Juan Pierre vs. Jerry Hairston in Last 20 Starts

[wilk]

Yes, the old Runners in Scoring Position. Very, Very important for a leadoff hitter. :^o

#-o

 

Yes, the old Ignore everything else to condescendingly point out ONE stat and assume that it's not a situation you'd have to worry about for a leadoff hitter. So no comments about the rest? Still going to ignore all that and yet somehow claim that everyone else ignores the facts? Sorry, I don't quite understand that attitude. The problem is that RISP is not the only difference, it's one of many. And that's fine if you guys want to ignore situational stats. But I guess just the same it's fine that people want to ignore what he did in his "career" opposed to the old "what have you done for me lately." Then I guess we have to consider HOW much "lately"? My point was never to say that Pro-Pierre is wrong. It was to say that you jumping to conclusions that Anti-Pierre is "ignoring facts" is blatantly incorrect - it's just a matter of which stats you choose to ignore. I guess it's been proven to be a pretty hypocritical statement too. Oh well.

[AAApittsburgh]

In a leadoff hitter who plays CF I value pretty much two things:

OBP and defense. To a lesser extent, I think Ks and speed are important as well. This sort of guy can usually change the look of a lineup. Its hard to describe - an intangible thing. But I think history bears out that if you have a "table setter" at the top, it strengthens your lineup. Guys like Posednik, Vince Coleman, Kenny Lofton, etc. illustrate this, IMO.

When it comes to judging a player, those intangibles shouldn't be the first thing to look at though. If the guy can run fast and play good defense, that's great. It's a bonus. Cubs actually scored less runs with Lofton at the top, and I don't see how Coleman helped his teams a lot with that .324 OBP. You can't steal 1B. :wink:

[ZZ Thorn]

Do it. Make it happen.

 

IMO, folks that don't like Pierre on this board typically don't appreciate that style of baseball I have found. Usually the same folks that don't appreciate Ichiro or Eckstein either.

 

I think you have something.

 

Thirded.

 

Some people still undervalue Scott Podsednik, who is the white, less accomplished Juan Pierre with a better SB rate, but he's the MVP of the White Sox to this point.

[ZZ Thorn]

In a leadoff hitter who plays CF I value pretty much two things:

OBP and defense. To a lesser extent, I think Ks and speed are important as well. This sort of guy can usually change the look of a lineup. Its hard to describe - an intangible thing. But I think history bears out that if you have a "table setter" at the top, it strengthens your lineup. Guys like Posednik, Vince Coleman, Kenny Lofton, etc. illustrate this, IMO.

When it comes to judging a player, those intangibles shouldn't be the first thing to look at though. If the guy can run fast and play good defense, that's great. It's a bonus. Cubs actually scored less runs with Lofton at the top, and I don't see how Coleman helped his teams a lot with that .324 OBP. You can't steal 1B. :wink:

 

But you can steal second and third, as he often did.

 

The '04 team scored runs in bunches, often going several games with 1-2 runs then exploding for 10. When Lofton was here we were much more consistent. You need to check (or create) a Team Runs Consistency stat.

[wilk]

some people (like me) don't value those situational stats at all

 

You can't just lump all situational stats into a category to dismiss. I mean, technically, all statistics are situational. I definitely wouldn't consider career situational splits like RISP, or men on with 2 outs to show any discernable talent for such situations - but how they perform in various splits *this year* still stands to tell part of the story (especially when the difference is significant to his total season numbers.) From year to year these numbers can drastically change - but from month to month your offensive numbers can change drastically while situational splits remain pretty similar. I'd say that has to mean SOMETHING? I don't believe there are clutch hitters - there are only clutch hits. But hitters can have quite a difference "situationally" in their approach and by that the result. Like I said before, if it were the only difference it wouldn't make or break the deal for me. In fact, I'd be much more concerned with this away numbers and the fact that Wrigley isn't exactly built for his type of game. He has struggled in many aspects of his game this year. What's there to say that he'd goto Wrigley and perform better? Gut feeling?

