Grudzielanek

[anemic offense]

I always thought it was pretty obvious Grudz was far superior to Todd in range, but I also think Todd has got better defensively over the last couple of years. Whether Grudz' better defense overcomes his offensive inferiority to Todd is questionable. Besides, Todd is a much more valuable commodity than Mark on this team anyway. I shudder to what would have happened to our lineup without out Todd in it (assuming it was a player of lower offenseive caliber)

[goonys evil twin]

Didn't Grudz have some not-so-nice things to say about Hendry when he went to St. Louis?

 

He blamed the lack of interest in him on collusion and said the Cubs didn't negotiate in good faith, or something like that. Couldn't understand why a below average hitter reaching his mid 30's would garner little attention.

 

He is not below average. He has about .040 difference in OPS with Walker.

 

He's had a sub 100 OPS+ the past couple years, which is below average.

 

So then Walker is barely average?

 

He's been a decent amount above average the past couple years.

[srbin84]

Didn't Grudz have some not-so-nice things to say about Hendry when he went to St. Louis?

 

He blamed the lack of interest in him on collusion and said the Cubs didn't negotiate in good faith, or something like that. Couldn't understand why a below average hitter reaching his mid 30's would garner little attention.

 

He is not below average. He has about .040 difference in OPS with Walker.

 

He's had a sub 100 OPS+ the past couple years, which is below average.

 

So then Walker is barely average?

 

He's been a decent amount above average the past couple years.

 

Then I think the OPS+ stat is garbage.

[Chocolate Milk]

Didn't Grudz have some not-so-nice things to say about Hendry when he went to St. Louis?

 

He blamed the lack of interest in him on collusion and said the Cubs didn't negotiate in good faith, or something like that. Couldn't understand why a below average hitter reaching his mid 30's would garner little attention.

 

He is not below average. He has about .040 difference in OPS with Walker.

 

He's had a sub 100 OPS+ the past couple years, which is below average.

 

So then Walker is barely average?

 

He's been a decent amount above average the past couple years.

 

Then I think the OPS+ stat is garbage.

 

Awesome.

[Geech]

Then I think the OPS+ stat is garbage.

 

Why?

[sweetpeteman]

The equipment people hate stitching his name on the jersey?

 

:lol: :lol:

 

Just wait til Jarrod Saltalamacchia makes the Braves next year.

 

And yes, he would have the longest name in MLB history. True fact......unless I'm wrong of course.

 

You beat Hollandsworth by 1 letter.

[ConstableRabbit]

Then I think the OPS+ stat is garbage.

 

Why?

 

Well if the difference between the hitters' OPS is .040, and OPS+ shows that the lower hitter is below average, whereas the higher hitter is "decently above" average, it would appear that something is either incorrect, or at least skewed.

 

I actually like OPS+, but this seems a little off to me.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Then I think the OPS+ stat is garbage.

 

Why?

 

Well if the difference between the hitters' OPS is .040, and OPS+ shows that the lower hitter is below average, whereas the higher hitter is "decently above" average, it would appear that something is either incorrect, or at least skewed.

 

I actually like OPS+, but this seems a little off to me.

 

The difference between Walker and Grudz last season was .088 (300 OBP vs 388, for example) and it's significant enough. Walker's OPS+ was 115, Grudz was at 92. Looks right in line to me.

 

Side note: OPS+ adjusts for both the league and the park the player plays in.

[Chocolate Milk]

(CUBS) Todd Walker OPS/OPS+:

2004:820/105

2005:829/115

 

(CUBS) Grudz OPS/OPS+:

2003:782/105

2004:779/96

 

These are just their years with the Cubs.

[ConstableRabbit]

Then I think the OPS+ stat is garbage.

 

Why?

 

Well if the difference between the hitters' OPS is .040, and OPS+ shows that the lower hitter is below average, whereas the higher hitter is "decently above" average, it would appear that something is either incorrect, or at least skewed.

