment call made by different people about what they think should have happened), than RF. Who would ever want to know how many balls that were hit into a defender's area were actually gotten to?

....wait a minute, you think Derek Jeter is a great defensive SS still, don't you? You're right, RF is stupid...those ****ing number-crunching, every-play-watching stat nerds. Those guys don't know dick.
Defense is something that is near impossible to quantify in stats. You really just have to use your eyes. For example, Uribe has a higher FLD% and range factor than Jose Reyes. So is Uribe a better defensive short stop than Reyes? I would say no.

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 04:18 PM
Defense is something that is near impossible to quantify in stats. You really just have to use your eyes.

I disagree, and I have proof that you can quantify defense through the use of statistics. Through much internet searching I have found some great defensive stats that I think everyone can enjoy:

DVF: Dive Factor. This statistic quantifies a player's ability to dive all around the field, dazzling us with acrobatic catches to keep us from pointing out that he was poorly positioned before the pitch. All-time leaders: Derek Jeter (2.83 X 10^15), Jim Edmonds (78), Aaron Rowand (67).

GRT: Grittiness. This statistic rates each player defensively based on facial hair, uniform dirtiness, blood stains (Jeter only) and bat-size (relative to the height of the player). All-time leaders: David Eckstein (1.000), Darin Erstad (.901), Ryan Theriot (.886).

LZR: Laser. This is a simple stat, rating players on whether they have a "Laser" arm (as I learned from an earlier post in a different thread about Uribe, having a "laser" does not necessarily mean that the player can actually throw a ball at the accepted speed of light). All-time leaders: Derek Jeter (apparently this is based off of that one damned play ESPN always shows; you know the one, it's where he could have easily planted his foot and thrown normally but decided to jump and throw in mid-air [see: DVF]), Juan Uribe, David Wright.

BBLGM: Bubble Gum. This statistic is another have or have-not, though it most definitely quantifies a player's defensive abilities. The premise is simple: whether the player has the ability to blow a bubble while making a play on a ground ball. All-time leader: Juan Uribe.

jabrch
04-13-2008, 04:18 PM
Right, because there are more important statisitcs,


I never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.


like Fielding Percentage and Errors

I never said that either. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Who would ever want to know how many balls that were hit into a defender's area were actually gotten to?

If that were what it measured, it might have value, but it is not. "a defender's area" is extremely subjective and it varies based on a lot of factors that RF doesn't comprehend.

those ****ing number-crunching, every-play-watching stat nerds. Those guys don't know dick.

I didn't say that either Lefty. But thanks for playing.



RF has been debunked over and over again. I'm not wasting my time doing it once more. But please don't go making up things and attributing them to me. It is easy enough to find things I actually did say that you shouldn't have to resort to imaginary infantile bull**** like making stupid crap up that I never said.


IMHO, there are no good single defensive measures.

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 04:25 PM
And I was not making a crack at Uribe's defense in my earlier post today (I actually believe he is an above average defender), I was simply trying to point out that just because RF does not involve sitting on a bench with 25+ other stinky men while chewing tobacco and speaking with a southern accent while your name is Rusty or Dusty or Cleetus, it does allow for an accurate (or close to accurate) rating of a player's defense.

That, and Uribe absolutely blows at the dish and he is too dumb to remember what batting stance he used in his last AB (has anyone noticed the weird one he has this season?). Swisher can hit .265 all he wants as long as he is getting on base at the clip he is now, whereas Uribe is hitting poorly while not even getting close to getting on base. That has the potential to really hurt the ballclub.

jabrch
04-13-2008, 04:28 PM
sitting on a bench with 25+ other stinky men while chewing tobacco and speaking with a southern accent while your name is Rusty or Dusty or Cleetus,

It's amazing how prone to hyperbole some people are. Because I am fairly sure nobody has ever proposed this. And I know for a fact that some of the best scouts in the game hardly meet your bull**** generalization.

It discredits your point that we should have more quantitative analytical rigour when you come up with something so weak and devoid of analtics as that.

Daver
04-13-2008, 04:30 PM
And I was not making a crack at Uribe's defense in my earlier post today (I actually believe he is an above average defender), I was simply trying to point out that just because RF does not involve sitting on a bench with 25+ other stinky men while chewing tobacco and speaking with a southern accent while your name is Rusty or Dusty or Cleetus, it does allow for an accurate (or close to accurate) rating of a player's defense.


RF is a crap stat that has no basis in reality.

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 04:33 PM
Right, because there are more important statisitcs, like Fielding Percentage and Errors (which is a judgment call made by different people about what they think should have happened), than RF. Who would ever want to know how many balls that were hit into a defender's area were actually gotten to?

....wait a minute, you think Derek Jeter is a great defensive SS still, don't you? You're right, RF is stupid...those ****ing number-crunching, every-play-watching stat nerds. Those guys don't know dick.

How was any of that sarcastic rant wrongly attributing quotes to you? I am completely dumbfounded by you calling me out for something I didn't even do. It was a sarcastic rant, in which I did not directly quote you. I did, however, acknowledge your point about RF being silly when I said this: "You're right, RF is stupid". Sorry for misquoting you there, I should have used "sillyness", my bad.