[treebird]

some people (like me) don't value those situational stats at all

 

You can't just lump all situational stats into a category to dismiss. I mean, technically, all statistics are situational. I definitely wouldn't consider career situational splits like RISP, or men on with 2 outs to show any discernable talent for such situations - but how they perform in various splits *this year* still stands to tell part of the story (especially when the difference is significant to his total season numbers.) From year to year these numbers can drastically change - but from month to month your offensive numbers can change drastically while situational splits remain pretty similar. I'd say that has to mean SOMETHING? I don't believe there are clutch hitters - there are only clutch hits. But hitters can have quite a difference "situationally" in their approach and by that the result. Like I said before, if it were the only difference it wouldn't make or break the deal for me. In fact, I'd be much more concerned with this away numbers and the fact that Wrigley isn't exactly built for his type of game. He has struggled in many aspects of his game this year. What's there to say that he'd goto Wrigley and perform better? Gut feeling?

 

so if juan pierre were 6 for 9 this month with risp, youd want him more?

[RynoRules]

In a leadoff hitter who plays CF I value pretty much two things:

OBP and defense. To a lesser extent, I think Ks and speed are important as well. This sort of guy can usually change the look of a lineup. Its hard to describe - an intangible thing. But I think history bears out that if you have a "table setter" at the top, it strengthens your lineup. Guys like Posednik, Vince Coleman, Kenny Lofton, etc. illustrate this, IMO.

When it comes to judging a player, those intangibles shouldn't be the first thing to look at though. If the guy can run fast and play good defense, that's great. It's a bonus. Cubs actually scored less runs with Lofton at the top, and I don't see how Coleman helped his teams a lot with that .324 OBP. You can't steal 1B. :wink:

 

But you can steal second and third, as he often did.

 

The '04 team scored runs in bunches, often going several games with 1-2 runs then exploding for 10. When Lofton was here we were much more consistent. You need to check (or create) a Team Runs Consistency stat.

 

That's pretty much what I meant, thanks ZZ. And, again, OBP isn't the only measure. Measure the team's productivity in general. The Sox, who don't have any consistency in the middle of their order, are, IMO, getting by in large part due to what they have at the top. The old Cards teams of the mid-80s were built on Coleman and Ozzie setting the table. They had almost no real power behind them, sans Jack Clark. Look up and down at the best teams of the last 25 years, and I would bet most of them had good leadoff hitters in the mold of the Posednicks, Loftons, and Colemans.

 

Again, not an absolute, but generally helpful and a sign of a winning team.

[wilk]

Why do discussions like this always come to such narrow assumptions and ignoring the actual gist of the point? When did I ever sum up my argument as RISP? It was one of many of my points and yet the only one anyone is focusing on.

 

so if juan pierre were 6 for 9 this month with risp, youd want him more?

 

Like I said before, if [RISP] were the only difference it wouldn't make or break the deal for me.

 

So... No. Considering ~100 at-bats wouldn't make the decision for me, I think it's safe to assume 9 at-bats wouldn't change my opinion either. I thought my post laid out my opinion pretty clearly. Sheesh.

 

He has struggled in many aspects of his game this year. What's there to say that he'd goto Wrigley and perform better? Gut feeling?

[Geech]

But you can steal second and third, as he often did.

 

The '04 team scored runs in bunches, often going several games with 1-2 runs then exploding for 10. When Lofton was here we were much more consistent. You need to check (or create) a Team Runs Consistency stat.

 

BK actually did a study on this and found that small ball teams don't really score runs more consistently than long ball teams. He just found that they tend to score fewer runs.

[treebird]

But you can steal second and third, as he often did.

 

The '04 team scored runs in bunches, often going several games with 1-2 runs then exploding for 10. When Lofton was here we were much more consistent. You need to check (or create) a Team Runs Consistency stat.

 

BK actually did a study on this and found that small ball teams don't really score runs more consistently than long ball teams. He just found that they tend to score fewer runs.

 

geech past 1000!

[David]

But you can steal second and third, as he often did.

 

The '04 team scored runs in bunches, often going several games with 1-2 runs then exploding for 10. When Lofton was here we were much more consistent. You need to check (or create) a Team Runs Consistency stat.

 

BK actually did a study on this and found that small ball teams don't really score runs more consistently than long ball teams. He just found that they tend to score fewer runs.

 

I love it... :D :lol:

[Geech]

But you can steal second and third, as he often did.

