How much are so many Cub fans overrating Ryan Theriot?

[jaxxradio]

Abe, I agree with you in one instance.

 

Take the ninth inning. Your team is down by five. Bases loaded and two outs. Do you want a grand slam to pull within a run and empty the bases or take a two or three run double that pulls your team within two or three runs? I take the latter and here is why:

 

You have runners on base so the hitter has more options than just trying to hit a home run (which as we all know is next to impossible when TRYING to hit one). If you have runners at second and third or a runner at second, a single drives in one or two runs and you got the tying run on base. The key here is base runners. Hitting a home run in the scenario above isn't the best thing to do because you empty the base paths and are still down.

[abuck1220]

In addition, would you agree that some times a double is better than a home run? I definately would.

 

you'd definitely be wrong.

[rocket]

Abe, I agree with you in one instance.

 

Take the ninth inning. Your team is down by five. Bases loaded and two outs. Do you want a grand slam to pull within a run and empty the bases or take a two or three run double that pulls your team within two or three runs? I take the latter and here is why:

 

You have runners on base so the hitter has more options than just trying to hit a home run (which as we all know is next to impossible when TRYING to hit one). If you have runners at second and third or a runner at second, a single drives in one or two runs and you got the tying run on base. The key here is base runners. Hitting a home run in the scenario above isn't the best thing to do because you empty the base paths and are still down.

 

but with a homerun that tying run that would be on base has already scored. i think a homerun is still better than a double here.

[USSoccer]

You have runners on base so the hitter has more options than just trying to hit a home run (which as we all know is next to impossible when TRYING to hit one). If you have runners at second and third or a runner at second, a single drives in one or two runs and you got the tying run on base. The key here is base runners. Hitting a home run in the scenario above isn't the best thing to do because you empty the base paths and are still down.

 

The hitter always has the option of just trying to get on base.

[Mephistopheles]

Give me a freaking break. How can anybody even suggest that Theriot is more valuable to this team than Aramis, Lee, Soriano, or even DeRosa?

 

Why do people love to make completely absurd hyperbolic statements like this? Theriot isn't any major league team's MVP.

 

Hell, I'd say Marmol has been more valuable than Theriot and he's only a reliever who wasn't even in the bigs in April.

 

Marmol has a WARP3 of 4.3, while Theriot has a 3.7... and that doesn't even account for Marmol's much higher leverage.

 

WARP for pitchers is leverage adjusted. Well sorta. It's a [expletive] way but it is. BP really has a disaster on their hands with WARP for pitchers. Its too bad theyre too dumb to know it

[XZero771679666304]

You have runners on base so the hitter has more options than just trying to hit a home run (which as we all know is next to impossible when TRYING to hit one). If you have runners at second and third or a runner at second, a single drives in one or two runs and you got the tying run on base. The key here is base runners. Hitting a home run in the scenario above isn't the best thing to do because you empty the base paths and are still down.

 

The hitter always has the option of just trying to get on base.

 

Yeah, and you're down 1 instead of 2. People see runners still on base and feel like they're in better shape, which is perception clouding reality.

[abuck1220]

Abe, I agree with you in one instance.

 

Take the ninth inning. Your team is down by five. Bases loaded and two outs. Do you want a grand slam to pull within a run and empty the bases or take a two or three run double that pulls your team within two or three runs? I take the latter and here is why:

 

You have runners on base so the hitter has more options than just trying to hit a home run (which as we all know is next to impossible when TRYING to hit one). If you have runners at second and third or a runner at second, a single drives in one or two runs and you got the tying run on base. The key here is base runners. Hitting a home run in the scenario above isn't the best thing to do because you empty the base paths and are still down.

 

i think your math is off. or something.

 

the bases loaded double makes it 5-3. a single after that makes it 5-4, tying run on first.

 

the grand slam makes it 5-4. a single after that makes it 5-4, tying run on first.

 

how is the double better?

[CuseCubFan69]

You have runners on base so the hitter has more options than just trying to hit a home run (which as we all know is next to impossible when TRYING to hit one). If you have runners at second and third or a runner at second, a single drives in one or two runs and you got the tying run on base. The key here is base runners. Hitting a home run in the scenario above isn't the best thing to do because you empty the base paths and are still down.

 

The hitter always has the option of just trying to get on base.

 

I agree. Take the 4 from the slam and work from there.

[Abe Frohman]

Jaxx - looks like you and I are alone on this one and out of our minds!

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Abe, I agree with you in one instance.

