What would Barrett net for us?

[Guest]

Can we refrain from using triple crown numbers and fielding percentage as an argument of a player's worth? They are terrible measures of a player's respective offensive and defensive ability.

 

No they are not. Let me guess, you're going to be using VORP and that other garbage to judge Molina? Stats dont tell you everything. Playing and watching are 2 different things. I hate it when people just use some meaningless stats like VORP to judge a player. Average, Hr, RBI's, OBP, and fielding% are a good way to judge a player in my book.

 

Was your book written by a children's author?

 

My book was written with baseball knowledge. I dont like how stat geeks think they know what they are talking about. All they go by is stats, they dont see the things that happen that dont get recorded in a baseball stat book. For example: a runner at 2b with no outs, the hitter hits the ball to the to the right side of the infield. That is considered a great AB by a person who knowledges the game more than a stat geek. Stat geeks would classify that AB has a worthless AB.

I'm proud to be a stat geek. And from a stat perspective I'd look at that at bat and compare the expected runs from the first situation to the second situation to evaluate the success of the AB. From recollection, it's close to a wash. Going with that assumption...

 

If a "knowledgeable baseball person" (is there a copyright fro that phrase) thinks it was a great AB, s/he's kidding her/himself. The number of expected runs in the inning has not been significantly altered. A HR in that situation is a great AB. So is a triple or a double. An RBI single is a very good AB. A walk is a good AB that increases the number of expected runs in the inning and drive up the pitch count. Those are all better than the groundout to advance the runner. So I don't see why on earth the GO would be considered a "Great" at bat unless all of the above are considered "even greater" AB's.

 

Now, If a "stat geek" thinks it was a worthless AB, that's either accurate or not depending on whether you care to look at the denotation or connotation of "Worthless". In that the run expectation is not significantly altered, the at bat is, nearly by definition, without worth. But the common definition of worthless connotes something with significant negative worth, which is clearly not the case.

 

How is that response from a self-professed "geek"?

 

Its called a productive out. I dont think stat geeks like productive outs that much. Yeah, a walk, a hit, a HR,a Double, or a Triple would be great in a situation like that. But, if the hitter makes a out to the right side of the infield he should get high five's from his teammates in the dugout. Thats baseball knowledge. I know some people on this site would take that AB has worthless.

Gee, thanks for the education. A productive out, eh? Never heard that term as I don't watch baseball. Being a stat geek, you know, we never actually watch games that aren't currently being simulated on our computers.

 

So you think it's a "great" at bat to make a "productive" out? Even though you acknowledge that there's at least five superior things the hitter could do (HR, triple, double, single, bb, hbp)?

 

Our definitions of "great" differ "greatly".

[baseball7897]

He's regressed since his Angels days, he was doing so before he left Anaheim.

 

His delivery is slower as his arm strength and his quickness around the plate isn't what it was 5 years ago.

 

That is because he packed on a couple of pounds since then. Bengie had a 3.55 CERA last year. 3rd best in all of baseball.

 

Barrett had a 4.45 CERA last year.

 

Isn't a 32yo. C that has been gaining too much weight for his own good a red flag? He isn't quick behind the plate and has been terrible at throwing out runners. He has thrown out 17.5% of the runners.

 

Molina has a 4.55 CERA this year. Barrett is at 4.57.

 

Although, I really don't like that stat.

 

One thing that coaches would tell that they dont like about Molina is the number of pass balls he allows. Im not sure what his numbers are this year in that category, but last year he allowed 10 with the Angels. That can be contributed to the number of pitchers like K-Rod who throw alot of balls in the dirt.

Edited September 11, 2006 by baseball7897

[Rob]

My book was written with baseball knowledge. I dont like how stat geeks think they know what they are talking about. All they go by is stats, they dont see the things that happen that dont get recorded in a baseball stat book. For example: a runner at 2b with no outs, the hitter hits the ball to the to the right side of the infield. That is considered a great AB by a person who knowledges the game more than a stat geek. Stat geeks would classify that AB has a worthless AB.

 

I'd bet good money I've watched more baseball games than you. I caught every single Cubs game that was on WGN, CSN, ESPN, or Fox in 04 and 05, and whatever games I could find on MLBTV. Granted, I've slipped back to slightly in excess of a hundred games so far this year... but I don't doubt that beats you handily irregardless.

