[imb]

How in the world can people that get paid to analyze baseball be so completely wrong in how they view and judge it? It's mind-boggling to me.

[rocket]

You guys see a much different game than I do in the broadcast booth. I wish you guys could talk to the managers, coaches and scouts who make this game their career.. they would disagree with most of the stuff you guys have said..

 

i wish you could talk to my fancy computer machine, it disagrees with most everything you say

[abuck1220]

You guys see a much different game than I do in the broadcast booth. I wish you guys could talk to the managers, coaches and scouts who make this game their career.. they would disagree with most of the stuff you guys have said..

 

not the managers, coaches and scouts that work for good teams.

[jaxxradio]

lol.. baseball isn't played on a computer..

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

It seems that many of us are being chided that we don't understand the game from an "insider's" perspective.

 

Well, I can't provide this from all perspectives, but since I hold a copy of This Ain't Brain Surgery in my hands as I type, I'll try to quote the beliefs of an "insider."

 

Dierker should be qualified here. He won his division 4 of the 5 seasons he managed in addition to a 14 year career as a player, not counting his experience as a broadcaster.

 

The most important statistics in terms of evaluating a hitter are his on-base average and his slugging percentage....Foot speed and base-running ability are not included in this calculation and must be considered minor factors.

 

Once again, my philosophy was to play for the big inning on offense and to try to avoid letting the other team put up a crooked number.

 

And from Dierker's blog...

 

I have trusted the numbers for a long time myself - when it comes to offensive production. And while I don't enjoy sifting through them, that's exactly what I did every year at the winter meetings. I tried to find minor league players who had high on-base averages and slugging percentages. Then I double-checked our scouting reports on the players I identified. In the fall of 1996, before I even managed my first game, I told our GM, Gerry Hunsicker that there was a guy named Brian Giles who had played most of the year at Triple-A with the Indians and did some remarkable hitting. He got about 100 at-bats with the Tribe at the end of the year and he hit well in the big leagues too. At the time, I didn't know if he was black or white. I did, however, think he was a damn good hitter. I also knew the Indians were loaded with good young hitters, and I hoped that they would think of Giles as an expendable player. We made a foray and didn't get him. But, as it turned out, he was expendable. He was traded to the Pirates for a promising left-handed pitcher, Ricardo Rincon. I wish we had made a better offer.

[rocket]

whatever vance. how many rings does dierker have????

[CUBZ99]

and can people please quit using the "here's a team that has a good OBP, and they don't win" argument? no one says OBP = wins...people are saying OBP = runs. big difference.

 

you can win games w/ a low OBP (provided you have very good pitching and probably a good SLG), but it's hard to score runs with a low OBP.

 

Not if your team has a high BA with RISP. :lol:

 

Seriously, most of you are debating the two extreme sides of the argument. OBP is an important stat, but certainly not the only stat to judge a hitter by. I agree with JaxxRadio that OBP is probably the most important stat for a leadoff hitter, and there are intangibles that "stat geeks" can't quantify. For example, there have been at least 3 games in the last 2 weeks in which Juan Pierre has manufactured a run soley by his speed and aggressiveness. Same could be said for Ryan Theriot the other day, when he was aggressive on the basepaths.

 

On the flip side, it is hard to score many runs if you can't get guys on base and you can't entirely overlook OBP for the rest of your lineup.

[abuck1220]

it's honestly laughable that some people don't equate OBP to runs. of the top 15 run scoring teams in MLB, 13 of them are in the top 15 in OBP.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

whatever vance. how many rings does dierker have????

 

In his most recent blog, Dierker referred to BA with RISP a "dubious" stat. My love for the man in Hawaiian shirts grows daily.

 

Good Kent, how I wish he would run this organization!)

[CaliforniaRaisin]

whatever vance. how many rings does dierker have????

 

In his most recent blog, Dierker referred to BA with RISP a "dubious" stat. My love for the man in Hawaiian shirts grows daily.

 

Good Kent, how I wish he would run this organization!)