 

The '04 team scored runs in bunches, often going several games with 1-2 runs then exploding for 10. When Lofton was here we were much more consistent. You need to check (or create) a Team Runs Consistency stat.

 

BK actually did a study on this and found that small ball teams don't really score runs more consistently than long ball teams. He just found that they tend to score fewer runs.

 

geech past 1000!

 

I know, it's crazy. I've clearly let myself be drawn into posting all too often lately.

[CubfaninCA]

Jerry Hairston's last 20 starts range from June 15 through July 21.

 

In those starts: 85 plate appearances, 25 times on base, .294 OBP

 

Juan Pierre's last 20 starts range from June 28 through July 20.

 

In those starts: 96 plate appearances, 38 times on base, .396 OBP

 

That's a 100 point advantage in favor of Pierre. I'm warming up to the notion that trading for Pierre would actually be a good thing. Hairston has been awful. Add those numbers to the fact that Baker and Hendry don't think he's all that smart, it kind of looks like he should be moved.

 

Hairston and a pitching prospect for Pierre?

 

 

Hoops

 

Maybe he's starting to catch up to his obp average over the past 3 years, which iirc is .357. It's nothing spectacular, but he does bring the dimension of speed, and seems like quite a defensive upgrade over Hairston. Would be nice to catch some lightning in the bottle ala Kenny Lofton 03. :)

[ZZ Thorn]

But you can steal second and third, as he often did.

 

The '04 team scored runs in bunches, often going several games with 1-2 runs then exploding for 10. When Lofton was here we were much more consistent. You need to check (or create) a Team Runs Consistency stat.

 

BK actually did a study on this and found that small ball teams don't really score runs more consistently than long ball teams. He just found that they tend to score fewer runs.

 

Well empirical generalizations are interesting, but that doesn't mean they apply to every situation - as the word 'generalization' implies.

 

I know I watched the Cubs very closely - and when we had Lofton we scored more consistently from game to game than we did in '04, with a team that lead the NL in home runs. Emprically the 2004 Cubs were one run better in total offense, but that just proves how statistics can be misleading and fail to take many factors into account.

 

If you want to talk about how it's best to have your 1-8 hitters hit 60 home runs apiece as compared with a small ball team, I'd agree, but in real life situations, not in the airless and overconfident void of statistics, having balance to the lineup is a real-world neccesity. I'd like to see a real leadoff hitter like Pierre or Podsednik on the Cubs team to provide balance since we have holes and don't have 8 Babe Ruths and never will.

 

When I think of 'small ball' I don't think of a team that scores a lot of runs, I think of a team that tries to be the most efficient and takes advantage of every opportunity, which results in more consistency, and which (for which there is no stat for) is a more tenacious team to face 3 times in a row.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

But you can steal second and third, as he often did.

 

The '04 team scored runs in bunches, often going several games with 1-2 runs then exploding for 10. When Lofton was here we were much more consistent. You need to check (or create) a Team Runs Consistency stat.

 

BK actually did a study on this and found that small ball teams don't really score runs more consistently than long ball teams. He just found that they tend to score fewer runs.

 

Well empirical generalizations are interesting, but that doesn't mean they apply to every situation - as the word 'generalization' implies.

 

I know I watched the Cubs very closely - and when we had Lofton we scored more consistently from game to game than we did in '04, with a team that lead the NL in home runs. Emprically the 2004 Cubs were one run better in total offense, but that just proves how statistics can be misleading and fail to take many factors into account.

 

If you want to talk about how it's best to have your 1-8 hitters hit 60 home runs apiece as compared with a small ball team, I'd agree, but in real life situations, not in the airless and overconfident void of statistics, having balance to the lineup is a real-world neccesity. I'd like to see a real leadoff hitter like Pierre or Podsednik on the Cubs team to provide balance since we have holes and don't have 8 Babe Ruths and never will.

 

When I think of 'small ball' I don't think of a team that scores a lot of runs, I think of a team that tries to be the most efficient and takes advantage of every opportunity, which results in more consistency, and which (for which there is no stat for) is a more tenacious team to face 3 times in a row.

