Jones to get more chances, Pie losing out

[Mizzou]

A - You're apparently not much for reading posts, but if you look about 6 posts up, you'll see a brief summary of my argument in one of my responses to WB.

 

B - Are you really mocking me for not wanting to take the time to retype arguments I've already made several times in this thread when the sole reason you want them retyped is b/c you're too lazy to skim through a few pages to find them. Seriously? That's incredible.

Are you serious? Yeah, let me read the entire 8 page thread. Or you could just type a paragraph. That's comparable. I don't even remember what this was about to begin with, but it's all semantics at this point, which is stupid.

 

Is Jacque Jones the long term solution in CF? No, clearly not. However, when the person who appears to be the long term CFer has been miserable at the plate lately, you're damn right that Jones should be given another look. This isn't a rebuilding year, we're obviously contenders. With our other holes in the lineup, we can't afford to keep running Pie out there everyday when he can't manage to get on base. That's not how you win.

[Warren Brusstar]

So you care about sample size all of a sudden?

 

Are you really this dense? I've been looking at much more than the past 3 months and basing my argument on that. You're the one who says I'm putting all this emphasis on his last 200 PAs. I've said that 185 ABs isn't a great sample, but that past on his 3200 ABs against RHP, it's pretty clear that Jones can range from bad to great and it's not really close to the normal bell curve you'd expect with players improving through their peak and then coming back down. He's good one year, bad the next, great the next, etc.

 

So if his performance year-year is random, you can't just look at his overall #s and expect he's going to match them, esp when he's been terrible for 3 months. Is he likely to improve some - yes, I've already said I don't think he'll have an OPS of .634 against RHP all year. But is it likely to jump 200 points to match his career #s? I don't think that's likely. And 3 doubles in 8 ABs isn't going to change my mind. It's a nice couple of games, but it doesn't mean much in predicting his performance for the next 3 months.

 

1. Thanks for the personal attack.

 

2. Are *you* really this dense? I've posted about a half dozen times in this thread that Jones has never once had a season with an OPS v. RHP of less than .775. Never.

 

In 2007, there are 27 center-fielders that are currently on pace to qualify for the batting title. 11 have an OPS above .775, 16 have an OPS below .775.

 

In 2006, of the qualifying center-fielders, 13 were above .775, 10 were below

 

In 2005, 10 were above .775, 11 were below

 

In Jacque Jones' very worst full season, he hit at a league-average level for center-fielders against RHP. He's never been bad in his career v. RHP. And repeating the same wrong argument over and over and over again doesn't make you right.

 

3. I keep insisting that you're placing too much emphasis on his first 200 plate appearances this year because there's absolutely no other reason to conclude that a guy who posted almost a .900 OPS v. RHP last year is somehow "unlikely" to match his career OPS of .825 against them, especially when he's only been under .800 twice.

 

1. It wasn't a personal attack, it was a question. And a fair one, I think.

 

2. You like repeating his OPS against RHP, but ignoring the fact that he has had horrible OBP's several times. And no, when you're OBP is .310, SLG enough to get your OPS near .800 does not make it ok. You sucked that year. I think the bolded part is exactly right and I'm glad you finally realized it. Reciting his worst OPS against RHP as if it were the final word on whether he sucked in a given year doesn't make it right.

 

3. Well, his OPS against RHP last year was about 60 points or so about his career average. His OPS against RHP in 3 months this season is 200 points below is career average. Is 200 PAs a big sample? Not really. But it does have some relevance to predicting immediate future performance (unlike 8 ABs, which has near 0 relevance). That fact, coupled with the fact that he's followed good years with bad years in the past leads me to conclude that there's a good chance he won't have an OPS of .825 against RHP in the 2nd half.

 

It's apparent that we disagree and neither of us is going to convince the other, I just don't want you to mis-characterize my arguments (i.e., claim that I'm relying solely on this year's #s to predict his 2nd half #s).

 

FWIW, under your definition, Andre Dawson's career (.279/.323./.482) "sucked." (And he played in a corner, not CF) You're throwing around that word as if it's fair to say that half of MLB sucks.

 

I'm not mischaracterizing your arguments. You're mischaracterizing the facts.