 

But Hendry and his Hawaiian shirts already runs this organization!

[CubColtPacer]

it's honestly laughable that some people don't equate OBP to runs. of the top 15 run scoring teams in MLB, 13 of them are in the top 15 in OBP.

 

True, and out of the top 15 run scoring teams in MLB, 12 of them are in the top 15 in Batting Average (and the other 3 in Batting average are 16th, 17th, and 18th in runs scored). Of course, OBP correlates better to runs scored than BA-and OPS correlates better to runs scored than either of them. I want a high OBP on my squad-I'm willing to sacrifice offense at 1 or 2 positions in order to get great defense in the right positions (unless I can get a great offensive player at the position-for example, I consider catcher to be a position where I would take a great defensive catcher over an average offensive player and poor defender, but I wouldn't replace Barrett whatsoever because his offense is so above average for the position). Also, I'm willing to sacrifice OBP at a couple positions for high SLG players-I'd like to have both in high quantities, but if I can only have one in each player, I'd like to have 5 high OBP players and 3 high SLG players (hopefully I can get one that is extremely high in both to have 5 high OBP players and 4 high SLG players). OBP is a great indicator while BA is a good indicator of runs, but both are incomplete when talking about forming an entire team.

[jaxxradio]

and I respect Larry's opinion.. he's been a great manager and a fantastic broadcaster, but he is in the minority in his thinking.

 

Look, I never said that I am anti-OBP.. I just think that other than the lead-off hitter, that stat isn't the most important stat.. guys hitting in the middle of the line-up have to have some pop in their bat or the ability to drive in runs.

 

One stat that I do look at is hitting with runners in scoring position, especially wih two outs. That stat to me is far more important than OBP. Guys are going to get on base throughout a nine inning game. What you do when they get in scoring position is the key.

 

I go back to the 0-4 night. Most of you have missed the argument all together. If a guy moves the runner over in three of those four AB's and that runner scores, the guy that moved him over did his job. Is it a sacrifice bunt? No, but it's just as good because he put the runner is scoring position so the next guy can drive him in, hence the importance of the runners in scoring position stat.

 

Let me say this, I would rather have a guy up who hits .310 with runners in scoring position with a low OBP than someone with a high OBP with awful numbers in the clutch.

[Slugger_16]

Let me say this, I would rather have a guy up who hits .310 with runners in scoring position with a low OBP than someone with a high OBP with awful numbers in the clutch.

 

http://www.petdiscounters.com/files/images/d_3740.jpg

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

and I respect Larry's opinion.. he's been a great manager and a fantastic broadcaster, but he is in the minority in his thinking.

 

Look, I never said that I am anti-OBP.. I just think that other than the lead-off hitter, that stat isn't the most important stat.. guys hitting in the middle of the line-up have to have some pop in their bat or the ability to drive in runs.

 

One stat that I do look at is hitting with runners in scoring position, especially wih two outs. That stat to me is far more important than OBP. Guys are going to get on base throughout a nine inning game. What you do when they get in scoring position is the key.

 

I go back to the 0-4 night. Most of you have missed the argument all together. If a guy moves the runner over in three of those four AB's and that runner scores, the guy that moved him over did his job. Is it a sacrifice bunt? No, but it's just as good because he put the runner is scoring position so the next guy can drive him in, hence the importance of the runners in scoring position stat.

 

Let me say this, I would rather have a guy up who hits .310 with runners in scoring position with a low OBP than someone with a high OBP with awful numbers in the clutch.

 

And as I pointed out, Dierker calls this a "dubious" stat. In the course of a game it may have value. The team that does this best is likely a team that has the best chance of winning. Unfortunately, it is a stat that has no predictive value. BA with RISP (or commonly called "clutch hitting") isn't a repeatable skill. A player who does well in that area one year isn't likely to do the same in subsequent years. So, while if wanting to determine who assissted the most in an individual game in the past, finding the player who hit with RISP might be telling, but in constructing a team, finding a player who hit with RISP the previous year is asking for disaster.