 

Do you know what the difference between a .275 and a .300 hitter is?

 

It's one hit every other week.

 

There's a decent difference in the value of these two players, and I'd bet dollars to dimes you couldn't pick the one hitting better more than 50% of the time if you simply watched all the games and never looked at the statistics. The human brain just isn't set to function like you imply it is. You remember the big things, the important moments. You don't remember the guy hitting .300 getting the single in the top of the 4th with nobody on and two out. You remember the guy hitting .275 getting the single with the bases loaded in the 9th, two outs, and down by one.

 

The fact of the matter is that 162 games is far too long for your mind to develop an accurate mental account of it all... especially what you saw back in the second week of May. Statistics aren't a substitute for the game. They're simply the only way to get an accurate portrait of what has happened...the stuff that your mind no longer can be counted on for.

 

Now if you can't grasp the meaning of certain statistics... if you're scared of all the complex math that goes into them... don't use them. But certainly don't automatically assume that people that are fully capable of using them have only seen baseball inside a laboratory setting.

 

I watch baseball. I know it damn well. But just because you don't know what we're talking about, suddenly I'm a stats geek who never watches the games?

 

Puhleaze.

 

Oh, and interestingly enough...

 

That hypothetical situation you alluded to earlier?

 

It's often measured using Run Expectancy or Win Expectancy... both of which I look at in determining the value of a player. Just because Darin Erstad does those things doesn't make him a viable option at first base, though. Even after those adjustments, he's one of the worst first basemen in the league.

[UK1679666180]

He's regressed since his Angels days, he was doing so before he left Anaheim.

 

His delivery is slower as his arm strength and his quickness around the plate isn't what it was 5 years ago.

 

That is because he packed on a couple of pounds since then. Bengie had a 3.55 CERA last year. 3rd best in all of baseball.

 

Barrett had a 4.45 CERA last year.

 

Isn't a 32yo. C that has been gaining too much weight for his own good a red flag? He isn't quick behind the plate and has been terrible at throwing out runners. He has thrown out 17.5% of the runners.

 

Molina has a 4.55 CERA this year. Barrett is at 4.57.

 

Although, I really don't like that stat.

 

One thing that coaches would tell that they dont like about Molina is the number of pass balls he allows. Im not sure what his numbers are this year in that category, but last year he allowed 10 with the Angels. That can be contributed to the number of pitchers like K-Rod who throw alot of balls in the dirt.

 

Although, he still has 10 PBs, there are far greater concerns than that as I eluded to earlier why a team would be taking a gamble on him long-term.

[Rob]

He's regressed since his Angels days, he was doing so before he left Anaheim.

 

His delivery is slower as his arm strength and his quickness around the plate isn't what it was 5 years ago.

 

That is because he packed on a couple of pounds since then. Bengie had a 3.55 CERA last year. 3rd best in all of baseball.

 

Barrett had a 4.45 CERA last year.

 

Isn't a 32yo. C that has been gaining too much weight for his own good a red flag? He isn't quick behind the plate and has been terrible at throwing out runners. He has thrown out 17.5% of the runners.

 

Molina has a 4.55 CERA this year. Barrett is at 4.57.

 

Although, I really don't like that stat.

 

One thing that coaches would tell that they dont like about Molina is the number of pass balls he allows. Im not sure what his numbers are this year in that category, but last year he allowed 10 with the Angels. That can be contributed to the number of pitchers like K-Rod who throw alot of balls in the dirt.

 

Whoa! Hold the train!

 

Passed Balls are only committed when the ball doesn't hit the dirt before it gets to the catcher. Otherwise it's a Wild Pitch.

 

Watch the games and you might know that.

[baseball7897]

My book was written with baseball knowledge. I dont like how stat geeks think they know what they are talking about. All they go by is stats, they dont see the things that happen that dont get recorded in a baseball stat book. For example: a runner at 2b with no outs, the hitter hits the ball to the to the right side of the infield. That is considered a great AB by a person who knowledges the game more than a stat geek. Stat geeks would classify that AB has a worthless AB.

