What you're getting in JJ (so long it needs it's own thread)

[Guest]

For what it's worth, I did hear a sound clip this morning on XM. It was Jacque Jones talking about what he brings to the Cubs. Most of it was the typical "happy to be here" stuff. But he did mention his walk rate. He talked about how he is working to become a more patient hitter, had a career high in walks in 2005, and is hoping to build on that in 2006.

 

While I'm still not happy about the signing, it's nice to hear a player actually recognize that he needs to be a more patient hitter.

 

For the record...

 

Jacque Jones

Age 24 season, 1999, 16 non-intentional walks, 1 intentional walk in 347 PA

Age 25 season, 2000, 22 non-intentional walks, 4 intentional walks in 550 PA

Age 26 season, 2001, 37 non-intentional walks, 2 intentional walks in 519 PA

Age 27 season, 2002, 35 non-intentional walks, 2 intentional walks in 626 PA

Age 28 season, 2003, 19 non-intentional walks, 2 intentional walks in 548 PA

Age 29 season, 2004, 38 non-intentional walks, 2 intentional walks in 608 PA

Age 30 season, 2005, 39 non-intentional walks, 12 intentional walks in 585 PA

 

Not really seeing enormous strides forward here. Technically he did indeed set a career high even in non-intentional walks, but he did so by 1 non-intentional walk (albeit in 23 fewer PAs). He also put up just 2 fewer non-intentional walks in 2001 (in 66 fewer PAs).

Wow... I didn't even notice all those intentional balls (45) when looking at his take/swing ratio. Even ignoring all those gimme takes, however, he's still a lot more patient now than was in previous years. Ignoring intentional balls, his T/S ratio has improved from .79, .74, .94, .97 over 2002-2005. It should probably be noted, however, that he's still well below the league average ratio of 1.23.

Edited December 21, 2005 by Anonymous

[Diffusion]

For what it's worth, I did hear a sound clip this morning on XM. It was Jacque Jones talking about what he brings to the Cubs. Most of it was the typical "happy to be here" stuff. But he did mention his walk rate. He talked about how he is working to become a more patient hitter, had a career high in walks in 2005, and is hoping to build on that in 2006.

 

While I'm still not happy about the signing, it's nice to hear a player actually recognize that he needs to be a more patient hitter.

 

like i said, if his IsoD stays the same and his average returns to the .300 neighborhood, he could be a pretty good addition.

 

For the record, for Jones' IsoD to stay the same with an increase in his average, his plate discipline would actually need to slightly improve. It's a statistical quirk best explained by an example.

 

Two players that draw walks exactly as often are given 600 plate appearances to play with.

 

Player A (a .250 hitter) draws 40 walks. He isn't hit by a pitch and doesn't lay down a sac bunt (for the sake of keeping things simple). That leaves 560 at-bats, in which he gets 140 hits (because he's a .250 hitter). Player A's on-base percentage is .300 (180 divided by 600), 50 points higher than his average.

 

Player B (a .300 hitter) also draws 40 walks. He also isn't hit by a pitch and doesn't lay down a sac bunt. That again leaves 560 at-bats, in which he gets 168 hits (because he's a .300 hitter). Player B's on base percentage is .34666.. (208 divided by 600), just 46.666... points higher than his average, not 50 as is the case for Player A.

 

It's only a small change, but it's one reason that using the difference between a player's AVG and OBP as a measure of his plate discipline is flawed.

[RynoRules]

The author and his opinion are welcome, but to get upset that others criticized it is ridiculous. Should I not be allowed to post my criticism of the post just because others will also agree with me.

 

And yes, there may be a pessimistic view around here....but some would simply say it is realistic. While I have been seen as one being critical to Dusty and Hendry's offseason moves, I was on the other side of the fence prior to 2005 season. (If the search function was working, I'd show you for proof.)

 

If someone can't handle having their opinion critcized and dissected, I'd suggest not offering it for public consumption.

 

Yeah, but one member said the thread should be locked b/c of its optimisim and another called it "idiotic". I don't think eitherof those reactions fall within the spirit of this bd.

 

the post WAS idiotic. not for it's optimism, though.

 

and i don't reacll willis actually saying that it should be locked due to it's optimism.

 

Ryno, i want to you to read this real good, i like you, but actually try to understand what i'm saying:

 

willis was saying it should be locked because it was so plainly incendiary. i was saying that the post was idiotic because it WAS IDIOTIC.

