Corey Patterson for Kevin Mench REJECTED by TX

[Lefty]

Diffusion, a stolen base is worth about .6 of a total base to be more precise. So your 2/3 is closer than my half. The value of a stolen base includes the times that the ball goes into center and a guy goes to third. It's part of the play.

[CubinNY]

Corey has totally killed his trade value by refusing to play winter ball. The impression he creates is that he sucks and doesn't give a damn. If I were a GM I wouldn't give up anybody good for Corey.

 

You could be right. But to me taking time away from baseball was the best thing for him. Sometimes they way to solve a problem is to back away from it for a while, regroup, and try again.

 

I do not believe that Corey has been sitting at home and working on his stamp collection. He probably has found someone he trusts and has been working on things.

 

I am rooting for him, but I think the best thing for him and the Cubs is to part ways.

 

I don't think he is stupid, stubborne or any other personality disorder peopel ascribe to him. I think he has gotten this far on talent alone and has been trying to rely on what got him to the show.

 

It is a pitty he didn't have better teachers.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

It is a pitty he didn't have better teachers.

 

How true that could be. Beano Cook was on ESPN yesterday and basically said Bob Griese would have amounted to nothing had it not been for the coaching staff he had in the NFL (specifically Shula). I thought of how the wrong system has ruined many "sure thing" QBs over the years, and I think this may be something to consider when discussing Corey. We haven't exactly had the best hitting coaches for him over the past few years, and he didn't get the opportunity to spend much time with Von Joshua or anyone else in the minors. I think a change of scenery is best for him because Petland, Matthews, and Cline aren't getting through.

[Diffusion]

Diffusion, a stolen base is worth about .6 of a total base to be more precise. So your 2/3 is closer than my half. The value of a stolen base includes the times that the ball goes into center and a guy goes to third. It's part of the play.

 

Thanks a lot. I'll re-run the numbers in a minute

[jjgman21]

how many times a year will Pierre v. Wilkerson force the fielder to take the sure out at first instead of turning a double play when he is the runner on first?

 

Probably less than 5 and more than 0. In otherwords, an insignificant amount.

 

helping me to demonstrate my point about failing to measure everything or measure everything accurately. 'it's probably X, so let's not attempt to measure and conclude it's insignificant'

 

while preventing this type of out isn't as valuable than avoiding an out while in the batter's box, over the course of 700 plate appearances the difference between a .325 and a .350 obp is 18 outs prevented. the difference between a .350 and .375 is 17 outs prevented.

 

so let's say the number of times Pierre does this is 5, but you have to diminish that because its not as valuable as an out prevented in the batter's box. so let's say those 5 are as valuable as 3 outs prevented in the batter's box. then you have to add to that the number of reached on errors that Pierre will have over Wilkerson. give him 5 more. that's 8 outs prevented. just with those two items alone, Pierre closes the a 25 point gap in obp by half.

 

 

look, adherents to sabr can pick apart each individual point I have made, but it doesn't take a statistical genius to come to the conclusion that speed is a very valuable commodity, the true value of which has yet to be measured and is therefore easy to ignore.

[goonys evil twin]

look, adherents to sabr can pick apart each individual point I have made, but it doesn't take a statistical genius to come to the conclusion that speed is a very valuable commodity, the true value of which has yet to be measured and is therefore easy to ignore.

 

And even easier to greatly overvalue, which is something the Cubs have been doing this offseason.

[CubinNY]

how many times a year will Pierre v. Wilkerson force the fielder to take the sure out at first instead of turning a double play when he is the runner on first?

 

Probably less than 5 and more than 0. In otherwords, an insignificant amount.

 

helping me to demonstrate my point about failing to measure everything or measure everything accurately. 'it's probably X, so let's not attempt to measure and conclude it's insignificant'

 

while preventing this type of out isn't as valuable than avoiding an out while in the batter's box, over the course of 700 plate appearances the difference between a .325 and a .350 obp is 18 outs prevented. the difference between a .350 and .375 is 17 outs prevented.

