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

[DeuceBaseman]

that's not my point. my point is that there is absolutely no way you can say that a walk by Roberts >>> a HR by Soriano when leading off an inning. okay, you can say it, but you're 100% wrong

 

If any adjustments need to be made he can make them, just like the move to the OF.

 

HE DOESN'T HIT WELL WITH RUNNERS ON BASE.

 

That can change! It's not like it is much of a different skill to hit with runners on base. It shouldnt be any different than hitting with no one on. It can easily be coincidence to why he doesnt hit well with runners on. He also is a way more patient hitter with runners on. He has more walks with runners on base over the past 3 years than he does with no one on, and thats in half the at bats. This can lead to more stolen bases by him as well. Hitting in different spots in the order shouldnt affect the player. You see players get moved around all the time.

[inari]

When are you going to remove my correct analysis from your signature?

[17 Seconds]

that's not my point. my point is that there is absolutely no way you can say that a walk by Roberts >>> a HR by Soriano when leading off an inning. okay, you can say it, but you're 100% wrong

 

If any adjustments need to be made he can make them, just like the move to the OF.

 

HE DOESN'T HIT WELL WITH RUNNERS ON BASE.

 

That can change! It's not like it is much of a different skill to hit with runners on base. It shouldnt be any different than hitting with no one on. It can easily be coincidence to why he doesnt hit well with runners on. He also is a way more patient hitter with runners on. He has more walks with runners on base over the past 3 years than he does with no one on, and thats in half the at bats. This can lead to more stolen bases by him as well. Hitting in different spots in the order shouldnt affect the player. You see players get moved around all the time.

 

Yes, you're right. Those 1679 at bats spread out over a 9 year career were all a coincidence. At 32 years old, I'm sure that's suddenly going to change. Well done.

[DeuceBaseman]

When are you going to remove my correct analysis from your signature?

 

Sorry, its gone now. But it is not correct. Average is very important. There's a reason why that is the 1st stat shown when a player comes up to bat. It shows how good a hitter is. There are other stats that might tell more about a player, but there is no way that average isnt an important stat. You are a very good hitter if you can bat .300 over a season. Hopefully you have some other tools as well besides being a batting average hitter, but having a high average is a good stat to have.

[DeuceBaseman]

Yes, you're right. Those 1679 at bats spread out over a 9 year career were all a coincidence. At 32 years old, I'm sure that's suddenly going to change. Well done.

 

How many of those at bats with runners on occurred when he was hitting in the middle of the order as a regular?

[Outshined_One]

When are you going to remove my correct analysis from your signature?

 

Sorry, its gone now. But it is not correct. Average is very important. There's a reason why that is the 1st stat shown when a player comes up to bat. It shows how good a hitter is. There are other stats that might tell more about a player, but there is no way that average isnt an important stat. You are a very good hitter if you can bat .300 over a season. Hopefully you have some other tools as well besides being a batting average hitter, but having a high average is a good stat to have.

 

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1356/scannersse1.gif

[17 Seconds]

Yes, you're right. Those 1679 at bats spread out over a 9 year career were all a coincidence. At 32 years old, I'm sure that's suddenly going to change. Well done.

 

How many of those at bats with runners on occurred when he was hitting in the middle of the order as a regular?

 

Huh? That's irrelevant. He struggles with men on. He always has and always will. So, where will he get the most at-bats with runners on? The middle of the order, of course.

[DeuceBaseman]

Good response, you probably go to U of I with a response like that.

[CoolHandLuke]

When are you going to remove my correct analysis from your signature?

 

Sorry, its gone now. But it is not correct. Average is very important. There's a reason why that is the 1st stat shown when a player comes up to bat. It shows how good a hitter is. There are other stats that might tell more about a player, but there is no way that average isnt an important stat. You are a very good hitter if you can bat .300 over a season. Hopefully you have some other tools as well besides being a batting average hitter, but having a high average is a good stat to have.

 

It's good for looking at what a player did, but it's not so good when trying to predict what a player will do.

[DeuceBaseman]

Yes, you're right. Those 1679 at bats spread out over a 9 year career were all a coincidence. At 32 years old, I'm sure that's suddenly going to change. Well done.

 

How many of those at bats with runners on occurred when he was hitting in the middle of the order as a regular?

 

Huh? That's irrelevant. He struggles with men on. He always has and always will. So, where will he get the most at-bats with runners on? The middle of the order, of course.

 

How is that irrelevant? You never know what Soriano is thinking when he comes to bat with runners on to make his stats lower. What if hes thinking that he is still a leadoff hitter and he doesnt need to drive in runs in those situations? What if he thinks differently as a #5 hitter. You DONT know how he will do as a #5 hitter for us, and its stupid to think that his stats will go way down in the #5 hole. So stop pretending your psychic.

[David]

When are you going to remove my correct analysis from your signature?