 

not because it was optimistic, not at all. my response offered reasons to be optimistic without being idiotic but obviously you didn't read it all the way through.

 

it's being criticized because it was a stupid, incendiary, and BASELESS (most importantly) argument. it was called out because it was a post with an insulting agenda. if he can insult the intelligence of many on this board, i reserve the right to insult his post.

 

Directed to Sulley and Willis:

Fair enough. I misread the tone of your posts. I don't have a problem attacking the integrity of the post, as I agree it stood on soft ground. I thought you were attacking the poster; my bad.

 

I agree this signing stinks and is disappointing. Though I would direct you to Cuse's post re Jones pre and post August 2005 nos. I found a small amount of solice there.

[Sweet Swinging Billy]

I agree with TC3_Hinrich12, in terms of at least let's giving J.J. a chance. As Cub fans we are always so negative. I just hope and pray there aren't some bozos out there that start booing him on Opening Day. I say give him plenty of time to prove himself. I mean what's the point in being so dang negative, about hating Hendry/Baker and that Jacque Jones is the worst signing ever. Some of y'all really depress me, maybe I should be like some of you and give up on the Cubs for 06 -- No way! I've been a Cub fan for 45 years and I aint changing now. J.J. certainly wasn't my worst choice but we did sign him, so let's make the best of a bad situation, by being positive and giving J.J. the benefit of the doubt. I for one hope and pray that Jones proves all of us wrong.

[Magnetic Curses]

I agree with TC3_Hinrich12, in terms of at least let's giving J.J. a chance. As Cub fans we are always so negative. I just hope and pray there aren't some bozos out there that start booing him on Opening Day. I say give him plenty of time to prove himself. I mean what's the point in being so dang negative, about hating Hendry/Baker and that Jacque Jones is the worst signing ever. Some of y'all really depress me, maybe I should be like some of you and give up on the Cubs for 06 -- No way! I've been a Cub fan for 45 years and I aint changing now. J.J. certainly wasn't my worst choice but we did sign him, so let's make the best of a bad situation, by being positive and giving J.J. the benefit of the doubt. I for one hope and pray that Jones proves all of us wrong.

 

nobody has given up hope, but TC3 Hinrich gave us really lousy reasons to be optimistic.

 

here are better ones since you didn't read my earlier post:

 

1. Jones' improving IsoD and pitches seen per PA.

 

2. pierre, walker, lee, ramirez, murton, cedeno, barrett

 

3. the bullpen.

 

4. the fact that we have enough money to sign millwood, hopefully.

[UK1679666180]

It's always good that he has a line drive swing, there are times especially ahead in the count where he'll uppercut his wing.

 

But, last year he was an extreme ground ball hitter. If he hits like that at Wrigley, he'll struggle to hit over .240. This isn't the Metrodome of the early part of this decade, those that get past the 2b in Minnesota will become routine outs at Wrigley.

The numbers just don't support the notion that Jones has a LD swing or that all those GB last year were out of the ordinary for him.

 

From 2003-2005, Jones hit line drives 12.9, 15.4, and 13.2% of his swings that made contact, respectively. That's well below the league average for full-time players, which was at 18.9% in 2005. His ground ball rate wasn't much higher in 2005 than it had been in previous years, either; In 2005 59.7% of his hits were ground balls, compared to 56.2 and 61.2% in 2004 and 2003. (With the league average being 48.6%.)

 

Jones doesn't hit many line drives and hits many, many ground balls. He doesn't possess the great speed required to turn many of those GB into hits in Wrigley's long grass. Coupled with his high strikeout ratio, I think a batting average in the .250 range is probably about what should be expected out of Jones. The good news is that his improved walk rate looks to be sustainable as he's much more patient now than he was a few years ago. (His take/swing ratio has improved from .80 in 2002 to 1.02 in 2005.)

 

Still, is a .250/.320/.440 line really what we'd like to see out of our starting right fielder for the next three years?

 

His .251 GB/FB ratio is much higher than his career norm and was the highest of his career.

[goonys evil twin]

As Cub fans we are always so negative.

 

Is it not justified?

 

 

I just hope and pray there aren't some bozos out there that start booing him on Opening Day. I say give him plenty of time to prove himself. I mean what's the point in being so dang negative, about hating Hendry/Baker and that Jacque Jones is the worst signing ever.