 

I actually like OPS+, but this seems a little off to me.

 

The difference between Walker and Grudz last season was .088 (300 OBP vs 388, for example) and it's significant enough. Walker's OPS+ was 115, Grudz was at 92. Looks right in line to me.

 

Side note: OPS+ adjusts for both the league and the park the player plays in.

 

OK then there was bad information given. Thanks.

 

Edit: and I forgot Grudz is in the AL this year

[srbin84]

Then I think the OPS+ stat is garbage.

 

Why?

 

Well if the difference between the hitters' OPS is .040, and OPS+ shows that the lower hitter is below average, whereas the higher hitter is "decently above" average, it would appear that something is either incorrect, or at least skewed.

 

I actually like OPS+, but this seems a little off to me.

 

The difference between Walker and Grudz last season was .088 (300 OBP vs 388, for example) and it's significant enough. Walker's OPS+ was 115, Grudz was at 92. Looks right in line to me.

 

Side note: OPS+ adjusts for both the league and the park the player plays in.

 

OK then there was bad information given. Thanks.

 

Edit: and I forgot Grudz is in the AL this year

 

Yeah, there was. Grudz had a .334 OBP.

[srbin84]

(CUBS) Todd Walker OPS/OPS+:

2004:820/105

2005:829/115

 

(CUBS) Grudz OPS/OPS+:

2003:782/105

2004:779/96

 

These are just their years with the Cubs.

 

I don't understand how there could be such a difference in 2004 in OPS+ when there was only a .041 difference in OPS.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Then I think the OPS+ stat is garbage.

 

Why?

 

Well if the difference between the hitters' OPS is .040, and OPS+ shows that the lower hitter is below average, whereas the higher hitter is "decently above" average, it would appear that something is either incorrect, or at least skewed.

 

I actually like OPS+, but this seems a little off to me.

 

The difference between Walker and Grudz last season was .088 (300 OBP vs 388, for example) and it's significant enough. Walker's OPS+ was 115, Grudz was at 92. Looks right in line to me.

 

Side note: OPS+ adjusts for both the league and the park the player plays in.

 

OK then there was bad information given. Thanks.

 

Edit: and I forgot Grudz is in the AL this year

 

Yeah, there was. Grudz had a .334 OBP.

 

I wasn't listing their actual OBP, I was pointing out how significant of a difference .088 can be.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

(CUBS) Todd Walker OPS/OPS+:

2004:820/105

2005:829/115

 

(CUBS) Grudz OPS/OPS+:

2003:782/105

2004:779/96

 

These are just their years with the Cubs.

 

I don't understand how there could be such a difference in 2004 in OPS+ when there was only a .041 difference in OPS.

 

The difference is only 9. 2005's difference is 23 because of the .088 difference in OPS (as well as park factors).

[srbin84]

(CUBS) Todd Walker OPS/OPS+:

2004:820/105

2005:829/115

 

(CUBS) Grudz OPS/OPS+:

2003:782/105

2004:779/96

 

These are just their years with the Cubs.

 

I don't understand how there could be such a difference in 2004 in OPS+ when there was only a .041 difference in OPS.

 

The difference is only 9. 2005's difference is 23 because of the .088 difference in OPS (as well as park factors).

 

This why is a difference of 9 the difference between below average and above average?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

(CUBS) Todd Walker OPS/OPS+:

2004:820/105

2005:829/115

 

(CUBS) Grudz OPS/OPS+:

2003:782/105

2004:779/96

 

These are just their years with the Cubs.

 

I don't understand how there could be such a difference in 2004 in OPS+ when there was only a .041 difference in OPS.

 

The difference is only 9. 2005's difference is 23 because of the .088 difference in OPS (as well as park factors).

 

This why is a difference of 9 the difference between below average and above average?

 

100 is average.

[srbin84]

(CUBS) Todd Walker OPS/OPS+:

2004:820/105

2005:829/115

 

(CUBS) Grudz OPS/OPS+:

2003:782/105

2004:779/96

 

These are just their years with the Cubs.

