How much are so many Cub fans overrating Ryan Theriot?

[imb]

Not to rile anyone up, but I do have an honest semi-related question.

 

Is everything in baseball quantifiable? What I mean to ask is if all baseball games can boil down to stats and execution?

 

Obviously not, I would think. The question is, how valuable are the things that aren't quantifiable, and I think that they aren't very.

[hawkeyecub]

Some of you guys see 0-4. Some of us (I'm looking at you, jaxxradio) see that Theriot grounded out in the first inning - on purpose - to get Soriano from 2nd to 3rd. He's been doing the little things all year, he did them in the minors, and he sure as hell did them at LSU.

 

Ryan Theriot is baseball smart. Remember last week when he threw out the runner at the plate to keep the Cub lead in a close and important game?

 

Theriot does things that make this team win. It is not a coincidence that this Cub team is in first place. It ain't all about statistics, like Jaxx said. Don't really care who agrees with that, we are in first place and everyone loves that.

 

I hope Theriot is our SS for the next 10 years.

 

He, "on purpose", grounded out, bringing our run expectancy from 1.17 down to .98, and you want to reward him for ten years for doing that sort of thing on a regular basis?

 

Sorry man, but that's just ridiculous.

 

He didn't ground out on purpose. He did hit the ball to the right side of the field on purpose. Best case it gets through for a hit, worst case it's an out that moves the man to 3rd with 1 out with Lee at the plate.

 

Theriot is extremely easy to like, but I agree with the consensus in the thread. If we can upgrade in the outfield, he's a good guy to have around hitting 8th while he's not making much money. If we have the opportunity to upgrade at SS, he shouldn't block us.

[Mephistopheles]

Not to rile anyone up, but I do have an honest semi-related question.

 

Is everything in baseball quantifiable? What I mean to ask is if all baseball games can boil down to stats and execution?

 

No, but the unquantifiable represents such a small portion of the game it's irrelevant.

[Guest]

Remember last week when he threw out the runner at the plate to keep the Cub lead in a close and important game?

 

you mean the one where the ump blew the call? advancing runners with outs certainly is quantifiable.

[mul21]

I understand the love for stats on this board and they really are truly valuable in alot of cases. But to cite a run expectancy number whena guy executed what he was trying to do, come on. Regardless of what the numbers may say, it sure seems like it would be a whole lot easier to get a guy in from 3rd with less than 2 out than ot would be to have to get a hit to score him from 2nd.

 

As to the Theriot love, fans like him because he does play hard and most importantly, after watching all the incompetence the Cubs have thrown out there over the years, from baserunning blunders to spiking the ball into the ground from the outfield, it's a nice change of pace to see a guy who 98% of the time makes the right decision, runs hard, and just doesn't cost the team by doing stupid crap. Plus, whether his OBP is .330 or .400, he rarely give up an easy AB for the pitcher, and like he did tonight, seems to really work the count when the Cubs need it most. (and yes, I know there's no such thing as clutch!!)

[CubColtPacer]

Not to rile anyone up, but I do have an honest semi-related question.

 

Is everything in baseball quantifiable? What I mean to ask is if all baseball games can boil down to stats and execution?

 

I disagree with some others that think the non-quantifiable things are very small. I actually think they are somewhat large (although not nearly as much as football or basketball). However, I question if Theriot has those "intangibles" that everyone describes of him.

 

"He provides a spark, and he's a winner"-the Cubs are 60-58 with him starting, and 19-14 when he doesn't.

 

Additionally, the Cubs score 5.24 runs per game when Theriot is not in the lineup, while they only score 4.37 runs per game when Theriot starts. (those might be a little off, I was trying to do a manual count-there's at least a .6 or .7 difference though, maybe Fred can run it through his program and check).

 

There's absolutely no evidence that Theriot makes the Cubs better. They don't win more when he's in the lineup, and they don't score as much when he's in the lineup (countering the intangible that even though Theriot might not be getting on, his spark has made others better around him). There are other intangibles, but I think most people would agree those are the two biggest, and Theriot hasn't made a difference on either one.