And in regard to the actual formation and of your most recent quote....are you Bill Plaschke?

Tragg
04-13-2008, 04:35 PM
I don't disagree - just saying that the plan was Richar originally. At this point, nobody can say Richar is a better or worse option than Uribe. You can make a strong case against either of them.
It's the same argument to use against every low ceiling mediocre veteran: you have nothing to lose by playing a talented youngster instead, and everything to gain.
The guaranteed mediocrity approach wrought 72 wins.

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 04:36 PM
It's amazing how prone to hyperbole some people are. Because I am fairly sure nobody has ever proposed this. And I know for a fact that some of the best scouts in the game hardly meet your bull**** generalization.

It discredits your point that we should have more quantitative analytical rigour when you come up with something so weak and devoid of analtics as that.

Damn it all, I forgot the teal again. Sorry dude that was honestly supposed to be in teal and meant as pure sarcasm that does not reflect my real take on actual baseball scouting.

fquaye149
04-13-2008, 05:17 PM
RF is a crap stat that has no basis in reality.

range factor= putouts+assists/number of games.

how on earth does that have no basis in reality, especially at SS?

I'm not saying it's the best stat to use to determine "quality of defense" (because it isn't) but all it boils down to is "number of outs a fielder takes part in per game".

I don't see how you can get more of a "basis in reality." Certainly it's a more objective stat than Fielding PCT, which involves a subjective definition of an "error" and doesn't take into account balls that douchebags like Royce Clayton don't even try to get that other fielders could :shrug:

Daver
04-13-2008, 05:21 PM
range factor= putouts+assists/number of games.

how on earth does that have no basis in reality, especially at SS?

I'm not saying it's the best stat to use to determine "quality of defense" (because it isn't) but all it boils down to is "number of outs a fielder takes part in per game".

I don't see how you can get more of a "basis in reality." Certainly it's a more objective stat than Fielding PCT, which involves a subjective definition of an "error" and doesn't take into account balls that douchebags like Royce Clayton don't even try to get that other fielders could :shrug:

Perhaps I have my meaningless stats confused, any stat that relies on the decision of the scorer has no basis in reality.

fquaye149
04-13-2008, 05:27 PM
Perhaps I have my meaningless stats confused, any stat that relies on the decision of the scorer has no basis in reality.

I would agree that almost all (if not all) defensive stats suck.

You can use a bunch of them together to kind of give you an idea who sucks and who doesn't, but the only real way to know how good someone is on defense is to watch them play a lot of games at their position

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 05:28 PM
Perhaps I have my meaningless stats confused, any stat that relies on the decision of the scorer has no basis in reality.

Hey man I don't blame you, Lord knows there are plenty of them. I was looking in the back of my Baseball Prospectus book (yes, I have one) and there are like 4 different stats for describing just ERA! I mean I'm all for understanding the game but good Lord.

FedEx227
04-13-2008, 05:44 PM
Zone Rating is the closest thing we have to a half way decent defensive stat. Still far off, but definitely the best going right now. Not up to the scorer are all, everyone is on an even plane.

voodoochile
04-13-2008, 05:59 PM
Zone Rating is the closest thing we have to a half way decent defensive stat. Still far off, but definitely the best going right now. Not up to the scorer are all, everyone is on an even plane.

That's the stat they were actually trying to argue about. It's subjective because it's up to the scorer as to where a player's zone is.

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 06:08 PM
That's the stat they were actually trying to argue about. It's subjective because it's up to the scorer as to where a player's zone is.

You are right, I totally got RF and ZR confused (though it did spark a pretty funny discussion). However I believe Zone Rating to be very objective in nature, especially given this:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/szymborski/zrgrid.jpg

I think that is the grid that STATS, Inc. uses to determine ZR.

Daver
04-13-2008, 06:15 PM
Hey man I don't blame you, Lord knows there are plenty of them. I was looking in the back of my Baseball Prospectus book (yes, I have one) and there are like 4 different stats for describing just ERA! I mean I'm all for understanding the game but good Lord.

The game is easy to understand.

You pitch the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball, or the ball ends up in the cheap seats. How well you do any of it can be seen without needing a single number.

I do not need numbers to tell me that Jerry Owens is not very good at playing baseball.

Jenks4Prez
04-13-2008, 06:18 PM
Uribe is better than anyone else we have... enough said.

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 06:32 PM
The game is easy to understand.

You pitch the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball, or the ball ends up in the cheap seats. How well you do any of it can be seen without needing a single number.

I do not need numbers to tell me that Jerry Owens is not very good at playing baseball.

LOL (right?). Yeah I don't need many numbers to come to the same conclusion.

But a note on the composition of the game: your view is the essential form of this great game, however that way of understanding of the game does not work anymore, sorry to say. The Moneyball movement glorified the using of the game's numbers to find inefficiencies in the overall baseball market, allowing a winning team to be put together while cutting costs at the same time.

