We owe Theriot some praise!

[CuseCubFan69]

I remember reading an interesting argument on here awhile back on Theriot vs. Cedeno. The argument was formed from the question of which player would you rather have: If both players OPS .750, do you want Theriot who has to work really really hard to obtain .750, or Cedeno who has natural talent and could possibly perform better, but for some reason doesn't utilize his talents at the MLB, yet still OPS .750?

 

I thought it was an OK question, one that heavily favored Cedeno based on potential, and also totally ignores that Cedeno had an entire season starting at the MLB level before Theriot even got a chance. I never really understood why players who have to play hard (grit) get so much flack, I mean I know that David Eckstein pretty much sucks and was on a rival team, but it shouldn't be such a shock that people in general will find attraction with players who don't have natural talent, but rather toil and grind their way into the system.

 

What I like about Theriot is that he has an appreciation for how fortunate he is to even be in MLB. Someone like Cedeno who can probably OPS .750 with half the effort (with regular playing time), IMHO, doesn't quite have that same level of understanding or care about his situation. Doesn't (or hasn't) Cedeno pretty much utilize his time with the Cubs as a giant after hours party? IIRC he's kind of a playboy out of uniform. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

What does off the field activities have to do with anything? Dedication. I know, I know, dedication isn't a statistic. While I value certain statistics highly, I try to keep an opinion that bears in mind that no matter how many stats we surround ourselves with, and despite my dream of having computerized umps, the players are not robots. I honestly think some of you knowledgeable statistics guys totally forget this. They aren't robots. This of course leads to the concept of team chemistry which I know you guys hate, but I don't think it's the laughable joke many of you think it is. Anyone who's worked a real job with other individuals can tell you that work is much easier when everyone respects eachother and people get along. Players will still hate each other when the team is winning, I don't buy the argument that Wins create good chemistry. It might zip some lips for a little bit, that's all.

 

I want and respect the guy on the team that knows he has to play his hardest to succeed. IMO, Theriot sets a much better example for his teammates than Cedeno (of course I don't know how the team views either player, but I know how I view them), and has real motivation to play well. I'm really happy with Theriot's performance this year, and I would prefer to see all the grit jokes stop. I don't see whats so cute and funny about making fun of hard work.

 

Anyone who grew up playing sports and can still remmeber what it was like know chemistry is a real thing. Every year in high school the team who gelled right before sectionals won. Its just knowing how each reacts and therefore being able to predict what each will do and how to treat a teammate who is upset or struggling. I tihnk it plays a lesser role in the pro's because there is a much bigger sense of this a business but it still is there. Just about every college coach and high school coach talk about it at least once a year.

 

I see where you both are coming from with this but what a lot of posters don't know is how hard or lazy a player really is when it comes to practice and their work habits. I assume that Lou knows which one is/was working harder and playing the one who he thinks will best help the team. Theriot, imo, has stepped up and done a very nice job at SS and has done way better than the 280/340 I hoped he would do. If Theriot has worked hard to hit the way he has, then he's rewarded the team and himself by doing so.

 

That said, I used to think Cedeno was a bonehead running the bases and that Theriot was not but the more Theriot has played, the more of a bonehead on the bases he is. I'd like to see Cedeno get more playing time but Fontenot has stepped up and made it so Lou could put DeRosa in LF instead of Johnson.

 

If the Cubs continue struggling, we'll see how the chemistry thing really works. Many writers and Cubs have said that this is a very close team and that usually does happen when the team is winning. IMO, we'll see how close they really are if they struggle and continue to stick together or see if some sniping starts coming out.

[Derwood]

Theriot owes ME a dollar

[Tyrant]

 

You could have said absolutely nothing and it would have carried an equal amount of weight in actualy tracking how well Theriot has or hasn't done.

 

It's these kinds of posts that really help new members feel welcome. Good grief.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

You could have said absolutely nothing and it would have carried an equal amount of weight in actualy tracking how well Theriot has or hasn't done.

 

It's these kinds of posts that really help new members feel welcome. Good grief.

