MacPhail: Deal is dead (p. 297), stop posting, go outside

C.C. · February 13, 2008

This thread just keeps falling further into the rabbit hole.

David · February 13, 2008

This whole "Soriano can only hit in the leadoff spot" crap needs to stop. Soriano just happened to be batting leadoff when he had his career year in 2006. His OBP that year was also artificially inflated by an absurd amount of intentional walks in that horrendous lineup. That is why his leadoff splits compared to when he was hitting in the middle are so pronounced.

No, it doesn't need to stop. You're ignoring his years with the Yankees at leadoff. Furthermore, you're ignoring his past shows a history of struggling in RISP situations.

When it comes to moving Soriano around, I view it as a choice. You can choose

1. To have a .890 OPS #1 hitter.

2. To have an .810-.820 OPS #3-5 hitter.

I choose #1.

What does need to stop is trying to convince ourselves that Soriano is something he isn't. I don't know why we have to be so stubborn on this issue. You don't see the Indians trying to force Casey Blake into an RBI slot when he isn't that guy. You didn't see the Red Sox pushing Bill Mueller to hit 2nd when he was much more comfortable 8th.

But people here won't be happy until we see Soriano hit .260 with a .310 OBP and 28 home runs, his meaningless 100 RBI, and his near-record LOB total. Only then will we be getting our $17 million a year worth.

What is the difference between Brian Roberts hitting 1st and Brian Roberts hitting 2nd? I'd like to know why people have a mental block on this. They start sweating profusely and stammering. "Why... Roberts can't hit 2nd. Because... because... he's a LEADOFF MAN. It would cause a rip in the space-time continuum!"

Soriano does his best hitting with the bases empty.

I'm merely pointing out that people are incorrectly confusing correlation with causation in the case of Soriano's leadoff splits. It's flawed and faulty logic.

No, you made the statement that Soriano's career leadoff numbers were only so much better than his non-leadoff numbers because of a monster year in 2006, which is flat out wrong. Even if Soriano in 2006 only put up the typical numbers he puts up in years where he leads off, the career differences would still be very pronounced. It sounds to me like you were unaware that Soriano had hit leadoff in previous years. Now you're realizing that he did, and are trying to cover it up but saying the above statement, which doesn't even make sense with what you originally said.

Actually, you're completely wrong in just about everything you said here. But that's fine.

Do you think I just started watching baseball in 2005 or something? Who the hell doesn't know that Soriano hit leadoff with the Yankees?

Repeat with me. Correlation =/ causation. It's one of the most common logical fallacies that people fall victim to. Cause and effect.

17 Seconds · February 13, 2008

This whole "Soriano can only hit in the leadoff spot" crap needs to stop. Soriano just happened to be batting leadoff when he had his career year in 2006. His OBP that year was also artificially inflated by an absurd amount of intentional walks in that horrendous lineup. That is why his leadoff splits compared to when he was hitting in the middle are so pronounced.

No, it doesn't need to stop. You're ignoring his years with the Yankees at leadoff. Furthermore, you're ignoring his past shows a history of struggling in RISP situations.

When it comes to moving Soriano around, I view it as a choice. You can choose

1. To have a .890 OPS #1 hitter.

2. To have an .810-.820 OPS #3-5 hitter.

I choose #1.

What does need to stop is trying to convince ourselves that Soriano is something he isn't. I don't know why we have to be so stubborn on this issue. You don't see the Indians trying to force Casey Blake into an RBI slot when he isn't that guy. You didn't see the Red Sox pushing Bill Mueller to hit 2nd when he was much more comfortable 8th.

But people here won't be happy until we see Soriano hit .260 with a .310 OBP and 28 home runs, his meaningless 100 RBI, and his near-record LOB total. Only then will we be getting our $17 million a year worth.

What is the difference between Brian Roberts hitting 1st and Brian Roberts hitting 2nd? I'd like to know why people have a mental block on this. They start sweating profusely and stammering. "Why... Roberts can't hit 2nd. Because... because... he's a LEADOFF MAN. It would cause a rip in the space-time continuum!"

Soriano does his best hitting with the bases empty.

I'm merely pointing out that people are incorrectly confusing correlation with causation in the case of Soriano's leadoff splits. It's flawed and faulty logic.

No, you made the statement that Soriano's career leadoff numbers were only so much better than his non-leadoff numbers because of a monster year in 2006, which is flat out wrong. Even if Soriano in 2006 only put up the typical numbers he puts up in years where he leads off, the career differences would still be very pronounced. It sounds to me like you were unaware that Soriano had hit leadoff in previous years. Now you're realizing that he did, and are trying to cover it up but saying the above statement, which doesn't even make sense with what you originally said.