 

Jones has had plenty of time to prive himself. Just like Rusch, just like Neifi, Jones has proven that he's not good. He doens't help this team. This isn't a great team that needed to fill a little hole with a warm body. That RF position was going to be the 4 or 5 hitter on this team. They signed a 7 hitter, and they gave him too much money.

 

What is the point of being so negative? It's not like any of us set out to be negative. It's not like we were dying for a signing like this so we could vent our anger. Hendry made the worst possible decision, and it pissed many people off. What are we supposed to do when we've been begging for months for him not to sign Jacque Jones and to acquire a good RF?

 

Despite all the moronic claims that this board is run by group think and everybody is giving up on the 2006 season, that is not the case. This signing is obviously bad. When a move is made that is obviously bad, the vast majority of people will hate it. Some of it is overly dramatic, but you can hardly blame a Cubs fan for being overly dramatic when the GM makes an awful move. I am among the loudest opponents of this stupid move, and most of this terrible offseason. But I've pointed out many times I don't think 2006 is shot. I think this is a .500 team right now. If everything goes right, they can flirt with 90 wins and contend. I just think it's asinine to run a baseball team so that success can only be achieved if everything goes right. And I think it's incompetent to field a team with a $100m payroll that finishes under .500, and then try and fix that team but putting together a team that needs huge luck in its favor to finish significantly above .500.

[goonys evil twin]

2. pierre, walker, lee, ramirez, murton, cedeno, barrett

 

 

Mike Kiley wrote that Walker is behind Neifi on the depth chart right now.

 

I really think people have to come to terms with the idea of Neifi getting 500 plate appearances, or more.

 

This lineup will not be good. It might not be terrible, but it's certainly capable of it.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The author and his opinion are welcome, but to get upset that others criticized it is ridiculous. Should I not be allowed to post my criticism of the post just because others will also agree with me.

 

And yes, there may be a pessimistic view around here....but some would simply say it is realistic. While I have been seen as one being critical to Dusty and Hendry's offseason moves, I was on the other side of the fence prior to 2005 season. (If the search function was working, I'd show you for proof.)

 

If someone can't handle having their opinion critcized and dissected, I'd suggest not offering it for public consumption.

 

Yeah, but one member said the thread should be locked b/c of its optimisim and another called it "idiotic". I don't think eitherof those reactions fall within the spirit of this bd.

 

I agree with that sentiment as well, and the poster who suggested it be locked was chastised by the mods as well.

[CuseCubFan69]

2. pierre, walker, lee, ramirez, murton, cedeno, barrett

 

 

Mike Kiley wrote that Walker is behind Neifi on the depth chart right now.

 

I really think people have to come to terms with the idea of Neifi getting 500 plate appearances, or more.

 

This lineup will not be good. It might not be terrible, but it's certainly capable of it.

 

Absolutely. Perez will start at 2nd or SS and bat 2nd unless Baker sees Jones as a 2 hitter and the Cubs will have a huge hole at the 5 spot....along with the 2.

[Roast]

Wow, Our outfield is going to be terrible.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Wow, Our outfield is going to be terrible.

 

And ironicly, it will still be better than last year's outfield.

[Magnetic Curses]

2. pierre, walker, lee, ramirez, murton, cedeno, barrett

 

 

Mike Kiley wrote that Walker is behind Neifi on the depth chart right now.

 

I really think people have to come to terms with the idea of Neifi getting 500 plate appearances, or more.

 

This lineup will not be good. It might not be terrible, but it's certainly capable of it.

 

i won't believe it until i see it.

[Keener98]

Wow, Our outfield is going to be terrible.

 

And ironicly, it will still be better than last year's outfield.

 

Vance, I love the sig! Seems like there are a lot of "good" cubs fans right here, but I guess we all have to love Hendry and everything he does to be considered "good".

[brinoch]

I don't even know where to start. Clutch? A leader? How about the fact that he batted .249 with an OBP of .319 last year. That's Neifiesque.

 

And how come you don't compare Burnitz's numbers to Jone's? Is it maybe becuase Burnitz stacks up better than Jones. To say that Jones runs the bases better and is a better defender is ridiculous.

 

And I don't care how much energy Jones bring if he can't hit for crap.

 

This thread is ridiculous and probably should be locked.

 

I find this to be the most offensive post in the thread. Far worse than any f-bomb.