 

You're right.

 

I should have followed it with "welcome to the board!"

[MasterBlaster]

 

You could have said absolutely nothing and it would have carried an equal amount of weight in actualy tracking how well Theriot has or hasn't done.

 

It's these kinds of posts that really help new members feel welcome. Good grief.

 

You're right.

 

I should have followed it with "welcome to the board!"

This board is tame compared to what I'm used to. But, I'm also used to more discussion so I perhaps got long winded.

 

Saying that, the topic is about praising Theriot. Simply posting his last 10 games statistics isn't much of a praise really. Most people here have no problem looking at his baseball reference page anytime. Here's a special short version of my first post for you:

"All stats being equal, I'll take the higher character guy on my team"

[NCCubFan]

Saying that, the topic is about praising Theriot.

Not really. The topic is about a new poster coming on with an in-your-face "I told you so" message to people who criticized Theriot in the past.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Saying that, the topic is about praising Theriot.

Not really. The topic is about a new poster coming on with an in-your-face "I told you so" message to people who criticized Theriot in the past.

 

It would be one thing if Theriot had been critisized recently, however, its been a few months since the Free Ronny campaign ended, and Theriot has long since been accepted. Maybe at the end of August, we'll be treated to a similar thread regarding Ryan Dempster.

[CubbieBum]

Anyone who grew up playing sports and can still remmeber what it was like know chemistry is a real thing. Every year in high school the team who gelled right before sectionals won.

 

Or it could just be that someone busted out of a slump at the right time or managed to get a hit in a key situation. "Gelling" has little, if anything, to do with it. My senior year, our team had no chemistry issues. We went 21-10 that season and lost in the sectionals. It had nothing to do with chemistry.

 

Its just knowing how each reacts and therefore being able to predict what each will do and how to treat a teammate who is upset or struggling. I tihnk it plays a lesser role in the pro's because there is a much bigger sense of this a business but it still is there. Just about every college coach and high school coach talk about it at least once a year.

 

Having good team chemistry certainly doesn't hurt, but I highly doubt it has much of an effect on winning and losing, especially at the higher levels.

 

I guess you'll just never understand but I have been on teams that everyone liked each other but people still played how they saw fit and wouldn't make the slight adjustments to better pair with teammates games. I had that each of my first three years playing soccer in high school. My senior year we started out horrible but one day we held a team meeting with no coaches talked about somethings and then went on a 10 game win streak making it to semi-state. After the team meeting everything just clicked and we were all playing one step ahead of he opponent because we knew what each other were going to do.

 

The Colorado Rockies last year had this happen. They sucked and then all of a sudden it clicked and they were always one step ahead of their opponents. Although in baseball because it is very much an individual sport this probably doesn't happen except in very very rare cases like the Rockies last year.

[soapy]

Although in baseball because it is very much an individual sport this probably doesn't happen

this is pretty much how i see it. in my experience sports like soccer, basketball, etc. are much more dependant on this type of thing. i don't think it matters nearly as much in baseball, if at all.

[bukie]

I'm of the opinion that chemistry is the result of winning, rather than the other way around.

 

As far as Theriot/Cedeno goes...

 

Coming into the year, there was a choice between two below average in-house options for SS. Cedeno was a younger player with better tools that looked awful in the majors for a year, but looked fantastic in the minors last year. Theriot was two years older, tired at the end of last year, and never had very impressive minor league numbers. Either way you go, you take a risk, and some would've rather taken the higher risk/higher reward player over the player with a decent chance at mediocrity.

 

Offensively, Theriot has been solid this year because he's hit more line drives, and earlier in the year he was being a lot more patient. Lately, his patience has been down along with his walk rate, but I'm not sure whether that is more due to pitchers challenging him more, or him swinging at more pitches earlier in the count. Cedeno started out with unbelievable patience and was spraying line drives all over the field. Both have tailed off significantly as his patience has all but disappeared, and as a result pitchers don't feel the need to throw him strikes, as he'll get himself out.