Actually, you're completely wrong in just about everything you said here. But that's fine.

Do you think I just started watching baseball in 2005 or something? Who the hell doesn't know that Soriano hit leadoff with the Yankees?

Repeat with me. Correlation =/ causation. It's one of the most common logical fallacies that people fall victim to. Cause and effect.

You're completely dodging the real issue. Please explain to me why Soriano's numbers go down when he doesn't bat leadoff.

David · February 13, 2008

The funny part is that you keep citing logical reasoning as the basis for your argument. It's people like you that caused my LSAT study sessions to drag on forever.

17 Seconds · February 13, 2008

The funny part is that you keep citing logical reasoning as the basis for your argument. It's people like you that caused my LSAT study sessions to drag on forever.

What are you even talking about? This is a baseball message board, not a message board to flex your muscles and try to impress people with how smart you are.

I'll make this very simple for you.

Why do Soriano's numbers always drop when he's not batting leadoff. The "career year" argument was very poor.

David · February 13, 2008

Again, I have no problem with him leading off. He's a ~.900 OPS guy, and having him get more PA's is a good thing.

It's going to take more than some splits to prove to me that his lineup spot is CAUSING his better production. Fundamentally, that's not something I typically buy into and I'd have to be convinced, considering Soriano would be the rare exception if it were the case. There are plenty of alternative causes. It could be pure coincidence. It could be that pitchers had figured him out in the AL and then adjusted in the NL. It could be a lot of things.

David · February 13, 2008

The funny part is that you keep citing logical reasoning as the basis for your argument. It's people like you that caused my LSAT study sessions to drag on forever.

What are you even talking about? This is a baseball message board, not a message board to flex your muscles and try to impress people with how smart you are.

I'll make this very simple for you.

Why do Soriano's numbers always drop when he's not batting leadoff. The "career year" argument was very poor.

If you're the one (among many, of course) proposing that one causes the other, you have to prove that link. The burden of proof isn't on me.

I could just as easily say, "Hey, not playing in Texas makes Soriano a better hitter. Prove that it isn't true."

17 Seconds · February 13, 2008

Again, I have no problem with him leading off. He's a ~.900 OPS guy, and having him get more PA's is a good thing.

It's going to take more than some splits to prove to me that his lineup spot is CAUSING his better production. Fundamentally, that's not something I typically buy into and I'd have to be convinced, considering Soriano would be the rare exception if it were the case. There are plenty of alternative causes. It could be pure coincidence. It could be that pitchers had figured him out in the AL and then adjusted in the NL. It could be a lot of things.

First you said the only reason his splits were so bad was because of his big 2006. Now it's "well, splits don't convince me". The 2006 argument was weak. As for reasons to why he bats better in that spot, it's very simple. I'll copy and paste what I just said a few posts ago.

I honestly don't see why people find it so hard to believe that he's not as good in the middle of the order. Even if you didn't look at numbers and just watched him play, you could see why there is a problem with him batting there. In his career he has been a very bad hitter with runners on, and especially runners in scoring position. Compared to his overall career numbers, everything drops dramatically, especially his power. Did any of you actually watch the games last year? Watching him bat in situations with guyson what painful.

Breaking ball in the zone- foul
Breaking ball in the dirt- strike 2 swinging
High fastball- strike 3 swinging

So we've established that he's not a good hitter with guys on. So let me think, where would be the worst place to bat him? I know, how about right in the middle of the lineup, so he can come up to bat with runners on all the time!

Yeah, that makes no sense to me.

Honestly, why is it so hard to understand why his numbers go down?

David · February 13, 2008

Again, I have no problem with him leading off. He's a ~.900 OPS guy, and having him get more PA's is a good thing.

It's going to take more than some splits to prove to me that his lineup spot is CAUSING his better production. Fundamentally, that's not something I typically buy into and I'd have to be convinced, considering Soriano would be the rare exception if it were the case. There are plenty of alternative causes. It could be pure coincidence. It could be that pitchers had figured him out in the AL and then adjusted in the NL. It could be a lot of things.

First you said the only reason his splits were so bad was because of his big 2006. Now it's "well, splits don't convince me". The 2006 argument was weak. As for reasons to why he bats better in that spot, it's very simple. I'll copy and paste what I just said a few posts ago.