 

The guy shows up and makes a post that he obviously spent a lot of time on, just trying to start discussion. I don't agree with his points either, but that's no reason to respond with a childish, overreacting post and say the entire thread should be locked because he mentioned the words "clutch" and "leader."

 

I'd be pissed off if I were him too.

 

I rarely find a thread here at NSBB that doesn't degenerate into high school squabbling, but this probably takes the cake.

 

And a mod chastised him for posting it. Like his opinion or not, he's welcome to post it. It's fine to debate players, take different positions, and work to persuade others that your position is correct -- that's the lifeblood of a message board.

 

Saying a thread is "ridiculous and should be locked" is not welcome. The part of the post that came before it is fine, but the last line is insulting, intolerant and condescending. Just because some people are in an overreative frenzy does not give them the right to insinuate that an opposing viewpoint is not welcome and devoid of validity.

 

You're right, saying a thread is ridiculous and should be locked isn't welcome. And a Mod chastised him for his post, so where's the problem? Willis was out of line and was told as much. I think you may be confused as to who I was referencing in my post. (I edited the post almost immediately after hitting submit, noticing that the necessary TC3 reference was missing. Re-read it as it is now:

 

And a mod chastised him for posting it. Like his opinion or not, TC3 is welcome to post it. It's fine to debate players, take different positions, and work to persuade others that your position is correct -- that's the lifeblood of a message board.

[Bote McBoteface]

This board is so depressing. TC3 tried to inject some optimism and he gets ripped for it. I used to really enjoy reading everyone's views, because they were interesting and unpredictable. Now, the opinions are terribly predictable and almost always negative. I don't even have to be near a computer to know that practically everyone on here is making fun of Hendry's weight or calling Dusty Baker stupid. A little optimism goes a long way, isn't that why we are Cubs fans?

 

TC3 is not getting ripped for being optimistic and you know it. He is being ripped because he ripped other people's opinions, said offensive things about players, and then made up bad excuses to why Jones might not suck.

 

Now we’ve all seen Patterson play, he is not Jacque Jones, not even close. He’s the worst player a lot of us have seen in our lifetime as baseball fans period. Stop the nonsense K comparisons.

 

Thats bull. Patterson is far from the worst player we have ever seen. He played poorly, yes. But he is actually one of the more gifted athletes any of us have ever seen. I don't see how he hasn't been ripped to shreds for saying this. Have we all forgotten Todd Hundley so quickly? Then he continues his idiocy by calling the K comparrisons "nonsense," backing it up by saying that he doesn't K as much as Patterson. Who cares? That would be like me saying that Patterson doesn't K that much compared to Adam Dunn.

 

Oh, and what did Patterson say during the middle of the season? “It’s just a game.” JJ’s never said that, he never will, and leaves it all out on the field every time.

 

Patterson never, ever said that. Putting words like that in a player's mouth is 10 times more offensive than calling somebody's post moronic on a message board. Also, its impossible to say that "JJ" will never say that.

 

Now Burnitz to Jones is a better comparison, statistically. But they are no where near the same player, not even close. Jones has speed and has a glove, etc.

Since WHEN does Burnitz not have a glove? Thats the best part of his game. Burnitz is also a "gamer" and "leaves it all out on the field." I'm sure this means TC3 would love to have him replace Murton in left. I also really loved how he put ", etc." at the end to cover up for the fact that he couldn't think of any valid argument.

 

 

I could go on. But I was simply trying to make the point that TC3 was getting ripped for putting together a weak argument and doing it in an arrogant way, not because he was being optomistic.

[CubfaninCA]

At least Jones will provide something when they face righties & the majority of good pitchers in the NL are right handed (Clemens, Oswalt, Carpenter, Smoltz, Hudson, and I"ll throw in Suppan & Marquis because I'm obsessed w/ the Cards). Of course, the Cubs will get owned by soft tossing lefties as usual. :x

[Diffusion]

Wow... I didn't even notice all those intentional balls (45) when looking at his take/swing ratio. Even ignoring all those gimme takes, however, he's still a lot more patient now than was in previous years. Ignoring intentional balls, his T/S ratio has improved from .79, .74, .94, .97 over 2002-2005. It should probably be noted, however, that he's still well below the league average ratio of 1.23.