[snoodmonger]

and I respect Larry's opinion.. he's been a great manager and a fantastic broadcaster, but he is in the minority in his thinking.

 

Look, I never said that I am anti-OBP.. I just think that other than the lead-off hitter, that stat isn't the most important stat.. guys hitting in the middle of the line-up have to have some pop in their bat or the ability to drive in runs.

 

One stat that I do look at is hitting with runners in scoring position, especially wih two outs. That stat to me is far more important than OBP. Guys are going to get on base throughout a nine inning game. What you do when they get in scoring position is the key.

 

I go back to the 0-4 night. Most of you have missed the argument all together. If a guy moves the runner over in three of those four AB's and that runner scores, the guy that moved him over did his job. Is it a sacrifice bunt? No, but it's just as good because he put the runner is scoring position so the next guy can drive him in, hence the importance of the runners in scoring position stat.

 

Let me say this, I would rather have a guy up who hits .310 with runners in scoring position with a low OBP than someone with a high OBP with awful numbers in the clutch.

 

But how many times in a game does the #1 hitter actually lead off? The first inning is the only time that's gauranteed. You'll have plenty of times where other players need to get an inning started, and that's why you want guys who can get on throughout the order, if possible.

 

The clutch thing is a whole other can of worms.

[CUBZ99]

and I respect Larry's opinion.. he's been a great manager and a fantastic broadcaster, but he is in the minority in his thinking.

 

Look, I never said that I am anti-OBP.. I just think that other than the lead-off hitter, that stat isn't the most important stat.. guys hitting in the middle of the line-up have to have some pop in their bat or the ability to drive in runs.

 

One stat that I do look at is hitting with runners in scoring position, especially wih two outs. That stat to me is far more important than OBP. Guys are going to get on base throughout a nine inning game. What you do when they get in scoring position is the key.

 

I go back to the 0-4 night. Most of you have missed the argument all together. If a guy moves the runner over in three of those four AB's and that runner scores, the guy that moved him over did his job. Is it a sacrifice bunt? No, but it's just as good because he put the runner is scoring position so the next guy can drive him in, hence the importance of the runners in scoring position stat.

 

Let me say this, I would rather have a guy up who hits .310 with runners in scoring position with a low OBP than someone with a high OBP with awful numbers in the clutch.

 

And as I pointed out, Dierker calls this a "dubious" stat. In the course of a game it may have value. The team that does this best is likely a team that has the best chance of winning. Unfortunately, it is a stat that has no predictive value. BA with RISP (or commonly called "clutch hitting") isn't a repeatable skill. A player who does well in that area one year isn't likely to do the same in subsequent years. So, while if wanting to determine who assissted the most in an individual game in the past, finding the player who hit with RISP might be telling, but in constructing a team, finding a player who hit with RISP the previous year is asking for disaster.

 

Should you judge a player by one year of stats? No, but to say that being able to produce under pressure situations is not valuable is just as ridiculous. One player who comes to mind is Mark Bellhorn. The guy could get on base at a decent clip, but beyond his ability to get on base he was almost completely worthless. I don't remember how many times he came up to the plate with a runner in scoring position and failed to make contact to score the runner. Looking at his last 3 years splits, it is clear that he is not a "clutch hitter".

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

and I respect Larry's opinion.. he's been a great manager and a fantastic broadcaster, but he is in the minority in his thinking.

 

Look, I never said that I am anti-OBP.. I just think that other than the lead-off hitter, that stat isn't the most important stat.. guys hitting in the middle of the line-up have to have some pop in their bat or the ability to drive in runs.

 

One stat that I do look at is hitting with runners in scoring position, especially wih two outs. That stat to me is far more important than OBP. Guys are going to get on base throughout a nine inning game. What you do when they get in scoring position is the key.

 

I go back to the 0-4 night. Most of you have missed the argument all together. If a guy moves the runner over in three of those four AB's and that runner scores, the guy that moved him over did his job. Is it a sacrifice bunt? No, but it's just as good because he put the runner is scoring position so the next guy can drive him in, hence the importance of the runners in scoring position stat.

