[nilodnayr]

Again, it all depends. It's not that simple. If a guy goes 0-4, and moves a runner over 3 times and he scores each time, it depends on what else happens. If the guy scores 3 times on doubles, triples, or HRs from the guy after, or a combination of hits....it's a wasted out because if the guy had gotten on base, there would be 1 more run scored. If the guy scores on a wild pitch, balk, or something out of the offense's hands, then it's a more valuable AB. And again, that depends on if the team is winning or losing. If you're down 8-0, moving the runner isn't helping much.

 

Beyond the working the count aspect of an AB, moving runners over is often the worst case scenario of a "productive" AB. Obviously, hitting a HR is at the top of the list of a productive AB and goes down the line past the singles into the BB catagory. The difference between a BB and moving runners over depends on who is hitting behind them as putting runners on 1B and 2B rather driving them in on a sac. fly isn't as productive when there's a poor hitter behind them. More often than not, I'd take my chances with the BB though as it gives a better indication that the pitcher might be in trouble.

 

In order. (my list of tech. productive ABs)

 

HR

TR

DB

S

BB

HBP

Sac. Fly

Sac. bunt/moving runners over.

AB that worked the count but did not result in any of the above.

 

This is an interesting point that has not been discussed...but what if we isolate what the batter has the most control over. Either a homerun, walk, ball in play, or strike out. Now, that is truly my preference in order. What is the average BABIP, like .280, .300? Something like that. It all depends on the hitter, but I don't think an average hitter gets enough triples and doubles to make up for the 70 or so percent of the time you make an out when you put the ball into play. Some of those outs will be productive and move runners over so they are better than strikeouts and putting the ball in play gives the defense a chance to make an error, or move a guy from first to third. But again, I haven't run any analyses (but would be very interested to read some), but it'd be hard to believe that would create enough value to make up for making an out 70% of the time. Additional value of a walk is that it requires at least 4 pitches, whereas a ball in play may only require one.

[Mephistopheles]

The biggest deal I have against sac flies and such is are they really the players doing - or does the situation make it a success. I've never seen a study done that involves G/F rates for hitters, or pitchers for that matter, sorted by situation.

 

Are they just random? If there is a runner on third and one out, does the hitter actual increase his flyball rate and is this a repeatable task? If there is I might be willing to value a sac fly more than any other flyout but until then I must say that they are the exact same when finding a players value.

[Mephistopheles]

The difference between a BB and moving runners over depends on who is hitting behind them as putting runners on 1B and 2B rather driving them in on a sac. fly isn't as productive when there's a poor hitter behind them.

 

That said if you want to analyze things in retrospect using Sacs then fine but they would have little to do with their value from this point on which safe to say matters more. When comparing two players it's not what they've done to this point it's what they will do from now on that matters. So valuing sacs and flies really becomes irrelavent.

 

I've never done this study, but given the volatile nature of G/F rates for hitters from year to year there is probably too much "statistical noise" in the data to ever verify any of this, but that's beside the point.

 

Anyways, take this example of meaningless information im so good at finding.

 

Run expectancies, runners second and third no out:

 

2.052 runs

 

with a sac fly you score one, but the runner stays at second, so runner on 2nd with 1 out, your expectancy is

 

1 run score + .725 runs = 1.725 runs.

 

had the player walked and not made an out, our run expectancy would have been 2.417, so even a walk is batter than a sac fly with runners on second and third.

 

With just a runner on third?

1.297 - sac fly

1.904 - walk

 

so with no outs, a walk is always better than a sac fly. Ditto for sac bunt. With one out it might be different

 

1 Out scenario

__3 - 1.117 - sac fly

__3 - 1.243 - walk

_23 - 1.344 - sac fly (1.387)

_23 - 1.650 - walk

 

on a sac fly with a runner on second as well as third, I am saying the runner doesn't advance, the number in parantheses says he does...

 

so under no circumstances is a sac fly worth more than a walk with a league average hitter on deck. With Matt Clement on deck, that's different.

[UK1679666180]

I never used any predictive value towards it & much like a regular RBI, a sac fly is similar when trying to analyze what a hitter will do. That all depends on who's hitting in front of him.

 

With that said, if there's a runner on 3B with less than two outs and you have a weak hitter on-deck. Which is why I mentioned a weak hitter.

 

Run expectations are geared for league avg., not individual cases of each hitter.

[baseball7897]

let me give you an example.. if a guy goes 0-4 in a game but moves the runner to scoring position in three of his four AB's, is this a bad night? Of course not, but according to the numbers it is.

 

Totally agree.