 

Defensively, if he gets to a ball, he'll get it cleanly. His range is below average, and his arm is below average, which would indicate he'd be better suited as a second baseman defensively. Contrast that to Cedeno, who has better range and a stronger arm, but is more prone to misplay a ball he gets to. So, really, the choice there is whether it's better to get to more balls and have more errors than have more balls get through the infield, but create fewer errors. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

 

So, then, obviously, Theriot has had the better year overall, as he hasn't tailed off offensively yet. If he wants to continue to be a reliable part of the offense, he'll need to keep hitting LDs at the rate he has, or improve his patience at the plate to where it was earlier in the year.

[CubbieBum]

I'm of the opinion that chemistry is the result of winning, rather than the other way around.

 

Chemistry normally does come from winning but it can come at any place. My soccer team came together when we were 3-6-1 and just tied a conference game which was the first time my school had ever not won a conference game.

[abuck1220]

exactly.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think I read that last sentence 20 times before I figured out it.

 

Regardless, I've played on many a team, teams with friends, teams with guys I didn't particularly like. When you're doing well, there's no issues. When you're doing poorly, regardless of how tight the group was, there was some strife. Most people have the causation wrong when it comes to winning and "chemistry".

[abuck1220]

if you're not convinced that chemisty is important after hearing that a 3-6-1 high school soccer team came together after it's first ever conference tie, i don't know what to tell you.

[fromthestretch]

Anyone who grew up playing sports and can still remmeber what it was like know chemistry is a real thing. Every year in high school the team who gelled right before sectionals won.

 

Or it could just be that someone busted out of a slump at the right time or managed to get a hit in a key situation. "Gelling" has little, if anything, to do with it. My senior year, our team had no chemistry issues. We went 21-10 that season and lost in the sectionals. It had nothing to do with chemistry.

 

Its just knowing how each reacts and therefore being able to predict what each will do and how to treat a teammate who is upset or struggling. I tihnk it plays a lesser role in the pro's because there is a much bigger sense of this a business but it still is there. Just about every college coach and high school coach talk about it at least once a year.

 

Having good team chemistry certainly doesn't hurt, but I highly doubt it has much of an effect on winning and losing, especially at the higher levels.

 

I guess you'll just never understand but I have been on teams that everyone liked each other but people still played how they saw fit and wouldn't make the slight adjustments to better pair with teammates games. I had that each of my first three years playing soccer in high school. My senior year we started out horrible but one day we held a team meeting with no coaches talked about somethings and then went on a 10 game win streak making it to semi-state. After the team meeting everything just clicked and we were all playing one step ahead of he opponent because we knew what each other were going to do.

 

The Colorado Rockies last year had this happen. They sucked and then all of a sudden it clicked and they were always one step ahead of their opponents. Although in baseball because it is very much an individual sport this probably doesn't happen except in very very rare cases like the Rockies last year.

 

I've been on teams with some players that didn't get along, yet the team won. I've been on teams where everyone got along great, but the team didn't succeed. Chemistry doesn't necessarily make people hit better or pitch better, just like a lack of it doesn't necessarily make people go into slumps. I don't think a lack of team chemistry is causing Ramirez and Soto to slump, and when they eventually break out of it, it's not going to be a result of better team chemistry.

 

As you mentioned, baseball is a bit different than other team sports. Just because everything "clicked" for the Rockies, doesn't mean they had improved chemistry. Maybe their hits were coming at more opportune moments, an injured player got healthy, or a few more hops went their way.

[chopsx9]

IBL

 

and I prefer Theriot's .750 OPS because most of his is OBP, where most of Cedeno's will be SLG. Point for point, OBP>SLG, and that's even more true for having a productive team than it is a productive player.

 

 

Why is this OBP viewed as more important than SLG? By virtue of definition if you have a high slugging you are going to score runs. Unless you assume everyone gets thrown out at the plate. You can have a high OBP and not score runs. Obviously if you have a high OBP your slugging will be more effective.

