2006 Cubs and Juan Pierre??

[biittner77]

Signing Giles would be in the fine Cubs tradition of getting a guy 3 years after he stopped being special.

[chopsx9]

Here's a real simple chart to keep in mind that I think is reflective of the extreme majority of the board:......

......read next time.

 

You know, you're cruising for a bruising. Seriously. I have no patience for this kind of posting. If you really want to tangle, we can get into it, but if you continue deliberately misrepresenting my words and refuse to read the context of my post, I will end this debate because I simply refuse to participate in ridiculous bantering and misinterpretation. I don't really have any issue with anything in your original post other than the strawman argument. Those posts you cite in the Dunn argument, the ones where people are saying that walks are better than hits -- please, find them and cite them.

 

So, then, how is this a debate between you and me? Why are you being a smart-ass and trying to irritate me for no purpose or gain? Read my post. I'm knocking down a strawman that rears its head time and again about the "preference of the board" with respect to walks and hits. My chart is a simple support of your contention, though you evidently didn't recognize it. There's a reason I didn't quote posts -- I wasn't singling out one poster or post. Now, your exaggerated statement that "some on this board seem to think otherwise" is something I don't agree with, and serves as a strawman argument -- which is not acceptable. I really don't think anyone on this board believes that walks are better than hits. And if you think some do, then I challenge you to demonstrate such a preference, rather than making a claim unsupported.

 

Some other random, variable thoughts:

 

1. Saying a walk is as good as a hit is not the same as saying a walk is better than a hit. I agree with you, that a hit is better than a walk, as was ably demonstrated in my post: Hit>Walk>Out. Obviously, as both hits and walks are better than outs, both would be acceptable outcomes. However, a hit is preferable, all in all.

 

2. OBP inflated by AVG is poorly phrased. I think, from the context, that O_O means an OBP inflated by high AVG only supported by an abnormal BABIP, but I could be wrong. I do not agree that anyone's OBP can be "inflated" by AVG -- or walks. Given that they are both rather integral parts of OBP, I find it difficult to accept the contention that either "inflates" OBP.

 

3. Can you find me a statement in my post that says anything about chopsx says walks are bad? Right. Because I didn't make that statement; nor did I attempt to slyly infer it.

 

4. I will not tolerate insulting statements which denigrate my reading comprehension. Nor will I accept hostile, inflammatory responses looking to create reaction. I can read and understand, thank you very much. Indeed, I read your post and understood it just fine.

 

First, I'm not going to scroll through hundreds of posts..Cpatt has already acknowledge that a discussion took place in at least one instance .. however if it makes you feel better to think I am making it up...then please go right ahead.

 

Now your response to my post was condescending, "a real simple chart" and antagonistic "ridiculous strawman argument". So if you would prefer to be addressed in a polite manner I suggest you post in the manner you would like others to post. Now if you are saying that your post was in no way referencing mine, and was simply conincidental then you have my heartfelt apologies.

 

Nowhere did I make any suggestion as to what the "preference of the board" was and inferring that from my post is erroneous.

 

Your 1. This was exactly my point. However the statement in the original post I quoted was in direct contradiction to this. (Which is an example of the "some" you are looking for.)

 

2. As I stated in my post the original statement could simply have been poorly phrased, although I did not think so.

 

3. OK you are correct on this. I can admit and apologize.

 

4. My response was in direct response to the tone of yours. In my original post I disagreed with the previous poster but was able to do so in what I feel was a cordial and non-confrontational manner. See the first lines of this post again for more.

[erik316wttn]

Here's a real simple chart to keep in mind that I think is reflective of the extreme majority of the board:

 

 

You are welcome.

 

Hmm. Nice try. And this was in reference to you how?

 

Thank you for playing.

 

Haha. BANNED!!

 

Now, now. He hasn't been banned for arguing with me.

 

Fine, let me change that to PWNED!!

[UBlink]

Why not just bring up Greenberg? He's got your OBP and steals at a high rate, and will be a whole lot cheaper than Pierre.

 

And I'm talking about his WestTenn OBP (.382), not his major league leading 1.000. :D

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm ambivalent to Lawton for 2006.