[USSoccer]

I'm suprised no one picked up on this:

 

As far as Jones goes, he can't hit lefties, but the guy is still hitting .280 (or somewhere around there) with 20 jacks. Is he the long-term answer? No because of the whole lefty thing Having said that, I like him becuase he works hard and doesn't loaf like A-Ram.

 

So because Jones works hard (not on his OF defense, apparently) and doesn't "loaf" (despite his being picked off 2nd base how many times this season?) you like him more than Aramis? You got on posters here for not watching games, but that comment seems to indicate you are evaluating on reputation and not observation.

 

I'll take the guy who hits 30 HR's, 100 RBI's, has a good on-base, improves defensively and occasionally dogs a groundout to short over a guy who barely will hit .275 this season with a terrible OBP, who is terrible defensively, doesn't have great power and has frequent lapses on the bases that "works hard".

 

You can't build a team around guys who "work hard" and hit with RISP. AVG w/ RISP isn't predictive enough to build a roster around.

 

It seems to me that there is such a resistance to thinking critically about what makes a winning baseball team. Clutchiness, hard work, speed, defense, etc...

 

Maybe it's a generational thing, and as time goes on, we'll see more of a willingness to gt out of the dark ages of player evaluation and being approaching roster assembly with more of a modern, intelligent perspective.

[Balsa]

I would just like to point out that only one team wins the world series every year, and it's a pretty tough thing to do, I think the best any team or manager can realistically hope for is to win their division and get into the playoffs.

 

I've seen plenty of good teams go down in the playoffs, and many will continue to do so because baseball in the regular season is such a huge sample size, whereas in the playoffs it's a short series. If anything, not giving away outs would be even more important then I would guess.

 

So when people ask how many world series rings the A's have won, I think that's unfair. From 2000-2005 the Cardinals went 575-408 and got into the playoffs FIVE TIMES. How many rings do they have to show for it? None. It's an unfair point to any team.

[goonys evil twin]

I would just like to point out that only one team wins the world series every year, and it's a pretty tough thing to do, I think the best any team or manager can realistically hope for is to win their division and get into the playoffs.

 

I've seen plenty of good teams go down in the playoffs, and many will continue to do so because baseball in the regular season is such a huge sample size, whereas in the playoffs it's a short series. If anything, not giving away outs would be even more important then I would guess.

 

So when people ask how many world series rings the A's have won, I think that's unfair. From 2000-2005 the Cardinals went 575-408 and got into the playoffs FIVE TIMES. How many rings do they have to show for it? None. It's an unfair point to any team.

 

I would say that the best any team or manager can realistically hope for is to win as many games as possible. GMs should build their team to maximize its chances of winning the most games. Striving to win the divsion and make the playoffs is good as well, but in the case of the Cubs, their "contend within the division" strategy leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Balsa]

What I'm just saying is that realistically, getting to the playoffs should be the determination of a successful season. And, obviously, the number of games won correlates to that.

 

What I'm railing against is the notion that the A's aren't sucessful because they haven't won a world series recently, and that is therefore an indiction that Billy Beane's strategy doesn't work.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Is it too much to ask for a RF that doesn't spike 50% of his throws into the ground? If you're going to have obvious holes in your offensive game like Jones does, the least you can do is field your position. Jones is a butcher.

 

At least ARam has improved tremendously defensively. No more 35 error seasons. Is he Scott Rolen? No, but those guys don't grow on trees.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't remember how many times he (Mark Bellhorn) 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".

 

Good thing the Red Sox benched him during the playoffs of '04. If he was out there instead of Pokey, they definitely would've been lacking in clutch hits.

[Mephistopheles]

For what it's worth, Bellhorn had + 1.54 wins in "clutchiness" for the Red Sox in 2004.

 

 

Minus 2.01 for the Cubbies in 02 though.

[jaxxradio]

Let me make one thing perfectly clear.. I don't like guys that don't bust their butt. I am very old school when it comes to that.

 

Is Aramis a better player than Jacque? Of course he is and there is no denying that. Aramis has improved his defense, hits the ball well and doesn't suck against lefties. Having said that, the one thing that hasn't been mentioned in this conversation is the intangibles of the player.

 

What I mean by intangibles is this. What does the guy bring to the clubhouse? How much pride does the guy have in his job? Does he hustle? Is he willing to do the little things (move runners over, slide hard into second to try and breakup a double play, run out every grounder, etc.)?