 

so let's say the number of times Pierre does this is 5, but you have to diminish that because its not as valuable as an out prevented in the batter's box. so let's say those 5 are as valuable as 3 outs prevented in the batter's box. then you have to add to that the number of reached on errors that Pierre will have over Wilkerson. give him 5 more. that's 8 outs prevented. just with those two items alone, Pierre closes the a 25 point gap in obp by half.

 

 

 

look, adherents to sabr can pick apart each individual point I have made, but it doesn't take a statistical genius to come to the conclusion that speed is a very valuable commodity, the true value of which has yet to be measured and is therefore easy to ignore.

 

Where do you get these assumptions from? They bare no resemblence to reality whatsoever.

 

Wilkerson is not Mike Lowel. I think cpaptterson20 already mentioned Wilkerson has only hit into a handfull of DPs in his career.

 

Peirre doesn't take the best advantage of his speed b/c he is not that good of a base stealer.

 

However, it's fine if you think Pierre is a better leadoff hitter then Wilkerson.

[jjgman21]

look, adherents to sabr can pick apart each individual point I have made, but it doesn't take a statistical genius to come to the conclusion that speed is a very valuable commodity, the true value of which has yet to be measured and is therefore easy to ignore.

 

And even easier to greatly overvalue, which is something the Cubs have been doing this offseason.

 

how do you know when the value has not been completely or accurately measured.

 

I had a similare debate with you when I first came here regarding clutch. the gist of my argument was clutch may not exist but the way sabr has attempted to measure it doesn't tell the whole story. I was treated as a blasphemer.

 

http://www.sabr.org/cmsfiles/underestimating.PDF

 

while Matt critiqued some of James' methods, the point is clear, sabr is a new science, and accurate formulas for measuring it do not yet exist.

 

there are gaps in the information guys, and like I've said over and over here, the true measure of speed is not stolen bases alone, but most of the studies on the impact of speed focus solely on the stolen base.

[jjgman21]

how many times a year will Pierre v. Wilkerson force the fielder to take the sure out at first instead of turning a double play when he is the runner on first?

 

Probably less than 5 and more than 0. In otherwords, an insignificant amount.

 

helping me to demonstrate my point about failing to measure everything or measure everything accurately. 'it's probably X, so let's not attempt to measure and conclude it's insignificant'

 

while preventing this type of out isn't as valuable than avoiding an out while in the batter's box, over the course of 700 plate appearances the difference between a .325 and a .350 obp is 18 outs prevented. the difference between a .350 and .375 is 17 outs prevented.

 

so let's say the number of times Pierre does this is 5, but you have to diminish that because its not as valuable as an out prevented in the batter's box. so let's say those 5 are as valuable as 3 outs prevented in the batter's box. then you have to add to that the number of reached on errors that Pierre will have over Wilkerson. give him 5 more. that's 8 outs prevented. just with those two items alone, Pierre closes the a 25 point gap in obp by half.

 

 

 

look, adherents to sabr can pick apart each individual point I have made, but it doesn't take a statistical genius to come to the conclusion that speed is a very valuable commodity, the true value of which has yet to be measured and is therefore easy to ignore.

 

Where do you get these assumptions from? They bare no resemblence to reality whatsoever.

 

Wilkerson is not Mike Lowel. I think cpaptterson20 already mentioned Wilkerson has only hit into a handfull of DPs in his career.

 

Peirre doesn't take the best advantage of his speed b/c he is not that good of a base stealer.

 

However, it's fine if you think Pierre is a better leadoff hitter then Wilkerson.

 

where to you get the assumption that Pierre only turns 5 double plays a year into fielder's choices? your assumptions are better than mine? its that hard to foresee that five times in 700 plate appearances, Pierre's speed will turn a bobble into a reached on an error? it's probably alot more, and those times when Pierre is actually reaching base, he's getting credit for making an out.