 

Take the ninth inning. Your team is down by five. Bases loaded and two outs. Do you want a grand slam to pull within a run and empty the bases or take a two or three run double that pulls your team within two or three runs? I take the latter and here is why:

 

You have runners on base so the hitter has more options than just trying to hit a home run (which as we all know is next to impossible when TRYING to hit one). If you have runners at second and third or a runner at second, a single drives in one or two runs and you got the tying run on base. The key here is base runners. Hitting a home run in the scenario above isn't the best thing to do because you empty the base paths and are still down.

 

You empty the basepaths because EVERYONE SCORES.

 

Why in the world would you prefer to be down 2 runs with a runner on over being down 1 run with no one on, when there isn't any difference in outs?

[Mephistopheles]

Give me a freaking break. How can anybody even suggest that Theriot is more valuable to this team than Aramis, Lee, Soriano, or even DeRosa?

 

Why do people love to make completely absurd hyperbolic statements like this? Theriot isn't any major league team's MVP.

 

Hell, I'd say Marmol has been more valuable than Theriot and he's only a reliever who wasn't even in the bigs in April.

 

Marmol has a WARP3 of 4.3, while Theriot has a 3.7... and that doesn't even account for Marmol's much higher leverage.

 

WARP for pitchers is leverage adjusted. Well sorta. It's a [expletive] way but it is. BP really has a disaster on their hands with WARP for pitchers. Its too bad theyre too dumb to know it

 

oh and in addition, Marmol's leverage isnt all that high for a reliever. It really isnt. Thats Lous fault more than anything.

[CubmanPi]

Abe, I agree with you in one instance.

 

Take the ninth inning. Your team is down by five. Bases loaded and two outs. Do you want a grand slam to pull within a run and empty the bases or take a two or three run double that pulls your team within two or three runs? I take the latter and here is why:

 

You have runners on base so the hitter has more options than just trying to hit a home run (which as we all know is next to impossible when TRYING to hit one). If you have runners at second and third or a runner at second, a single drives in one or two runs and you got the tying run on base. The key here is base runners. Hitting a home run in the scenario above isn't the best thing to do because you empty the base paths and are still down.

 

You empty the basepaths because EVERYONE SCORES.

 

Why in the world would you prefer to be down 2 runs with a runner on over being down 1 run with no one on, when there isn't any difference in outs?

It's the perception of the homerun serving as the rally-killer. Either way, the guy at the plate has to score, so that doesn't change. The difference is, the runner at second keeps the pitcher in the stretch/under pressure/whatever. I don't know which way I'd fall on this one, but I at least understand the thought process.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I can't think of any time a double is better than a homerun. As was pointed out, maybe equal in a few scenarios, but never better.

[jaxxradio]

abuck, a bases clearing double makes you down two with a runner at second. A two run double makes you down three with runners at second and third.

 

The key here is having runners on base. Your down regardless if you hit the grand slam or not. It comes to, either being down a run with nobody on and two out, down two runs with a runner at second or down three runs with runners at second and third. There are MANY people in this game who want the baserunners so the batter has more options than just trying to homer to tie the game.

 

If everyone does their job, its six of one, half dozen of the other because the rally is complete. I'm just saying that having runners on base gives the hitter more options.

[David]

abuck, a bases clearing double makes you down two with a runner at second. A two run double makes you down three with runners at second and third.

 

The key here is having runners on base. Your down regardless if you hit the grand slam or not. It comes to, either being down a run with nobody on and two out, down two runs with a runner at second or down three runs with runners at second and third. There are MANY people in this game who want the baserunners so the batter has more options than just trying to homer to tie the game.

 

If everyone does their job, its six of one, half dozen of the other because the rally is complete. I'm just saying that having runners on base gives the hitter more options.

 

Why on earth would you say that the batter is limited to trying to hit a HR here? It makes no sense to me at all.

 

5-4 with 2 outs and nobody on >>>>> 5-3 with 2 outs and one on

[USSoccer]

abuck, a bases clearing double makes you down two with a runner at second. A two run double makes you down three with runners at second and third.

 

The key here is having runners on base. Your down regardless if you hit the grand slam or not. It comes to, either being down a run with nobody on and two out, down two runs with a runner at second or down three runs with runners at second and third. There are MANY people in this game who want the baserunners so the batter has more options than just trying to homer to tie the game.

 

If everyone does their job, its six of one, half dozen of the other because the rally is complete. I'm just saying that having runners on base gives the hitter more options.

 

The hitter has the same options at the plate regardless of the baserunner. His goals don't change in the slightest.

 

His goal is to get on base.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Abe, I agree with you in one instance.

 

Take the ninth inning. Your team is down by five. Bases loaded and two outs. Do you want a grand slam to pull within a run and empty the bases or take a two or three run double that pulls your team within two or three runs? I take the latter and here is why:

 

You have runners on base so the hitter has more options than just trying to hit a home run (which as we all know is next to impossible when TRYING to hit one). If you have runners at second and third or a runner at second, a single drives in one or two runs and you got the tying run on base. The key here is base runners. Hitting a home run in the scenario above isn't the best thing to do because you empty the base paths and are still down.

