CardsFanInChiTown

I think he's saying that ISoD is more predictable because it is less reliant on outside forces like defense and therefore less prone to flukish swings. That's the gist of it. IsoD is easier to predict in a hitter than batting average due to outside forces like BABIP, Line drive %, and so on. I agree with this but... That doesn't mean you wouldn't rather have the 300\350 guy. He's just harder to predict.

I think he's saying that ISoD is more predictable because it is less reliant on outside forces like defense and therefore less prone to flukish swings. I understand but he seemed to dispute the batter in question was just as likely to hit 320\370. OO, thanks I'll check it out.

It depends on a couple of things, though. If you could pick either player in retrospect, then for certain you'd take the .300/.350 guy over the .280/.350 guy; especially since the .300/.350 guy is much more likely to have a higher SLG than the .280/.350 guy. However, if you look a bit deeper into the numbers, there is something to be said for plate discipline and the ability to repeat numbers. While some guys have a bit easier time repeating batting average than others, the numbers tend to fluctuate year in, year out. However, IsoD and plate discipline are much easier to repeat and erode much less with time. In other words, the .280/.350 guy is much more likely to be more valuable and productive in the future than the .300/.350 guy. The .280/.350 guy is much more likely to have a clue at the plate than the .300/.350 guy. Is there a study that back this up? A hit is worth more than a walk. But the walk is more repeatable/predictive than the hit. In a vacuum .300/.350 is more valuable than .280/.350, but because of defenses and luck(i.e. BABIP), the .280/.350 is more likely to continue to put up a .350 OBP(or just the better OBP of the two players) than the .300/.350. If you're just taking that in isolation though, wouldn't the hitter with .300/.350 be just as likely to hit .320/.370 as .280/.330? I agree that the hitter who is the .280/350 guy is more likely to put up a .350 OBP, but I think that the higher average guy has just as much chance of having a higher average the next season as having a lower one. The likeliness of a player getting a certain AVG then delves into batted ball types, defense, and luck. Needless to say, there's more room for luck to be on your side when you're hitting .280 than when you're hitting .300. Simply put, you're a better bet for a higher OBP if you have the better IsoD, because it's much more predictive than AVG. That doesn't make sense to me. It seems that you are saying the patient batter has a better chance at a higher OBP because it is easier to predict.

It depends on a couple of things, though. If you could pick either player in retrospect, then for certain you'd take the .300/.350 guy over the .280/.350 guy; especially since the .300/.350 guy is much more likely to have a higher SLG than the .280/.350 guy. However, if you look a bit deeper into the numbers, there is something to be said for plate discipline and the ability to repeat numbers. While some guys have a bit easier time repeating batting average than others, the numbers tend to fluctuate year in, year out. However, IsoD and plate discipline are much easier to repeat and erode much less with time. In other words, the .280/.350 guy is much more likely to be more valuable and productive in the future than the .300/.350 guy. The .280/.350 guy is much more likely to have a clue at the plate than the .300/.350 guy. Is there a study that back this up? A hit is worth more than a walk.

Well at least it's not Sammy.

This is easily the toughest vote for me but I went with The Who because they have larger and more diverse catalog.

That's awesome, I'm stealing that.

hmm Michael = CardsFanInChiTown thrill = wolf stansson planet pujolsian = indifferent G. Keenan = vaball ManEatingTarp I read the posts in the link. But, what is "hmm"? "hmm" as in "hmm, who are those guys at gatewayredbirds.com?"

LOL, that's wrong on both counts. Cards are 0-5 vs. the Cubs and 0-3 vs. the Sox. I've seen 6 of those games live. Sheesh.

We love having you vance. You made a lot of good posts when we started out and desperately needed activity.

hmm Michael = CardsFanInChiTown thrill = wolf stansson planet pujolsian = indifferent G. Keenan = vaball ManEatingTarp

I very much agree with this. Even though being a mod can be a pretty thankless job they do a great job keeping this place friendly.

Pipe down and get to Wrigley, pronto. With the way this game is going I feel like I am.

I think we can all agree this game is horrible.

I'm surprised The Police are winning. Metallica is my dark house pick in this tourney.

Yet again Radiohead is losing a poll.

I didn't vote, but I only post on one cards msg board and here. Everyone on NSBB has been very classy towards me.

Since I'll be in the bleachers look for me to throw a Cub HR ball back out on to the field.

Derwood believes music shouldn't be fun.

I dislike U2 less so I went with them.

I gotta admit, I like GNR more.

Doesn't look like much. Is Joel related to Ron Santo? We didn't give up much. He didn't pitch well and will be a free agent at the end of the year. Not going to get much for him. Hendry said Williamson was highly sought after and he was not going to give away players without getting quality in return. :lol: Plus you saw what the Reds gave up for relief help. The contenders should be DESPERATE for help. The Cubs had all the leverage in this situation and they didnt get crap for him. Good job Jimbo I think you have it turned around. The Reds badly misjudged the market. Remember, the Braves didn't give up much for Wickman.

That's not a Bruce Sprinsteen and the E Street Band album.

This was posted on a cardinals msg board about a month ago when discussing the Mulder trade,I thought you guys might find this part interesting: PM me if you want the link. :wink:

Needless to say this rumor looks to be running out of gas. Oh well, it was interesting.