 

yes, CPatt did mention that, but as I pointed out, Pierre as a base runner will force the defense to take one sure out, when Wilkerson will be a part of a double play. you already commented on that. maybe you forgot.

 

and for the umpteenth time, stolen bases is not the only part of the game of baseball that speed has an impact on.

 

edit for this: I have never argued that Pierre is a better leadoff man than Wilkerson. I have and am arguing that people are using disinformation and leaving alot of information out when comparing the two. this is not an argument about Pierre v. Wilkerson, its an argument about the methods one should use in comparing the two.

[CubinNY]

look, adherents to sabr can pick apart each individual point I have made, but it doesn't take a statistical genius to come to the conclusion that speed is a very valuable commodity, the true value of which has yet to be measured and is therefore easy to ignore.

 

And even easier to greatly overvalue, which is something the Cubs have been doing this offseason.

 

how do you know when the value has not been completely or accurately measured.

 

I had a similare debate with you when I first came here regarding clutch. the gist of my argument was clutch may not exist but the way sabr has attempted to measure it doesn't tell the whole story. I was treated as a blasphemer.

 

http://www.sabr.org/cmsfiles/underestimating.PDF

 

while Matt critiqued some of James' methods, the point is clear, sabr is a new science, and accurate formulas for measuring it do not yet exist.

 

there are gaps in the information guys, and like I've said over and over here, the true measure of speed is not stolen bases alone, but most of the studies on the impact of speed focus solely on the stolen base.

 

come on? blasphemer?

 

I don't think anyone has ever written that a "saber" approach (whatever that is) has all the answers. I think people base their opinion on the best available evidence and adjust their opnion accordingly when new evidence is presented.

 

There is a difference between statistically significant and meaningfully different.

 

Pierre is faster than Wilkerson, no dobut. But I think the important question is: Does the atvantage of foot speed outweigh the disatvantage in other areas. To me it does not.

 

In the other thread on Pierre in baseball discussions DK has a great post in relation to Juan's value.

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/PremiumForum/viewtopic.php?t=27305&start=20

[goonys evil twin]

I had a similare debate with you when I first came here regarding clutch. the gist of my argument was clutch may not exist but the way sabr has attempted to measure it doesn't tell the whole story. I was treated as a blasphemer.

 

http://www.sabr.org/cmsfiles/underestimating.PDF

 

while Matt critiqued some of James' methods, the point is clear, sabr is a new science, and accurate formulas for measuring it do not yet exist.

 

there are gaps in the information guys, and like I've said over and over here, the true measure of speed is not stolen bases alone, but most of the studies on the impact of speed focus solely on the stolen base.

 

So it's not okay to use what knowledge we have so far to say that speed in and of itself is not that valuable so as to demand a premium in money/talent traded? But it is okay to just assume that speed is really important and therefore spend half the offseason on a practically singleminded quest to find that speed come hell or high water and then pay a big price when you finally get it?

 

I'm all for speedy players. I'd love to get some speed players at many positions. But what I'd love more is productive players. And until somebody can prove to me that speed in and of itself really does make a player more valuable that his numbers would make him appear, than I'm not going to go gaga over speed for speed's sake. The Cubs are in love with speed for speed's sake. They gave preference to "speedy" players who were significantly less productive than others. It's pretty clear they are basing almost all decisions on conventional wisdom while ignoring most of what rational unbiased objective analysis can bring to the table.

 

See Hughes: "Pierre's my most favorite player". Gee, that's nice. Augie Ojeda was a lot of people's favorite player. And Craig Counsel was supposed to be one of your favorites before.

 

You complain about what "sabr" lacks, but offer no alternative other than assumptions that speed must be good, and therefore it's okay to pay a premium for it and spend valuable resources for it.