 

I don't understand how there could be such a difference in 2004 in OPS+ when there was only a .041 difference in OPS.

 

The difference is only 9. 2005's difference is 23 because of the .088 difference in OPS (as well as park factors).

 

This why is a difference of 9 the difference between below average and above average?

 

100 is average.

 

Then 9 is a significant difference, and I still don't like the stat. They are closer to each other as hitters than that.

[Chocolate Milk]

(CUBS) Todd Walker OPS/OPS+:

2004:820/105

2005:829/115

 

(CUBS) Grudz OPS/OPS+:

2003:782/105

2004:779/96

 

These are just their years with the Cubs.

 

I don't understand how there could be such a difference in 2004 in OPS+ when there was only a .041 difference in OPS.

 

The difference is only 9. 2005's difference is 23 because of the .088 difference in OPS (as well as park factors).

 

This why is a difference of 9 the difference between below average and above average?

 

100 is average.

 

Then 9 is a significant difference, and I still don't like the stat. They are closer to each other as hitters than that.

 

Don't get too hung up on the "Below Average" "Above average" distinctions. 100 is considered the average, but both players were pretty close to each other and pretty close too 100. Both players were average that season, IMO.

[srbin84]

(CUBS) Todd Walker OPS/OPS+:

2004:820/105

2005:829/115

 

(CUBS) Grudz OPS/OPS+:

2003:782/105

2004:779/96

 

These are just their years with the Cubs.

 

I don't understand how there could be such a difference in 2004 in OPS+ when there was only a .041 difference in OPS.

 

The difference is only 9. 2005's difference is 23 because of the .088 difference in OPS (as well as park factors).

 

This why is a difference of 9 the difference between below average and above average?

 

100 is average.

 

Then 9 is a significant difference, and I still don't like the stat. They are closer to each other as hitters than that.

 

Don't get too hung up on the "Below Average" "Above average" distinctions. 100 is considered the average, but both players were pretty close to each other and pretty close too 100. Both players were average that season, IMO.

 

Goony was implying Walker was a lot better than Grudz than the stats indicate.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Then 9 is a significant difference, and I still don't like the stat. They are closer to each other as hitters than that.

 

It's not that significant of a difference other than labeling them in a general manner. Walker was slightly above average. Grudz was slighly below average. Last year's difference of 23 is significant, and it shows how much better offensively Walker was. There's nothing wrong with the stat in comparing them offensively.

[srbin84]

Then 9 is a significant difference, and I still don't like the stat. They are closer to each other as hitters than that.

 

It's not that significant of a difference other than labeling them in a general manner. Walker was slightly above average. Grudz was slighly below average. Last year's difference of 23 is significant, and it shows how much better offensively Walker was. There's nothing wrong with the stat in comparing them offensively.

 

I just didn't see how Grudz could be classified as a below average hitter and Walker is an above average hitter. I guess it was just a gross exaggeration of the facts.

[Geech]

I just didn't see how Grudz could be classified as a below average hitter and Walker is an above average hitter. I guess it was just a gross exaggeration of the facts.

 

You've stopped reading the posts, haven't you?

[srbin84]

I just didn't see how Grudz could be classified as a below average hitter and Walker is an above average hitter. I guess it was just a gross exaggeration of the facts.

 

You've stopped reading the posts, haven't you?

 

Couldn't understand why a below average hitter reaching his mid 30's would garner little attention.

[Geech]

Pedro just pointed out why that statement is justifiable.

[srbin84]

Pedro just pointed out why that statement is justifiable.

 

It's stupid because it's misleading. For example, if the league average for home runs by a first baseman is 30, and one guy has 29 and the other 31, technically one guy is a below average home run hitter and the other is an above average home run hitter. That statement may be true, but it's a waste of time to phrase things that way unless you are trying to make people think one is much better than the other when in fact they are basically the same.