 

I'd bet good money I've watched more baseball games than you. I caught every single Cubs game that was on WGN, CSN, ESPN, or Fox in 04 and 05, and whatever games I could find on MLBTV. Granted, I've slipped back to slightly in excess of a hundred games so far this year... but I don't doubt that beats you handily irregardless.

 

Do you know what the difference between a .275 and a .300 hitter is?

 

It's one hit every other week.

 

There's a decent difference in the value of these two players, and I'd bet dollars to dimes you couldn't pick the one hitting better more than 50% of the time if you simply watched all the games and never looked at the statistics. The human brain just isn't set to function like you imply it is. You remember the big things, the important moments. You don't remember the guy hitting .300 getting the single in the top of the 4th with nobody on and two out. You remember the guy hitting .275 getting the single with the bases loaded in the 9th, two outs, and down by one.

 

The fact of the matter is that 162 games is far too long for your mind to develop an accurate mental account of it all... especially what you saw back in the second week of May. Statistics aren't a substitute for the game. They're simply the only way to get an accurate portrait of what has happened...the stuff that your mind no longer can be counted on for.

 

Now if you can't grasp the meaning of certain statistics... if you're scared of all the complex math that goes into them... don't use them. But certainly don't automatically assume that people that are fully capable of using them have only seen baseball inside a laboratory setting.

 

I watch baseball. I know it damn well. But just because you don't know what we're talking about, suddenly I'm a stats geek who never watches the games?

 

Puhleaze.

 

Oh, and interestingly enough...

 

That hypothetical situation you alluded to earlier?

 

It's often measured using Run Expectancy or Win Expectancy... both of which I look at in determining the value of a player. Just because Darin Erstad does those things doesn't make him a viable option at first base, though. Even after those adjustments, he's one of the worst first basemen in the league.

 

That was probaby one of the most ignorant statements I have heard in a number of years. Yeah, I dont watch baseball games. :roll: I play baseball games. I know what it takes to win a game. I know moving a runner over is very important for the team to succeed. I know poor defense kills a baseball team. Having a liability in the field is horrible for a team. I know if you have a good defense supported with a solid pitching staff your chances are better than a team filled with Offensive minded players who cant play a lick of defense. Theres so much more that I know that I dont even bother to post.

[Guest]

My book was written with baseball knowledge. I dont like how stat geeks think they know what they are talking about. All they go by is stats, they dont see the things that happen that dont get recorded in a baseball stat book. For example: a runner at 2b with no outs, the hitter hits the ball to the to the right side of the infield. That is considered a great AB by a person who knowledges the game more than a stat geek. Stat geeks would classify that AB has a worthless AB.

 

I'd bet good money I've watched more baseball games than you. I caught every single Cubs game that was on WGN, CSN, ESPN, or Fox in 04 and 05, and whatever games I could find on MLBTV. Granted, I've slipped back to slightly in excess of a hundred games so far this year... but I don't doubt that beats you handily irregardless.

 

Do you know what the difference between a .275 and a .300 hitter is?

 

It's one hit every other week.

 

There's a decent difference in the value of these two players, and I'd bet dollars to dimes you couldn't pick the one hitting better more than 50% of the time if you simply watched all the games and never looked at the statistics. The human brain just isn't set to function like you imply it is. You remember the big things, the important moments. You don't remember the guy hitting .300 getting the single in the top of the 4th with nobody on and two out. You remember the guy hitting .275 getting the single with the bases loaded in the 9th, two outs, and down by one.

 

The fact of the matter is that 162 games is far too long for your mind to develop an accurate mental account of it all... especially what you saw back in the second week of May. Statistics aren't a substitute for the game. They're simply the only way to get an accurate portrait of what has happened...the stuff that your mind no longer can be counted on for.

 

Now if you can't grasp the meaning of certain statistics... if you're scared of all the complex math that goes into them... don't use them. But certainly don't automatically assume that people that are fully capable of using them have only seen baseball inside a laboratory setting.

 

I watch baseball. I know it damn well. But just because you don't know what we're talking about, suddenly I'm a stats geek who never watches the games?

 

Puhleaze.

 

Oh, and interestingly enough...

 

That hypothetical situation you alluded to earlier?