I honestly don't see why people find it so hard to believe that he's not as good in the middle of the order. Even if you didn't look at numbers and just watched him play, you could see why there is a problem with him batting there. In his career he has been a very bad hitter with runners on, and especially runners in scoring position. Compared to his overall career numbers, everything drops dramatically, especially his power. Did any of you actually watch the games last year? Watching him bat in situations with guyson what painful.

Breaking ball in the zone- foul
Breaking ball in the dirt- strike 2 swinging
High fastball- strike 3 swinging

So we've established that he's not a good hitter with guys on. So let me think, where would be the worst place to bat him? I know, how about right in the middle of the lineup, so he can come up to bat with runners on all the time!

Yeah, that makes no sense to me.

Honestly, why is it so hard to understand why his numbers go down?

You're doing it again. Splits merely show the correlation. The splits would HAVE to be there for there to be any correlation. That doesn't mean that hitting leadoff was the CAUSE of the difference.

And yes, the career year in 2006 makes those splits significantly more pronounced. What isn't true about that?

17 Seconds · February 13, 2008

The funny part is that you keep citing logical reasoning as the basis for your argument. It's people like you that caused my LSAT study sessions to drag on forever.

What are you even talking about? This is a baseball message board, not a message board to flex your muscles and try to impress people with how smart you are.

I'll make this very simple for you.

Why do Soriano's numbers always drop when he's not batting leadoff. The "career year" argument was very poor.

If you're the one (among many, of course) proposing that one causes the other, you have to prove that link. The burden of proof isn't on me.

I could just as easily say, "Hey, not playing in Texas makes Soriano a better hitter. Prove that it isn't true."

Ah again trying to show how smart you are by using specific types of fallacies. That that garbage elsewhere. We get it, you're smart. You must have girls all over you. I mean, we all know that's what guys who get tons of chicks do right? They try to act smart on the internet.

Anyways, it's nice to see you again dodging the real subject. Burden of proof? I backed up my arguments with reasonings and facts. If you expect me take your argument seriously, you'd better come up with something better than "uhh, well his numbers are skewed because of 2006", or "it's just a coincidence."

17 Seconds · February 13, 2008

Again, I have no problem with him leading off. He's a ~.900 OPS guy, and having him get more PA's is a good thing.

It's going to take more than some splits to prove to me that his lineup spot is CAUSING his better production. Fundamentally, that's not something I typically buy into and I'd have to be convinced, considering Soriano would be the rare exception if it were the case. There are plenty of alternative causes. It could be pure coincidence. It could be that pitchers had figured him out in the AL and then adjusted in the NL. It could be a lot of things.

First you said the only reason his splits were so bad was because of his big 2006. Now it's "well, splits don't convince me". The 2006 argument was weak. As for reasons to why he bats better in that spot, it's very simple. I'll copy and paste what I just said a few posts ago.

I honestly don't see why people find it so hard to believe that he's not as good in the middle of the order. Even if you didn't look at numbers and just watched him play, you could see why there is a problem with him batting there. In his career he has been a very bad hitter with runners on, and especially runners in scoring position. Compared to his overall career numbers, everything drops dramatically, especially his power. Did any of you actually watch the games last year? Watching him bat in situations with guyson what painful.

Breaking ball in the zone- foul
Breaking ball in the dirt- strike 2 swinging
High fastball- strike 3 swinging

So we've established that he's not a good hitter with guys on. So let me think, where would be the worst place to bat him? I know, how about right in the middle of the lineup, so he can come up to bat with runners on all the time!

Yeah, that makes no sense to me.

Honestly, why is it so hard to understand why his numbers go down?

You're doing it again. Splits merely show the correlation. The splits would HAVE to be there for there to be any correlation. That doesn't mean that hitting leadoff was the CAUSE of the difference.

Did you completely ignore the entire other part of my post that explained why the pslits are there? Did you just happen to forget to read that part?

And yes, the career year in 2006 makes those splits significantly more pronounced. What isn't true about that?

You said that the reason his splits were so different were because of 2006. That's completely false. If you took out 2006 and compared his splits for the rest of his career, they'd still be very pronounced.

David · February 13, 2008

I don't even know why I'm wasting time arguing about this. I'd be just fine with Soriano staying in the leadoff role.

Logical fallacies like this strike a nerve with me, especially when I already, in principle, strongly disagree with the potential link being proposed.

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that a player's spot in the lineup could cause him to perform better or worse. I prefer to look at other potential causes first. You disagree with that. That's fine with me.

David · February 13, 2008

Ah again trying to show how smart you are by using specific types of fallacies. That that garbage elsewhere. We get it, you're smart. You must have girls all over you. I mean, we all know that's what guys who get tons of chicks do right? They try to act smart on the internet.

