Jones back to Twins?

[stitchface]

The problem as "saber" people phrase it is that they don't have a good way to measure defense, not that it is unimportant.

 

I don't think they've found a way to properly quantitate speed either.

 

Just an example from earlier this season.

 

Pierre was on 1st with 1 out and Lee is at the plate. The pitcher gets ahead of Lee 1-2 in the count. Concerned that a 1-2 count is a good count for Pierre to steal, the pitcher becomes distracted and starts throwing over to 1st repeatedly. The end result is that he ends up walking Lee. Now Pierre is at 2nd, Lee is at 1st with 1 out. Pierre immediate steals 3rd on a great jump, and a rushed catcher throws the ball over the 3rd baseman's head. Pierre easily trots in, and Lee advances from 1st to 3rd on the stolen base and the error. Lee scores on a lazy sac fly.

 

In such a case, Pierre essentially "manufactured" two runs that inning. His and Lee's. He'll never be accredited with Lee's.

 

this can be proven by evaluating at bats with Pierre on first. How can you know the pitcher walked Lee because he was worried about Pierre? Lee walks a lot. That is just speculation. These things can be measured, however. The difficulty is in producing a big enough sample size to have meaningful data.

[fromthestretch]

The problem as "saber" people phrase it is that they don't have a good way to measure defense, not that it is unimportant.

 

I don't think they've found a way to properly quantitate speed either.

 

Just an example from earlier this season.

 

Pierre was on 1st with 1 out and Lee is at the plate. The pitcher gets ahead of Lee 1-2 in the count. Concerned that a 1-2 count is a good count for Pierre to steal, the pitcher becomes distracted and starts throwing over to 1st repeatedly. The end result is that he ends up walking Lee. Now Pierre is at 2nd, Lee is at 1st with 1 out. Pierre immediate steals 3rd on a great jump, and a rushed catcher throws the ball over the 3rd baseman's head. Pierre easily trots in, and Lee advances from 1st to 3rd on the stolen base and the error. Lee scores on a lazy sac fly.

 

In such a case, Pierre essentially "manufactured" two runs that inning. His and Lee's. He'll never be accredited with Lee's.

 

That scenario might happen what...once in a season? We might as well try to measure the effect of the catcher's balk.

 

These aren't high school pitchers. Chances are if a pitcher is good enough to reach the majors, he's focused enough to still concentrate on the hitter when there is a fast runner on base. If not, that's what pitching coaches - and in extreme cases, sports psychologists - are for.

 

Notice how Maddux gives about zero effort when it comes to holding runners on? Seems to have worked well for him throughout his career.

 

EDITED TO ADD: Also, I don't think you can give Pierre credit for Lee's run in the situation you outlined. Even if by some chance Pierre's speed was the reason for the pitcher losing focus and walking Lee, someone still had to drive Lee in.

Edited July 18, 2006 by grassbass

[fromthestretch]

The problem as "saber" people phrase it is that they don't have a good way to measure defense, not that it is unimportant.

 

I don't think they've found a way to properly quantitate speed either.

 

Just an example from earlier this season.

 

Pierre was on 1st with 1 out and Lee is at the plate. The pitcher gets ahead of Lee 1-2 in the count. Concerned that a 1-2 count is a good count for Pierre to steal, the pitcher becomes distracted and starts throwing over to 1st repeatedly. The end result is that he ends up walking Lee. Now Pierre is at 2nd, Lee is at 1st with 1 out. Pierre immediate steals 3rd on a great jump, and a rushed catcher throws the ball over the 3rd baseman's head. Pierre easily trots in, and Lee advances from 1st to 3rd on the stolen base and the error. Lee scores on a lazy sac fly.

 

In such a case, Pierre essentially "manufactured" two runs that inning. His and Lee's. He'll never be accredited with Lee's.

 

this can be proven by evaluating at bats with Pierre on first. How can you know the pitcher walked Lee because he was worried about Pierre? Lee walks a lot. That is just speculation. These things can be measured, however. The difficulty is in producing a big enough sample size to have meaningful data.

 

Not only that, but he walked 85 times and set a career high in OBP last year in a season where people just weren't getting on base much in front of him.

 

I read an intervieiw with Mike Scioscia last year where he talked about one way the Angels were measuring speed. They were keeping track of things like how many times they were successful going from first-to-third, scoring from second on a hit, basically advancing more than one base. Those are the types of things you can measure. Obviously, there are variables: where the ball is hit, who's the fielder throwing it, etc. But they are at least trying to put together some data and see if they can find something. I don't think anyone's going to be able to ever measure the psychological effect that a fast runner has on pitchers or on the defense.