[UK1679666180]

You're comparing a player who played mainly in the 70s/80s with a player today as far as offensive statistics.

 

I'd like to see better defense out of CF than Jones, especially with Floyd/Derosa and Soriano on each side.

 

Given that it's halfway thru the season, that's more than enough time to gauge whether or not a position is worth upgrading especially where there are already 2-3 weak spots offensively.

 

If they're not willing to commit to Pie, Jones is the best option, but isn't an option where they should not think about improving if given a chance.

[Warren Brusstar]

You're comparing a player who played mainly in the 70s/80s with a player today as far as offensive statistics.

 

I'd like to see better defense out of CF than Jones, especially with Floyd/Derosa and Soriano on each side.

 

Given that it's halfway thru the season, that's more than time to gauge whether or not a position is worth upgrading especially where there are already 2-3 weak spots offensively.

 

If they're not willing to commit to Pie, Jones is the best option, but isn't an option where they should not think about improving if given a chance.

 

By BP's fielding metrics, Jones is an above-average center-fielder, both this year and for his career. That point seems consistently ignored in this thread.

 

As to the Dawson comp, fine. By GR's standards, Torii Hunter's career also sucks. (.324 OBP/.471 SLG). I think he's using the words "suck" and "bad" a little too liberally.

[UK1679666180]

BP also has Murton has an above avg. defender, which I dispute as well.

 

Jones has a bad arm, below avg. accerlation/speed for a CF'er, and nothing outstanding as far as getting jumps on the ball.

 

I've never fielding metrics, they've progressed, but not to the point where I'd consider as valid as my own eyes.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Davenport translations are awful.

[Tracer Bullet]

FWIW, under your definition, Andre Dawson's career (.279/.323./.482) "sucked." (And he played in a corner, not CF) You're throwing around that word as if it's fair to say that half of MLB sucks.

 

I'm not mischaracterizing your arguments. You're mischaracterizing the facts.

 

PH already pointed this out, but I'd like to reiterate - that's a terrible comparison. Jones plays in an era of inflated offense and, at times, he's been bad compared to his peers (actually, he's frequently bad, but given this very narrow look at his abilities that we're discussing - facing RHP when viewed as a CF, even though he wasn't when all these numbers were accumulated - he's only been bad a few times).

 

A .310 OBP is bad. I don't care what position or how stellar the defense (and I'm not convinced Jones is great in CF). Like I said several pages ago, it's possible to SLG enough to balance a bad OBP, I suppose. I don't know what that SLG would have to be, but certainly more than .465.

[Tracer Bullet]

As to the Dawson comp, fine. By GR's standards, Torii Hunter's career also sucks. (.324 OBP/.471 SLG). I think he's using the words "suck" and "bad" a little too liberally.

 

Well, Torii career numbers aren't good, but he's been pretty good (by CF standards) several times and bad several times. He's been really good this year, so it's a great name to throw out there. He's got a .900 OPS! Well, like I said, he's very good his year. But those .309, .306, .312, etc OBP - those years were bad.

 

Here's a good illustration of my point:

 

'01 - .784 OPS (.306/.479). I don't care what position you play, a .306 OBP is bad. And even a .480 SLG doesn't make up for it's badness. It's better than say a .410 SLG, but it's still doesn't mean it was a good that season.

 

'05 - .788 OPS (.337/.452). For a CF, that's average or better. The .337 OBP is nothing to write home about, but it's ok (probably near league average - I don't know and don't care to look it up, it's gotta be pretty close). And the SLG is pretty good for his position. I'd much rather have this year, than '01, and it's not b/c the OPS is .004 points higher.

[Warren Brusstar]

As to the Dawson comp, fine. By GR's standards, Torii Hunter's career also sucks. (.324 OBP/.471 SLG). I think he's using the words "suck" and "bad" a little too liberally.

 

Well, Torii career numbers aren't good, but he's been pretty good (by CF standards) several times and bad several times. He's been really good this year, so it's a great name to throw out there. He's got a .900 OPS! Well, like I said, he's very good his year. But those .309, .306, .312, etc OBP - those years were bad.