Anyways, it's nice to see you again dodging the real subject. Burden of proof? I backed up my arguments with reasonings and facts. If you expect me take your argument seriously, you'd better come up with something better than "uhh, well his numbers are skewed because of 2006", or "it's just a coincidence."

What are you even talking about? I don't even get why you're so worked up. This reminds me of when that dude kept saying that posters could criticize Dusty all they wanted because he probably got more gals than they did.

17 Seconds · February 13, 2008

I don't even know why I'm wasting time arguing about this. I'd be just fine with Soriano staying in the leadoff role.

Logical fallacies like this strike a nerve with me, especially when I already, in principle, strongly disagree with the potential link being proposed.

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that a player's spot in the lineup could cause him to perform better or worse. I prefer to look at other potential causes first. You disagree with that. That's fine with me.

By the way, the purden of proof was just as much on you for making the statement that Soriano's number dropoffs had nothing to do with where he batted during those times. You have done ntohing to prove that or defend it, other than saying that 2006 was the reason his splits are pronounced, which is untrue. If someone knew a site where I could view career totals while omitting a season, we'd be able to see that the pronounced didfference is still there. If you're going to make a claim like that, then yeah, I'd say the burden of proof is on you for it.

David · February 13, 2008

I don't even know why I'm wasting time arguing about this. I'd be just fine with Soriano staying in the leadoff role.

Logical fallacies like this strike a nerve with me, especially when I already, in principle, strongly disagree with the potential link being proposed.

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that a player's spot in the lineup could cause him to perform better or worse. I prefer to look at other potential causes first. You disagree with that. That's fine with me.

By the way, the purden of proof was just as much on you for making the statement that Soriano's number dropoffs had nothing to do with where he batted during those times. You have done ntohing to prove that or defend it, other than saying that 2006 was the reason his splits are pronounced, which is untrue. If someone knew a site where I could view career totals while omitting a season, we'd be able to see that the pronounced didfference is still there. If you're going to make a claim like that, then yeah, I'd say the burden of proof is on you for it.

I need to prove that the best year of his career, which was pretty [damn good], which he was hitting leadoff for most of, makes his overall leadoff numbers look better than they do without that year? Seriously?

Even if I show the splits, you're free to disagree with what "significantly" means, because it's a subjective term. So, I give up.

As for the bolded, no, it wasn't. I don't have to prove that a causational link doesn't exist. It should be pretty obvious why this is insane. I could make up a bunch of things and ask you to prove they don't exist.

Look, it's similar to clutch hitting. I recently read that Mark Grace was statistically the best clutch hitter of the 90's (or maybe even ever.. I don't know... something like that). I don't believe that clutch hitting exists (at least, not in the sense that people think it does) and would sooner attribute his better numbers in these situations to pure coincidence or chance (or just other factors - like he was just a good, smart hitter who did well in these instances) than to think he actually did better in those situations because they were so-called clutch situations.

Edited..

Edited February 13, 2008 by David

17 Seconds · February 13, 2008

I need to prove that the best year of his career, which was pretty, which he was hitting leadoff for most of, makes his overall leadoff numbers look better than they do without that year? Seriously?

Oh give me a break. You know damn well that you were implying that his 2006 was the only reason his career splits were noticable. Don't even try to act like you weren't.

David · February 13, 2008

I need to prove that the best year of his career, which was pretty, which he was hitting leadoff for most of, makes his overall leadoff numbers look better than they do without that year? Seriously?

Oh give me a break. You know damn well that you were implying that his 2006 was the only reason his career splits were noticable. Don't even try to act like you weren't.

Go read what I said. I said that 2006 made his leadoff splits look more pronounced, particularly in terms of OBP (because of all the IBBs he got).

And seriously, stop trying to put words into my mouth just because, in your head, you misinterpreted what I said. First assuming that I had no idea that Soriano had hit leadoff before 2006, now this.

17 Seconds · February 13, 2008

Oh, and get out of here with that "causational link" garbage. I have no idea what that means, and I don't care. What I do know is that you're making an argument without backing it up at all. Fine, say what you want about burden of proof, but forgive me if I don't take you seriously when you choose to dodge the real questions because of a technicality.

If I tell a guy that Albert Pujols is better than Omar Infante, and he says "no he's not", then you're right, the burden of proof isn't on him to explain why Pujols isn't better. However, if you plan on being taken seriously, you should back up your words and explain why you think Soriano's numbers drop off so much other than "it's a coincidence".