 

The current Blue Jays are a perfect example of this: Essentialy tied for 5th in OBP (as high as 2nd earlier in the year) 12th in SLG and 11th in runs scored (3 out of 13th). This seems logical to me; especially if your OBP is weighted heavily with walks. The Sox and the Yanks are always touted for their high OBP but their slugging is always good as well.

 

The flip side of the 08 BJ's last year Texas was 6th in SLG, 5th in Runs and 11th in OBP.

 

I am asking out of a ligitimate interest. I always heard OBP was viewed as more important but when looking at the BJ's struggles this year noticed their relatively good OBP really wasn't helping them out. Hence my question. Any insightful comments would be appreciated.

[bukie]

Why is this OBP viewed as more important than SLG? By virtue of definition if you have a high slugging you are going to score runs. Unless you assume everyone gets thrown out at the plate. You can have a high OBP and not score runs. Obviously if you have a high OBP your slugging will be more effective.

 

The current Blue Jays are a perfect example of this: Essentialy tied for 5th in OBP (as high as 2nd earlier in the year) 12th in SLG and 11th in runs scored (3 out of 13th). This seems logical to me; especially if your OBP is weighted heavily with walks. The Sox and the Yanks are always touted for their high OBP but their slugging is always good as well.

 

The flip side of the 08 BJ's last year Texas was 6th in SLG, 5th in Runs and 11th in OBP.

 

I am asking out of a ligitimate interest. I always heard OBP was viewed as more important but when looking at the BJ's struggles this year noticed their relatively good OBP really wasn't helping them out. Hence my question. Any insightful comments would be appreciated.

 

The value of OBP is more significant than the value of SLG, simply because of the difference in the numbers. A perfect OBP is 1.000, while a perfect SLG is 4.000. In the same vein, a .450 OBP is much more impressive than a .450 SLG. Of course, teams need both to win, and power and discipline are both important factors. The fall-back argument on why the equivalent OBP is more impressive: would you rather have a team OBP of 1.000, or a team SLG of 1.000? Easy, the team OBP of 1.000 means you're never out.

 

Granted, the value of SLG is not 4 times more inflated than the value of OBP, either. Different people assign a different factor to equate the two, but I'm personally fond of a simple 1.5 factor right now (Recent years, it was inflated a bit by a league-wide power surge, but the gap has closed a bit). That is, OBP * 1.5 will be about the equivalent number of SLG. It's not technically that simple, but it'll find values that are essentially close enough:

 

.400 OBP = .600 SLG

.380 OBP = .570 SLG

.360 OBP = .540 SLG

.340 OBP = .510 SLG

.320 OBP = .480 SLG

[chopsx9]

I understand the comparison of the actual numbers to each other and that doing so is a little bit apples and oranges, but that is not really what I was getting at.

 

Looking at the team numbers it appears that a better than average team SLG (without a corresponding OBP total) leads to a roughly equivalent better than average run scored total. The same does not appear to happen with a better than average OBP (with a lower corresponding SLG total). Looking at that would lead me to think that SLG is more important; which is not the conventional wisdom. I am obviously assuming more runs is better which I don't think is an issue.

[imb]

is anyone not praising Theriot? I have my doubts that he can keep it up, if not for the rest of this year, at least for next year and onwards, but he's been a godsend so far.

[nilodnayr]

I understand the comparison of the actual numbers to each other and that doing so is a little bit apples and oranges, but that is not really what I was getting at.

 

Looking at the team numbers it appears that a better than average team SLG (without a corresponding OBP total) leads to a roughly equivalent better than average run scored total. The same does not appear to happen with a better than average OBP (with a lower corresponding SLG total). Looking at that would lead me to think that SLG is more important; which is not the conventional wisdom. I am obviously assuming more runs is better which I don't think is an issue.

 

I think what is meant is that in the vein of OPS, OBP and SLG are weighed equally, but they do not have equal value. Its been said that a true value would need to multiply OBP by 1.8.

 

So Theriot, being a 402/383 (784 OPS) guy compared to say, Peralta who is a 307/486 (793 OPS) is actually better than Peralta despite his OPS being worse. If you multiply OBP by 1.8, Theriot has a 1107 adjusted OPS, and Peralta has a 1039 adjusted OPS.