[Abe Frohman]

"She blinded me with science....."

 

One small thing to factor in is that baseball players, managers, etc. are not robots. There very much is a thing called chemistry that can't be computed or even figured.

 

There are much better Shortstops out there, sure. Ryan Theriot is, in my opinion, the best one the Cubs have had in a while. Considering the execution we witnessed in the 2006 season of the Cubs as a whole - players like Theriot are refreshing.

 

Yes, I'm a homer. I love Theriot and LSU. I saw him play there, now I am watching him play with the Cubs. It's great. LSU won and now the Cubs are winning too. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with Theriot, his crappy defense, and his rubber bat.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Abe Frohman

[VVMattVV]

I understand the love for stats on this board and they really are truly valuable in alot of cases. But to cite a run expectancy number whena guy executed what he was trying to do, come on. Regardless of what the numbers may say, it sure seems like it would be a whole lot easier to get a guy in from 3rd with less than 2 out than ot would be to have to get a hit to score him from 2nd.

 

Citing Run Expectancy is perfectly fine, why does it matter if the guy "executes what he was trying to do"? That makes no sense. If the Run Expectancy goes down, then it means what he was trying to do was wrong.

 

It might "seem" like its easier, but numbers prove you wrong.

Edited September 18, 2007 by VVMattVV

[CubinNY]

Not to rile anyone up, but I do have an honest semi-related question.

 

Is everything in baseball quantifiable? What I mean to ask is if all baseball games can boil down to stats and execution?

 

I disagree with some others that think the non-quantifiable things are very small. I actually think they are somewhat large (although not nearly as much as football or basketball). However, I question if Theriot has those "intangibles" that everyone describes of him.

 

"He provides a spark, and he's a winner"-the Cubs are 60-58 with him starting, and 19-14 when he doesn't.

 

Additionally, the Cubs score 5.24 runs per game when Theriot is not in the lineup, while they only score 4.37 runs per game when Theriot starts. (those might be a little off, I was trying to do a manual count-there's at least a .6 or .7 difference though, maybe Fred can run it through his program and check).

 

There's absolutely no evidence that Theriot makes the Cubs better. They don't win more when he's in the lineup, and they don't score as much when he's in the lineup (countering the intangible that even though Theriot might not be getting on, his spark has made others better around him). There are other intangibles, but I think most people would agree those are the two biggest, and Theriot hasn't made a difference on either one.

This is a really great post.

 

The only problem is you cannot convince people who don't believe in numbers that these numbers matter. What I mean is this.

 

I teach teachers how to manage behavior, others behavior and their own. I teach them that what matters most in behavior management is what we can see and hear. That we cannot get into kids heads and see what they are thinking. That a pill won't teach a kid to learn to read or do math problems. I have data and science behind me. I have journal articles for them to read full of numbers that demonstrate what successful applications look like.

 

None of this convinces them, they like the intangibles becuase it makes things easier to take. They think numbers and facts take the mystery out of life. They couldn't be further from the truth.

[Guest]

I understand the love for stats on this board and they really are truly valuable in alot of cases. But to cite a run expectancy number whena guy executed what he was trying to do, come on. Regardless of what the numbers may say, it sure seems like it would be a whole lot easier to get a guy in from 3rd with less than 2 out than ot would be to have to get a hit to score him from 2nd.

 

Citing Run Expectancy is perfectly fine, why does it matter if the guy "executes what he was trying to do"? That makes no sense. If the Run Expectancy goes down, then it means what he was "trying to do" was wrong.

 

It might "seem" like its easier, but numbers prove you wrong.

No, he's exactly correct. It is easier to score a single run from third base with one out than it is from second base with nobody out.

 

But the total number of runs you can expect is smaller because you've given up an out.

[CubColtPacer]

I understand the love for stats on this board and they really are truly valuable in alot of cases. But to cite a run expectancy number whena guy executed what he was trying to do, come on. Regardless of what the numbers may say, it sure seems like it would be a whole lot easier to get a guy in from 3rd with less than 2 out than ot would be to have to get a hit to score him from 2nd.