David · February 13, 2008

Oh, and get out of here with that "causational link" garbage. I have no idea what that means, and I don't care. What I do know is that you're making an argument without backing it up at all. Fine, say what you want about burden of proof, but forgive me if I don't take you seriously when you choose to dodge the real questions because of a technicality.

If I tell a guy that Albert Pujols is better than Omar Infante, and he says "no he's not", then you're right, the burden of proof isn't on him to explain why Pujols isn't better. However, if you plan on being taken seriously, you should back up your words and explain why you think Soriano's numbers drop off so much other than "it's a coincidence".

Why are you so worked up? Causational link? All that means is that one thing causes the other. Cause and effect.

Chillax. Agree to disagree.

17 Seconds · February 13, 2008

I need to prove that the best year of his career, which was pretty, which he was hitting leadoff for most of, makes his overall leadoff numbers look better than they do without that year? Seriously?

Oh give me a break. You know damn well that you were implying that his 2006 was the only reason his career splits were noticable. Don't even try to act like you weren't.

Go read what I said. I said that 2006 made his leadoff splits look more pronounced, particularly in terms of OBP (because of all the IBBs he got).

And seriously, stop trying to put words into my mouth just because, in your head, you misinterpreted what I said. First assuming that I had no idea that Soriano had hit leadoff before 2006, now this.

Here is your exact quote.

This whole "Soriano can only hit in the leadoff spot" crap needs to stop. Soriano just happened to be batting leadoff when he had his career year in 2006.

Your point about his 2006 numbers being more pronounced DIRECTLY followed your statement about the Soriano "crap" needing to stop. I don't see how I was wrong to assume that you were using the second sentence to qualify the first.

David · February 13, 2008

I need to prove that the best year of his career, which was pretty, which he was hitting leadoff for most of, makes his overall leadoff numbers look better than they do without that year? Seriously?

Oh give me a break. You know damn well that you were implying that his 2006 was the only reason his career splits were noticable. Don't even try to act like you weren't.

Go read what I said. I said that 2006 made his leadoff splits look more pronounced, particularly in terms of OBP (because of all the IBBs he got).

And seriously, stop trying to put words into my mouth just because, in your head, you misinterpreted what I said. First assuming that I had no idea that Soriano had hit leadoff before 2006, now this.

Here is your exact quote.

This whole "Soriano can only hit in the leadoff spot" crap needs to stop. Soriano just happened to be batting leadoff when he had his career year in 2006. His OBP that year was also artificially inflated by an absurd amount of intentional walks in that horrendous lineup. That is why his leadoff splits compared to when he was hitting in the middle are so pronounced.

Your point about his 2006 numbers being more pronounced DIRECTLY followed your statement about the Soriano "crap" needing to stop. I don't see how I was wrong to assume that you were using the second sentence to qualify the first.

Way to omit rest of the quote.

And you're right. I worded it too strongly.

Tracer Bullet · February 13, 2008

Yeah, I definately don't see how that's possible, since all the other numbers pretty clearly show a significant dropoff. Let's see this post.

I honestly don't see why people find it so hard to believe that he's not as good in the middle of the order. Even if you didn't look at numbers and just watched him play, you could see why there is a problem with him batting there. In his career he has been a very bad hitter with runners on, and especially runners in scoring position. Compared to his overall career numbers, everything drops dramatically, especially his power. Did any of you actually watch the games last year? Watching him bat in situations with guyson what painful.

Breaking ball in the zone- foul
Breaking ball in the dirt- strike 2 swinging
High fastball- strike 3 swinging

So we've established that he's not a good hitter with guys on. So let me think, where would be the worst place to bat him? I know, how about right in the middle of the lineup, so he can come up to bat with runners on all the time!

Yeah, that makes no sense to me.

It was only a matter of time...

MSG T · February 13, 2008

This thread just keeps falling further into the rabbit hole.

Take the blue pill.

Ding Dong Johnson · February 13, 2008

I don't understand it so it's garbage? Nice...

mul21 · February 13, 2008

I'm just going to throw this out there. Is it possible that Alfonso Soriano, being a human being and all, possibly has a mental issue with hitting in a spot other than leadoff? I mean why do guys like Chuck Knobloch, who have been throwing a baseball from 2nd to 1st for 20 years suddenly have major issues doing it? It could be as simple as that and have nothing to do with cause and effect or any other argument anybody is making. I know that may not sit well with some of the stats people on here who want to quantify everything, but that may be it. I think there's a whole lot of stuff out there that can be quantified and analyzed with great accuracy by using numbers, but the human psyche isn't one of them in a lot of cases.