 

The intangibles are totally overlooked becuase this game has become more "stat oriented" in recent years. Is Aramis the better player? Absolutely. Is he the better influence in the clubhouse? No, he isn't. Guys that have great numbers but don't play the game hard are useless to me because they don't have a championship mentality. As much as I despise the Yankees, they win because they have guys that do the little things needed to be a champion. Derek Jeter is the best example of how a player should act both on the field and in the clubhouse.

 

This game isn't a personal game, it is a team game. If you have 25 guys that play the game the way it's supposed to be played (hustle, 100% everyday, pick up your teammate when he screwed up, etc), I guarantee you that team will win alot more often than a team full of guys that are only in the game for themselves.

[Shavo]

Guys that have great numbers but don't play the game hard are useless to me because they don't have a championship mentality.

 

:shock:

[TruffleShuffle]

As much as I despise the Yankees, they win because they have guys that do the little things needed to be a champion. Derek Jeter is the best example of how a player should act both on the field and in the clubhouse.

 

I don't disagree that Jeter is a great leader. But you'd say Jeter is a great player because he's a gamer, a leader, does the little things right. I'd say Jeter is a great player because he has a career OPS+ of 121 with a stat line of 314/386/461 at a premium defensive position. That other stuff, to me, is just gravy.

[TruffleShuffle]

Guys that have great numbers but don't play the game hard are useless to me because they don't have a championship mentality.

 

:shock:

 

Manny Ramirez has great numbers and doesn't play the game particularly hard. Somehow he won a championship and came within perhaps an Eric Gregg strike zone of having two rings.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Let me make one thing perfectly clear.. I don't like guys that don't bust their butt. I am very old school when it comes to that.

 

Is Aramis a better player than Jacque? Of course he is and there is no denying that. Aramis has improved his defense, hits the ball well and doesn't suck against lefties. Having said that, the one thing that hasn't been mentioned in this conversation is the intangibles of the player.

 

What I mean by intangibles is this. What does the guy bring to the clubhouse? How much pride does the guy have in his job? Does he hustle? Is he willing to do the little things (move runners over, slide hard into second to try and breakup a double play, run out every grounder, etc.)?

 

The intangibles are totally overlooked becuase this game has become more "stat oriented" in recent years. Is Aramis the better player? Absolutely. Is he the better influence in the clubhouse? No, he isn't. Guys that have great numbers but don't play the game hard are useless to me because they don't have a championship mentality. As much as I despise the Yankees, they win because they have guys that do the little things needed to be a champion. Derek Jeter is the best example of how a player should act both on the field and in the clubhouse.

 

This game isn't a personal game, it is a team game. If you have 25 guys that play the game the way it's supposed to be played (hustle, 100% everyday, pick up your teammate when he screwed up, etc), I guarantee you that team will win alot more often than a team full of guys that are only in the game for themselves.

 

This sounds really great to say, but it's not particularly true.

[Mephistopheles]

It truly is poetic, but moving runners over and such aren't things that happen as often as you think. How often does a non-bunt out move a runner from first to second? That's very rare and it's not a situation that improves your likelihood of scoring. Of course moving the runner over and making an out is better than not moving the runner over and making an out. I don't know how often an average player moves a runner over in a non bunt play - I would assume it's less than 20 times a season. Even if someone did it zero times, moving the runner over would net an average .122 runs each time, making the net effect just 2 runs over 162 games. It's a situation that simply doesn't come around as much as one might think.

 

Also, I am a strong believer in winning breeds chemistry, not chemistry breeds winning. Players are professionals, we should expect them not to allow issues in the clubhouse effect their play. I can assure you that if Mark Prior boned Sarah Wood, Kerry wouldn't be thinking about it when he's pitching. He's not going to sit there thinking, "Is Prior on the bench? Can I see Sarah in the stands?" This is of course an extreme situation and anything less would be the same. The thing is in baseball there is little player to player contact on teammates. There's not much time for communication on the field. You take your ABs by yourself. You field the ball by yourself. The ONLY situation I think something like this could arise is pitcher/catchers because they're the only ones who really work together. The rest of baseball is essentially an individual sport.

 

Picking your teammate up when he screwed up? What does that mean? 2 out RBI? Stuff like that really doesn't have much year to year correlation as an ability. It's more than likely a combination of how well the player is hitting at the time and random probabilities.

 

Hustle? Yeah that is something that sounds nice, but if a player who doesn't hustle still performs better than the player who hustles, the player who isn't hustling is still the better choice. Now if two players have the same talent, of course take the guy who hustles.

 

There are two things about Ramirez. How do you know he doesn't play hard? When he doesn't run out a groundball? Just because he's not a chatterbox it doesn't mean he doesn't care. He doesn't strike me as talkative person, so it's no surprise that he looks passive on the field. Even if he IS someone who doesn't always hustle, I am not stupid. I won't take an inferior player over him because at the end of the day Ramirez's production is still going to be better.