 

Tango created wOBA that does a better job than OPS by using run values of events. Comparing the two, Theriot has a 355 wOBA, whereas Peralta has a 336 wOBA.

 

Slugging is really important, don't get me wrong, and I've been railing against Theriot for having a terrible terrible terrible IsoP (worst in the league before yesterday, thanks Gregor Blanco!), but that doesn't mean he hasn't been an above average player. Now, that doesn't mean that he'll be able to continue to produce above average results.

[MasterBlaster]

Saying that, the topic is about praising Theriot.

Not really. The topic is about a new poster coming on with an in-your-face "I told you so" message to people who criticized Theriot in the past.

Yeah you are right about that. I still think Theriot deserves a good thread though.

[CubbieBum]

Saying that, the topic is about praising Theriot.

Not really. The topic is about a new poster coming on with an in-your-face "I told you so" message to people who criticized Theriot in the past.

Yeah you are right about that. I still think Theriot deserves a good thread though.

 

he has had one all season with my Theriot appreciation thread

[NCCubFan]

is anyone not praising Theriot?

Oh, I'm definitely happy with Theriot this year. Fontenot too, for that matter. They have both been unexpected surprises.

[Amazing_Grace]

Why is this OBP viewed as more important than SLG? By virtue of definition if you have a high slugging you are going to score runs. Unless you assume everyone gets thrown out at the plate. You can have a high OBP and not score runs. Obviously if you have a high OBP your slugging will be more effective.

 

The current Blue Jays are a perfect example of this: Essentialy tied for 5th in OBP (as high as 2nd earlier in the year) 12th in SLG and 11th in runs scored (3 out of 13th). This seems logical to me; especially if your OBP is weighted heavily with walks. The Sox and the Yanks are always touted for their high OBP but their slugging is always good as well.

 

The flip side of the 08 BJ's last year Texas was 6th in SLG, 5th in Runs and 11th in OBP.

 

I am asking out of a ligitimate interest. I always heard OBP was viewed as more important but when looking at the BJ's struggles this year noticed their relatively good OBP really wasn't helping them out. Hence my question. Any insightful comments would be appreciated.

 

The value of OBP is more significant than the value of SLG, simply because of the difference in the numbers. A perfect OBP is 1.000, while a perfect SLG is 4.000. In the same vein, a .450 OBP is much more impressive than a .450 SLG. Of course, teams need both to win, and power and discipline are both important factors. The fall-back argument on why the equivalent OBP is more impressive: would you rather have a team OBP of 1.000, or a team SLG of 1.000? Easy, the team OBP of 1.000 means you're never out.

 

Granted, the value of SLG is not 4 times more inflated than the value of OBP, either. Different people assign a different factor to equate the two, but I'm personally fond of a simple 1.5 factor right now (Recent years, it was inflated a bit by a league-wide power surge, but the gap has closed a bit). That is, OBP * 1.5 will be about the equivalent number of SLG. It's not technically that simple, but it'll find values that are essentially close enough:

 

.400 OBP = .600 SLG

.380 OBP = .570 SLG

.360 OBP = .540 SLG

.340 OBP = .510 SLG

.320 OBP = .480 SLG

 

This is why I said "point for point". It takes more than one point of SLG to equal one point of OBP. Mathematically, it takes 4. In terms of evaluating individual players, 1.5 is as good an estimate as any.

 

OBP is more valuable as a team statistic because the number of outs in a season is fixed, but the number of TPA is not fixed. I have 3 outs x the number of innings, which because of extra inning games and not batting in the bottom of the 9th at home, varies slightly, but either way, there's no way for me to get more outs than 3xInnings batted. I can, however, get more TPA by increasing my OBP because TPA=Outs+"Not Outs" (yes I made that word up), and "Not Outs"=TPA*OBP. I'll spare you the math, but moving the numbers around, you get TPA=Outs/(1-OBP). As you can see, as OBP goes up, TPA goes up as well. It then becomes obvious why this is so important. OBP increases the number of opportunities for something good to happen over a season, while simultaneously increasing the chance something good will happen in any particular AB. That's without even considering arguably more important effects like forcing a starter to throw a lot of pitches and getting into the pen sooner. SLG doesn't have the same sort of effect. It simply measures how affective a particular player is likely to be given a single AB. It is an excellent tool for comparing individual players, but does not have as profound a significance on the team level.