 

I believe you have to find a pretty solid mix of scouting and analysis. The Cubs are clearly a strict scouting organization, and that strategy has failed them miserably. They've shown no signs of bringing in other tools to their evaluation process. No $100m team should focus only on the "moneyball" approach and the "sabr" approach. They can afford to and should take risks on "upside" "potential" and "tools". However, the Cubs entire organization is focused solely on those subjective theories based on the conventional wisdom of a group of men who historically have at every turn attempted to thwart progress in the game and league. We're talking about people who not only still want to judge players on strikeouts, batting average, HR and RBI, but guys who say a pitcher can't make it if he's under 6'2", guys like David Kelton have such a "pure" swing that nobody in the organization should mess with it, Corey Patterson should be a leadoff hitter even though we spent his first three years with the organization explaining why he never was and never will be a leadoff hitter.

 

This is a franchise with a history of nothing but failure, and a front office that has not shown nearly enough progress in 10 freaking years to prove they could be the ones to change things.

 

Perhaps their view that conventional wisdom and scouting win out over objective analysis is a bit flawed. Perhaps their love for speed is just as flawed. Perhaps your defense of their beliefs is a bit misguided. Perhaps. Or maybe all these losses are due to goats or cheap ownership.

[Lefty]

Speed is accounted for in the traditional stats quite nicely. In Pierre's case, what would his BA look like without his speed. If he was slow he wouldn't be in the majors, but he'd have trouble outhitting pitchers if he was.

 

.16*(H+BB+HBP-CS-GIDP-((.02*(K+CS+GIDP)) +

.31*(TB+(.55*((SB+SH+SF+BB-IBB+HBP-(.2*(K+CS+GIDP)))))) -

X*(AB-H+SH+SF+CS+GIDP)

 

where X is set so this formula equals runs scored by league. I know that's data fitting, so shoot me. X for the 2005 NL was .0841.

 

Anyway this should allow you to make all comparisons you need between offensive players after you take into account the ballpark and the amount of outs used (AB-H+SH+SF+CS+GIDP).

 

Hardball Times and Baseball Prospectus also have baserunning stats. So you can see how often guys took extra bases or were thrown out taking extra bases. But my formula is a start.

[jjgman21]

 

come on? blasphemer?

 

when the search function is back on, take a look at my history. if it doesn't reach the level of blasphemy, please forgive me for exagerrating.

 

I don't think anyone has ever written that a "saber" approach (whatever that is) has all the answers. I think people base their opinion on the best available evidence and adjust their opnion accordingly when new evidence is presented.

 

I disagree. I think many people think sabr has all the answers, but whatever.

 

the problem with that is how quick many are to dismiss evidence because it can't be easily reduced to a number, especially when it flies in the face of logic and observation.

 

alot of people like to equate sabr with Galileo. Galileo started out by concluding that the earth moves around the sun via observation, not mathmatical formula. is it that difficult to conclude that Pierre is much more likely to score once he reaches base? is it that difficult to conclude that slugging loses value when batting behind the 8th and 9th hitter?

 

I think I have presented some evidence, or at least raised some questions about previously held assumptions, in this thread that shows speed has value that people have not taken into account in their previous analysis. you can see how many minds I have swayed.

 

 

Pierre is faster than Wilkerson, no dobut. But I think the important question is: Does the atvantage of foot speed outweigh the disatvantage in other areas. To me it does not.

 

I can see how you come to that conclusion after excluding everything but the stolen base in your analysis of the impact of speed.

[jjgman21]

I had a similare debate with you when I first came here regarding clutch. the gist of my argument was clutch may not exist but the way sabr has attempted to measure it doesn't tell the whole story. I was treated as a blasphemer.

 

http://www.sabr.org/cmsfiles/underestimating.PDF

 

while Matt critiqued some of James' methods, the point is clear, sabr is a new science, and accurate formulas for measuring it do not yet exist.

 

there are gaps in the information guys, and like I've said over and over here, the true measure of speed is not stolen bases alone, but most of the studies on the impact of speed focus solely on the stolen base.