 

Here's a good illustration of my point:

 

'01 - .784 OPS (.306/.479). I don't care what position you play, a .306 OBP is bad. And even a .480 SLG doesn't make up for it's badness. It's better than say a .410 SLG, but it's still doesn't mean it was a good that season.

 

'05 - .788 OPS (.337/.452). For a CF, that's average or better. The .337 OBP is nothing to write home about, but it's ok (probably near league average - I don't know and don't care to look it up, it's gotta be pretty close). And the SLG is pretty good for his position. I'd much rather have this year, than '01, and it's not b/c the OPS is .004 points higher.

 

I note that you've stopped using the word "suck."

[CubColtPacer]

As to the Dawson comp, fine. By GR's standards, Torii Hunter's career also sucks. (.324 OBP/.471 SLG). I think he's using the words "suck" and "bad" a little too liberally.

 

Well, Torii career numbers aren't good, but he's been pretty good (by CF standards) several times and bad several times. He's been really good this year, so it's a great name to throw out there. He's got a .900 OPS! Well, like I said, he's very good his year. But those .309, .306, .312, etc OBP - those years were bad.

 

Here's a good illustration of my point:

 

'01 - .784 OPS (.306/.479). I don't care what position you play, a .306 OBP is bad. And even a .480 SLG doesn't make up for it's badness. It's better than say a .410 SLG, but it's still doesn't mean it was a good that season.

 

There were 14 qualified CF's in 01. Here are several of them:

 

Andruw Jones-.251/.312/.461

Kenny Lofton-.261/.322/.398

Darin Erstad-.258/.331/.360

Johnny Damon-.256/.324/.363

Doug Glanville-.262/.285/.375

Jerry Hairston Jr.-.233/.305/.344

Brady Anderson-.202/.311/.300

 

If Hunter was bad, then what were these guys, mostly horrible? That's half of the qualified league (and I took out one guy who had 18 points less of OPS overall but 31 points more of OBP).

 

It seems like you are dismissing OPS as a flawed stat and putting in OBP instead. While OBP is the more important part of OPS (and should be adjusted accordingly, I've seen 1.8 as the multiplier on several different sources from Tango to Hardball times to Dan Agonistes)

OPS is still the single best indicator of scoring runs (outside some of the complex formulas), and it's not even close. So yes, if I had two players who had similar OPS's, I'd much rather take the guy with the much higher OBP. If the OPS's are not similar (say within 20 points) I'm going to take the guy with the higher OPS. You can still score a lot of runs with a bad OBP (although it is difficult), a bad OPS makes that pretty impossible even with a good OBP.

 

If you look at this graph as well, this source even says that SLG was a better indicator than OBP over a 5 year period. Of course OPS was much better than either of them:

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ops-for-the-masses/

[Warren Brusstar]

As to the Dawson comp, fine. By GR's standards, Torii Hunter's career also sucks. (.324 OBP/.471 SLG). I think he's using the words "suck" and "bad" a little too liberally.

 

Well, Torii career numbers aren't good, but he's been pretty good (by CF standards) several times and bad several times. He's been really good this year, so it's a great name to throw out there. He's got a .900 OPS! Well, like I said, he's very good his year. But those .309, .306, .312, etc OBP - those years were bad.

 

Here's a good illustration of my point:

 

'01 - .784 OPS (.306/.479). I don't care what position you play, a .306 OBP is bad. And even a .480 SLG doesn't make up for it's badness. It's better than say a .410 SLG, but it's still doesn't mean it was a good that season.

 

There were 14 qualified CF's in 01. Here are several of them:

 

Andruw Jones-.251/.312/.461

Kenny Lofton-.261/.322/.398

Darin Erstad-.258/.331/.360

Johnny Damon-.256/.324/.363

Doug Glanville-.262/.285/.375

Jerry Hairston Jr.-.233/.305/.344

Brady Anderson-.202/.311/.300

 

If Hunter was bad, then what were these guys, mostly horrible? That's half of the qualified league (and I took out one guy who had 18 points less of OPS overall but 31 points more of OBP).