Also, with the billions of dollars that have been poured into this game, we have seen it move away from being a mere game and towards being a business. The object of the game is still to win, but it has been morphed somewhat into win cheaply and efficiently, and numbers are the way to do that.

We certainly have acknowledged that numbers do not describe everything, and I freely admit that they probably never will. However the simplistic way of understanding the game that you described worked perfectly in the past, but money and evolving athletic nutrition and training to create stronger, faster prospects necessitates a better understanding of every aspect of the game, and numbers help us to do that.

EndemicSox
04-13-2008, 06:33 PM
Uribe is better than anyone else we have... enough said.

I refuse to believe this...a bum off the street could put up a .265 OBP...

voodoochile
04-13-2008, 06:35 PM
I refuse to believe this...a bum off the street could put up a .265 OBP...

Could that bum also field second base?

I agree that offense is more important than defense when building a team, but due to Richar being injured Uribe is the best option at 2B at the moment, period.

Your use of over the top hyperbole notwithtanding...:rolleyes:

fquaye149
04-13-2008, 06:40 PM
The game is easy to understand.

You pitch the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball, or the ball ends up in the cheap seats. How well you do any of it can be seen without needing a single number.

I do not need numbers to tell me that Jerry Owens is not very good at playing baseball.

But you have an understanding of the game most fans lack.

Notice how many people on this board think that Owens should be starting because "we don't have a leadoff hitter" or something :shrug:

Chicken Dinner
04-13-2008, 06:41 PM
I refuse to believe this...a bum off the street could put up a .265 OBP...

That's Mr. Millionaire bum off the street to you. :D:

Daver
04-13-2008, 06:44 PM
LOL (right?). Yeah I don't need many numbers to come to the same conclusion.

But a note on the composition of the game: your view is the essential form of this great game, however that way of understanding of the game does not work anymore, sorry to say. The Moneyball movement glorified the using of the game's numbers to find inefficiencies in the overall baseball market, allowing a winning team to be put together while cutting costs at the same time.

Also, with the billions of dollars that have been poured into this game, we have seen it move away from being a mere game and towards being a business. The object of the game is still to win, but it has been morphed somewhat into win cheaply and efficiently, and numbers are the way to do that.

We certainly have acknowledged that numbers do not describe everything, and I freely admit that they probably never will. However the simplistic way of understanding the game that you described worked perfectly in the past, but money and evolving athletic nutrition and training to create stronger, faster prospects necessitates a better understanding of every aspect of the game, and numbers help us to do that.

Here is a newsflash for you, the game was a business in 1922 when the supreme court decided it was a game, nothing has changed since then.

The only thing that concentrating on stats has done for the game is to provide jobs for math geeks that would otherwise be driving a cab or digging ditches, because all the information that you really need can be seen without looking at a single number.

Stats are a weak tool that is overused to the point of the tool being worthless.

Brian26
04-13-2008, 06:52 PM
You can use a bunch of them together to kind of give you an idea who sucks and who doesn't, but the only real way to know how good someone is on defense is to watch them play a lot of games at their position

This is true. Case in point, how many double plays has Uribe turned so far this year because of his arm strength that Richar or Iguchi wouldn't have made at second base? How many errors has Konerko saved Cabrera on this year by digging balls out of the dirt?

fquaye149
04-13-2008, 06:53 PM
Here is a newsflash for you, the game was a business in 1922 when the supreme court decided it was a game, nothing has changed since then.

The only thing that concentrating on stats has done for the game is to provide jobs for math geeks that would otherwise be driving a cab or digging ditches, because all the information that you really need can be seen without looking at a single number.

Stats are a weak tool that is overused to the point of the tool being worthless.

Stats are entertainment, and entertainment is a business.

Baseball has always been about stats. As we've gone through the years, more stats have been invented.

The save didn't exist in 1922. Nor did the "game winning RBI." Nor did WHIP. As the years have gone, more and more stats have become invented because people are interested in baseball.

Now, if you're going to, as Moneyball has suggested the A's did, completely eschew scouting for stats, then you're an idiot. But I don't see a lot of teams doing that.

Theo Epstein is a big stats guy (not a moneyball guy as people like to say, but a guy who appreciates stats). However, many of his big moves (Ortiz, Beckett) have come from scouting.

No stats would have told JP Ricciardi that AJ Burnett is a good pitcher. Stats actually say he's not that good a pitcher. The jury's out on whether he is a great pitcher, but in the end, no team is using stats and only stats to make personnel decisions (except for maybe the A's. I wouldn't know about that because the A's bore me).

Brian26
04-13-2008, 07:01 PM
Here is a newsflash for you, the game was a business in 1922 when the supreme court decided it was a game, nothing has changed since then.

The only thing that concentrating on stats has done for the game is to provide jobs for math geeks that would otherwise be driving a cab or digging ditches, because all the information that you really need can be seen without looking at a single number.

Stats are a weak tool that is overused to the point of the tool being worthless.