[chopsx9]

Why is this OBP viewed as more important than SLG? By virtue of definition if you have a high slugging you are going to score runs. Unless you assume everyone gets thrown out at the plate. You can have a high OBP and not score runs. Obviously if you have a high OBP your slugging will be more effective.

 

The current Blue Jays are a perfect example of this: Essentialy tied for 5th in OBP (as high as 2nd earlier in the year) 12th in SLG and 11th in runs scored (3 out of 13th). This seems logical to me; especially if your OBP is weighted heavily with walks. The Sox and the Yanks are always touted for their high OBP but their slugging is always good as well.

 

The flip side of the 08 BJ's last year Texas was 6th in SLG, 5th in Runs and 11th in OBP.

 

I am asking out of a ligitimate interest. I always heard OBP was viewed as more important but when looking at the BJ's struggles this year noticed their relatively good OBP really wasn't helping them out. Hence my question. Any insightful comments would be appreciated.

 

The value of OBP is more significant than the value of SLG, simply because of the difference in the numbers. A perfect OBP is 1.000, while a perfect SLG is 4.000. In the same vein, a .450 OBP is much more impressive than a .450 SLG. Of course, teams need both to win, and power and discipline are both important factors. The fall-back argument on why the equivalent OBP is more impressive: would you rather have a team OBP of 1.000, or a team SLG of 1.000? Easy, the team OBP of 1.000 means you're never out.

 

Granted, the value of SLG is not 4 times more inflated than the value of OBP, either. Different people assign a different factor to equate the two, but I'm personally fond of a simple 1.5 factor right now (Recent years, it was inflated a bit by a league-wide power surge, but the gap has closed a bit). That is, OBP * 1.5 will be about the equivalent number of SLG. It's not technically that simple, but it'll find values that are essentially close enough:

 

.400 OBP = .600 SLG

.380 OBP = .570 SLG

.360 OBP = .540 SLG

.340 OBP = .510 SLG

.320 OBP = .480 SLG

 

This is why I said "point for point". It takes more than one point of SLG to equal one point of OBP. Mathematically, it takes 4. In terms of evaluating individual players, 1.5 is as good an estimate as any.

 

OBP is more valuable as a team statistic because the number of outs in a season is fixed, but the number of TPA is not fixed. I have 3 outs x the number of innings, which because of extra inning games and not batting in the bottom of the 9th at home, varies slightly, but either way, there's no way for me to get more outs than 3xInnings batted. I can, however, get more TPA by increasing my OBP because TPA=Outs+"Not Outs" (yes I made that word up), and "Not Outs"=TPA*OBP. I'll spare you the math, but moving the numbers around, you get TPA=Outs/(1-OBP). As you can see, as OBP goes up, TPA goes up as well. It then becomes obvious why this is so important. OBP increases the number of opportunities for something good to happen over a season, while simultaneously increasing the chance something good will happen in any particular AB. That's without even considering arguably more important effects like forcing a starter to throw a lot of pitches and getting into the pen sooner. SLG doesn't have the same sort of effect. It simply measures how affective a particular player is likely to be given a single AB. It is an excellent tool for comparing individual players, but does not have as profound a significance on the team level.

 

 

But does your TPAs not go up with slugging as well? You have to have gotten on base to have a slugging percentage. In addition you have to have gotten on base via a hit and a high SLG means you are getting exta base hits. In addition many of the anciliary effects, because again you are still getting on base, would be the same, I think, and players are more likely to be in scoring position (or in case of a HR already scored) putting even greater pressure on the pitcher.