 

It seems like you are dismissing OPS as a flawed stat and putting in OBP instead. While OBP is the more important part of OPS (and should be adjusted accordingly, I've seen 1.8 as the multiplier on several different sources from Tango to Hardball times to Dan Agonistes)

OPS is still the single best indicator of scoring runs (outside some of the complex formulas), and it's not even close. So yes, if I had two players who had similar OPS's, I'd much rather take the guy with the much higher OBP. If the OPS's are not similar (say within 20 points) I'm going to take the guy with the higher OPS. You can still score a lot of runs with a bad OBP (although it is difficult), a bad OPS makes that pretty impossible even with a good OBP.

 

If you look at this graph as well, this source even says that SLG was a better indicator than OBP over a 5 year period. Of course OPS was much better than either of them:

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ops-for-the-masses/

 

That's the problem with his entire inane argument. He's taking Jones' absolute worst season (which would place somewhere around the 50th percentile) of MLB center-fielders and concluding that in some years he's been "bad." He's been no such thing v. RHP. He's only twice been below an .800 OPS v. RHP. Twice. Every other year, he's been above it. And there's simply no way an .800 OPS from your center-fielder is "bad."

 

Answer this: What do you expect Pie to post in the second half if he plays every day?

[seanimal]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ops-for-the-masses/

 

Please, fill the internet will all your inanities and swap algorythms with your buddies until the cows come home...but DO NOT confuse yourself with a baseball fan. It is an insult to both the true fan and to the game. A baseball fan does not dishonor the game, or those who actually play it, by attempting to reduce them to silly equations.

[Soul]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ops-for-the-masses/

 

Please, fill the internet will all your inanities and swap algorythms with your buddies until the cows come home...but DO NOT confuse yourself with a baseball fan. It is an insult to both the true fan and to the game. A baseball fan does not dishonor the game, or those who actually play it, by attempting to reduce them to silly equations.

 

ummmm.....?

[Banedon]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ops-for-the-masses/

 

Please, fill the internet will all your inanities and swap algorythms with your buddies until the cows come home...but DO NOT confuse yourself with a baseball fan. It is an insult to both the true fan and to the game. A baseball fan does not dishonor the game, or those who actually play it, by attempting to reduce them to silly equations.

 

ummmm.....?

 

It's in the article.

[Soul]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ops-for-the-masses/

 

Please, fill the internet will all your inanities and swap algorythms with your buddies until the cows come home...but DO NOT confuse yourself with a baseball fan. It is an insult to both the true fan and to the game. A baseball fan does not dishonor the game, or those who actually play it, by attempting to reduce them to silly equations.

 

ummmm.....?

 

It's in the article.

 

Oh, haha. I can see I'm dense today 8-)

[Tracer Bullet]

As to the Dawson comp, fine. By GR's standards, Torii Hunter's career also sucks. (.324 OBP/.471 SLG). I think he's using the words "suck" and "bad" a little too liberally.

 

Well, Torii career numbers aren't good, but he's been pretty good (by CF standards) several times and bad several times. He's been really good this year, so it's a great name to throw out there. He's got a .900 OPS! Well, like I said, he's very good his year. But those .309, .306, .312, etc OBP - those years were bad.

 

Here's a good illustration of my point:

 

'01 - .784 OPS (.306/.479). I don't care what position you play, a .306 OBP is bad. And even a .480 SLG doesn't make up for it's badness. It's better than say a .410 SLG, but it's still doesn't mean it was a good that season.

 

There were 14 qualified CF's in 01. Here are several of them:

 

Andruw Jones-.251/.312/.461

Kenny Lofton-.261/.322/.398

Darin Erstad-.258/.331/.360

Johnny Damon-.256/.324/.363

Doug Glanville-.262/.285/.375

Jerry Hairston Jr.-.233/.305/.344

Brady Anderson-.202/.311/.300

 

If Hunter was bad, then what were these guys, mostly horrible? That's half of the qualified league (and I took out one guy who had 18 points less of OPS overall but 31 points more of OBP).

 

It seems like you are dismissing OPS as a flawed stat and putting in OBP instead. While OBP is the more important part of OPS (and should be adjusted accordingly, I've seen 1.8 as the multiplier on several different sources from Tango to Hardball times to Dan Agonistes)

OPS is still the single best indicator of scoring runs (outside some of the complex formulas), and it's not even close. So yes, if I had two players who had similar OPS's, I'd much rather take the guy with the much higher OBP. If the OPS's are not similar (say within 20 points) I'm going to take the guy with the higher OPS. You can still score a lot of runs with a bad OBP (although it is difficult), a bad OPS makes that pretty impossible even with a good OBP.