 

It's often measured using Run Expectancy or Win Expectancy... both of which I look at in determining the value of a player. Just because Darin Erstad does those things doesn't make him a viable option at first base, though. Even after those adjustments, he's one of the worst first basemen in the league.

 

That was probaby one of the most ignorant statements I have heard in a number of years. Yeah, I dont watch baseball games. :roll: I play baseball games. I know what it takes to win a game. I know moving a runner over is very important for the team to succeed. I know poor defense kills a baseball team. Having a liability in the field is horrible for a team. I know if you have a good defense supported with a solid pitching staff your chances are better than a team filled with Offensive minded players who cant play a lick of defense. Theres so much more that I know that I dont even bother to post.

Lemme see if I can create a quick estimate here...

 

Let's ignore the baseball I played before age 10, because you really aren't aware of what's going on at that point.

 

From age 10 through 18, I averaged at least five games of ball a week during the summer. Typical 10 week summers for eight years puts that around 400 games. Add in around 2 games a week during spring/fall and that total comes up to at least 500 games. Now, a lot of these were just pickup games, but I played 'em. Things slowed down in college (and it was all pickup at that point), but I played some more at that point. In all, I've played probably around 600 games of baseball over the years. I pitched and played all over the diamond. Problem is I couldn't throw strikes, didn't have much of a breaking ball, never learned a changeup and couldn't hit a lick. I tended to get put in positions where being able to throw hard was an asset. But I was never good enough to even think about making a college team or even dream of the pros. I just didn't have the physical skills.

 

I've been watching baseball...well...a long time. I'm 39 years old and have been watching since I can remember. But let's whittle off those first 10 years again. Call it an average of around 80 games a year for 29 years and I've probably watched at least 2,320 games since I was aware of what was happening on the field.

 

Now, I'm not saying this because I think my experience with the game is so great that I automatically know more than you or any other person here.

 

But you are saying that your experience in baseball gives you some unique insight that us "stat geeks" don't have. And I'm just curious why you believe that's the case.

 

So, whip out your baseball resume and let's see whose is longer.

[Rob]

That was probaby one of the most ignorant statements I have heard in a number of years. Yeah, I dont watch baseball games. :roll: I play baseball games.

 

And I haven't? :roll:

 

I know what it takes to win a game.

 

If that were the case you wouldn't embarass yourself with the following items:

 

I know moving a runner over is very important for the team to succeed.

 

Only in certain (and rare) situations is sacrificing an out for advancing the runner going to contribute positively to win expectancy. Almost all of the cases are late in the game with a run differential of one or zero, no outs, and runners already in scoring position.

 

I know poor defense kills a baseball team. Having a liability in the field is horrible for a team.

 

Well it certainly isn't good. But does having one crappy defensive player exclude teams from postseason glory? Absolutely not. The Red Sox made it as far as they did in 04 due to Manny and Ortiz, not despite them.

 

I know if you have a good defense supported with a solid pitching staff your chances are better than a team filled with Offensive minded players who cant play a lick of defense.

 

Only if you can make it to the postseason.

 

There's such a turnover in pitching in-season due to injuries league-wide, that it's near impossible to keep a pitching staff intact and healthy for an entire 162 game schedule. The rate of pitching injuries trumps that of injuries for position players.

 

A good offensive squad with pitching that fluctuates from average when healthy to bad when injuries strike is much more likely to make it to the postseason than a team with bad offense, but pitching that fluctuates from good when healthy to average when bad. It's simple. Just look at the permutations.

 

Team A can have the following situations occur:

 

Good Offense - Average Pitching

Good Offense - Bad Pitching

 

Team B can have these:

 

Bad Offense - Good Pitching

Bad Offense - Average Pitching

 

With the offense being better, the team has the stability necessary to make it to the postseason more often. Just look to the pitching rich and injury riddled Cubs if you wish to make the situation hit closer to home.

 

Theres so much more that I know that I dont even bother to post.

 

That's the one smart thing you've said so far.

[baseball7897]

He's regressed since his Angels days, he was doing so before he left Anaheim.

 

His delivery is slower as his arm strength and his quickness around the plate isn't what it was 5 years ago.