 

So it's not okay to use what knowledge we have so far to say that speed in and of itself is not that valuable so as to demand a premium in money/talent traded? But it is okay to just assume that speed is really important and therefore spend half the offseason on a practically singleminded quest to find that speed come hell or high water and then pay a big price when you finally get it?

 

I'm all for speedy players. I'd love to get some speed players at many positions. But what I'd love more is productive players. And until somebody can prove to me that speed in and of itself really does make a player more valuable that his numbers would make him appear, than I'm not going to go gaga over speed for speed's sake. The Cubs are in love with speed for speed's sake. They gave preference to "speedy" players who were significantly less productive than others. It's pretty clear they are basing almost all decisions on conventional wisdom while ignoring most of what rational unbiased objective analysis can bring to the table.

 

See Hughes: "Pierre's my most favorite player". Gee, that's nice. Augie Ojeda was a lot of people's favorite player. And Craig Counsel was supposed to be one of your favorites before.

 

You complain about what "sabr" lacks, but offer no alternative other than assumptions that speed must be good, and therefore it's okay to pay a premium for it and spend valuable resources for it.

 

I believe you have to find a pretty solid mix of scouting and analysis. The Cubs are clearly a strict scouting organization, and that strategy has failed them miserably. They've shown no signs of bringing in other tools to their evaluation process. No $100m team should focus only on the "moneyball" approach and the "sabr" approach. They can afford to and should take risks on "upside" "potential" and "tools". However, the Cubs entire organization is focused solely on those subjective theories based on the conventional wisdom of a group of men who historically have at every turn attempted to thwart progress in the game and league. We're talking about people who not only still want to judge players on strikeouts, batting average, HR and RBI, but guys who say a pitcher can't make it if he's under 6'2", guys like David Kelton have such a "pure" swing that nobody in the organization should mess with it, Corey Patterson should be a leadoff hitter even though we spent his first three years with the organization explaining why he never was and never will be a leadoff hitter.

 

This is a franchise with a history of nothing but failure, and a front office that has not shown nearly enough progress in 10 freaking years to prove they could be the ones to change things.

 

Perhaps their view that conventional wisdom and scouting win out over objective analysis is a bit flawed. Perhaps their love for speed is just as flawed. Perhaps your defense of their beliefs is a bit misguided. Perhaps. Or maybe all these losses are due to goats or cheap ownership.

 

just two comments -

 

first, there is a nice mix of false choices (ie. the knowledge we have about speed may not be complete), disinformation, and putting words into my mouth here (Counsel my favorite player? you're thinking of someone else).

 

second, just look at all the speedy players the Cubs have acquired over the years. the organization just oozes with over emphasis on speed, now doesn't it.

[jjgman21]

Speed is accounted for in the traditional stats quite nicely. In Pierre's case, what would his BA look like without his speed. If he was slow he wouldn't be in the majors, but he'd have trouble outhitting pitchers if he was.

 

.16*(H+BB+HBP-CS-GIDP-((.02*(K+CS+GIDP)) +

.31*(TB+(.55*((SB+SH+SF+BB-IBB+HBP-(.2*(K+CS+GIDP)))))) -

X*(AB-H+SH+SF+CS+GIDP)

 

where X is set so this formula equals runs scored by league. I know that's data fitting, so shoot me. X for the 2005 NL was .0841.

 

Anyway this should allow you to make all comparisons you need between offensive players after you take into account the ballpark and the amount of outs used (AB-H+SH+SF+CS+GIDP).

 

Hardball Times and Baseball Prospectus also have baserunning stats. So you can see how often guys took extra bases or were thrown out taking extra bases. But my formula is a start.

 

thank you for that. I don't have the skills to critique the methods, or to run the calculations, but that's a start.

 

all I am is saying is, in order to accurately compare the two players, these are the types of numbers that need to be taken into account. nobody has posted the numbers after these calculations are made to compare the two players. instead the detrators or Pierre talk about nothing but stolen bases and leave it as that.

[jjgman21]

I had a similare debate with you when I first came here regarding clutch. the gist of my argument was clutch may not exist but the way sabr has attempted to measure it doesn't tell the whole story. I was treated as a blasphemer.

