Is Hendry Really This Stupid?

[goonys evil twin]

No we aren't. There are still plenty of dolts out there who think like this

 

True....Bill Shanks, Bill Plashke, Mike Vacarro, John Kruk...

 

Unfortunately, Hendry is the GM of a Major League Baseball team. Not a guy writing about them.

 

That's a monster difference.

 

I would say most of the GMs think the same way Hendry does. I'm not saying if it is right or not, but from their actions and words most GMs value the same types of things.

 

I'm not sure about most, but there are certainly others, like Ned Colletti, who share Hendry's primitive thought process.

[CubColtPacer]

No we aren't. There are still plenty of dolts out there who think like this

 

True....Bill Shanks, Bill Plashke, Mike Vacarro, John Kruk...

 

Unfortunately, Hendry is the GM of a Major League Baseball team. Not a guy writing about them.

 

That's a monster difference.

 

I would say most of the GMs think the same way Hendry does. I'm not saying if it is right or not, but from their actions and words most GMs value the same types of things.

 

I'm not sure about most, but there are certainly others, like Ned Colletti, who share Hendry's primitive thought process.

 

Off the top of my head, the Reds and Orioles GM's come to mind as well. I'm sure I could think of many more if I thought about it-some are less obvious then others, but a great deal of GM's have many of the same tendencies.

[Laura]

The Chicago National League BallClub blog did a quick analysis of Hendry's comments that's worth reading.

 

The very first thing I noticed as I began looking up the stats was that the Cubs had 3275 at-bats with nobody on base…more than any other team in the National League. So, obviously the Cubs weren’t getting on base like Hendry thought they were.

 

No matter how you look at this, it’s far more advantageous to the Cubs to increase their walk totals than it is to increase their batting average in certain run-scoring situations. The number of additional runs the Cubs stand to score is significantly greater by reaching the league average in walks than it is by reaching league average, or even league best in batting average.

[RynoRules]

The Chicago National League BallClub blog did a quick analysis of Hendry's comments that's worth reading.

 

The very first thing I noticed as I began looking up the stats was that the Cubs had 3275 at-bats with nobody on base…more than any other team in the National League. So, obviously the Cubs weren’t getting on base like Hendry thought they were.

 

No matter how you look at this, it’s far more advantageous to the Cubs to increase their walk totals than it is to increase their batting average in certain run-scoring situations. The number of additional runs the Cubs stand to score is significantly greater by reaching the league average in walks than it is by reaching league average, or even league best in batting average.

 

That first one is the best stat I have read about the Cubs, perhaps ever.

[UBlink]

Anybody know what Soriano and DeRosa's PECOTA and ZIPS were for 2006?

[Sarcastic]

Anybody know what Soriano and DeRosa's PECOTA and ZIPS were for 2006?

 

I don't know his PECOTA projection, but his ZIPS projection for 2006 was .248/.295/.439. I don't think ZIPS likes Soriano very much.

[UBlink]

Anybody know what Soriano and DeRosa's PECOTA and ZIPS were for 2006?

 

I don't know his PECOTA projection, but his ZIPS projection for 2006 was .248/.295/.439. I don't think ZIPS likes Soriano very much.

 

ZIPS must not have taken into consideration the change in team chemistry between the Rangers and the Nats.

[Rob]

Anybody know what Soriano and DeRosa's PECOTA and ZIPS were for 2006?

 

For 2006?

 

All I've got is PECOTA... but here goes.

 

Soriano:

 

Weighted Mean: .259/.312/.466

90th Percentile: .287/.343/.534

 

DeRosa:

 

Weighted Mean: .254/.315/.390

90th Percentile: .284/.350/.443

 

 

PECOTA really needs to start adjusting for contract years...