 

That is because he packed on a couple of pounds since then. Bengie had a 3.55 CERA last year. 3rd best in all of baseball.

 

Barrett had a 4.45 CERA last year.

 

Isn't a 32yo. C that has been gaining too much weight for his own good a red flag? He isn't quick behind the plate and has been terrible at throwing out runners. He has thrown out 17.5% of the runners.

 

Molina has a 4.55 CERA this year. Barrett is at 4.57.

 

Although, I really don't like that stat.

 

One thing that coaches would tell that they dont like about Molina is the number of pass balls he allows. Im not sure what his numbers are this year in that category, but last year he allowed 10 with the Angels. That can be contributed to the number of pitchers like K-Rod who throw alot of balls in the dirt.

 

Whoa! Hold the train!

 

Passed Balls are only committed when the ball doesn't hit the dirt before it gets to the catcher. Otherwise it's a Wild Pitch.

 

Watch the games and you might know that.

 

 

Its called wildness. Something K-Rod shows now and then. You might expect him to throw a pitch in the dirt, but before you know its at the hitters head, and bengie is being charged for a pass ball. Ervin Santana last year threw a pitch in the dirt that was really an uncatchable pitch, but Bengie was charged for a pass ball. I think the score keepers in Anaheim had something agianst Bengie. Probably because they expect him to make the plays all the time. Which I fell in that category also last year.

[Rob]

Its called wildness. Something K-Rod shows now and then. You might expect him to throw a pitch in the dirt, but before you know its at the hitters head, and bengie is being charged for a pass ball. Ervin Santana last year threw a pitch in the dirt that was really an uncatchable pitch, but Bengie was charged for a pass ball. I think the score keepers in Anaheim had something agianst Bengie. Probably because they expect him to make the plays all the time. Which I fell in that category also last year.

 

Ok, tell ya what. We'll give you that passed ball back.

 

We'll give you half of all his passed balls the last 3 years back.

 

He is still no longer an defensive asset anymore.

[baseball7897]

That was probaby one of the most ignorant statements I have heard in a number of years. Yeah, I dont watch baseball games. :roll: I play baseball games.

 

And I haven't? :roll:

 

I know what it takes to win a game.

 

If that were the case you wouldn't embarass yourself with the following items:

 

I know moving a runner over is very important for the team to succeed.

 

Only in certain (and rare) situations is sacrificing an out for advancing the runner going to contribute positively to win expectancy. Almost all of the cases are late in the game with a run differential of one or zero, no outs, and runners already in scoring position.

 

I know poor defense kills a baseball team. Having a liability in the field is horrible for a team.

 

Well it certainly isn't good. But does having one crappy defensive player exclude teams from postseason glory? Absolutely not. The Red Sox made it as far as they did in 04 due to Manny and Ortiz, not despite them.

 

I know if you have a good defense supported with a solid pitching staff your chances are better than a team filled with Offensive minded players who cant play a lick of defense.

 

Only if you can make it to the postseason.

 

There's such a turnover in pitching in-season due to injuries league-wide, that it's near impossible to keep a pitching staff intact and healthy for an entire 162 game schedule. The rate of pitching injuries trumps that of injuries for position players.

 

A good offensive squad with pitching that fluctuates from average when healthy to bad when injuries strike is much more likely to make it to the postseason than a team with bad offense, but pitching that fluctuates from good when healthy to average when bad. It's simple. Just look at the permutations.

 

Team A can have the following situations occur:

 

Good Offense - Average Pitching

Good Offense - Bad Pitching

 

Team B can have these:

 

Bad Offense - Good Pitching

Bad Offense - Average Pitching

 

With the offense being better, the team has the stability necessary to make it to the postseason more often. Just look to the pitching rich and injury riddled Cubs if you wish to make the situation hit closer to home.

 

Theres so much more that I know that I dont even bother to post.

 

That's the one smart thing you've said so far.

 

I never made a statement that you didnt play baseball. Relax :)

 

I believe the only reason the Red Sox won the World Series was because they improved their defense. They added Cabrera and Mientkiewicz. If they kept nomar that year, they wouldnt of won the world series I believe.

