Juan Pierre vs. Jerry Hairston in Last 20 Starts

[TB_11]

Thre's two anti-Pierre stances, and they're not mutually exclusive:

 

1) Pierre is in general overvalued by everyone, since his skills don't translate into generating runs on the offensive end as much as everyone thinks and similarly preventing runs on the defensive end - the Marlins will ask too much for him

 

2) It's a light FA market this year, so the Marlins will ask for too much for Pierre

 

Both are true, IMHO. The stats don't back up that Pierre is a great leadoff hitter (regardless of the comparison to Hairston) - his career OBP of .356 is decent, but is reduced by how often he gets caught stealing. His career SB rate is too low to be considered beneficial to his team. His defense is good, but not great due to his bad routes as CubinNY pointed out.

 

If you're pro-Pierre based on intangibles, I'll respectfully disagree with you. Knowing you'll have to face Derrek and Aramis is reason enough to cause unease in any pitcher, regardless if Juan Pierre is on first base. IMO, if Pierre wasn't on the 2003 Marlins, noone would be having this 'intangibles' discussion about him. Intangibles are a way sportscasters explain why a team is winning by pointing to the most marketable of the players so the masses will 'understand' baseball.

 

You can't compare Pierre to what we have in CF and say because Pierre might be an improvement, we should get him. Compare him to what we would have to give up to get him. I can't see a scenario where the Marlins will only ask for a top-level prospect (my personal limit for what we should have to give up to get Pierre).

 

On a side note, if you think that Podsednik is the MVP of the White Sox because of the 'commotion' he causes on the basepaths, I'd encourage you to apologize to Mark Buehrle.

[CubfaninCA]

Thre's two anti-Pierre stances, and they're not mutually exclusive:

 

1) Pierre is in general overvalued by everyone, since his skills don't translate into generating runs on the offensive end as much as everyone thinks and similarly preventing runs on the defensive end - the Marlins will ask too much for him

 

2) It's a light FA market this year, so the Marlins will ask for too much for Pierre

 

Both are true, IMHO. The stats don't back up that Pierre is a great leadoff hitter (regardless of the comparison to Hairston) - his career OBP of .356 is decent, but is reduced by how often he gets caught stealing. His career SB rate is too low to be considered beneficial to his team. His defense is good, but not great due to his bad routes as CubinNY pointed out.

 

If you're pro-Pierre based on intangibles, I'll respectfully disagree with you. Knowing you'll have to face Derrek and Aramis is reason enough to cause unease in any pitcher, regardless if Juan Pierre is on first base. IMO, if Pierre wasn't on the 2003 Marlins, noone would be having this 'intangibles' discussion about him. Intangibles are a way sportscasters explain why a team is winning by pointing to the most marketable of the players so the masses will 'understand' baseball.

 

You can't compare Pierre to what we have in CF and say because Pierre might be an improvement, we should get him. Compare him to what we would have to give up to get him. I can't see a scenario where the Marlins will only ask for a top-level prospect (my personal limit for what we should have to give up to get Pierre).

 

On a side note, if you think that Podsednik is the MVP of the White Sox because of the 'commotion' he causes on the basepaths, I'd encourage you to apologize to Mark Buehrle.

 

Just curious... Were you ever a pitcher?? I'd like to see opinion from those who've actually pitched. For the record, I pitched about 3 innings in my life. I had no control. :D

[TB_11]

Thre's two anti-Pierre stances, and they're not mutually exclusive:

 

1) Pierre is in general overvalued by everyone, since his skills don't translate into generating runs on the offensive end as much as everyone thinks and similarly preventing runs on the defensive end - the Marlins will ask too much for him

 

2) It's a light FA market this year, so the Marlins will ask for too much for Pierre

 

Both are true, IMHO. The stats don't back up that Pierre is a great leadoff hitter (regardless of the comparison to Hairston) - his career OBP of .356 is decent, but is reduced by how often he gets caught stealing. His career SB rate is too low to be considered beneficial to his team. His defense is good, but not great due to his bad routes as CubinNY pointed out.

 

If you're pro-Pierre based on intangibles, I'll respectfully disagree with you. Knowing you'll have to face Derrek and Aramis is reason enough to cause unease in any pitcher, regardless if Juan Pierre is on first base. IMO, if Pierre wasn't on the 2003 Marlins, noone would be having this 'intangibles' discussion about him. Intangibles are a way sportscasters explain why a team is winning by pointing to the most marketable of the players so the masses will 'understand' baseball.