 

If you look at this graph as well, this source even says that SLG was a better indicator than OBP over a 5 year period. Of course OPS was much better than either of them:

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ops-for-the-masses/

 

Well, yes, those are some pretty bad stats. Are you really trying to argue that Brady Anderson's .311/.300 line is good? I don't understand the point.

 

I'm not dismissing OPS. I'm a big proponent of it actually. I just think if you're trying to determine a player's value in the past or predicting his performance in the future, there are other things to consider as well. OBP is just one of those things. A .310 OBP is bad. And when you couple that with a .465 SLG, the resulting OPS is still bad. A .775 OPS isn't necessarily bad, but if includes a .310 OBP, it is.

 

And I've seen you post the runs/OPS correlation study before. I'm not sure how much it proves. Maybe it will prove to be ground breaking and SLG will be the stat that everyone thinks is most important, but right now I don't think that's the case.

[CubColtPacer]

As to the Dawson comp, fine. By GR's standards, Torii Hunter's career also sucks. (.324 OBP/.471 SLG). I think he's using the words "suck" and "bad" a little too liberally.

 

Well, Torii career numbers aren't good, but he's been pretty good (by CF standards) several times and bad several times. He's been really good this year, so it's a great name to throw out there. He's got a .900 OPS! Well, like I said, he's very good his year. But those .309, .306, .312, etc OBP - those years were bad.

 

Here's a good illustration of my point:

 

'01 - .784 OPS (.306/.479). I don't care what position you play, a .306 OBP is bad. And even a .480 SLG doesn't make up for it's badness. It's better than say a .410 SLG, but it's still doesn't mean it was a good that season.

 

There were 14 qualified CF's in 01. Here are several of them:

 

Andruw Jones-.251/.312/.461

Kenny Lofton-.261/.322/.398

Darin Erstad-.258/.331/.360

Johnny Damon-.256/.324/.363

Doug Glanville-.262/.285/.375

Jerry Hairston Jr.-.233/.305/.344

Brady Anderson-.202/.311/.300

 

If Hunter was bad, then what were these guys, mostly horrible? That's half of the qualified league (and I took out one guy who had 18 points less of OPS overall but 31 points more of OBP).

 

It seems like you are dismissing OPS as a flawed stat and putting in OBP instead. While OBP is the more important part of OPS (and should be adjusted accordingly, I've seen 1.8 as the multiplier on several different sources from Tango to Hardball times to Dan Agonistes)

OPS is still the single best indicator of scoring runs (outside some of the complex formulas), and it's not even close. So yes, if I had two players who had similar OPS's, I'd much rather take the guy with the much higher OBP. If the OPS's are not similar (say within 20 points) I'm going to take the guy with the higher OPS. You can still score a lot of runs with a bad OBP (although it is difficult), a bad OPS makes that pretty impossible even with a good OBP.

 

If you look at this graph as well, this source even says that SLG was a better indicator than OBP over a 5 year period. Of course OPS was much better than either of them:

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ops-for-the-masses/

 

Well, yes, those are some pretty bad stats. Are you really trying to argue that Brady Anderson's .311/.300 line is good? I don't understand the point.

 

I'm not dismissing OPS. I'm a big proponent of it actually. I just think if you're trying to determine a player's value in the past or predicting his performance in the future, there are other things to consider as well. OBP is just one of those things. A .310 OBP is bad. And when you couple that with a .465 SLG, the resulting OPS is still bad. A .775 OPS isn't necessarily bad, but if includes a .310 OBP, it is.

 

And I've seen you post the runs/OPS correlation study before. I'm not sure how much it proves. Maybe it will prove to be ground breaking and SLG will be the stat that everyone thinks is most important, but right now I don't think that's the case.

 

All I'm saying is that "bad" is relative. When half the league at the position the player plays is below that number, that player did not have a "bad" season, it's an average season. If Jones put up a .310/.465 line in the second half, it would be an average second half for a center fielder, because around half the league is under that number.