 

If you're thinking about the same type of 'small ball' I am(sacrifices, advancing runners, stealing bases, 'situational hitting') that is actually a much less efficient way of offense.

[ZZ Thorn]

Well, that's a generalization, it really depends on who's on your team. The Cardinals of the '80s wouldn't have been successful swinging for the fences would they?

 

I don't think every batter having the same approach works well tho - different players have to fill different roles to make the team well-rounded, which over the course of 162 games seems vital to me. Over 162 games, every weakness will be thoroughly exposed and exploited.

[TheDude]

But you can steal second and third, as he often did.

 

The '04 team scored runs in bunches, often going several games with 1-2 runs then exploding for 10. When Lofton was here we were much more consistent. You need to check (or create) a Team Runs Consistency stat.

 

BK actually did a study on this and found that small ball teams don't really score runs more consistently than long ball teams. He just found that they tend to score fewer runs.

I'd have to go back and check, but I recall the study showing clearly that in one run games, smallball was advantageous. He came to the conclusion that the advantage was insignificant because there was a small % chance the correlation was not linked.

 

But the advantage is significant and the numbers show it.

 

And once again people forget that teams do not play small ball the entire game. It is situational baseball. It's fundamentals. You do not go out there in the first inning and bunt the first runner over. I don't understand why anti-smallball people always forget that.

 

The only time you play smallball is in close games. And it is not surprising the numbers show us that is the only time teams score more often while using smallball.

[Warpticon]

I'm not understanding the emphasis people are putting on strikeout comparisons. We're talking about LEADOFF HITTERS. They'll be coming up with nobody on an absurd percentage of the time. That's when it ABSOLUTELY doesn't matter how an out is made, so why not compare actual production?

[Guest]

But you can steal second and third, as he often did.

 

The '04 team scored runs in bunches, often going several games with 1-2 runs then exploding for 10. When Lofton was here we were much more consistent. You need to check (or create) a Team Runs Consistency stat.

 

BK actually did a study on this and found that small ball teams don't really score runs more consistently than long ball teams. He just found that they tend to score fewer runs.

I'd have to go back and check, but I recall the study showing clearly that in one run games, smallball was advantageous. He came to the conclusion that the advantage was insignificant because there was a small % chance the correlation was not linked.

 

But the advantage is significant and the numbers show it.

 

And once again people forget that teams do not play small ball the entire game. It is situational baseball. It's fundamentals. You do not go out there in the first inning and bunt the first runner over. I don't understand why anti-smallball people always forget that.

 

The only time you play smallball is in close games. And it is not surprising the numbers show us that is the only time teams score more often while using smallball.

A helpful graph from the actual study:

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Articles/Images/small_ball_image004_0000.gif

About the only thing more consistent about the small-ball teams in my study was that they avoided shutouts better than the big-ball teams. Avoiding shutouts won't win your team many games unless your pitching staff is comprised entirely of guys like Walter Johnson and Bob Gibson. Seeing as we live in an era where most teams score 4-5 runs a game, a team needs to be able to put together some high-scoring games in order to win a lot of them. Small-ball isn't conducive to that, so it's not a wise strategy choice in the modern era. If the mound ever gets re-raised or they go back to using spongy brown baseballs a shift back to the Cobbian style may be in order, but for now I'd say the Ruthian model is definitely the way to go.

 

As far as the situational nature of small-ball, I agree there are some times where it makes sense to play for one run. When discussing player acquisition, however, we need to decide if sound fundamentals and an ability to lay down a bunt is high on the priority list. Given how inoften it makes sense to employ such strategies, those player skills should be a secondary consideration at best. A player with high overall production but with limited small-ball skills will help your team much more (not to mention more often) than a player with good "fundamentals" with lower overall production numbers.

[TheDude]

Thank you. Your graph only solidifies precisely what I just said, though your comments mostly ignored the point I made.

 

The time for smallball is situational, and in the situation where you need one run, it is more effective.

 

No advocates for Pierre are suggesting that the Cubs develop a team-wide strategy for smallball. I have said this at least a dozen times, but it nevers seems to stick in anti-smallballers' minds. Somehow, acquiring one player who excels at smallball equates to a team-wide strategy.