 

You can't compare Pierre to what we have in CF and say because Pierre might be an improvement, we should get him. Compare him to what we would have to give up to get him. I can't see a scenario where the Marlins will only ask for a top-level prospect (my personal limit for what we should have to give up to get Pierre).

 

On a side note, if you think that Podsednik is the MVP of the White Sox because of the 'commotion' he causes on the basepaths, I'd encourage you to apologize to Mark Buehrle.

 

Just curious... Were you ever a pitcher?? I'd like to see opinion from those who've actually pitched. For the record, I pitched about 3 innings in my life. I had no control. :D

 

I played all the way through high school and pitched during that time, too. I wasn't great but good enough to keep starting. I never developed a slider - it never really slid and was a fastball that I threw 10 mph slower than my regular fastball, meaning it ended up over the fence more often that not. I had to rely on fastball/curve/changeup as my arsenal. Take it for what it's worth.

[CubfaninCA]

Thre's two anti-Pierre stances, and they're not mutually exclusive:

 

1) Pierre is in general overvalued by everyone, since his skills don't translate into generating runs on the offensive end as much as everyone thinks and similarly preventing runs on the defensive end - the Marlins will ask too much for him

 

2) It's a light FA market this year, so the Marlins will ask for too much for Pierre

 

Both are true, IMHO. The stats don't back up that Pierre is a great leadoff hitter (regardless of the comparison to Hairston) - his career OBP of .356 is decent, but is reduced by how often he gets caught stealing. His career SB rate is too low to be considered beneficial to his team. His defense is good, but not great due to his bad routes as CubinNY pointed out.

 

If you're pro-Pierre based on intangibles, I'll respectfully disagree with you. Knowing you'll have to face Derrek and Aramis is reason enough to cause unease in any pitcher, regardless if Juan Pierre is on first base. IMO, if Pierre wasn't on the 2003 Marlins, noone would be having this 'intangibles' discussion about him. Intangibles are a way sportscasters explain why a team is winning by pointing to the most marketable of the players so the masses will 'understand' baseball.

 

You can't compare Pierre to what we have in CF and say because Pierre might be an improvement, we should get him. Compare him to what we would have to give up to get him. I can't see a scenario where the Marlins will only ask for a top-level prospect (my personal limit for what we should have to give up to get Pierre).

 

On a side note, if you think that Podsednik is the MVP of the White Sox because of the 'commotion' he causes on the basepaths, I'd encourage you to apologize to Mark Buehrle.

 

Just curious... Were you ever a pitcher?? I'd like to see opinion from those who've actually pitched. For the record, I pitched about 3 innings in my life. I had no control. :D

 

I played all the way through high school and pitched during that time, too. I wasn't great but good enough to keep starting. I never developed a slider - it never really slid and was a fastball that I threw 10 mph slower than my regular fastball, meaning it ended up over the fence more often that not. I had to rely on fastball/curve/changeup as my arsenal. Take it for what it's worth.

 

So did speedy baserunners bother you at all? Just my guess, but if you poll major league pitchers they'll probably say they make adjustments when guys like Pierre are on base. Am guessing it throws them off their rhythm some.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So did speedy baserunners bother you at all? Just my guess, but if you poll major league pitchers they'll probably say they make adjustments when guys like Pierre are on base. Am guessing it throws them off their rhythm some.

 

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the pitcher is affected by Pierre being on the basepaths, causing that pitcher to perform worse. So, if Pierre is on the basepaths less often, like this year compared to previous years, then shouldn't players behind him also be performing below expectations because the pitcher is focused on them more often? Let's take a look at that.

 

Pierre hitting #1

 

2003: .302/.359/.370/.729 (667 PA's)

2004: .336/.382/.422/.804 (632 PA's)

2005: .272/.319/.357/.676 (385 PA's)

 

Luis Castillo hitting #2

 

2003: .325/.389/.406/.794 (590 PA's)

2004: .285/.372/.332/.704 (488 PA's)

2005: .333/.423/.415/.838 (271 PA's)

 

As you can see, Pierre's success seems to have the opposite effect on Castillo. Maybe it's an aberration, but it's certainly food for thought.

[UK1679666180]

It might impact some, it won't impact others, if that bothers a pitcher that much having a quick runner on 1B, I would assume he doesn't have the focus to get into the majors in the 1st place. Either that, or he needs some help with throwing out of the stretch. If a pitcher is focusing too much attention on that runner at 1B, I hope the team will correct that problem.

[stitchface]

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).

 

Can you support that stance? The Sox are scoring half a run less this year than last per game.