 

Let me say this, I would rather have a guy up who hits .310 with runners in scoring position with a low OBP than someone with a high OBP with awful numbers in the clutch.

 

And as I pointed out, Dierker calls this a "dubious" stat. In the course of a game it may have value. The team that does this best is likely a team that has the best chance of winning. Unfortunately, it is a stat that has no predictive value. BA with RISP (or commonly called "clutch hitting") isn't a repeatable skill. A player who does well in that area one year isn't likely to do the same in subsequent years. So, while if wanting to determine who assissted the most in an individual game in the past, finding the player who hit with RISP might be telling, but in constructing a team, finding a player who hit with RISP the previous year is asking for disaster.

 

Should you judge a player by one year of stats? No, but to say that being able to produce under pressure situations is not valuable is just as ridiculous. One player who comes to mind is Mark Bellhorn. The guy could get on base at a decent clip, but beyond his ability to get on base he was almost completely worthless. I don't remember how many times he came up to the plate with a runner in scoring position and failed to make contact to score the runner. Looking at his last 3 years splits, it is clear that he is not a "clutch hitter".

 

I didn't say being able to produce under pressure isn't valuable, it's just not predictive in any shape or form. If it were a true ability, surely it would be valuable, but other than anecdotally, it doesn't appear that "clutch hitting" is a real ability.

 

If we want to go out and find a bunch of clutch hitters, we might as well build a team of gnomes, halflings, hobbits, and orges because those are as about as "real" as a clutch hitter.

[Warpticon]

Let me say this, I would rather have a guy up who hits .310 with runners in scoring position with a low OBP than someone with a high OBP with awful numbers in the clutch.

 

Andruw Jones hit .207 with runners in scoring position last year. That earned him an RBI title and the runner-up for the league MVP.

[snoodmonger]

and I respect Larry's opinion.. he's been a great manager and a fantastic broadcaster, but he is in the minority in his thinking.

 

Look, I never said that I am anti-OBP.. I just think that other than the lead-off hitter, that stat isn't the most important stat.. guys hitting in the middle of the line-up have to have some pop in their bat or the ability to drive in runs.

 

One stat that I do look at is hitting with runners in scoring position, especially wih two outs. That stat to me is far more important than OBP. Guys are going to get on base throughout a nine inning game. What you do when they get in scoring position is the key.

 

I go back to the 0-4 night. Most of you have missed the argument all together. If a guy moves the runner over in three of those four AB's and that runner scores, the guy that moved him over did his job. Is it a sacrifice bunt? No, but it's just as good because he put the runner is scoring position so the next guy can drive him in, hence the importance of the runners in scoring position stat.

 

Let me say this, I would rather have a guy up who hits .310 with runners in scoring position with a low OBP than someone with a high OBP with awful numbers in the clutch.

 

And as I pointed out, Dierker calls this a "dubious" stat. In the course of a game it may have value. The team that does this best is likely a team that has the best chance of winning. Unfortunately, it is a stat that has no predictive value. BA with RISP (or commonly called "clutch hitting") isn't a repeatable skill. A player who does well in that area one year isn't likely to do the same in subsequent years. So, while if wanting to determine who assissted the most in an individual game in the past, finding the player who hit with RISP might be telling, but in constructing a team, finding a player who hit with RISP the previous year is asking for disaster.

 

Should you judge a player by one year of stats? No, but to say that being able to produce under pressure situations is not valuable is just as ridiculous. One player who comes to mind is Mark Bellhorn. The guy could get on base at a decent clip, but beyond his ability to get on base he was almost completely worthless. I don't remember how many times he came up to the plate with a runner in scoring position and failed to make contact to score the runner. Looking at his last 3 years splits, it is clear that he is not a "clutch hitter".

 

I didn't say being able to produce under pressure isn't valuable, it's just not predictive in any shape or form. If it were a true ability, surely it would be valuable, but other than anecdotally, it doesn't appear that "clutch hitting" is a real ability.

