Corey Patterson for Kevin Mench REJECTED by TX

[Blueheart05]

Getting back on topic, the Suntimes reports today that the Rangers have been looking for a number two starter in exchange for Mench. What are they thinking?

 

Even the Texas Rangers are shooting high in what they're seeking for Kevin Mench. They told the Cubs they would need a No. 2 starter, at least, to give him up, even though the Rangers have a surplus of outfielders as they continue their endless pursuit of pitching.

[frostwyrm]

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.

 

I really think Corey should have played winter ball. If he were playing and doing well he would have some trade value now. By sitting out, in open defiance of the Cubs' wishes, he has screwed the team and probably himself. In the past I defended Corey, but now I don't care what happens to him.

[JeffH]

They'll get #2, all right!

 

#2

 

Get it?

 

(I did that in my best Darrell Hammond-as-Sean Connery on Celebrity Jeopardy voice).

[CuseCubFan69]

Getting back on topic, the Suntimes reports today that the Rangers have been looking for a number two starter in exchange for Mench. What are they thinking?

 

Even the Texas Rangers are shooting high in what they're seeking for Kevin Mench. They told the Cubs they would need a No. 2 starter, at least, to give him up, even though the Rangers have a surplus of outfielders as they continue their endless pursuit of pitching.

 

Maybe the Cubs can give them Prior and Z? Somebody tell the Rangers they already had Christmas when they traded with the Nats.

[Elrhino]

If 2/3 of our starting OF next year consists of Murton and CP, lordy will we ever massively suck.

[jjgman21]

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.

 

see the bolded part? does that answer your question? their agenda is to protect the conclusions that they came to. maybe when Bill James was working his security job it was altruistic, but now its in large part about money and defending their rightness.

 

the pankin study is interesting, but again based on math I don't understand. I would like to see someone plug the numbers of Pierre and Wilkerson as the Cubs leadoff guy for 2005 and see what they come up with.

 

but what I truly found interesting, is that Pankin states 10 additional runs translates into one additional W per year. so going back again to my comparison of a .350 v. a .375 OPB and 17 fewer outs, if the .375 guy scores every single additional time he reaches base over the .350 guy, which is absurd, that translates into 1.7 additional wins in a year. not alot.

 

a more reasonable assumption is what, being generous maybe 5 additional runs in a year? so by that rudimentary calculation, 25 extra points in OBP just about equals the number of wins a fast runner gives over a slow runner.

[CubbieSouthpaw]

They'll get #2, all right!

 

#2

 

Get it?

 

(I did that in my best Darrell Hammond-as-Sean Connery on Celebrity Jeopardy voice).

 

LMAO =D>

[goonys evil twin]

the pankin study is interesting, but again based on math I don't understand.

 

I think that is the primary motivation for most people who adamently oppose what they hear coming out of the non-traditional side of baseball.

[Diffusion]

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? that is preventing outs.

 

It is preventing outs, and it is a benefit of speed. All the same, my guess is that that doesn't happen particularly often.

 

how many more rallies than Pierre did Wilkerson kill with his massive amounts of strikeouts?

 

Assuming no error, the difference in the value of a strikeout relative to a normal out is practically zero when there are no runners on-base, as is the case most of the time with the leadoff hitter, particularly in the NL. As such, again, the effect of this is relatively small. The strikeouts though do suppress Wilkerson's average, for what that's worth. Not much, because he gets on-base using the walk, which is just as good as a single if the bases are empty.

 

how more many times a year will Pierre turn a bobble into a reached on an error, whereas the same bobble will be an out for Wilkerson?

 

A very minor consideration.

 

how about the number of times Pierre turns a pitch getting away into a wp/pb when Wilkerson doesn't move. does Pierre get credit for extra slugging?

 

Again, a very minor consideration.

 

Pierre reaches second or beyond on his own at a much greater rate than Wilkerson. you subtract the number of homeruns from the times reaching second on their own, and the gap is even greater. probably on average 30-40 times more per year. that's alot, and that translates to runs. not sure runs like Wilkerson's HRs, but it will translate into alot of rus that Wilkerson never even had the opportunity to score because he was standing on first.

 

For 2002-2004 (his last three healthy seasons), Wilkerson reached second base, at least, on his own an estimated 74.9 times per 650 plate appearances.

 

For 2003-2005 (his last three healthy seasons), Juan Pierre reached second base, at least, on his own an estimated 80.5 times per 650 plate appearances.

 

So, over the course of approximately a full season, Pierre reached second base on his own about 5 times more. An advantage that is absolutely irrelevant when you consider that Wilkerson was automatically scoring 24.4 times per 650 PA relative to Pierre's 1.76 times.

 

The formula I've used to estimate how many times the players have reached 2B on their own is [(2B + 3B + HR + SB) / (PA)] * 650

 

the second point is best illustrated by example. if Pierre scores from first on a double, whereas Wilkerson only reaches third on the same double, does Pierre not deserve an additional tally in the total bases column when comparing him to Wilkerson? what about all the other times in a year that Pierre will take a base that Wilkerson could not?

 

Hardball Times look at this, and decided that over the course of the last five years, Pierre has been worth about 8 runs a season over an average baserunner in terms of taking extra bases on other people's hits. Wilkerson is probably an above average baserunner.