 

You empty the basepaths because EVERYONE SCORES.

 

Why in the world would you prefer to be down 2 runs with a runner on over being down 1 run with no one on, when there isn't any difference in outs?

It's the perception of the homerun serving as the rally-killer. Either way, the guy at the plate has to score, so that doesn't change. The difference is, the runner at second keeps the pitcher in the stretch/under pressure/whatever. I don't know which way I'd fall on this one, but I at least understand the thought process.

 

Well if we're going to use that logic, take it all the way.

 

It's the 9th inning, so up 5 runs the other team probably didn't bring out their closer. Before the grand slam they probably did, as I doubt they let an inferior pitcher/tired starter allow the other team back into the game. So now the closer is in and he just gave up either a bases clearing double or a grand slam. It's obvious he's not lights out today. He's a closer/reliever, which means the odds of him throwing from the windup are slim regardless of the situation. Does he care about the runner at 2nd(if he hits the double)? Nope, that guy's run doesn't matter, so he's not getting flustered thinking about a potential steal(which tangentially makes the number of outs in the inning irrelevant).

 

So in the end from the pitcher's perspective, there's no difference after the fact. He needs to keep the hitter from scoring and that's what he's worried about. Which means as the hitting team, we take the run in hand 150 times out of 10.

[abuck1220]

abuck, a bases clearing double makes you down two with a runner at second. A two run double makes you down three with runners at second and third.

 

The key here is having runners on base. Your down regardless if you hit the grand slam or not. It comes to, either being down a run with nobody on and two out, down two runs with a runner at second or down three runs with runners at second and third. There are MANY people in this game who want the baserunners so the batter has more options than just trying to homer to tie the game.

 

 

i don't get it. the guy at the plate is the tying run either way. if the guy at the plate is going to tie the game, it has to be with a homer...he doesn't have any other "options." i think you're miscounting or something.

[Rob]

Rob,

 

Let me break down your answers one by one..

 

In question number two, you said getting "all the information possible." While I totally agree with you, here is yet another example of the game being "more than numbers." There were many people in the organization who felt that Maddux wasn't coming back at the end of the year. They traded him for what they felt was the best offer out there.

 

Yeah, but if we had held onto Maddux, we could have offered him arbitration. Worst case scenario, we sign him for a bit too much money. Best case, he declines and we get compensation picks that were worth more than Izturis. We weren't in a situation where we really had to get rid of Maddux for any return we could get. This was a case where holding onto him was better than the return we got.

 

In question three, you said Theriot is "lacking in range and his arm strength is mediocore at best." Your way off-base IMO. Theriot has good range, not great but good and his arm is solid. You asked if "the team, not the player should get credit?" This is the what came first the chicken or the egg scenario. I do agree that the team should be given credit, but having said that is it just a coincidence that Theriot has won multiple chamionships?? I don't think so. That's where the "clubhouse chemistry" scenario comes into effect. Again, going "beyond the numbers."

 

I think once the BIS numbers come out (which plot exactly where the ball was hit, how hard, what vector, etc... and compare his range to the other SS) it will vindicate my belief that he makes more easy plays than most, but very few outside the normal range. Unfortunately, those numbers wont come out until after the season, so I must delay gratification until then.

 

Though again, I must disagree with the clubhouse chemistry argument. Winning breeds chemistry on a team, not the other way around. For proof of this, you have to look no further than the Cardinals this year. These were supposedly all clubhouse guys with great attitudes when they won the world series, but all I've been hearing all season is about how miserable that locker room has been. Being a "proven winner" doesn't do much when you aren't winning.

 

In question four, you said that "signing A-Rod would essentialy cost us a lot less than if the Royals signed him for the exact same amount of money." Hate to say it Rob, but your wrong and I will explain why. The Cubs play to 90-95% capacity everyday while the Royals are lucky to be at 40-50%. If the Cubs signed him, there isn't enough of a surplus from ticket sales to justify this where as the Royals would make solid gains just from the hike in attendance by 10-15,000 a game. I do agree that merchandising sales and other forms of income would increase, but not nearly as much as the Royals. Add to the fact that the Cubs are in the middle of being sold and the point is moot. A-Rod won't be a Cub unless the team is sold immediately after the season, which is highly doubtful.

 

ARod increases the Cubs likelyhood of reaching the playoffs (and getting far enough into it), that we'd get the ticket income from a potential extra 19 games at 100% capacity. Plus the merchandising that comes with national media coverage. I know it's counterintuitive, but I've got about three different books with studies on the matter. It's pretty incontrovertible.