 

If we want to go out and find a bunch of clutch hitters, we might as well build a team of gnomes, halflings, hobbits, and orges because those are as about as "real" as a clutch hitter.

 

Sam Gamgee can rake. Rake I tell you.

[jaxxradio]

Sure you want guys to get on base as the game/season progresses.. All I am saying is that OBP is somewhat over rated because of the computer age that our society has gotten to. When I hear that stat, it's a stat that fantasy baseball geeks use and that's probably one of the reasons why I don't have alot of use for it.

 

Guys get on base over ten times a game on average (maybe even more). What you do with those runners on base and how you get them in is how this game is won. That's why I'm not a big OBP fan because it's already built in that you have over ten runners on base per game (walks, hits, hit by pitch, errors, etc..).

 

I completel respect everyone's opinion and would love to talk about this during a rain delay some time.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Sure you want guys to get on base as the game/season progresses.. All I am saying is that OBP is somewhat over rated because of the computer age that our society has gotten to. When I hear that stat, it's a stat that fantasy baseball geeks use and that's probably one of the reasons why I don't have alot of use for it.

 

Guys get on base over ten times a game on average (maybe even more). What you do with those runners on base and how you get them in is how this game is won. That's why I'm not a big OBP fan because it's already built in that you have over ten runners on base per game (walks, hits, hit by pitch, errors, etc..).

 

I completel respect everyone's opinion and would love to talk about this during a rain delay some time.

 

That's why judging a player's SLG + OBP is probably the best rudimentary way to judge a player. If you get players on base and and if you produce extra bases with your bat, you score runs.

 

However, looking for BA with RISP is not going to help. Building a team with strong OBP and SLG% up and down the line-up will be much more conducive to a winning team.

[mhuber92211]

OBP is flawed. It does not include getting on base due to an error, or a fielder's choice. You are "on base" however. Exactly the reason why stats don't explain the whole game and by watching a ballgame you learn more then reading a box score. Otherwise there would be no reason to watch. To get a clear picture of the game AND the players playing you need to watch NOT read.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

OBP is flawed. It does not include getting on base due to an error, or a fielder's choice. You are "on base" however. Exactly the reason why stats don't explain the whole game and by watching a ballgame you learn more then reading a box score. Otherwise there would be no reason to watch. To get a clear picture of the game AND the players playing you need to watch NOT read.

 

Are you trying to imply I don't watch games?

 

My guess is I've watched as many games as the majority of people on this forum this year.

[CuseCubFan69]

Sure you want guys to get on base as the game/season progresses.. All I am saying is that OBP is somewhat over rated because of the computer age that our society has gotten to. When I hear that stat, it's a stat that fantasy baseball geeks use and that's probably one of the reasons why I don't have alot of use for it.

 

Guys get on base over ten times a game on average (maybe even more). What you do with those runners on base and how you get them in is how this game is won. That's why I'm not a big OBP fan because it's already built in that you have over ten runners on base per game (walks, hits, hit by pitch, errors, etc..).

 

I completel respect everyone's opinion and would love to talk about this during a rain delay some time.

 

I think that part of the point you are missing is one that UK brought out...making the pitcher throw more pitches. The getting on base part is a bonus, a big bonus but the earlier you work the starting pitching out of the game or make him less effective the better.

 

Game situations dictate many different scenerios and moving a runner over to score a run in a tight game is fine but hurts if you need multiple runs. I'd by far rather have a guy walk and push the guy into scoring postion than to hit a grounder while making an out to do so.

 

I'm a big fan of OBP and I dispise fanatsy baseball.

[CuseCubFan69]

OBP is flawed. It does not include getting on base due to an error, or a fielder's choice. You are "on base" however. Exactly the reason why stats don't explain the whole game and by watching a ballgame you learn more then reading a box score. Otherwise there would be no reason to watch. To get a clear picture of the game AND the players playing you need to watch NOT read.

 

My point would be why not do both? Why does it have to be an either or situation? I think you should see the players and use all the numbers and information you can to make a solid decision.