 

http://www.sabr.org/cmsfiles/underestimating.PDF

 

while Matt critiqued some of James' methods, the point is clear, sabr is a new science, and accurate formulas for measuring it do not yet exist.

 

there are gaps in the information guys, and like I've said over and over here, the true measure of speed is not stolen bases alone, but most of the studies on the impact of speed focus solely on the stolen base.

 

So it's not okay to use what knowledge we have so far to say that speed in and of itself is not that valuable so as to demand a premium in money/talent traded? But it is okay to just assume that speed is really important and therefore spend half the offseason on a practically singleminded quest to find that speed come hell or high water and then pay a big price when you finally get it?

 

I'm all for speedy players. I'd love to get some speed players at many positions. But what I'd love more is productive players. And until somebody can prove to me that speed in and of itself really does make a player more valuable that his numbers would make him appear, than I'm not going to go gaga over speed for speed's sake. The Cubs are in love with speed for speed's sake. They gave preference to "speedy" players who were significantly less productive than others. It's pretty clear they are basing almost all decisions on conventional wisdom while ignoring most of what rational unbiased objective analysis can bring to the table.

 

See Hughes: "Pierre's my most favorite player". Gee, that's nice. Augie Ojeda was a lot of people's favorite player. And Craig Counsel was supposed to be one of your favorites before.

 

You complain about what "sabr" lacks, but offer no alternative other than assumptions that speed must be good, and therefore it's okay to pay a premium for it and spend valuable resources for it.

 

I believe you have to find a pretty solid mix of scouting and analysis. The Cubs are clearly a strict scouting organization, and that strategy has failed them miserably. They've shown no signs of bringing in other tools to their evaluation process. No $100m team should focus only on the "moneyball" approach and the "sabr" approach. They can afford to and should take risks on "upside" "potential" and "tools". However, the Cubs entire organization is focused solely on those subjective theories based on the conventional wisdom of a group of men who historically have at every turn attempted to thwart progress in the game and league. We're talking about people who not only still want to judge players on strikeouts, batting average, HR and RBI, but guys who say a pitcher can't make it if he's under 6'2", guys like David Kelton have such a "pure" swing that nobody in the organization should mess with it, Corey Patterson should be a leadoff hitter even though we spent his first three years with the organization explaining why he never was and never will be a leadoff hitter.

 

This is a franchise with a history of nothing but failure, and a front office that has not shown nearly enough progress in 10 freaking years to prove they could be the ones to change things.

 

Perhaps their view that conventional wisdom and scouting win out over objective analysis is a bit flawed. Perhaps their love for speed is just as flawed. Perhaps your defense of their beliefs is a bit misguided. Perhaps. Or maybe all these losses are due to goats or cheap ownership.

 

just two comments -

 

first, there is a nice mix of false choices (ie. the knowledge we have about speed may not be complete), disinformation, and putting words into my mouth here (Counsel my favorite player? you're thinking of someone else).

 

second, just look at all the speedy players the Cubs have acquired over the years. the organization just oozes with over emphasis on speed, now doesn't it.

 

a third comment

 

I completely agree there needs to be a mix of sabr and scouting, and the people that are in both camps discount the other way to much, to the point of often failing to see the forest through the trees.

 

and a fourth

 

I got to get some work done guys.

[UK1679666180]

There was a done several years ago that mentioned that if you took 2 players same production except one had good to great speed and the other had avg. to below. avg. speed, that speed difference as far as advancing bases would lead to .2-.4 wins per year.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

There was a done several years ago that mentioned that if you took 2 players same production except one had good to great speed and the other had avg. to below. avg. speed, that speed difference as far as advancing bases would lead to .2-.4 wins per year.

 

You mean with a little more speed, we could have won 79.2-79.4 games instead of a paltry 79? :D

[UK1679666180]

Plus the Cubs CF'ers had an adjusted OPS of .582 last year, compared to Pierre's adjusted OPS of .666 and it also doesn't fact SBs.