I read an interesting article yesterday (I think it was in SI) talking about Billy Beane's venture into American soccer. One of the writer's theories about soccer's failure to latch on in American society is because of the lack of statistics involved with the game, thus there are fewer ways to compare players from both the same era and different eras. Just recently soccer officials have hired stats companies to start tracking intricate stats like "touches per game" for example.

Anyway, although I agree with you that stats are overused, I think they are one of the best attributes and beautiful aspects about the game of baseball. Stats will never be a flaw of the game as long as you can pick up a couple of baseball cards and compare players that played fifty years apart. That's what makes baseball great. There's a logical basis to compare a guy that plays on the Sox this year with a guy your grandpa watched back in the 40's.

Chicken Dinner
04-13-2008, 07:03 PM
I read an interesting article yesterday (I think it was in SI) talking about Billy Beane's venture into American soccer. One of the writer's theories about soccer's failuer to latch on in American society is because of the lack of statistics involved with the game, thus there are fewer ways to compare players from both the same era and different eras. Just recently soccer officials have hired stats companies to start tracking intricate stats like "touches per game" for example.

Anyway, although I agree with you that stats are overused, I think they are one of the best attributes and beautiful aspects about the game of baseball. Stats will never be a flaw of the game as long as you can pick up a couple of baseball cards and compare players that played fifty years apart. That's what makes baseball great. There's a logical basis to compare a guy that plays on the Sox this year with a guy your grandpa watched back in the 40's.

Good stats=more money............bad stats=minors or retirement

ArkanSox
04-13-2008, 07:04 PM
Stats - a weak tool that is overused to the point of the tool being worthless.

Substitute the subject of this thread for "stats" and I think you've absolutely nailed down the the opinion of the Uribe haters. :cool:

I've always appreciated his D.

Tragg
04-13-2008, 07:13 PM
Substitute the subject of this thread for "stats" and I think you've absolutely nailed down the the opinion of the Uribe haters. :cool:

I've always appreciated his D.
You don't need stats to see his hitting is abysmal.

He was fine as a SS. People wanted him drummed out of town as a SS. He's much worse as a 2B, but they like him at 2b.

HomeFish
04-13-2008, 07:41 PM
One of the writer's theories about soccer's failure to latch on in American society is because of the lack of statistics involved with the game, thus there are fewer ways to compare players from both the same era and different eras.


Does anyone else think that this is one of the stupidest ideas they have ever heard? Or am I alone here.

doublem23
04-13-2008, 07:48 PM
Does anyone else think that this is one of the stupidest ideas they have ever heard? Or am I alone here.

It's certainly not the stupidest theory I've ever run across. I'm still convinced soccer's never caught on here because of the relatively uninterrupted play leaves no time for advertisements. Less revenue = less interest in investing in a professional American league.

I don't think it's much of a coincidence that soccer is experiencing relatively unprecedented growth in the United States in the age were we have video technology that literally allows us to plaster ads all over the screen.

voodoochile
04-13-2008, 07:52 PM
RF is to defensive stats what runs are to offensive stats...

Daver
04-13-2008, 07:53 PM
But you have an understanding of the game most fans lack.


I'm watching the same game you are.

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 08:45 PM
The only thing that concentrating on stats has done for the game
I feel a rumblin'
is to provide jobs forHere it comes
math geeksIt's really going to happen this time!
that would otherwise bePlease let it be living in mom's basement, please let it be mom's basement....
driving a cab or digging ditchesHOLY ****! He did it you guys, he ****ing did it!
Driving a cab or digging ****ing ditches!?!
Oh man, wow, whew! That was freaking AWESOME you guys!

Daver
04-13-2008, 08:54 PM
I feel a rumblin'
Here it comes
It's really going to happen this time!
Please let it be living in mom's basement, please let it be mom's basement....
HOLY DICK! He did it you guys, he ****ing did it!
Driving a cab or digging ****ing ditches!?!
Oh man, wow, whew! That was freaking AWESOME you guys!

The truth hurts, I take it you're not good at digging ditches?

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 08:56 PM
Sorry about the above post and its complete lack of anything contributing to our (still?) friendly discussion on Juan Uribe and the use of baseball statistics, but I just love it when people equate using baseball statistics and math to nerds who live in their mom's basement (though Daver didn't say that, but it is the most common cliche) with nothing better to do than concentrate on statistics.

I have nothing against scouting and "looking at" and "getting a feel for" a player. I think it can be helpful and you will definitely be able to have a more humanistic approach to baseball decisions, but it just isn't my cup of tea. And so it seems that stats aren't necessarily loved by all either, well that's fine too.

I just want to say that my love for OBP and WHIP and (kind of) VORP has never once interfered with my love for the game of baseball, and never have I stopped watching a Sox game to go read my nerdy books and think up nerdy stats with my nerdy friends and put them on the internet with my nerdy computer (I know you personally did not say this, Daver, but I have heard other people who have, like Jim Armstrong in his most recent article). I am sure that very few people who like stats and like to use them in baseball discussion have never done anything in line with the aforementioned nerdiness, so please don't degrade people with a different way of thinking about baseball just because they are "nerds" or have a differing opinion (we are not all Baseball Prospectus writers, those guys are *******s).
NOTE: I consider people calling my ideas about statistics "dumb" or "useless" to be degrading, along with being labeled (myself or anyone who subscribes to the statistical point of view) a "math geek"

Daver
04-13-2008, 09:12 PM
Hey math geek, when you want to look at the whole picture let us know, till then stick to the 1/3 picture you like looking at.

fquaye149
04-13-2008, 09:26 PM
I'm watching the same game you are.