 

As to the Theriot love, fans like him because he does play hard and most importantly, after watching all the incompetence the Cubs have thrown out there over the years, from baserunning blunders to spiking the ball into the ground from the outfield, it's a nice change of pace to see a guy who 98% of the time makes the right decision, runs hard, and just doesn't cost the team by doing stupid crap. Plus, whether his OBP is .330 or .400, he rarely give up an easy AB for the pitcher, and like he did tonight, seems to really work the count when the Cubs need it most. (and yes, I know there's no such thing as clutch!!)

 

Again, that's perception. Theriot has seen less pitches per plate appearance than Jacque Jones, Aramis Ramirez, or Alfonso Soriano. In fact, the only non-pitcher on the roster who sees less pitches per PA is Cliff Floyd. Everyone else sees more pitches than Theriot does.

 

Theriot has put the first pitch into play more than any other Cub, and while the Cubs as a whole have an .896 OPS on the first pitch, Theriot has a .655 on the first pitch. He gives up the most easy outs to the opposition of anybody on the team. He also leads the team in putting it into play on 0-1 count, is 4th on putting it into play with a 1-0 count, and leads the team in putting it in play on a 1-1 count.

That is amazing for any one person to lead the team in that many early counts, and it shows that Theriot goes up there trying to put one of the first couple pitches in play. He rarely gets deep in the count. When he does get deep in the count, usually good things happen, but it gets there less with Theriot than with any other hitter on the Cubs roster.

[haltz]

One small thing to factor in is that baseball players, managers, etc. are not robots. There very much is a thing called chemistry that can't be computed or even figured.

This has never ever made sense to me. So the other players are better/worse depending on who is around them in a lineup or sitting next to them on the bench? I think you are seriously underestimating Major League hitters and pitchers (as in talent a work ethic) and the economic self-interest involved in the game at that level.

 

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm always curious how people rationalize this. Team chemistry in baseball didn't make sense to me when I played, and it doesn't make sense to me now that I'm a message board geek.

 

Theriot's kind of a poor man's Eckstein at SS, and a poor man's DeRosa when constructing a roster. I'm not sure how useful he'll be to the Cubs when they find a better starting SS.

[Flames24Rulz]

He's the Cubs version of David Eckstein.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Not to rile anyone up, but I do have an honest semi-related question.

 

Is everything in baseball quantifiable? What I mean to ask is if all baseball games can boil down to stats and execution?

 

I disagree with some others that think the non-quantifiable things are very small. I actually think they are somewhat large (although not nearly as much as football or basketball). However, I question if Theriot has those "intangibles" that everyone describes of him.

 

"He provides a spark, and he's a winner"-the Cubs are 60-58 with him starting, and 19-14 when he doesn't.

 

Additionally, the Cubs score 5.24 runs per game when Theriot is not in the lineup, while they only score 4.37 runs per game when Theriot starts. (those might be a little off, I was trying to do a manual count-there's at least a .6 or .7 difference though, maybe Fred can run it through his program and check).

 

There's absolutely no evidence that Theriot makes the Cubs better. They don't win more when he's in the lineup, and they don't score as much when he's in the lineup (countering the intangible that even though Theriot might not be getting on, his spark has made others better around him). There are other intangibles, but I think most people would agree those are the two biggest, and Theriot hasn't made a difference on either one.

 

Discriminating with respect to whether Theriot is in the lineup or not, I get.....

 

60-58 with 4.44 R/G when Theriot is in the starting lineup
19-14 with 5.12 R/G when Theriot does not start

 

04/02 - 09/17      AB    R    H   2b   3b   HR   TB  RBI   BB   SO     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
CUBS w/o Theriot 1181  169  351   89    8   29  543  158   97  213  0.297  0.351  0.460  0.811
CUBS w/Theriot   4078  524 1068  230   19  103 1645  498  375  752  0.262  0.326  0.403  0.730
CUBS overall     5259  693 1419  319   27  132 2188  656  472  965  0.270  0.332  0.416  0.748

 

This doesn't take into account games that Theriot didn't start but came in as a replacement later.