[stitchface]

I don't think anyone's going to be able to ever measure the psychological effect that a fast runner has on pitchers or on the defense.

 

Sure you can! How do runners hit with Pierre on first compared to him not on first. Pretty simple to measure.

[soccer10k]

Hindsight is 20/20 but looking forward I would say Giles' numbers will improve and Jone's will decline.

 

Given Giles' is 35 years old, that's a heck of an assumption.

 

Agreed. Giles's power has completely disappeared (.389 SLG this year) and even though he still shows the ability to get on base (.392 OBP) I think Jones is the better option for the next couple years.

[Elrhino]

EDITED TO ADD: Also, I don't think you can give Pierre credit for Lee's run in the situation you outlined. Even if by some chance Pierre's speed was the reason for the pitcher losing focus and walking Lee, someone still had to drive Lee in.

 

Yes, he was driven in on a lazy sac fly to RF that would have been meaningless had he not reached 3rd base thanks almost soley to Pierre's speed. Even if you don't want to credit Pierre for Lee's walk, Lee still advanced two more bases thanks to Pierre which he'll never be accredit for. This is why even top statisticians in the field can still only account for 60% of the game.

 

And, back on topi,c I'm still not sure what trading Jacque Jones would accomplish. Given that we have no corner outfield prospcts, unless you're getting a corner outfield prospect in return who has starting caliber projection, you're just creating another hole on the team that will have to be filled in the offseason with a contract that will likely be even worse than Jones'.

[fromthestretch]

I don't think anyone's going to be able to ever measure the psychological effect that a fast runner has on pitchers or on the defense.

 

Sure you can! How do runners hit with Pierre on first compared to him not on first. Pretty simple to measure.

 

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but you have no idea if Pierre's presence on first has any effect on the pitcher. The pitcher may have just made a bad pitch...they tend to do that sometimes even when Pierre isn't on first. It is possible for a hitter to get a hit with a runner on base and not have it be the direct result of the runner's speed. The fact that a pitcher gives up a hit with a fast runner on doesn't mean that he was unable to concentrate on the hitter due to the runner. If that was the case, how do you explain the fact that the pitcher has given up hits with no one on base, or with someone as slow as Matt LeCroy on base?

 

However, if you wanted to even make an attempt at trying to measure this, just measuring players' batting averages with Pierre on first isn't enough. Measure it with other players on first, as well. In other words, how does Derrek Lee hit with Walker or Perez on first instead of Pierre (although with Perez, the sample size might be too low, since he just doesn't reach base very often). I think you'll find that Pierre's speed doesn't have a big impact in this area.

Edited July 18, 2006 by grassbass

[fromthestretch]

EDITED TO ADD: Also, I don't think you can give Pierre credit for Lee's run in the situation you outlined. Even if by some chance Pierre's speed was the reason for the pitcher losing focus and walking Lee, someone still had to drive Lee in.

 

Yes, he was driven in on a lazy sac fly to RF that would have been meaningless had he not reached 3rd base thanks almost soley to Pierre's speed. Even if you don't want to credit Pierre for Lee's walk, Lee still advanced two more bases thanks to Pierre which he'll never be accredit for. This is why even top statisticians in the field can still only account for 60% of the game.

 

And again, the situation you pointed out happens so rarely that its impact over the course of a season is practically nil.

[wastra]

The interesting thing about baseball is that it really CAN (more than almost any other sport) be measured by statistics. Teh sheer sample sizes of numbers makes it possible.

 

Sabrmetrics is one set of statistical measures that seeks to delve into the meaning behind the gross numbers (HRs, Hits, SBs, etc) to see how they AFFECT the game. It doesn't seek to disprove anything- it seeks to give meanings to those gross stats that are, in themselves, more measures of past performance than future predictors.

 

It's just numbers- it's not a political theory.

[badgercub]

Hindsight is 20/20 but looking forward I would say Giles' numbers will improve and Jone's will decline.

 

Given Giles' is 35 years old, that's a heck of an assumption.

 

Agreed. Giles's power has completely disappeared (.389 SLG this year) and even though he still shows the ability to get on base (.392 OBP) I think Jones is the better option for the next couple years.