[CubsFan4Life]

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).

 

Can you support that stance? The Sox are scoring half a run less this year than last per game.

 

There can be games where you score 10 runs and then next day get shutout and still avg a higher RPG than teams that consistently score 5 rpg. It's all about consistency and that's what guys like Pod bring, that's a player that consitently finds ways to get on base and steal them, I don't care if you avg 10 rpg if you score all those runs in half your games played.

[RynoRules]

Support? How about their won-loss record. And my point was not that they are scoring more runs, just that their lineup seems to have benefited from SPod's presence at the top, and the team is winning.

[UK1679666180]

If the '04 Sox had the same pitching as they have this year both in the rotation and the pen, they would have easily made the playoffs as they are going to this year.

 

This is a similar argument to Lofton being one of the main reasons why the Cubs made the playoffs in '03. It was more improvements at 3B and pitching than Lofton over Patterson.

[stitchface]

They're winning because of pitching. There is no way their offense is better while scoring fewer runs per game.

[TB_11]

Thre's two anti-Pierre stances, and they're not mutually exclusive:

 

1) Pierre is in general overvalued by everyone, since his skills don't translate into generating runs on the offensive end as much as everyone thinks and similarly preventing runs on the defensive end - the Marlins will ask too much for him

 

2) It's a light FA market this year, so the Marlins will ask for too much for Pierre

 

Both are true, IMHO. The stats don't back up that Pierre is a great leadoff hitter (regardless of the comparison to Hairston) - his career OBP of .356 is decent, but is reduced by how often he gets caught stealing. His career SB rate is too low to be considered beneficial to his team. His defense is good, but not great due to his bad routes as CubinNY pointed out.

 

If you're pro-Pierre based on intangibles, I'll respectfully disagree with you. Knowing you'll have to face Derrek and Aramis is reason enough to cause unease in any pitcher, regardless if Juan Pierre is on first base. IMO, if Pierre wasn't on the 2003 Marlins, noone would be having this 'intangibles' discussion about him. Intangibles are a way sportscasters explain why a team is winning by pointing to the most marketable of the players so the masses will 'understand' baseball.

 

You can't compare Pierre to what we have in CF and say because Pierre might be an improvement, we should get him. Compare him to what we would have to give up to get him. I can't see a scenario where the Marlins will only ask for a top-level prospect (my personal limit for what we should have to give up to get Pierre).

 

On a side note, if you think that Podsednik is the MVP of the White Sox because of the 'commotion' he causes on the basepaths, I'd encourage you to apologize to Mark Buehrle.

 

Just curious... Were you ever a pitcher?? I'd like to see opinion from those who've actually pitched. For the record, I pitched about 3 innings in my life. I had no control. :D

 

I played all the way through high school and pitched during that time, too. I wasn't great but good enough to keep starting. I never developed a slider - it never really slid and was a fastball that I threw 10 mph slower than my regular fastball, meaning it ended up over the fence more often that not. I had to rely on fastball/curve/changeup as my arsenal. Take it for what it's worth.

 

So did speedy baserunners bother you at all? Just my guess, but if you poll major league pitchers they'll probably say they make adjustments when guys like Pierre are on base. Am guessing it throws them off their rhythm some.

 

It didn't impact me when speedy baserunners were on, as much as when any baserunners were on. Like most MLB pitchers, I preferred to pitch out of the windup as opposed to the stretch. I'd imagine it doesn't matter so much as if it's Juan Pierre or Matt Stairs on base, as much as if anyone is on base.

 

PS - I feel like Rob Neyer with all those italics.

[TB_11]

Support? How about their won-loss record. And my point was not that they are scoring more runs, just that their lineup seems to have benefited from SPod's presence at the top, and the team is winning.

 

Again, the Sox improvement in record between 2004 and 2005 is due first and foremost to their pitching. Their team ERA so far this year is 3.63, last year for the full year it was 4.91. They're scoring a half a run less per game than last year. Point to Podsednik if you want, but the statistics do nothing to support that stance.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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).

 

Can you support that stance? The Sox are scoring half a run less this year than last per game.

 

There can be games where you score 10 runs and then next day get shutout and still avg a higher RPG than teams that consistently score 5 rpg. It's all about consistency and that's what guys like Pod bring, that's a player that consitently finds ways to get on base and steal them, I don't care if you avg 10 rpg if you score all those runs in half your games played.

 

It's too late to start now, but tomorrow or at the next opportunity, I'm testing this theory.