 

Sure Derek Jeter's got a good attitude. He's politically correct and is a nice teammate, but to say that the Yankees win because they have a bunch of guys like him isn't really correct. They win because they have a lot of good players. Whether or not they are nice guys or not doesn't really make a difference. Their statistics have backed up their success, so what has this chemistry done? Affect their statistics? Perhaps, but there's little data to suggest that this is true.

Edited September 1, 2006 by Mephistopheles

[jaxxradio]

Somehow I knew Manny's name would come up.. I suppose there are fans out there that believe when your as great a hitter as Manny is, it doesn't matter how much you hustle.

 

As much as I love Manny (and believe me, as an Indians fan, I still miss his thunderous bat in the lineup), I wish he would hustle alot more.

 

BTW, thanks for bringing up the 1997 World Series (I think that was the year you were talking about). Just when i thought I could let go.. why don't you just bring up Elway and the 98 yard drive or Jordan and the shot.. or Byner and the fumble..lol

 

I still remember being in Cleveland for game 7 (even though the game was in Miami). Three outs and the city would have gone nuts

[jaxxradio]

KC, do me a favor.. from now to the end of the season, I want you to keep track of the amount of times a player moves a runner up one base without a sacrifice. You would be surprised how often it does occur. I've got a scorebook full of those situations. When the season ends, I am going to figure out the exact number.

[Mephistopheles]

Of course for a team it'll happen a lot, but for an individual player? It might be more than 20, but say it happens 100 times. That's 1.2 wins, and I know for a fact it doesn't happen 100 times.

 

Also, if a player goes into the AB thinking, "I am going to move the runner over and make an out." Is he really helping the team? The out is worth more than moving up a base, especially in a run environment like Wrigley Field and especially with a pitching staff that sucks.

[Mephistopheles]

Just look at Juan Pierre. Possible situations that can move a runner up are:

 

1__

_2_

12_

1_3

 

Of course giving an out for a sac fly is a little different. I am not counting those.

 

1__ 55 ABs, 2 SO, 18 H

_2_ 40 ABs, 3 SO, 5 H

12_ 21 ABs, 0 SO, 5 H

1_3 11 ABs, 3 SO, 0 H

 

That's a grand total of 127 AB, and 91 opportunities to do it (AB-SO-H). That's roughly 2 opportunities every 3 games. With a runner on first, it's probably going to happen a LOT less. Not to mention that you have to have 0 or 1 outs for this situation to occur. Just say that the odds are 2:3 for it to be 1 or 0 outs. Then all of a sudden he has roughly 60 chances. Juan has 5 GIDP, tack off another 5 shots and we're down to 55. Juan also has 10 sac bunts, so we're down to 45. That's roughly half a win if he does it every time he has a chance. Also we know that the other guy we are comparing him to will do it a few times as well.

 

JP is an odd case because he never strikes out. Those hitters will have less chances. We both know JP doesn't do it EVERY chance he has.

[CubColtPacer]

Just look at Juan Pierre. Possible situations that can move a runner up are:

 

1__

_2_

12_

1_3

 

Of course giving an out for a sac fly is a little different. I am not counting those.

 

1__ 55 ABs, 2 SO, 18 H

_2_ 40 ABs, 3 SO, 5 H

12_ 21 ABs, 0 SO, 5 H

1_3 11 ABs, 3 SO, 0 H

 

That's a grand total of 127 AB, and 91 opportunities to do it (AB-SO-H). That's roughly 2 opportunities every 3 games. With a runner on first, it's probably going to happen a LOT less. Not to mention that you have to have 0 or 1 outs for this situation to occur. Just say that the odds are 2:3 for it to be 1 or 0 outs. Then all of a sudden he has roughly 60 chances. Juan has 5 GIDP, tack off another 5 shots and we're down to 55. Juan also has 10 sac bunts, so we're down to 45. That's roughly half a win if he does it every time he has a chance. Also we know that the other guy we are comparing him to will do it a few times as well.

 

JP is an odd case because he never strikes out. Those hitters will have less chances. We both know JP doesn't do it EVERY chance he has.

 

Without going into the question (which is too complicated for me tonight), Pierre is probably a bad example to use for this discussion for the fact that he has batted leadoff all this time, which limits the chances that he will come up with runners on. For example-Ramirez has had 192 AB's in those 4 situations this season, even though he has 80 less AB's than Pierre. Jones has 169 AB's in those situations in 445 AB's. To compare, David Wright has had 196 AB's in those situations out of 493 AB's overall.