 

I'm not sure I'd want to try and draw any conclusion from this.

[Guest]

"She blinded me with science....."

 

One small thing to factor in is that baseball players, managers, etc. are not robots. There very much is a thing called chemistry that can't be computed or even figured.

 

There are much better Shortstops out there, sure. Ryan Theriot is, in my opinion, the best one the Cubs have had in a while. Considering the execution we witnessed in the 2006 season of the Cubs as a whole - players like Theriot are refreshing.

 

Yes, I'm a homer. I love Theriot and LSU. I saw him play there, now I am watching him play with the Cubs. It's great. LSU won and now the Cubs are winning too. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with Theriot, his crappy defense, and his rubber bat.

 

 

but whatever results chemistry produces are tangible and measurable. I think the biggest item that is difficult to quantify but has a huge effect is defense.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Whether Ryan Theriot is a net positive or negative as a starter at SS might be moot soon, considering that this winter any or all of Alex Rodriguez, Miguel Tejada and Edgar Renteria, at a minimum, should be available for teams to pursue.

 

I'd be plenty pleased to keep Theriot as my utility infielder though, no argument on that.

[Outshined_One]

He's the Cubs version of David Eckstein.

 

He's our own David Eckstein.

 

...except David Eckstein is a better hitter. I just threw up in my mouth a bit.

[Brian]

I'd still take our version, I couldn't handle watching a SS with a 12 year old girls arm on a regular basis.

[CubmanPi]

Living up to his projected off-the-charts VORG (value over replacement grit), Ryan started a 3-run Riot and was solely responsible for the win tonight.

[Brian]

his HUSTLE% down to first on that walk brought a tear to my eye

[LetsPlayTwo]

Meh. He's not good, but he's not terrible.

[jaxxradio]

Mizzou (and everyone else who wants to bag on me)..

 

I'm a minor league broadcaster.. yep, thats right.. you got me pegged.. I'm a minor league broadcaster who has seen close to 2,000 games, talked with many hitting coaches, pitching coaches, managers, scouts, farm directors, major league general managers, etc. Is this me patting myself on the back? Nope, not in the least. This is what I do, this is my job and I am thankful for it.

 

Mizzou, if you want me to "get over myself".. no problem. You have your opinion and you are entitled to it, but don't get in a pissy mood because I expressed my opnion as someone who, unlike yourself and 99% of the other posters here, haven't had the pleasure to sit down and talk baseball for hours on end with people (see above) that are involved in the game.

 

Does this make me a more intelligent baseball person? Of course not, but it does shed ALOT of light on some of the things an organization does that you folks aren't privy to.

 

If this post makes me sound arrogant and obnoxious, its not meant to. Like I said, I am a baseball broadcaster and talking with the people listed above is something I get to do. I wish alot of you had the opportunity to as well.

[USSoccer]

but don't get in a pissy mood because I expressed my opnion as someone who, unlike yourself and 99% of the other posters here, haven't had the pleasure to sit down and talk baseball for hours on end with people (see above) that are involved in the game.

 

Does this make me a more intelligent baseball person? Of course not, but it does shed ALOT of light on some of the things an organization does that you folks aren't privy to.

 

 

For the record, you don't have to be an announcer, scout or former player to be able to correctly peg a major league baseball player. Thinking otherwise is incredibly arrogant. Ryan Theriot is an acceptable SS on a team with an above average offense. On this current team, he's replaceable. Not because people don't like him, but because his production at his position makes him a candidate to be upgraded.

Edited September 18, 2007 by USSoccer

[badger1679666666]

At least with our posters here, we don't have any personal history with these players, so we have no biases in our analysis. It's strictly objective.

 

THAT'S a riot.

 

:lol:

[USSoccer]

At least with our posters here, we don't have any personal history with these players, so we have no biases in our analysis. It's strictly objective.

 

THAT'S a riot.

 

:lol:

 

Yeah, I edited that out. It was stupid.