Sure. And I understand it as well--not quite as well as some people here, but as well as most. However, I can't watch every game. For instance, I've never seen Hanley Ramirez play a single game.

I can read firsthand accounts and hear scouting reports but those must be taken with a grain of salt unless I really know and trust the person writing those reports. I can HEAR from people I don't know that well that he's a great hitter but a lousy fielder and I can either believe them or I don't.

I can also read his line and see that he has put up excellent numbers with the bat and bad numbers with the glove. Now those don't necessarily mean any more than secondhand scouting--in fact they often mean less--but it's another way to tell me about a player I haven't had the opportunity to watch.

If everyone who scouts him says he's good with the bat and bad with the glove, and his numbers are good at the plate and bad in the field, I can have a pretty damn good idea he's good at the plate and bad in the field.

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 09:38 PM
Hey math geek,
You see that? That is writing technique, take notes. He just called me the exact ****ing thing I asked not to be called in my last post, indicating to me that he is not going to back down from his position and continue on degrading me for not believing in what he does; that's ****ing genius.
when you want to look at the whole picture
Again: genius, just ****ing genius. You see now he's isolating this poor guy from the rest of the heard, trying to take away anyone that would post something and come to his aide in this discussion. He knows he has the forum's admins on his side (he is one) so he feels secure in calling out this poor prick for not seeing things his way. This is Pulitzer Prize ****, the real stuff of legends. Maybe now go a little farther and isolating him from the rest of the Sox fans? Make him seem a little more removed and foreign, perhaps?
let us know,
Perfect. Abso-****ing-lutely perfect. A+. What else ya got?
till then stick to the 1/3 picture you like looking at.
This is the clincher, you guys, this is where we separate the men from the boys. You see what he did there? Did you see that? He picked an arbitrary number to represent how little the stats geek knows about baseball (though not too small as to be ridiculous and unbelievable, yet not close to 50%, which would have given the stats geek some credibility), then put in the actual ****ing fraction instead of typing it out. That's how you prove a point. Now it's this stats-infested douche against the whole forum, and he did it all in one damned post. You want internet forum-dissing? My GOD is that internet forum-dissing.

Look guy, I know we don't see eye to eye on this whole stats thing, and I am not trying to convince you to come over to my side because you clearly love baseball through the way you think (and you love the Sox, at that) and that's what it all comes down to, really. My way is different than yours. Is it better? Who knows. Will it become better? I'd like to think so. Does it represent the whole game and am I snooty and hating on people who don't think my way? No, absolutely not (I hope I'm not being too snooty). I just really don't appreciate being called a math geek, especially after my last post where I apologized for being overly-sarcastic and was willing to extend the Olive Branch. I am the furthest thing from a math geek (I'm majoring in Political Science and I play club baseball at U of I), and, for further reference: it's not that I'm not good at digging ditches, it's that I don't enjoy it, I have back problems, I'm sorry.

JorgeFabregas
04-13-2008, 09:46 PM
So Uribe looks like he's bad at the plate and good in the field. The stats seem to back that up. What seems to be the problem here? :scratch:

fquaye149
04-13-2008, 09:48 PM
So Uribe looks like he's bad at the plate and good in the field. The stats seem to back that up. What seems to be the problem here? :scratch:

Stats v. Non-stats seems to be an issue that tends to go beyond what is actually being discussed

Daver
04-13-2008, 09:52 PM
You see that? That is writing technique, take notes. He just called me the exact ****ing thing I asked not to be called in my last post, indicating to me that he is not going to back down from his position and continue on degrading me for not believing in what he does; that's ****ing genius.


Again, the truth hurts.

The person that owns this forum is a geek, complain to him.

Elephant
04-13-2008, 09:53 PM
So Uribe looks like he's bad at the plate and good in the field. The stats seem to back that up. What seems to be the problem here? :scratch:

His RF is greater than Cabrera's, and from what I've seen it's backed up.

HebrewHammer
04-13-2008, 10:36 PM
I feel a rumblin'
Here it comes
It's really going to happen this time!
Please let it be living in mom's basement, please let it be mom's basement....
HOLY ****! He did it you guys, he ****ing did it!
Driving a cab or digging ****ing ditches!?!
Oh man, wow, whew! That was freaking AWESOME you guys!

Someone spends a little too much time at FJM.

That being said, I don't need to watch Juan Uribe to know that he is not very good at hitting baseballs, but he is good at catching them.

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 10:41 PM
Someone spends a little too much time at FJM.


Guilty as charged :rolleyes:. But I felt that style of writing was warranted given Daver's response.

TomBradley72
04-13-2008, 10:46 PM
Someone spends a little too much time at FJM.