 

Playing at PETCO will have that effect on your power numbers. It would be awesome to see his .392 OBP in the Cubs lineup. If, and that's a big if, Giles had signed with the Cubs, you can't say for sure his numbers would be better, but I would think his OBP would be similar and his SLG would be higher, now they could be worse, but his career numbers wouldn't indicate that. I don't know why that is a heck of an assumption to think that Giles would produce near his career numbers especially when he still gets on base at a higher clip than just about everyone else on the Cubs, with the exception of DLee.

[CubColtPacer]

Hindsight is 20/20 but looking forward I would say Giles' numbers will improve and Jone's will decline.

 

Given Giles' is 35 years old, that's a heck of an assumption.

 

Agreed. Giles's power has completely disappeared (.389 SLG this year) and even though he still shows the ability to get on base (.392 OBP) I think Jones is the better option for the next couple years.

 

Playing at PETCO will have that effect on your power numbers. It would be awesome to see his .392 OBP in the Cubs lineup. If, and that's a big if, Giles had signed with the Cubs, you can't say for sure his numbers would be better, but I would think his OBP would be similar and his SLG would be higher, now they could be worse, but his career numbers wouldn't indicate that. I don't know why that is a heck of an assumption to think that Giles would produce near his career numbers especially when he still gets on base at a higher clip than just about everyone else on the Cubs, with the exception of DLee.

 

Seeing that he is starting to decline though, even if his numbers rebounded somewhat, is he worth spending double the money of Jones? Which player is going to be the worse contract-9 million for Giles in 2008 when he is 37, or 5 million for Jones when he is 33? I would argue that Giles will not have the significant production needed to justify that contract. Two more things about Giles's contract. One, he never would have accepted a deal from the Cubs for 9 million a year. He rejected a deal of 11+ from other teams, so it would have taken 12+ million a year, and so now you have to wonder if he's worth two and a half times what Jones is. Also, not only does he have a 3 year deal, but the Padres will have to pay a 3 million dollar buyout to not be on the hook for a 4th year at 9 million. That's a great deal of money for a player who's slugging is dropping rapidly.

[mg420]

Hindsight is 20/20 but looking forward I would say Giles' numbers will improve and Jone's will decline.

 

Given Giles' is 35 years old, that's a heck of an assumption.

 

Agreed. Giles's power has completely disappeared (.389 SLG this year) and even though he still shows the ability to get on base (.392 OBP) I think Jones is the better option for the next couple years.

 

perhaps giles was on the juice after all.

[badgercub]

Hindsight is 20/20 but looking forward I would say Giles' numbers will improve and Jone's will decline.

 

Given Giles' is 35 years old, that's a heck of an assumption.

 

Agreed. Giles's power has completely disappeared (.389 SLG this year) and even though he still shows the ability to get on base (.392 OBP) I think Jones is the better option for the next couple years.

 

Playing at PETCO will have that effect on your power numbers. It would be awesome to see his .392 OBP in the Cubs lineup. If, and that's a big if, Giles had signed with the Cubs, you can't say for sure his numbers would be better, but I would think his OBP would be similar and his SLG would be higher, now they could be worse, but his career numbers wouldn't indicate that. I don't know why that is a heck of an assumption to think that Giles would produce near his career numbers especially when he still gets on base at a higher clip than just about everyone else on the Cubs, with the exception of DLee.

 

Seeing that he is starting to decline though, even if his numbers rebounded somewhat, is he worth spending double the money of Jones? Which player is going to be the worse contract-9 million for Giles in 2008 when he is 37, or 5 million for Jones when he is 33? I would argue that Giles will not have the significant production needed to justify that contract. Two more things about Giles's contract. One, he never would have accepted a deal from the Cubs for 9 million a year. He rejected a deal of 11+ from other teams, so it would have taken 12+ million a year, and so now you have to wonder if he's worth two and a half times what Jones is. Also, not only does he have a 3 year deal, but the Padres will have to pay a 3 million dollar buyout to not be on the hook for a 4th year at 9 million. That's a great deal of money for a player who's slugging is dropping rapidly.

 

You are also going under the assumption that his numbers would be the same at Wrigley as they are at PETCO which I don't believe is a valid assumption. You may be right, he may be on a sharp and steady decline but at the time we signed Jones his numbers weren't exactly on the ascent and now you want to compare a half season's worth of numbers to validate your position which I understand, just looking at that you are correct, I just don't believe that you can look at a half season and come to a definitive conclusion. I am making assumptions based on career numbers and a longer view than just a half season.