 

So, I'll reiterate, again, that acquiring one player with outstanding smallball skills does not make an entire team into a smallball team. The Cubs have 30-40 HR sluggers at 3-5 in the lineup. They have 20-25 HR potential at 2, 6, and 7 (When Nomar's healthy). The power is already in place. Only LF and CF on the roster currently lack better than mid-teens HR potential. That is awesome.

 

But, the Cubs are woeful at fundamentals. They lose many close games from lack of fundamentals. Pierre brings fundamentals, some of the best in baseball actually, and maybe his work ethic becomes contagious.

 

I want Pierre to give the Cubs some sense of balance. Balance wins in sports. Is it really so bad to bring balance to a team that is lop-sided offensively? Anybody notice that the teams with the best record in each league sport some of this balance?

[RynoRules]

How did this become an argument about the relative goodness of "small ball"? My point was only that guys like Pierre, Lofton, and Posednik tend to have a positive effect on the guys hitting behind them, no matter if they "small ballers" or the NL's top HR-hitting team (the Cubs).

[UK1679666180]

To make a trade worthwhile....

 

1)The player has to be avail.

2)The player has to be productive.

3)The player(s) req'd to get him have to be a fait offer for that projected production.

4)The upcoming salary for that player has to be a fair contract.

 

1)I think Pierre might be avail., I don't think Florida is looking to unload him, but if the right offer came they consider it. I think teams like Cincy or Seattle might be more willing to trade an OF'er at this stage, given Cincy's surplus and Seattle's minor leaguers (Snelling, Choo).

 

2)Pierre has been productive enough to merit trading for.

 

3)Pierre won't likely be worth what is req'd to get him, I think Florida is in a position to wait till an overwhelming offer. They don't have a prospect waiting in the wings, they could unload another player who is currently overvalued who also plays in the OF (Encarnacion).

 

4)Pierre will get a fair raise this off-season, he's close to FA, and will be looking a long-term contract or FA.

[CubfaninCA]

Getting Pierre would be a classic Trib/Hendry move. I hope they get him and sign him to a 3-4 year deal. He could be pressing this year cause it's his contract year. Thus is performance hasn't been as good as past seasons. He's only 27, so perhaps he can become a .370 obp guy. If the Cubs eventually have Pierre and Pie in the OF, they'd save lots of runs through the season. Not much will get by them.

 

Anyone like the idea of Patterson for Pierre?? Perhaps Mota could get thrown into a larger trade??

[RynoRules]

I'd do CPatt and Welly for Pierre and Mota in two shakes of a lambs tail. Classic "change of scenery" deal. Would FL do it?

[CubinNY]

Thank you. Your graph only solidifies precisely what I just said, though your comments mostly ignored the point I made.

 

The time for smallball is situational, and in the situation where you need one run, it is more effective.

 

No advocates for Pierre are suggesting that the Cubs develop a team-wide strategy for smallball. I have said this at least a dozen times, but it nevers seems to stick in anti-smallballers' minds. Somehow, acquiring one player who excels at smallball equates to a team-wide strategy.

 

So, I'll reiterate, again, that acquiring one player with outstanding smallball skills does not make an entire team into a smallball team. The Cubs have 30-40 HR sluggers at 3-5 in the lineup. They have 20-25 HR potential at 2, 6, and 7 (When Nomar's healthy). The power is already in place. Only LF and CF on the roster currently lack better than mid-teens HR potential. That is awesome.

 

But, the Cubs are woeful at fundamentals. They lose many close games from lack of fundamentals. Pierre brings fundamentals, some of the best in baseball actually, and maybe his work ethic becomes contagious.

 

I want Pierre to give the Cubs some sense of balance. Balance wins in sports. Is it really so bad to bring balance to a team that is lop-sided offensively? Anybody notice that the teams with the best record in each league sport some of this balance?

Dude, BK actually showed what you were saying to be non-factual. How about trying to insert some facts into your theory?

 

Balance to the force is for movies.

 

Present a plausable case for what fundamental skills Pierre would bring. He takes bad routs to balls but is able to make up for it by his speed (sometimes). It has already been demonstrated that his OBP is negatively affected by his CS. That doesn't "sound" fundamentally sound to me.

 

Pierre will cost too much in money and prospects for my taste.