That being said, I don't need to watch Juan Uribe to know that he is not very good at hitting baseballs, but he is good at catching them.

and throwing them. :cool:

We never should have let Iguchi go...that's the real issue.

doublem23
04-13-2008, 10:56 PM
Guilty as charged :rolleyes:. But I felt that style of writing was warranted given Daver's response.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

ChiTownTrojan
04-13-2008, 11:01 PM
:threadsucks

Why must there be a thread once a week that degrades in to the same statistics are worthless vs. statistics are everything bull****? All these arguments are old.

WhiteSox5187
04-13-2008, 11:07 PM
:threadsucks

Why must there be a thread once a week that degrades in to the same statistics are worthless vs. statistics are everything bull****? All these arguments are old.
I think it's an interesting debate as to what's better, just watching the game or relying solely on stats. But this of course has descened into petty bickering and name calling and that makes me sad. :(:

I think that stats are valuable in certain areas, but really watching the game is the most important thing. There are so many little things that go on that cannot be quantified in stats or in Daver's "run, hit, pitch, catch" anaylsis. Like a guy who doesn't have great range moving over to position himself perfectly pitch by pitch, there's no stat for that, yet that guy will make the play EVERY time. And he knows that probably from looking at a lot of stats. I really think though Twain said it best, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics." And I think a lot of fielding stats fall right into that category.

doublem23
04-13-2008, 11:14 PM
I think that stats are valuable in certain areas, but really watching the game is the most important thing. There are so many little things that go on that cannot be quantified in stats or in Daver's "run, hit, pitch, catch" anaylsis. Like a guy who doesn't have great range moving over to position himself perfectly pitch by pitch, there's no stat for that, yet that guy will make the play EVERY time. And he knows that probably from looking at a lot of stats. I really think though Twain said it best, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics." And I think a lot of fielding stats fall right into that category.

Yep. The biggest problem with statistics are that they complete ignore 1/3 of the game - defense. I know there all sorts of cool stats out there for defense like Zone Rating, etc., but they're all pretty worthless since the bottom line is you're making arbitrary calls about what a player should be able (and shouldn't be able) to do; none of which have any real meaning in an actual game of baseball.

I'm willing to accept that you can get a good, but still incomplete, grip on offense and pitching through stats, but you're still ignoring 33% of the game; and if you don't think defense is that important, well, you need to watch more baseball.

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 11:30 PM
Brevity is the soul of wit.

That is very much true, but it does not really seem to fir my brand of comedy. My comedic posts are more about taking things way farther than they should be taken, because there, and only there, do people see the hilarity/stupidity of mine/other people's words.

And wait, do a lot of threads really dissolve into discussions like this:

Stat-liking-guy: Hey I think this way about this player and here is a stat to illustrate my point.

Old-school-guy: **** you and your point. Stats are moronic and so are the people that use them.

Stat-liking-guy: Well I happen to think stats are pretty cool and can explain a lot.

Old-school-guy: Ty Cobb never worried about his career OBP, and he was one of the best ever, and since I consistently suffer from generational lag: computers are retarded, OBP and WHIP are both new-fangled balderdash. Baseball...Purity...Old-school...No sliders...Purity......zzzzzz

Stat-liking-guy: Dude did you just fall asleep in the middle of a post? Whatever I like to look at things through the statistical lense and you like to look at the game a different way, that's cool with me.

Old-school-guy:Old-school Yankees...Pitching/cathcing both ends of a double-header....Dizzy Dean.....Oil Can Boyd...3-man rotations.....Computers...Nerds...

Stat-liking-guy: Ok whatever dude.

Either way, I don't want to forcefully change any person's view on baseball. If you like the scope through which some of us look at baseball, wonderful, come on and join the fun. If not: no hard feelings, baseball was played long before PECOTA anyways. I just resent the notion that just because I happen to like OBP, BABIP, and (sometimes) VORP, I am immediately a baseball "nerd" who knows "next to nothing about the game" and is "ruining the lives hard-working of baseball people everywhere, along with the game". itself"

doublem23
04-13-2008, 11:40 PM
That is very much true, but it does not really seem to fir my brand of comedy. My comedic posts are more about taking things way farther than they should be taken,

Far enough, but I will suggest you find a new writing style
because there, and only there, do people see the hilarity/stupidity of mine/other people's words.because this is not very funny

And wait, do a lot of threads really dissolve into discussions like this:And it's actually kind of annoying.

Stat-liking-guy: Hey I think this way about this player and here is a stat to illustrate my point.therefore

Old-school-guy: **** you and your point. Stats are moronic and so are the people that use them.people will stop reading your post before you've made your point.

Stat-liking-guy: Well I happen to think stats are pretty cool and can explain a lot.Whereas Daver's post, maybe didn't score any points for FJM-style hilarity

Old-school-guy: Ty Cobb never worried about his career OBP, and he was one of the best ever, and since I consistently suffer from generational lag:However it was succinct and he got his point across right away.

computers are retarded, OBP and WHIP are both new-fangled balderdash. Baseball...Purity...Old-school...No sliders...Purity......zzzzzzJust a friendly suggestion, because this is super lame

Stat-liking-guy: Dude did you just fall asleep in the middle of a post? Whatever I like to look at things through the statistical lense and you like to look at the game a different way, that's cool with me.