 

Sorry, its gone now. But it is not correct. Average is very important. There's a reason why that is the 1st stat shown when a player comes up to bat. It shows how good a hitter is. There are other stats that might tell more about a player, but there is no way that average isnt an important stat. You are a very good hitter if you can bat .300 over a season. Hopefully you have some other tools as well besides being a batting average hitter, but having a high average is a good stat to have.

 

The reason average isn't that important is that it can't stand on it's own. If a guy has a .300 average but a (let's say) .320 OBP, he is not a good offensive player. It doesn't matter that he can hit for high average because overall he's making outs too often because he doesn't get on base in other ways.

 

On the other hand, if a guy has a .240 average but a .370 OBP, he's a pretty good offensive player (might even be very good, depending on how much power he hits for), regardless of the low average. OBP encompasses BA and tells you more about the hitter on top of it.

 

There's really not that much of a reason to look at his BA, other than if you want to evaluate how likely a player is to continue to perform at the level he has previously exhibited. In other words, you might want to look at it to see if a given player's OBP is highly batting average dependent, because if it is, without getting too far into detail about stuff like BABIP, it's probably less repeatable, particularly as the player ages.

[DeuceBaseman]

It's good for looking at what a player did, but it's not so good when trying to predict what a player will do.

 

How so? You can say that about any stat then. If a guy hits .300 one year, then there is no reason to expect him not to hit .300 the next year. Same with HRs. If a guy hits 30 HRs one year, then there is no reason not to expect him to hit 30 the next year. Except that HR's can dramatically decrease with age while average actually can stay close to the same, so i dunno. Every stat can be expected to be repeated, but it might not happen.

[David]

Good response, you probably go to U of I with a response like that.

 

Huh? What does this even mean? The way it's phrased, it seems like it's intended as an insult, but U of I is a very good school, so I don't really get it.

[17 Seconds]

I'm officially done with wrigley23 and deuce. It's like having a first grader tell the teacher that 6 divided by 3 equals 3, the teacher taking 20 minutes to explain why that's not true, and then the kid responding with "nah, it's 3".

[DeuceBaseman]

When are you going to remove my correct analysis from your signature?

 

Sorry, its gone now. But it is not correct. Average is very important. There's a reason why that is the 1st stat shown when a player comes up to bat. It shows how good a hitter is. There are other stats that might tell more about a player, but there is no way that average isnt an important stat. You are a very good hitter if you can bat .300 over a season. Hopefully you have some other tools as well besides being a batting average hitter, but having a high average is a good stat to have.

 

The reason average isn't that important is that it can't stand on it's own. If a guy has a .300 average but a (let's say) .320 OBP, he is not a good offensive player. It doesn't matter that he can hit for high average because overall he's making outs too often because he doesn't get on base in other ways.

 

On the other hand, if a guy has a .240 average but a .370 OBP, he's a pretty good offensive player (might even be very good, depending on how much power he hits for), regardless of the low average. OBP encompasses BA and tells you more about the hitter on top of it.

 

There's really not that much of a reason to look at his BA, other than if you want to evaluate how likely a player is to continue to perform at the level he has previously exhibited. In other words, you might want to look at it to see if a given player's OBP is highly batting average dependent, because if it is, without getting too far into detail about stuff like BABIP, it's probably less repeatable, particularly as the player ages.

 

If a guy hits .240 hes a terrible hitter regardless of his OBP. Hits are better than walks. Hits can get you more than one base, and can actually drive in runs. Id rather have the .300 .320 guy, but it depends on his power and speed too.

[David]

It's good for looking at what a player did, but it's not so good when trying to predict what a player will do.

 

How so? You can say that about any stat then. If a guy hits .300 one year, then there is no reason to expect him not to hit .300 the next year. Same with HRs. If a guy hits 30 HRs one year, then there is no reason not to expect him to hit 30 the next year. Except that HR's can dramatically decrease with age while average actually can stay close to the same, so i dunno. Every stat can be expected to be repeated, but it might not happen.

 

Some things are more likely than others to be repeated. In fact, you can go as far as to say that some things are likely to be repeated while others are unlikely to be repeated. Good statistical analysis of a player can paint a good picture of what is and isn't sustainable. It stems from the fact that certain things are more luck dependent (it's often reasonably easy to tell when a player has performed at a certain level, be it good or bad, due to luck - again, good or bad - or skill/ability). It's not fool-proof, but, again, without getting into too much detail, there is a difference.

[Outshined_One]

Good response, you probably go to U of I with a response like that.

 

Law school, as a matter of fact. You'll be happy to know that one of my areas of focus is sports law.

[DeuceBaseman]

Good response, you probably go to U of I with a response like that.

 

Huh? What does this even mean? The way it's phrased, it seems like it's intended as an insult, but U of I is a very good school, so I don't really get it.

 

I went to U of I, but I hate that school right now. Everyone there is so cocky, teachers and students. Their acceptance procedures are off the wall, and most likely just pick names out of a hat. So I'm just pissed at U of I right now and thats why I had to insult the school. Someone I know got rejected with a 29 ACT, 3.9 GPA and involved in every activity, while someone else I know got accepted with a 21 ACT, 3.8 GPA and not very involved. Into the same major as well.