 

In question five, you called hitting behind the runner a "circular reasoning." Perhaps it isn't wise to move a runner up a base all the time, but in certain situations, it is not only the right thing to do, its done. You might have numbers to back up how wrong it is, but EVERYONE in this game has done it. Let me put it to you this way.. if a pitcher is working a hitter on the outer edge of the plate, the last thing a player wants to do is pull the ball because it will result in a weak groundout or pop out. The player is taught to take that pitch the other way. In a perfect scenario, a basehit or extra basehit would be ideal, but life ain't perfect. Thats why the hitter hits behind the runner with less than two outs.

 

Well, of course you're gonna try to go opposite field if the pitcher is going outside on you. I'd still rather attempt to hit a drive down the line or in the gap, but I'm not about to complain if the end result is a weak grounder that moves the runner up. The problem is only when a player's sole aim that at bat is to hit a weak grounder to 2B, and it's early enough in a game that you shouldn't be playing for one run. Earl Weaver had a rule that "if you play for one run, that's all you're going to get." And that still holds mostly true. If we're facing an offense like the Reds', who can explode for 10-12 runs, we shouldn't be trying to get just a single run early in the game. I wont complain about a run, but the approach isn't ideal unless certain conditions are met.

 

In a perfect world, I would love to see a game with all of you guys and gals just to see how you view the game. I'm sure we could all have fun dissecting the game over a Bud.

 

First round is on me if you find yourself in the Chicago area.

[Mephistopheles]

a homer is always better. run expectancy

 

bases loaded 2 outs: .815

 

 

a home run leaves us at 4 runs + runE(0,0,0,2) = 4.117

a double leaves us at 3 runs + runE(0,1,0,2) = 3.334

 

It's not close. Take the home run.

[XZero771679666304]

abuck, a bases clearing double makes you down two with a runner at second. A two run double makes you down three with runners at second and third.

 

The key here is having runners on base. Your down regardless if you hit the grand slam or not. It comes to, either being down a run with nobody on and two out, down two runs with a runner at second or down three runs with runners at second and third. There are MANY people in this game who want the baserunners so the batter has more options than just trying to homer to tie the game.

 

If everyone does their job, its six of one, half dozen of the other because the rally is complete. I'm just saying that having runners on base gives the hitter more options.

 

What options? If the runner is on second and there are two out, the opposing team isn't going to be trying too hard to hold the runner, because the run that matters is at the plate. There aren't going to be infielders moving around opening holes. Maybe if the runner was on first, but not so much with one on second.

 

I don't see how this is an advantage, and certainly not better than having that runner already in the run column. And the next batter isn't required to try and homer, they can single, take a walk, etc.

 

And again, some people see runners still on base and feel that it is somehow maintaining the rally better, but the fact is that is perception obscuring reality.

 

The homer is better than any other hit in any situation, unless you are the pitcher.

[jaxxradio]

davhern, I'm not saying the batter is limited to hitting a home run. What I am saying is if the guy gets on base, the whole rally gets restarted and the chances of the tying run scoring depend on where the batter/runner is.

[Mephistopheles]

and the run frequency argument

 

 

runF(1,1,1,2,5...inf) = 2.5%

runF(0,1,0,2,2...inf) = 7.6%

runF(0,0,0,2,1...inf) = 7.7%

[USSoccer]

davhern, I'm not saying the batter is limited to hitting a home run. What I am saying is if the guy gets on base, the whole rally gets restarted and the chances of the tying run scoring depend on where the batter/runner is.

 

 

If you're down 5-3, your odds of tying the game with a guy on 2nd depend on the hitter's ability to hit a home run. The 4th run is irrelevant.

 

If you're down 5-4 with the bases empty, your odds of tying the game depend...on the hitters ability to hit a home run.

 

It's the same thing. So take the extra run. And then your hitter can try and get on base, or hit a home run.

[Guest]

Give me a freaking break. How can anybody even suggest that Theriot is more valuable to this team than Aramis, Lee, Soriano, or even DeRosa?

 

Why do people love to make completely absurd hyperbolic statements like this? Theriot isn't any major league team's MVP.

 

Hell, I'd say Marmol has been more valuable than Theriot and he's only a reliever who wasn't even in the bigs in April.

 

Marmol has a WARP3 of 4.3, while Theriot has a 3.7... and that doesn't even account for Marmol's much higher leverage.

 

WARP for pitchers is leverage adjusted. Well sorta. It's a [expletive] way but it is. BP really has a disaster on their hands with WARP for pitchers. Its too bad theyre too dumb to know it

 

oh and in addition, Marmol's leverage isnt all that high for a reliever. It really isnt. Thats Lous fault more than anything.

 

I'm curious, why do you say that?