 

What it comes down to is that I'd like to pack the order with the best possible eight hitters instead of worrying about stereotypical roles.

 

I'm going to have to agree with the creator on this one.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Why not just bring up Greenberg? He's got your OBP and steals at a high rate, and will be a whole lot cheaper than Pierre.

 

And I'm talking about his WestTenn OBP (.382), not his major league leading 1.000. :D

 

I'd like to give Greenberg the call on Sept 1 and let him be the regular lead-off hitter and see how he responds. If he does well, we could pencil him in for a cheap option in 2006 while Pie learns patience in Iowa.

[Outshined_One]

The generic term of "hit" is always equal to or better than a walk. Included in that "hit" are extra base hits, hits with runners on base that advance them further than a walk does, etc.

 

What is not so clear (and is dependent upon the player under discussion) is whether a walk is better than "putting the ball into play". For a player like Pierre, taking a walk is far better than him slapping at the ball and putting it into play due to the fact that most of those balls in play turn into outs (and some of them turn into two outs). For Pujols, a walk is less valuable than when he puts the ball into play because of his ability to hit for extra bases, his sustainably high BABIP, etc. Ironically, this ability when he puts the ball into play is what makes him feared and drives up the number of walks he receives.

 

That's pretty much what I was getting at. I should have specified my response a bit more, but what Tim said pretty much is what I'd say if I were on earlier. :D

[BigbadB]

Although there seem to be some on this board (not saying you are one of them) who seem to think otherwise.

 

This is what I believe Brinoch took acception to. Labeling posters is not cool here, nor is misinterpreting their belief.

 

Rather than labeling "some" people here, call that person on it when it happens rather than using a blanket statement.

 

I am one of those people who likes to see a guy take a pitch. Do I value the walk more than a hit? No. But, I'll take a guy who can walk and hit over a guy who can hit, but can't draw a walk or a guy who can walk but can't hit. Give me Todd Walker over Alfonso Soriano. Give me Matt Murton over Jacque Jones. Give me Adam Dunn over just about everybody.

 

While you may believe that Juan Pierre's .313 OBP is what would help the Cubs most, I lean more towards Johnny Damon's .387 OBP. I'd also prefer Matt Lawton's .370 career OBP. Some of us just may not see Pierre's speed as being all that impressive combined with a .354 career OBP. Especially if you were to subtract all the caught stealings from his career OBP.

 

I challenge you to find one person here who values a walk more than a hit. I think what you will find is that most of the group you labeled as preferring a walk over a hit actually prefer plate patience in general. Swing at the good ones and let the bad one's go.

[marc_foust]

You do not need a "stereotypical lead off guy". Speed is certainly not everything. Let Walker bat leadoff if that is a problem. I dont think I would mind Pierre if Patterson doesnt show me something the remainder of the season. But I also wouldnt pay all that much to get him.

 

2B Walker

LF Nomar

1B Lee

3B ARam

RF Giles

CF Patterson

SS Cedeno

C Barrett

[Rob]

Just a thought.

 

A good chunk of the people who oppose a Brian Giles signing are the same ones that want Juan Pierre as he "fills the role" of a leadoff hitter.

 

Why not make Brian Giles the leadoff hitter.

 

They have identical career SB%, at 73.6% (though granted, Giles has to round up from 73.55% while Pierre has a solid 73.6%)

 

Not only that, the role of the leadoff hitter is to get on base... Giles blows Pierre away in this regard ( .412 vs .355)

 

So while Pierre might be "disruptive" on the basepaths more often, it's at the same success rate as Giles. And Pierre isn't even on as often. And if the best argument you can come up with is simply Pierre doing it more often, Giles has the extra power that more than makes up for it (even if he is regressing... which while probably true, is certainly thrown off by Petco)

 

And perhaps unbelievably to those unversed in stats, after you factor in arm strength with range, Brian Giles has fared better defensively in center field than Pierre, with career Rate2 's of 98 and 99 (1 run per 100 games)

 

Not that I personally advocate Giles as next year's leadoff hitter... he's certainly better than Pierre, like it or not.

[erik316wttn]

Just a thought.

 

A good chunk of the people who oppose a Brian Giles signing are the same ones that want Juan Pierre as he "fills the role" of a leadoff hitter.