[David]

When are you going to remove my correct analysis from your signature?

 

Sorry, its gone now. But it is not correct. Average is very important. There's a reason why that is the 1st stat shown when a player comes up to bat. It shows how good a hitter is. There are other stats that might tell more about a player, but there is no way that average isnt an important stat. You are a very good hitter if you can bat .300 over a season. Hopefully you have some other tools as well besides being a batting average hitter, but having a high average is a good stat to have.

 

The reason average isn't that important is that it can't stand on it's own. If a guy has a .300 average but a (let's say) .320 OBP, he is not a good offensive player. It doesn't matter that he can hit for high average because overall he's making outs too often because he doesn't get on base in other ways.

 

On the other hand, if a guy has a .240 average but a .370 OBP, he's a pretty good offensive player (might even be very good, depending on how much power he hits for), regardless of the low average. OBP encompasses BA and tells you more about the hitter on top of it.

 

There's really not that much of a reason to look at his BA, other than if you want to evaluate how likely a player is to continue to perform at the level he has previously exhibited. In other words, you might want to look at it to see if a given player's OBP is highly batting average dependent, because if it is, without getting too far into detail about stuff like BABIP, it's probably less repeatable, particularly as the player ages.

 

If a guy hits .240 hes a terrible hitter regardless of his OBP. Hits are better than walks. Hits can get you more than one base, and can actually drive in runs. Id rather have the .300 .320 guy, but it depends on his power and speed too.

 

 

I give up.

[Rob]

Good response, you probably go to U of I with a response like that.

 

Huh? What does this even mean? The way it's phrased, it seems like it's intended as an insult, but U of I is a very good school, so I don't really get it.

 

I went to U of I, but I hate that school right now. Everyone there is so cocky, teachers and students. Their acceptance procedures are off the wall, and most likely just pick names out of a hat. So I'm just pissed at U of I right now and thats why I had to insult the school. Someone I know got rejected with a 29 ACT, 3.9 GPA and involved in every activity, while someone else I know got accepted with a 21 ACT, 3.8 GPA and not very involved. Into the same major as well.

 

My guess would be that your associate probably didn't spend the entire personal interview explaining to the interviewer over and over again that a half windsor knot is the only acceptible knot for a tie.

[Outshined_One]

Can we just give up on all of this arguing crap altogether?

 

It'd be one thing if people here were more willing to accept each other's points of view. That is clearly not the case here. Both sides should just drop it and not press the issue. It's getting ridiculous around here.

[Soul]

Not sure it's worth adding my voice to this fray, but I will only say that I wish they wouldn't show AVG first when a hitter comes up to bat.

[David]

Not sure it's worth adding my voice to this fray, but I will only say that I wish they wouldn't show AVG first when a hitter comes up to bat.

 

 

It'll be a LONG LONG time, if ever, before that changes. I mean, I don't even see it changing in the next 30-40 years.

 

Maybe the new-school stuff will be mainstream enough after another generation or two, though, who knows.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Can we just give up on all of this arguing crap altogether?

 

It'd be one thing if people here were more willing to accept each other's points of view. That is clearly not the case here. Both sides should just drop it and not press the issue. It's getting ridiculous around here.

 

Trying out for mod? ;)

[Derwood]

When are you going to remove my correct analysis from your signature?

 

Sorry, its gone now. But it is not correct. Average is very important. There's a reason why that is the 1st stat shown when a player comes up to bat. It shows how good a hitter is. There are other stats that might tell more about a player, but there is no way that average isnt an important stat. You are a very good hitter if you can bat .300 over a season. Hopefully you have some other tools as well besides being a batting average hitter, but having a high average is a good stat to have.

 

The reason average isn't that important is that it can't stand on it's own. If a guy has a .300 average but a (let's say) .320 OBP, he is not a good offensive player. It doesn't matter that he can hit for high average because overall he's making outs too often because he doesn't get on base in other ways.

 

On the other hand, if a guy has a .240 average but a .370 OBP, he's a pretty good offensive player (might even be very good, depending on how much power he hits for), regardless of the low average. OBP encompasses BA and tells you more about the hitter on top of it.

 

There's really not that much of a reason to look at his BA, other than if you want to evaluate how likely a player is to continue to perform at the level he has previously exhibited. In other words, you might want to look at it to see if a given player's OBP is highly batting average dependent, because if it is, without getting too far into detail about stuff like BABIP, it's probably less repeatable, particularly as the player ages.

 

If a guy hits .240 hes a terrible hitter regardless of his OBP. Hits are better than walks. Hits can get you more than one base, and can actually drive in runs. Id rather have the .300 .320 guy, but it depends on his power and speed too.

 

quick quiz:

 

who is the better hitter?

 

A) .264/.386/.554

B) .309/.356/.382