Old-school-guy:Old-school Yankees...Pitching/cathcing both ends of a double-header....Dizzy Dean.....Oil Can Boyd...3-man rotations.....Computers...Nerds...

Stat-liking-guy: Ok whatever dude.unless you're a good writer.

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 11:43 PM
I think it's an interesting debate as to what's better, just watching the game or relying solely on stats. But this of course has descened into petty bickering and name calling and that makes me sad. :(:

I think that stats are valuable in certain areas, but really watching the game is the most important thing. There are so many little things that go on that cannot be quantified in stats or in Daver's "run, hit, pitch, catch" anaylsis. Like a guy who doesn't have great range moving over to position himself perfectly pitch by pitch, there's no stat for that, yet that guy will make the play EVERY time. And he knows that probably from looking at a lot of stats. I really think though Twain said it best, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics." And I think a lot of fielding stats fall right into that category.

Yep. The biggest problem with statistics are that they complete ignore 1/3 of the game - defense. I know there all sorts of cool stats out there for defense like Zone Rating, etc., but they're all pretty worthless since the bottom line is you're making arbitrary calls about what a player should be able (and shouldn't be able) to do; none of which have any real meaning in an actual game of baseball.

I'm willing to accept that you can get a good, but still incomplete, grip on offense and pitching through stats, but you're still ignoring 33% of the game; and if you don't think defense is that important, well, you need to watch more baseball.

You guys both hit the nail right on the head. I apologize for the petty bickering (he started it lolz), however it could not be helped. I am not the stats geek who is constantly saying: scouting sucks, numbers explain everything and I'm arrogant because I can do hard math. If you look at my posts in the Nick Swisher Leading Off Thread, I say repeatedly that it is neither of these two camps that have the understanding and rating of baseball players down cold. Rather, I believe that the correct combination of both of these two ways of thinking will be so much better than the individuals (the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, right?).

I do not despise scouting, I don't even dislike scouting, and I think that you will find that most of these "stat geeks" don't hate it either. To us, scouting is a very valuable tool, however when relied on solely for the management of a multi-million-dollar franchise, statistics can also help in player evaluation and the like. I really think people like Billy Beane had the great initial idea, however took it too its extreme, and now the A's are deadlocked in a race for mediocrity, however teams run by people like Theo Epstein (who combines the two ways of thinking to run his ballclub), well...you saw what happened last year.

Lefty34
04-13-2008, 11:49 PM
Far enough, but I will suggest you find a new writing style
because this is not very funny

And it's actually kind of annoying.
therefore

people will stop reading your post before you've made your point.

Whereas Daver's post, maybe didn't score any points for FJM-style hilarity

However it was succinct and he got his point across right away.

Just a friendly suggestion, because this is super lame

unless you're a good writer.

Right, because you're a Pulitzer Prize winner yourself. Give me a ****ing break with all these critiques. What about my point and whatnot. You don't think it's funny? Fine, I'm not a funny guy to you, and possibly not a funny guy to the majority, but there's no need to constantly rag on me for this type of crap. Have I not made well-argued points in the past? Am I not allowed a couple attempted-expeditions into the land of comedy-web-posting? Please forgive me.

(I apologize if you really are a Pulitzer Prize winner, and, if you are, I will promptly ****)

jabrch
04-14-2008, 07:36 AM
Stats are a weak tool that is overused to the point of the tool being worthless.

They key there is overuse. Its not the use of statistics that I disagree with, It is the overuse, misuse and flat out abuse.

Defensive statistics tell you very little about defense. That's a MAJOR flaw from the point of view of a statistician.

Lukin13
04-14-2008, 09:41 AM
Juan went to right field for a base hit yesterday on a 3-2 count!

That was nice to see. I really think if Juan just concentrated on going the other way it might cure him of his demons.



And I do not believe the argument that "he is our best option, end of story".
If he is our best option at second a move needs to be made. This doesn't necesarily mean that we need to go get a superstar but a move should be made. If AJ or another irreplaceable player on our team went down, KW would be looking to make a move.

jabrch
04-14-2008, 10:18 AM
I do not despise scouting, I don't even dislike scouting, and I think that you will find that most of these "stat geeks" don't hate it either. To us, scouting is a very valuable tool, however when relied on solely for the management of a multi-million-dollar franchise, statistics can also help in player evaluation and the like. I really think people like Billy Beane had the great initial idea, however took it too its extreme, and now the A's are deadlocked in a race for mediocrity, however teams run by people like Theo Epstein (who combines the two ways of thinking to run his ballclub), well...you saw what happened last year.