[Rob]

 

I never made a statement that you didnt play baseball. Relax :)

 

I believe the only reason the Red Sox won the World Series was because they improved their defense. They added Cabrera and Mientkiewicz. If they kept nomar that year, they wouldnt of won the world series I believe.

 

Cabrera and his .966 Fielding % (hey, if you can use it I can.) versus Nomar and his .957?

 

That's a margin of less than one error. And you've already established that the scorekeepers can be vindictive (which is half the reason Nomar was traded).

 

For all intents and purposes, Cabrera didn't do any better than Nomar that year... and they were both below the league average fielding percentage.

[baseball7897]

 

I never made a statement that you didnt play baseball. Relax :)

 

I believe the only reason the Red Sox won the World Series was because they improved their defense. They added Cabrera and Mientkiewicz. If they kept nomar that year, they wouldnt of won the world series I believe.

 

Cabrera and his .966 Fielding % (hey, if you can use it I can.) versus Nomar and his .957?

 

That's a margin of less than one error. And you've already established that the scorekeepers can be vindictive (which is half the reason Nomar was traded).

 

For all intents and purposes, Cabrera didn't do any better than Nomar that year... and they were both below the league average fielding percentage.

 

I thought judging someone on their defensive% was a horrible way to judge a player? :D

[Guest]

 

I never made a statement that you didnt play baseball. Relax :)

 

I believe the only reason the Red Sox won the World Series was because they improved their defense. They added Cabrera and Mientkiewicz. If they kept nomar that year, they wouldnt of won the world series I believe.

 

Cabrera and his .966 Fielding % (hey, if you can use it I can.) versus Nomar and his .957?

 

That's a margin of less than one error. And you've already established that the scorekeepers can be vindictive (which is half the reason Nomar was traded).

 

For all intents and purposes, Cabrera didn't do any better than Nomar that year... and they were both below the league average fielding percentage.

 

I thought judging someone on their defensive% was a horrible way to judge a player? :D

It's not. But with your baseball experience, I'm sure you realize it's somewhat more applicable for shortstops than catchers.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

I believe the only reason the Red Sox won the World Series was because they improved their defense. They added Cabrera and Mientkiewicz. If they kept nomar that year, they wouldnt of won the world series I believe.

 

Didn't Mientkiewicz like never play for the Red Sox?

[baseball7897]

 

I never made a statement that you didnt play baseball. Relax :)

 

I believe the only reason the Red Sox won the World Series was because they improved their defense. They added Cabrera and Mientkiewicz. If they kept nomar that year, they wouldnt of won the world series I believe.

 

Cabrera and his .966 Fielding % (hey, if you can use it I can.) versus Nomar and his .957?

 

That's a margin of less than one error. And you've already established that the scorekeepers can be vindictive (which is half the reason Nomar was traded).

 

For all intents and purposes, Cabrera didn't do any better than Nomar that year... and they were both below the league average fielding percentage.

 

I thought judging someone on their defensive% was a horrible way to judge a player? :D

It's not. But with your baseball experience, I'm sure you realize it's somewhat more applicable for shortstops than catchers.

 

The SS position is the most demanding positions on the field. I was just joking with the guy anyways. I like to judge a player by his defensive %, but some dont. I also use Range factor to judge a players defensive ability.

Edited September 11, 2006 by baseball7897

[Rob]

 

I never made a statement that you didnt play baseball. Relax :)

 

I believe the only reason the Red Sox won the World Series was because they improved their defense. They added Cabrera and Mientkiewicz. If they kept nomar that year, they wouldnt of won the world series I believe.

 

Cabrera and his .966 Fielding % (hey, if you can use it I can.) versus Nomar and his .957?

 

That's a margin of less than one error. And you've already established that the scorekeepers can be vindictive (which is half the reason Nomar was traded).

 

For all intents and purposes, Cabrera didn't do any better than Nomar that year... and they were both below the league average fielding percentage.

 

I thought judging someone on their defensive% was a horrible way to judge a player? :D

 

Forgive me. I'm trying to bring this information down to a level you've shown aptitude for understanding. Believe me, it's applicable at the higher levels of statistics in this case as well.