 

Got his numbers for 1999-2001 by any chance? Numbers for the Twins as a team for 1999-2005? Or just anything that can provide a bigger picture.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

That is not the case

 

BABIP is independent of strikeouts

 

Think of it this way. There are two types of outs:

 

Ones where no contact is made (strikeout)

 

Ones where contact is made. (ball batted in play)

 

The only ones that hinder BABIP are the ones where contact is made.

 

Let's say I have 600 ABs in a year

 

I could stike out 599 times and still have a BABIP of 1.000.

 

------

BTW here is to hoping Hendry gets lightning in a bottle with JJ.

 

The more K's you have, the fewer outs come from balls in play, the higher your BABIP is, making it harder to sustain.

 

Absolutely incorrect.

 

The number of strikeouts you have has absolutely no direct bearing on whether, if you put a ball in play, that ball goes for a hit. How could it? Strikeouts and balls in play are mutually exclusive.

 

I can see the fuzzy math that is leading you to make the above incorrect statement. You're thinking of a hypothetical Player A, that in 5X at-bats (X being a very large number, such that sample size isn't an issue) doesn't hit a home run or a sacrifice fly (for the sake of keeping things simple, including them would make no difference), strikes out 2X times, makes 2X ball in play outs and amasses X hits. A .333 BABIP. Now you're thinking of a hypothetical Player B, that in 5X at-bats doesn't hit a home run or a sac fly, strikes out X times, makes 3X ball in play outs and amasses X hits. A .250 BABIP. Therefore, you're arguing, strikeouts lead to higher BABIP.

 

Rubbish. The entire difference in BABIP is based on the completely unfounded assumption that every single extra ball in play that Player B manages instead of a Player A strikeout results in that ball in play being converted into an out. The reason that the BABIP changes is because you're changing it, you're simply making it the case that Player B hits .000 on the X extra balls in play! Obviously that's going to supress a guy's BABIP, if on X balls in play you just automatically award him with a 6-3 groundout! The drop in BABIP is entirely caused by that, and has nothing to do with the strikeouts.

 

Player B only exists as a hypothetical, because no player is ever going to go X balls in play (where X is a very large number) and not get a single hit. What happens if you don't accidentally fiddle the numbers in your head is you end up with a player C, that in 5X at-bats doesn't hit a home run or a sac fly, strikes out X times, makes 8X/3 ball in play outs and amasses 4X/3 hits. A .333 BABIP still, only a higher average (.267 as opposed to Player A's .200).

 

That's why it's fair to say that strikeouts suppress batting average. But they have absolutely nothing to do directly with BABIP.

 

That said, as I mentioned before, on the whole strikeouts do have a slight indirect effect upon BABIP, in that players that strike out more, on the whole, have slightly higher BABIPs. That's simply because major league players that strike out tend to have power (because players that strike out a lot and don't have any power, unless they walk a ridiculous amount, aren't major leaguers), and power hitters tend to swing harder and thus hit the ball harder and further, meaning it is generally fielded less successfully. But striking out more isn't leading to a higher BABIP, just as striking out more isn't leading to power. It's just that they're all affected by the same thing: players "swinging for the fences" (sadly that phrase comes with a lot of negative connotations, but none are here intended).

 

You guys are right, my apologies. I was recalling some faulty info or recalling good info badly. Thanks for the great explanation as always Diffusion.

[anemic offense]

At least Jones will provide something when they face righties & the majority of good pitchers in the NL are right handed (Clemens, Oswalt, Carpenter, Smoltz, Hudson, and I"ll throw in Suppan & Marquis because I'm obsessed w/ the Cards). Of course, the Cubs will get owned by soft tossing lefties as usual. :x

 

Especially if they pitch for the Rockies.

[St.Paul Cub]

Found this on a Twins type board and thought it was kind of interesting.

 

 

April 12 - 5-4 (Jacque tied the game when he grounded out)

April 21 10-9 in 10 innings (Jacque doubled in the bottom of the ninth, tying the game)

May 10 6-4 in 10 innings (Jacque hit the go-ahead run in the top of the tenth)

June 2 4-3 in 13 innings (Jacque singles, scoring the winning run)

June 7 9-8 (Jacque singles in the winning run in the top of the ninth)

July 1 7-4 (Jacque tripled in the last three runs in the bottom of the eighth)

July 19 4-3 (Jacque singles in game-winning run)

July 20 3-2 (Jacque hits walk-off solo HOMER in the bottom of the ninth)

August 23 1-0 (Jacque made Freddy Garcia a losing pitcher with a one-hitter with a HOMER)