 

I've said many times, the problem with sabr is it reaches alot of conclusions without measuring everything or measuring everything accurately. it has become just as dogmatic as traditional baseball scouting and analysis.

 

It measures them accurately enough to know that they're not hugely important. Yes, they still count. But you add up all the tiny little things you've included here that are supposedly in Pierre's favour (although some of them apparently aren't when you look at the numbers, like GIDP) and it doesn't change the fact that Wilkerson is still the better player.

[Diffusion]

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.

 

And then when you take into account all Pierre's caught stealings, well, the gap's bigger than when you started out in the first place.

[jjgman21]

my guess is that that doesn't happen particularly often.

again, the effect of this is relatively small

A very minor consideration.

Again, a very minor consideration.

 

how many minor considerations does it take before it becomes a consideration? again, by way of example, the difference in 25 point of obp is approximately 17 times reaching base. if Pierre reaches second instead of being part of a double play 5 times a year, let's say that's worth three outs from the batter's box. if he forces 5 errors, that's 8 outs saved. add in one or two reached on a dropped third strike, and that makes 10 outs saved. as you can see, that 25 point gap in obp can close rather quickly with the accumulative effects of all these 'minor considerations'

 

Assuming no error, the difference in the value of a strikeout relative to a normal out is practically zero when there are no runners on-base, as is the case most of the time with the leadoff hitter, particularly in the NL

 

you flip flop on this. when discussing the importance of slugging, you like to say how a first hole hitter usually only leads off the first inning. when talking about productive outs, you say there are no runners on base for the leadoff hitter.

 

if you want to detract from productive outs out of the leadoff hitter, you have to detract from the value of slugging pushing runners ahead from the leadoff hitter. you can't have it both ways.

 

another area of flip flopping is your emphasize on how important Wilkerson's slugging will be in pushing runners along, but don't ever mention how many times runners will move along on Pierre's singles instead of Wilkerson's walks. while Pierre's slap hits won't move alot of runners along, runners on second and third never advance on a walk. again, you can't have it both ways. if you want to give credit to one, you have to give credit to both.

 

furthermore, you are taking the discussion of strikeouts completely out of context. I used it to compare the amount of rallies killed. two ways to kill a rally, or to eliminate the chance to score a run at least, are DPs and strikeouts. someone pointed to Wilkerson's low DP rate compared to Pierre to point out that Pierre is more of a rally killer, so in a discussion of killing rallies, I think it is fair to point out how often Wilkerson will fail to move a runner to third or drive him in from third by striking out.

 

 

For 2002-2004 (his last three healthy seasons), Wilkerson reached second base, at least, on his own an estimated 74.9 times per 650 plate appearances.

 

For 2003-2005 (his last three healthy seasons), Juan Pierre reached second base, at least, on his own an estimated 80.5 times per 650 plate appearances.

 

...

 

The formula I've used to estimate how many times the players have reached 2B on their own is [(2B + 3B + HR + SB) / (PA)] * 650

 

the formula I used actually detracted more from Pierre's SB, your's did not, but lets use actual numbers instead of an estimate (to easily calculate, XBH + SB / AB + BB)

 

Wilkerson

2002 - .105

2003 - .118

2004 - .127

ave - .116

x 650 = 75.4

 

Pierre

2003 - .140

2004 - .113

2005 - .131

ave - .128

x 650 = 83.2

 

I get 8 times a year. and you're willing to throw out Wilkerson's injury season (and just how injured was he if he played the entire year?), yet I'm sure you aren't willing to throw out his massive 2004, which came out of nowhere and there is no evidence that he will repeat that type of year, whereas Pierre has pretty much proven the ability to get to second on his own at a greater rate, year after year after year.

 

And then when you take into account all Pierre's caught stealings, well, the gap's bigger than when you started out in the first place.

 

again, missing my point. I wasn't comparing the two players. I was pointing out that, according to that sabr guys estimation that 10 runs per year leads to .2-.4 extra wins a year, 25 extra points in a players OBP has the same net effect on wins per year as the difference in a speedy guy over an average guy. so let's say Wilkersons obp is 50 points greater. that's what, 30 more times reaching base? assuming that leads to 30 runs, again an absurd notion, that's 3 extra wins a year. more realistically, let's say it lead to 10 more runs a year. that's 1 win a year.

 

It measures them accurately enough to know that they're not hugely important.

 

and as I pointed out, even Bill James called into question some of sabr's previously held notions. and not surprisingly, all the sabrs got into an uproar about it. why? why not use it as motivation to come up with better numbers instead of doing everything possible to defend previously held beliefs?

 

I'm not arguing for less use of stats and more traditional scouting. even without math skills to understand and critique these studies, I believe there are weaknesses in the way somethings have been calculated, and the sabrs have become so defensive in protecting their theories, that they too are now thinking inside the box.

 

and the final point you are missing is, I don't particularly like Pierre and would have rather had Wilkerson. but the lengths and methods many have gone through to detract from Pierre and glorify Wilkerson is absurd. the difference is not as clear as you argue, and if Wilkerson is the better player and will lead to more victories, the number of victories provided by Wilkerson over Pierre is marginal at best.