[Guest]

 

I never made a statement that you didnt play baseball. Relax :)

 

I believe the only reason the Red Sox won the World Series was because they improved their defense. They added Cabrera and Mientkiewicz. If they kept nomar that year, they wouldnt of won the world series I believe.

 

Cabrera and his .966 Fielding % (hey, if you can use it I can.) versus Nomar and his .957?

 

That's a margin of less than one error. And you've already established that the scorekeepers can be vindictive (which is half the reason Nomar was traded).

 

For all intents and purposes, Cabrera didn't do any better than Nomar that year... and they were both below the league average fielding percentage.

 

I thought judging someone on their defensive% was a horrible way to judge a player? :D

It's not. But with your baseball experience, I'm sure you realize it's somewhat more applicable for shortstops than catchers.

 

The SS position is the most demanding positions on the field. I was just joking with the guy anyways. I like to judge a player by his defensive %, but some dont.

Then what is your justification for saying that Cabrera was that much better than Nomar that Boston wouldn't have won the title with him at SS.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

Its called a productive out. I dont think stat geeks like productive outs that much. Yeah, a walk, a hit, a HR,a Double, or a Triple would be great in a situation like that. But, if the hitter makes a out to the right side of the infield he should get high five's from his teammates in the dugout. Thats baseball knowledge. I know some people on this site would take that AB has worthless.

 

But it's not a "productive" out. It's more productive than maybe a strike-out or a double play and more productive than an out that doesn't advance the runner, but it doesn't improve the team's scoring chances one bit.

 

Read this quote:

 

Statistically, you have a 41 percent chance of scoring a run with a man on first and nobody out. With a man on second and one out, your odds go down to 40 percent.

 

Now, I'm sure you're eager to dismiss that quote as coming from a stat geek who isn't qualified to comment and hasn't watched or played the game. If so, you'd be wrong. That is from a pitcher who played in the major leagues for 14 years. I'm guessing you don't quite have that on your resume' just yet.

 

Giving up the out to advance a runner from first to second does nothing to improve the team's chances to score a run. The chances of scoring or the same then as when he stepped to the plate. What he has done has kept the chances from decreasing which, I guess is better than nothing, but surely not "productive."

 

You've twisted so many facts in this thread, it's comical. When your ideas have been throughly refuted, you've turned to the assinine watch some games or I play the game, like none of us have.

 

You said that Barrett and Molina were equals offensively which isn't true. They are closer to equals defensively than they are offensively.

 

You've mischaracterized Vernon Wells, carefully selecting years or generalizations which are closer to fiction than truth.

 

My guess is you don't like VORP or any other stat like that because you don't want to or lack the ability to comprehend it.

[baseball7897]

 

I never made a statement that you didnt play baseball. Relax :)

 

I believe the only reason the Red Sox won the World Series was because they improved their defense. They added Cabrera and Mientkiewicz. If they kept nomar that year, they wouldnt of won the world series I believe.

 

Cabrera and his .966 Fielding % (hey, if you can use it I can.) versus Nomar and his .957?

 

That's a margin of less than one error. And you've already established that the scorekeepers can be vindictive (which is half the reason Nomar was traded).

 

For all intents and purposes, Cabrera didn't do any better than Nomar that year... and they were both below the league average fielding percentage.

 

I thought judging someone on their defensive% was a horrible way to judge a player? :D

It's not. But with your baseball experience, I'm sure you realize it's somewhat more applicable for shortstops than catchers.

 

The SS position is the most demanding positions on the field. I was just joking with the guy anyways. I like to judge a player by his defensive %, but some dont.

Then what is your justification for saying that Cabrera was that much better than Nomar that Boston wouldn't have won the title with him at SS.

 

I dont have the stats In front of me, but I remember reading something about Cabrera committing very few errors(4 I believe)when he was traded to the Red Sox. Mientkiewicz also contributed to helping out the infield defense.

[Rob]

 

I never made a statement that you didnt play baseball. Relax :)

 

I believe the only reason the Red Sox won the World Series was because they improved their defense. They added Cabrera and Mientkiewicz. If they kept nomar that year, they wouldnt of won the world series I believe.

 

Cabrera and his .966 Fielding % (hey, if you can use it I can.) versus Nomar and his .957?