August 27 7-2 in 11 innings (Jacque led off the five-run 11th with a two-run HOMER)

September 22 4-1 in 11 innings (Jacque HOMER tied the game in the seventh, added two insurance runs with a double in the top of the 11th)

September 28 6-3 (tripled in the go-ahead run in the bottom of the eighth)

[anemic offense]

Not that I necessarily agree with what the original poster had to say, I liked his angle. This day in age (although usually for good reason) people are relying (almost exclusively) on the use of stats to the point its nauseating. And while I have serious doubts about his ability to contribute on this TEAM I appreciate the observation from someone who's seen play on a daily basis, even if the stat comparisions are a little "fuzzy".

 

What I do gather from his information (the intended purpose of the post anyways) is that Jones has some usefulness that isn't expressed in his moribund stats. Personally (I cannot back this up whatsoever :lol: ), I think the Metrodome contributed to a lot of his futility, as well as the fact there was an absence of feared hitters in that lineup (although Jones isn't exactly to be feared himself). This lineup has Lee, Aram, and Barrett, which should be enough to assured that he's pitched to. Which is why I feel this will be a great or horrible signing. He'll either play well enough to easily justify is 5.5 million dollar a year salary (by today's ridiculous salary standards) or he'll be down right terrible. And while I can't really say with any certainty he'll be good I can't totally right him off either. He may for this reason (aside from our injury prone staff), be the biggest swing factor on this team. For no one else (assuming Cpats gone, and rookies aside) do I see the disparity between the high end and low end potential so large. Hopefully we'll see the former and not the latter.

[goonys evil twin]

Not that I necessarily agree with what the original poster had to say, I liked his angle. This day in age (although usually for good reason) people are relying (almost exclusively) on the use of stats to the point its nauseating.

 

I don't see why its nauseating. People aren't just making up stats. They are using stats that have been shown to be far more reliable describers and predictors of production than tired old cliches. And it's not true that people are relying exclusively on them. People have seen Jones play. He's a known commodity.

[CubfaninCA]

Not that I necessarily agree with what the original poster had to say, I liked his angle. This day in age (although usually for good reason) people are relying (almost exclusively) on the use of stats to the point its nauseating. And while I have serious doubts about his ability to contribute on this TEAM I appreciate the observation from someone who's seen play on a daily basis, even if the stat comparisions are a little "fuzzy".

 

What I do gather from his information (the intended purpose of the post anyways) is that Jones has some usefulness that isn't expressed in his moribund stats. Personally (I cannot back this up whatsoever :lol: ), I think the Metrodome contributed to a lot of his futility, as well as the fact there was an absence of feared hitters in that lineup (although Jones isn't exactly to be feared himself). This lineup has Lee, Aram, and Barrett, which should be enough to assured that he's pitched to. Which is why I feel this will be a great or horrible signing. He'll either play well enough to easily justify is 5.5 million dollar a year salary (by today's ridiculous salary standards) or he'll be down right terrible. And while I can't really say with any certainty he'll be good I can't totally right him off either. He may for this reason (aside from our injury prone staff), be the biggest swing factor on this team. For no one else (assuming Cpats gone, and rookies aside) do I see the disparity between the high end and low end potential so large. Hopefully we'll see the former and not the latter.

 

Jones will be useful in 75% of the games and it will be nice to have a good glove in RF. He's not garbage or some "homeless guy," but Hendry needs to find a right handed hitter who can replace Jones from time to time in RF. This signing isn't good, but the sky's not falling either. No need for hysteria.

Edited December 21, 2005 by CubfaninCA

[Soul]

Not that I necessarily agree with what the original poster had to say, I liked his angle. This day in age (although usually for good reason) people are relying (almost exclusively) on the use of stats to the point its nauseating.

 

I don't see why its nauseating. People aren't just making up stats. They are using stats that have been shown to be far more reliable describers and predictors of production than tired old cliches. And it's not true that people are relying exclusively on them. People have seen Jones play. He's a known commodity.

 

I don't think it's "nauseating." But the team that won the World Series this year supposedly had shaky stats up & down the roster. At least, that's what plenty of people on this board tried to sell us.

 

Yet, they still took home the prize. So then, perhaps naked statistics don't tell the whole story of a ballplayer or a team. I do agree they are an excellent tool for evaluation and there's a good reason why people rely on them. Sometimes though, teams & players come along that just defy logic.