[stitchface]

I don't think Giles is a great answer but I don't think Jones has any chance to perform for three years as he has in the first half.

 

I am being serious grassbass - you can measure it. You are correct that I am oversimplifying, but you can measure it. I think if you want to find a RF, you could start talking to Arizona about Greg Maddux for one of their young prospects.

[CubColtPacer]

I don't think Giles is a great answer but I don't think Jones has any chance to perform for three years as he has in the first half.

 

I am being serious grassbass - you can measure it. You are correct that I am oversimplifying, but you can measure it. I think if you want to find a RF, you could start talking to Arizona about Greg Maddux for one of their young prospects.

 

I would agree-he is not likely too, and if we can get the right deal, I'd be fine with trading him, if we can actually sell high. I just don't understand the people who think that this is the chance to get out from this horrible contract Hendry signed him to, which is not really true.

[Elrhino]

EDITED TO ADD: Also, I don't think you can give Pierre credit for Lee's run in the situation you outlined. Even if by some chance Pierre's speed was the reason for the pitcher losing focus and walking Lee, someone still had to drive Lee in.

 

Yes, he was driven in on a lazy sac fly to RF that would have been meaningless had he not reached 3rd base thanks almost soley to Pierre's speed. Even if you don't want to credit Pierre for Lee's walk, Lee still advanced two more bases thanks to Pierre which he'll never be accredit for. This is why even top statisticians in the field can still only account for 60% of the game.

 

And again, the situation you pointed out happens so rarely that its impact over the course of a season is practically nil.

 

Really? A baserunner advancing because a baserunner ahead of him stole a base, advanced on a sac fly or stretched a basehit into another base with speed is a rare occurance in the game?

[Banedon]

This is why even top statisticians in the field can still only account for 60% of the game.

 

Heh...a statistic stating how statisticians can't account for everything...

 

No real point...just gave me a chuckle... :wink:

[fromthestretch]

EDITED TO ADD: Also, I don't think you can give Pierre credit for Lee's run in the situation you outlined. Even if by some chance Pierre's speed was the reason for the pitcher losing focus and walking Lee, someone still had to drive Lee in.

 

Yes, he was driven in on a lazy sac fly to RF that would have been meaningless had he not reached 3rd base thanks almost soley to Pierre's speed. Even if you don't want to credit Pierre for Lee's walk, Lee still advanced two more bases thanks to Pierre which he'll never be accredit for. This is why even top statisticians in the field can still only account for 60% of the game.

 

And again, the situation you pointed out happens so rarely that its impact over the course of a season is practically nil.

 

Really? A baserunner advancing because a baserunner ahead of him stole a base, advanced on a sac fly or stretched a basehit into another base with speed is a rare occurance in the game?

 

No, that's not what I meant. I was talking about the specific situation you outlined with Pierre stealing third and scoring because the catcher threw the ball into left field, allowing Lee to move up a base.

 

Of course people steal bases, stretch a single into a double, etc. But the example you used just isn't that common.

 

EDITED TO ADD: Probably the most common occurrance I can think of where a runner's speed allowed a trailing runner to advance is something similar to this:

 

Runner on first, hitter gets a base hit, runner on first tries to go from first to third. Instead of throwing to second or hitting the cutoff man, fielder throws through to third, doesn't get the runner. Hitter moves to second on the throw.

 

I call that the Moises Alou play, since he apparantly had some sort of vision issue that prevented him from seeing the cutoff man. Based on early results this season, Jones has the same vision impairment.

[CubinNY]

This is why even top statisticians in the field can still only account for 60% of the game.

 

Heh...a statistic stating how statisticians can't account for everything...

 

No real point...just gave me a chuckle... :wink:

 

Actually you made a good point.

 

To qoute D. Rumsfeld

 

There are the unknowables that are knowable in the sense that we know that we don't know and the unknowables that are unknown.

 

It makes about as much sense as saying that statisticians say they can only account for 60% of the game.

[soccer10k]

Hindsight is 20/20 but looking forward I would say Giles' numbers will improve and Jone's will decline.

 

Given Giles' is 35 years old, that's a heck of an assumption.

 

Agreed. Giles's power has completely disappeared (.389 SLG this year) and even though he still shows the ability to get on base (.392 OBP) I think Jones is the better option for the next couple years.

 

perhaps giles was on the juice after all.

 

I'm not even going down that road.