 

Why not make Brian Giles the leadoff hitter.

 

They have identical career SB%, at 73.6% (though granted, Giles has to round up from 73.55% while Pierre has a solid 73.6%)

 

Not only that, the role of the leadoff hitter is to get on base... Giles blows Pierre away in this regard ( .412 vs .355)

 

So while Pierre might be "disruptive" on the basepaths more often, it's at the same success rate as Giles. And Pierre isn't even on as often. And if the best argument you can come up with is simply Pierre doing it more often, Giles has the extra power that more than makes up for it (even if he is regressing... which while probably true, is certainly thrown off by Petco)

 

And perhaps unbelievably to those unversed in stats, after you factor in arm strength with range, Brian Giles has fared better defensively in center field than Pierre, with career Rate2 's of 98 and 99 (1 run per 100 games)

 

Not that I personally advocate Giles as next year's leadoff hitter... he's certainly better than Pierre, like it or not.

 

Interesting idea, but he may have "too much" power to leadoff. A bat like that may be more productive lower in the lineup.

[brinoch]

 

First, I'm not going to scroll through hundreds of posts..Cpatt has already acknowledge that a discussion took place in at least one instance .. however if it makes you feel better to think I am making it up...then please go right ahead.

 

My apologies for not responding sooner -- I've been out of town, so I'm playing a bit of catch-up here. Regarding whether or not someone made the debated assertion -- I accept that someone made such a statement based on the exchanges in this thread. I also really don't feel like digging through a bunch of threads to support a rather stupid, weak point that I made anyway. I'd rather simply stipulate that such a point was made.

 

Now your response to my post was condescending, "a real simple chart" and antagonistic "ridiculous strawman argument". So if you would prefer to be addressed in a polite manner I suggest you post in the manner you would like others to post. Now if you are saying that your post was in no way referencing mine, and was simply conincidental then you have my heartfelt apologies.

 

Nowhere did I make any suggestion as to what the "preference of the board" was and inferring that from my post is erroneous.

 

Again, my apologies -- I was making points that were more or less mutally supporting to your argument. In the meantime, I simultaneously responded to the statement included in your post of "some on this board..."

 

The simple chart I posted, for example, was not denigrating your argument or misinterpreting it. I was supporting your argument.

 

Your 1. This was exactly my point. However the statement in the original post I quoted was in direct contradiction to this. (Which is an example of the "some" you are looking for.)

 

2. As I stated in my post the original statement could simply have been poorly phrased, although I did not think so.

 

3. OK you are correct on this. I can admit and apologize.

 

4. My response was in direct response to the tone of yours. In my original post I disagreed with the previous poster but was able to do so in what I feel was a cordial and non-confrontational manner. See the first lines of this post again for more.

 

My rather terse responses were probably too harsh to properly demonstrate that which I was trying to direct you towards. Namely, that I believe, and I think that most people would agree, that a hit>walk>out.

 

As for making the characterization "...some on this board" I didn't PM you with a warning and I didn't quote your post. I was making a general statement about drawing conclusions and generalizing about what others believe is something to be avoided. As a Mod, I do this pretty often in threads where the board's rules are being flouted or bent by multiple posters in a minor way, but some action needs to be taken lest others, in the future, complain that I was inconsistent (though of course, I am human and don't have the time to monitor every thread).

 

I also happen to think that your statement was a strawman argument, though without the intention of putting words into anyone in particular's mouth -- just a general statement by you that I think left a false impression which you used as a rebuttal in your argument. And that is "...there seem to be some on this board (not saying you are one of them) who seem to think otherwise." (With respect to which is better: hits versus walks.) There are probably one or two people who really think that way, but I can't think of anyone off the top of my head (hint: they are welcome to reveal themselves at this point). I also think that such an opinion might have been posted sarcastically.

 

Pretty much the only time I think a walk is better than a hit is when the pitcher is giving batters nothing good to hit due to wildness -- in that situation you let the pitcher walk you, rack up pitches and be happy take the free base. Something Randall Simon, for example, doesn't understand. That said, if he throws you a meat ball down the middle, or hangs a curve, you ought to smack the crap out of it and possibly get extra bases.

 

Hope this clarifies things.