 

Fwiw, Michaels had an adjusted OPS of .873

Edited December 9, 2005 by UK

[goonys evil twin]

See Hughes: "Pierre's my most favorite player". Gee, that's nice. Augie Ojeda was a lot of people's favorite player. And Craig Counsel was supposed to be one of your favorites before.

first, there is a nice mix of false choices (ie. the knowledge we have about speed may not be complete), disinformation, and putting words into my mouth here (Counsel my favorite player? you're thinking of someone else).

 

second, just look at all the speedy players the Cubs have acquired over the years. the organization just oozes with over emphasis on speed, now doesn't it.

 

What I wrote about Counsell was based on quotes from Hughes, not you.

 

There was no disinformation in what I wrote.

 

I never said they had a history of going after and overvaluing speed. I said they are currently going after and overvaluing speed. The Cubs plans seem to blow with the wind. Dusty has been whining about speed and fundamentals. Jim apparantly worships Baker and is going all out to solve these. Maybe he's doing it to say "Hey Dusty you got what you wanted now if we lose it's your fault." Or maybe because he really is as blinded by the hype as he appears to be. At various times in their recent history the Cubs have gone hard after filling a hole with a stereotypical player, to the detriment of the team.

 

We need a proven closer. Hey, Afonseca saved 45 once.

We need a versatile utility man. Hey, Macias fits the bill.

We need a left handed starter. Hey Estes once won a lot of games.

We need a proven starter to fill out that 5th spot this season. Well, let's move Dempster out of the closer's role and just hand him the starting job because he's started before, and just ignore how bad he was as a starter and how bad he was this spring.

We need veterans on the bench. Hey, let's go with Rey Ordonez, Lenny Harris, Enrique Wilson, Tom Goodwin, Troy O'Leary, Tony Womack, Jose Hernandez and a host of others despite having similar players available in the system who are only different because they haven't yet proven that they aren't that good.

 

When the Cubs get really excited about a specific trait, whether that be if a guy is left handed, a veteran, a proven closer, versatile, or even experienced in that ballpark, it does not work out. I feel that their infatuation with catching the ball and speed is very likely to turn out the same way. And I use their history of failure and whatever objective analysis I can get my hands on to substantiate those fears and show it's not just unbridled pessimism or paranoia.

[Chocolate Milk]

I can almost hear Marv Albert saying this thread's title.

[cubbyvirus00]

I can almost hear Marv Albert saying this thread's title.

 

 

HAHA....god that was good.

[jjgman21]

There was a done several years ago that mentioned that if you took 2 players same production except one had good to great speed and the other had avg. to below. avg. speed, that speed difference as far as advancing bases would lead to .2-.4 wins per year.

 

interesting.

 

I mentioned up above how, based on 700 PAs, the difference between a .350 and a .375 OBP is 17 fewer outs made. any studies done on how many runs those 17 fewer outs made leads to? how many wins those 17 fewer outs made would lead to?

 

I can't imagine the increase of wins based on 17 fewer outs made in 700 PAs would be vast. therefore, I don't image too many sabrs are interested in doing such studies, as that would seriously undermine what they are ultimately trying to achieve.

 

the Heritage Foundation can show you many studies on the non-existence of global warming. how many of those "scientists" had an agenda going into their studies? all of them.

[UK1679666180]

http://www.pankin.com/sabr30/

[goonys evil twin]

I don't image too many sabrs are interested in doing such studies, as that would seriously undermine what they are ultimately trying to achieve.

 

What exactly do you think they are trying to achieve? Drumming every fast player out of the game? Sounds like more anti moneyball paranoia to me. As far as I can tell SABR people interested in objective analysis in baseball are trying to gain more knowledge about the game of baseball, they do research, and apply that research either with papers/books or trying to work for a team and making it better. What do you think their agenda is that would cause them to purposefully skew data and basically lie.