 

That's a margin of less than one error. And you've already established that the scorekeepers can be vindictive (which is half the reason Nomar was traded).

 

For all intents and purposes, Cabrera didn't do any better than Nomar that year... and they were both below the league average fielding percentage.

 

I thought judging someone on their defensive% was a horrible way to judge a player? :D

It's not. But with your baseball experience, I'm sure you realize it's somewhat more applicable for shortstops than catchers.

 

The SS position is the most demanding positions on the field. I was just joking with the guy anyways. I like to judge a player by his defensive %, but some dont.

Then what is your justification for saying that Cabrera was that much better than Nomar that Boston wouldn't have won the title with him at SS.

 

I dont have the stats In front of me, but I remember reading something about Cabrera committing very few errors(4 I believe)when he was traded to the Red Sox. Mientkiewicz also contributed to helping out the infield defense.

 

Cabrera had eight errors in fifty seven games at short. Pokey Reese had six in seventy one games. Now this is an honest question I can't remember the answer to, what happened to Pokey that year? Did he get injured or something?

[Guest]

BTW - are you ever going to share your baseball resume? If we're supposed to just take your word for it because you've played and watched the game, I'd like to know the details of your qualifications.

[baseball7897]

BTW - are you ever going to share your baseball resume? If we're supposed to just take your word for it because you've played and watched the game, I'd like to know the details of your qualifications.

 

Graduated High School in June, Now playing baseball at Kishwaukee Community College. 6'3 160lb skinny guy. Scouting report" "quick arm, lots of potential, just needs to put on some weight." Throw Fastball 83-86 right now, my coach who is a scout for the D-Backs, said if I work at getting stronger I could easily be throwing 90+ next year. I could possibly be drafted in 08.

[Guest]

BTW - are you ever going to share your baseball resume? If we're supposed to just take your word for it because you've played and watched the game, I'd like to know the details of your qualifications.

 

Graduated High School in June, Now playing baseball at Kishwaukee Community College. 6'3 160lb skinny guy. Scouting report" "quick arm, lots of potential, just needs to put on some weight." Throw Fastball 83-86 right now, my coach who is a scout for the D-Backs, said if I work at getting stronger I could easily be throwing 90+ next year. I could possibly be drafted in 08.

Honestly, thank you for sharing.

 

You're obviously a more gifted player than I was. But do you really feel that your understanding from playing and watching baseball is superior to mine? Enough that you feel carte blanche to repeatedly suggest that anyone who disagrees with you and analyzes the game with stats: a) doesn't understand the game, b) doesn't watch the game, c) hasn't played the game, etc.?

 

When I make my comments using stats, I not only bring my analytical skills to the game we love, but I also bring what is likely well over 3000 games of playing and watching baseball. If these stats did not mesh with my perceptions of the game based on that long experience, I would not use them. All of the stats I use to back up my points have value within their proper context. I think many people who denigrate "stats geeks" feel that the use of the analytical tools those advanced stats represent make the game feel cold and impersonal. However, I assure you that I am no less passionate about the game than anyone else. I believe that the advanced stats serve to add to the understanding I have gained through my participation in the sport and my viewership of thousands of games.

 

I don't want to take too many liberties, but I believe I speak for most of the "stat geeks" out there.

 

And we'd really appreciate it if you (and others) would quit assuming that someone who uses stats other than batting average, HR, RBI and wins for a pitcher don't watch the game.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

BTW - are you ever going to share your baseball resume? If we're supposed to just take your word for it because you've played and watched the game, I'd like to know the details of your qualifications.

 

Graduated High School in June, Now playing baseball at Kishwaukee Community College. 6'3 160lb skinny guy. Scouting report" "quick arm, lots of potential, just needs to put on some weight." Throw Fastball 83-86 right now, my coach who is a scout for the D-Backs, said if I work at getting stronger I could easily be throwing 90+ next year. I could possibly be drafted in 08.

 

There sure are a lot of "stat geeks" around these message boards that have outlived you by more than a decade, also played ball in high school, and went on to play in college. You are no more of an expert than any of the rest of us because you can't figure out how to supplement your experience with hard data to put yourself in a better position to be successful.

 

Remember this old proverb -- Arrogance diminishes wisdom.