1) I don't think anyone hates scouting.
2) I don't think anyone hates statistics.
3) Theo Epstein did not win a WS strictly because of his scouting or his statistics. He won a World Series with the second highest payroll in baseball. He didn't need a scout to tell him Manny can hit. Nor did he need a statistic to tell him that. He needed 150mm to sign him and keep him even when he was behaving like a pud. He was able to go out and sign or re-sign the best (scouted or stats) FAs. (Matsuzaka, Drew, Beckett, Manny, Lowell, Varitek, etc.)
4) Theo can afford to be wrong (Drew, Schilling, Crisp, etc.) or to overpay (Varitek)
5) Theo can afford to pay top dollar to the draft without impacting his spend on the major league club


Statistics are important - nobody disputes that. RF, that's another story... But this is not about scouting vs stats. That's an imaginary issue made up largely by some people to glorify their position by making this a question of polarity - which it is not. No baseball team is run without using statistics. The question is how much they use them, and what they use them for.

Theo's successes and failures have much less to do with statistics and much more to do with economic horsepower.

WhiteSox5187
04-14-2008, 10:23 AM
1) I don't think anyone hates scouting.
2) I don't think anyone hates statistics.
3) Theo Epstein did not win a WS strictly because of his scouting or his statistics. He won a World Series with the second highest payroll in baseball. He didn't need a scout to tell him Manny can hit. Nor did he need a statistic to tell him that. He needed 150mm to sign him and keep him even when he was behaving like a pud. He was able to go out and sign or re-sign the best (scouted or stats) FAs. (Matsuzaka, Drew, Beckett, Manny, Lowell, Varitek, etc.)
4) Theo can afford to be wrong (Drew, Schilling, Crisp, etc.) or to overpay (Varitek)
5) Theo can afford to pay top dollar to the draft without impacting his spend on the major league club


Statistics are important - nobody disputes that. RF, that's another story... But this is not about scouting vs stats. That's an imaginary issue made up largely by some people to glorify their position by making this a question of polarity - which it is not. No baseball team is run without using statistics. The question is how much they use them, and what they use them for.

Theo's successes and failures have much less to do with statistics and much more to do with economic horsepower.
His scouting did a hell of a job in getting guys like Pedroia, Ellsbury, Youkillis, and that CF...who is that? Is that Ellsbury? Then who is the pitcher who threw the no hitter in his second start?

Mohoney
04-14-2008, 10:30 AM
His scouting did a hell of a job in getting guys like Pedroia, Ellsbury, Youkillis, and that CF...who is that? Is that Ellsbury? Then who is the pitcher who threw the no hitter in his second start?

Clay Buchholz

jabrch
04-14-2008, 10:43 AM
His scouting did a hell of a job in getting guys like Pedroia, Ellsbury, Youkillis, and that CF...who is that? Is that Ellsbury? Then who is the pitcher who threw the no hitter in his second start?

His scouting was good. His stats were good. But his economic horsepower has blown both of them away.

doublem23
04-14-2008, 10:45 AM
His scouting was good. His stats were good. But his economic horsepower has blown both of them away.

It's easy to be a genius when you can afford to sweep your mistakes under the rug.

fquaye149
04-14-2008, 10:47 AM
It's easy to be a genius when you can afford to sweep your mistakes under the rug.

Ok...but it's not like the Red Sox are the only team with a precipitously high payroll.

I don't know to what extent their success in the postseason has been "luck" but if it's not just blind "luck" then they have done something that other top-5 payroll teams have been unable to do. TWICE.

doublem23
04-14-2008, 10:50 AM
Ok...but it's not like the Red Sox are the only team with a precipitously high payroll.

I don't know to what extent their success in the postseason has been "luck" but if it's not just blind "luck" then they have done something that other top-5 payroll teams have been unable to do. TWICE.

I'm not saying the Red Sox aren't a well coached team or well run organization, they just seem to have the best of both worlds... An emphasis on good scouting/statistical analysis and the money to take risks or overpay for certain players.

fquaye149
04-14-2008, 11:00 AM
I'm not saying the Red Sox aren't a well coached team or well run organization, they just seem to have the best of both worlds... An emphasis on good scouting/statistical analysis and the money to take risks or overpay for certain players.

it's not stats or scouting alone that help them be more successful than, say, the Yankees, but scouting and statistical analysis seem to give them a specific edge over other big money organizations like the Cubs, Yanks, and Mets who seem to make personnel decisions based more on "perception of quality" or "marketability" than extensive scouting or statistical analysis

Droso5
04-14-2008, 12:18 PM
I think we are missing the big picture here fellas....

The question should be this: Who is WSI's forum version of Juan Uribe?.

FarWestChicago
04-14-2008, 06:16 PM
Right, because you're a Pulitzer Prize winner yourself. Give me a ****ing break with all these critiques. What about my point and whatnot. You don't think it's funny? Fine, I'm not a funny guy to you, and possibly not a funny guy to the majority, but there's no need to constantly rag on me for this type of crap. Have I not made well-argued points in the past? Am I not allowed a couple attempted-expeditions into the land of comedy-web-posting? Please forgive me.

(I apologize if you really are a Pulitzer Prize winner, and, if you are, I will promptly ****)Will you please stop whining? I don't care if you worship stats or scouting. Just stop with the whining. Please.