[stitchface]

Should be straight forward enough CP - find the standard deviation. I did a quick check and found that in 64 of their 95 games, the sox have scored 3 or less or 6 or more.

[TB_11]

Should be straight forward enough CP - find the standard deviation. I did a quick check and found that in 64 of their 95 games, the sox have scored 3 or less or 6 or more.

 

How does that compare with other teams this year, and other teams in previous years?

[UK1679666180]

CP, it's true. I did a study on that a couple of years ago when comparing their actual record to their pythag. record. The teams that had 6 or more actual wins over their pythag, typically had two things in common; a lower deviation rate w/runs scored and a higher one with runs allowed. The exact opposite occured when teams had 6 or less wins than their pythag. record.

[stitchface]

CP, it's true. I did a study on that a couple of years ago when comparing their actual record to their pythag. record. The teams that had 6 or more actual wins over their pythag, typically had two things in common; a lower deviation rate w/runs scored and a higher one with runs allowed. The exact opposite occured when teams had 6 or less wins than their pythag. record.

 

That I don't doubt, the question is did the sox improve offensively by adding posednik and subtracting lee? and specifically, does posednik make the hitters after him better by being on base (something he is not extraordinarily good at anyway)?

[stitchface]

Should be straight forward enough CP - find the standard deviation. I did a quick check and found that in 64 of their 95 games, the sox have scored 3 or less or 6 or more.

 

How does that compare with other teams this year, and other teams in previous years?

 

I don't know - perhaps UK studied that as well.

[TheDude]

Dude, BK actually showed what you were saying to be non-factual.

Sorry, but I don't think so. We all can read, yes? Please re-read my post you quoted and show me where I am non-factual specifically without just generically making such a comment.

How about trying to insert some facts into your theory?

What is my theory exactly? I don't recall stating a theory. I recall talking about fundamental baseball and the Cubs lack of it in one run games games and other situations where it becomes necessary to play for one run. I recall stating my opinion that Pierre brings aspects to the Cubs game that they currently lack, and that I welcome those talents.

 

Balance to the force is for movies.

First, I don't know what you mean by "to the force". Second, tell that to this year's Cardinals and White Sox, the two teams leading each in wins. Tell that to the 2001 Diamondbacks, 2002 Angels, and 2003 Marlins. Do the Red Sox beat the Yankees last year in game 4 without Dave Roberts?

[UK1679666180]

CP, it's true. I did a study on that a couple of years ago when comparing their actual record to their pythag. record. The teams that had 6 or more actual wins over their pythag, typically had two things in common; a lower deviation rate w/runs scored and a higher one with runs allowed. The exact opposite occured when teams had 6 or less wins than their pythag. record.

 

That I don't doubt, the question is did the sox improve offensively by adding posednik and subtracting lee? and specifically, does posednik make the hitters after him better by being on base (something he is not extraordinarily good at anyway)?

 

No, I don't think Posednik is the reason why the Sox have improved, their offense is down about .7 runs per game or about 113 runs over 162 games. They're worse offensively no deviation ratio can overcome that lack of runs. The only way you can overcome that drop in offense is by giving up fewer runs. The White Sox have allowed 3.94 runs per game this year, last year they allowed 5.12 runs per game., a difference of 191 runs over 162 games. They've improved almost a .5 runs per game as far as run differential. They probably are hitting better in close and late situations, but the reason they doing so well in 1 run ball games is b/c Cotts, Politte, and Hermanson in the 7th, 8th, and 9th moreso any improvement in situational hitting.

[UMFan83]

Is there a difference between scoring a lot of runs and having a consistant lineup? I think so. IIRC, the White Sox had a similar offense to ours last year, lots of HRs, feast or famine type offense that drives you mad. The additions they made might have called for less runs, but when you have people that can get on base at a .360+ clip, you are bound to consistantly score at least 3-4 runs a game.

[hawkeyecub]

The additions they made might have called for less runs, but when you have people that can get on base at a .360+ clip, you are bound to consistantly score at least 3-4 runs a game.

 

But they don't have many guys like that. Podsednik is at .360 and Konerko is at .358. Those are the only players they have above .350 and Rowand (.346) is the only other player above .340.

We have two players above .370 (Lee, Ramirez) and three others at .345 or better in Burnitz, Walker and Barrett.

 

The White Sox overall OBP is .324 while ours is .330.

[Warpticon]

And hopefully that puts an end to that myth.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

In 2005:

 

	        Sox   Cubs
0-2 Runs	26	 25
3-5 Runs	39	 44
6+ Runs	 33	 30