[USSoccer]

Let me make one thing perfectly clear.. I don't like guys that don't bust their butt. I am very old school when it comes to that.

 

Is Aramis a better player than Jacque? Of course he is and there is no denying that. Aramis has improved his defense, hits the ball well and doesn't suck against lefties. Having said that, the one thing that hasn't been mentioned in this conversation is the intangibles of the player.

 

What I mean by intangibles is this. What does the guy bring to the clubhouse? How much pride does the guy have in his job? Does he hustle? Is he willing to do the little things (move runners over, slide hard into second to try and breakup a double play, run out every grounder, etc.)?

 

The intangibles are totally overlooked becuase this game has become more "stat oriented" in recent years. Is Aramis the better player? Absolutely. Is he the better influence in the clubhouse? No, he isn't. Guys that have great numbers but don't play the game hard are useless to me because they don't have a championship mentality. As much as I despise the Yankees, they win because they have guys that do the little things needed to be a champion. Derek Jeter is the best example of how a player should act both on the field and in the clubhouse.

 

This game isn't a personal game, it is a team game. If you have 25 guys that play the game the way it's supposed to be played (hustle, 100% everyday, pick up your teammate when he screwed up, etc), I guarantee you that team will win alot more often than a team full of guys that are only in the game for themselves.

 

For all of the misguided romanticism about intangibles, you failed to address the main point of my post, which was that Jacque Jones has cost the Chicago Cubs runs, and games, by virtue of his terrible defense and baserunning lapses. If Jones is so intangibly gifted, why can't he keep from spiking every throw from RF? Why can't he hit the cutoff man? Why does he continue to stray off 2B and get picked off? Those are all "little things", intangible details of the game of baseball that, according to you, make up a winning team. However, observable evidence shows that Jones is terrible at the little things. Why give him the "He Trys Hard" pass and not Aramis? Why not instead look at the steady improvement of Aramis' defense at 3B as evidence he does care about becoming a more complete ballplayer? You're ignoring evidence that contradicts your logic and relying on player reputation. I will submit to you that Ramirez is not only a superior player, but has worked harder to improve on areas of weakness as a Cub than Jones has, indicating he really does care about his performance more than people give him credit for.

 

Also, you bring up attitude in the clubhouse. Have you spent a ton of time in the Chicago Cubs' clubhouse? Have you spent enough time in there to know that Aramis is some sort of clubhouse cancer and doesn't have a "championship mentality"? I seem to recall his lack of interest in the team and non-championship mentality putting up a .956 OPS, hitting 4 HR's, driving in 10, and playing solid defense for a team that was unlucky to not win a pennant in 2003. It seems that Ramirez's non-Jeterness really didn't hinder the team.

 

You're making conclusions about a player using criterion that you ignore when it comes to the reputation of another player. That, in a nutshell, is why newer methods of player evaluation will always be more reliable than a players reputation and old-school scouting myths. Reputations are always subjective. They are hard to shake. Sometimes they are undeserved. Saying that Ramirez's supposed lack of hustle indicates he doesn't care, isn't a championship type player, and might be a clubhouse cancer while at the same time ignoring tangible evidence that a supposed "intangibly gifted" player is abysmal at the little things makes no sense.

 

Furthermore, baseball is a game of individual matchups within a loose team concept. It does not take a great clubhouse to win championships. It's not basketball or soccer, where the team concept is a must. It takes great players, consistent pitching, and luck. It doesn't take 25 guys getting along great. I'll take a roster full of talented guys like Ramirez that might jog an occasional grounder to short out over a roster of plucky scrappers who aren't very talented but try hard any day.

Edited September 2, 2006 by USSoccer

[Mephistopheles]

Without going into the question (which is too complicated for me tonight), Pierre is probably a bad example to use for this discussion for the fact that he has batted leadoff all this time, which limits the chances that he will come up with runners on. For example-Ramirez has had 192 AB's in those 4 situations this season, even though he has 80 less AB's than Pierre. Jones has 169 AB's in those situations in 445 AB's. To compare, David Wright has had 196 AB's in those situations out of 493 AB's overall.

 

Fair enough, but two things. 1.) Do you want a hitter of Aramis' quality trying to move runner over instead of drive them in, honestly? 2.) Aramis has had 110 opportunities (AB-SO-H). So one third of those could have came with less than 2 outs, 73 chances. Then ARam has 13 GIDP, giving him 60 chances. And again, we know he didn't do it every time.

 

51 total chances for David Wright

36 total chances for Jacque Jones