Exile on Waveland

I agree. I just wondered about a separate stat. The problem with a stat combining everything is that in order to include fielding, you can't just look at errors, since that's just a part of fielding. You'd have to look at a lot more when fielding statistics still leave a bit to be desired. And in order to combine that with pitching, you'd have to figure out how much of the defensive game is pitching and how much of it is fielding in order to weight it properly. Of course, a pitcher's offensive output would only apply to half of the pitchers in the majors. I'm not sure there has been a stat that has been NL-only before. There would be many difficulties with combining defense -- mainly because defensive stats already leave something to be desired. Though, I suppose you could simply just add back on unearned runs resulting from pitcher errors. That would be way less than perfect, though. I think the offensive output add-back would be easier to deal with and more informing. And, obviously, it wouldn't really mean much for AL teams/pitchers. Hopefully one day they'll have the tools to really be able to accurately quantify defensive value, but the more I think about it, the more I think it would be ridiculously complicated to combine pitching and defensive value. You wouldn't be able to just add back in pitchers' errors since that would mean you're only holding them accountable for their bad plays and not crediting them for their good plays. But beyond that, you would not only have to figure out what percentage of fielding a pitcher is responsible for, you'd really have to calculate the level of defensive responsibility on a pitcher by pitcher basis. As T_T alluded to, a fly ball pitcher will likely have less of a defensive role than a ground ball pitcher. And much of what a pitcher is responsible for comes in the form of sacrifice bunts, which are more common (I'd imagine) in the NL than in the AL. I'm not sure trying to calculate all of that would be fair to the computer. Ha ha, maybe not. We're gonna need a bigger computer.

I agree. I just wondered about a separate stat. The problem with a stat combining everything is that in order to include fielding, you can't just look at errors, since that's just a part of fielding. You'd have to look at a lot more when fielding statistics still leave a bit to be desired. And in order to combine that with pitching, you'd have to figure out how much of the defensive game is pitching and how much of it is fielding in order to weight it properly. Of course, a pitcher's offensive output would only apply to half of the pitchers in the majors. I'm not sure there has been a stat that has been NL-only before. There would be many difficulties with combining defense -- mainly because defensive stats already leave something to be desired. Though, I suppose you could simply just add back on unearned runs resulting from pitcher errors. That would be way less than perfect, though. I think the offensive output add-back would be easier to deal with and more informing. And, obviously, it wouldn't really mean much for AL teams/pitchers.

Someone mentioned this in the game thread. I think ERA is and should be a pitching statistic, not pitching + fielding. While I agree with that, is there a stat for pitchers that combines ERA, pitcher errors and pitcher offensive output? I don't know how it would be done, but it could be interesting. If that doesn't make sense, I'm trying to ask if Pitcher A puts up a 4.00 era but hits 6 homeruns, is he more effective than Pitcher B that has a 3.75 era but no hits all season or Pitcher C with a 3.75 era but tons of errors? I don't know, I think it would be interesting and could be a nice way of measuring overall effectiveness as a baseball player, not necessarily as a pitcher. I think the problem with that is that by far the most important thing a pitcher does is pitch. Pitching is 80% or more of what a pitcher does while defense and offense make up the other 20%. A pitcher may have 3 or 4 ABs in a game at most and an average of 2 or 3 defensive chances per game, while he throws to probably 80+ pitches to 20+ batters. The difference in pitchers offensively and defensively is not going to make up much of any difference in them in pitching. Yes, I agree. Pitching may be even more than 80% importance. But if we're truly looking for who helps a team win -- and that should be the goal, not just who pitches better -- little things could make up a small difference in ERA. I just wonder how much pitcher offense/defense can make up for pitching. BP did a study about that recently. I can't remember the final tally, but someone with a bat like Marquis subtracted a significant number off his ERA. Thanks, I'll have to look that up. When you're signing a pitcher, you are signing the full package -- not just the pitches he hurls towards the plate.

I agree. I just wondered about a separate stat.

Someone mentioned this in the game thread. I think ERA is and should be a pitching statistic, not pitching + fielding. While I agree with that, is there a stat for pitchers that combines ERA, pitcher errors and pitcher offensive output? I don't know how it would be done, but it could be interesting. If that doesn't make sense, I'm trying to ask if Pitcher A puts up a 4.00 era but hits 6 homeruns, is he more effective than Pitcher B that has a 3.75 era but no hits all season or Pitcher C with a 3.75 era but tons of errors? I don't know, I think it would be interesting and could be a nice way of measuring overall effectiveness as a baseball player, not necessarily as a pitcher. I think the problem with that is that by far the most important thing a pitcher does is pitch. Pitching is 80% or more of what a pitcher does while defense and offense make up the other 20%. A pitcher may have 3 or 4 ABs in a game at most and an average of 2 or 3 defensive chances per game, while he throws to probably 80+ pitches to 20+ batters. The difference in pitchers offensively and defensively is not going to make up much of any difference in them in pitching. Yes, I agree. Pitching may be even more than 80% importance. But if we're truly looking for who helps a team win -- and that should be the goal, not just who pitches better -- little things could make up a small difference in ERA. I just wonder how much pitcher offense/defense can make up for pitching.

Dempsey will. As will Onyewu.

Dempsey will.

Someone mentioned this in the game thread. I think ERA is and should be a pitching statistic, not pitching + fielding. While I agree with that, is there a stat for pitchers that combines ERA, pitcher errors and pitcher offensive output? I don't know how it would be done, but it could be interesting. If that doesn't make sense, I'm trying to ask if Pitcher A puts up a 4.00 era but hits 6 homeruns, is he more effective than Pitcher B that has a 3.75 era but no hits all season or Pitcher C with a 3.75 era but tons of errors? I don't know, I think it would be interesting and could be a nice way of measuring overall effectiveness as a baseball player, not necessarily as a pitcher.

US attack was good, defending left something to be desired.

It's really early, but China isn't very impressive.

I'm pretty sure he means Gabe Pruitt, guard from USC. Second, no way the Bulls should give up that much for Kobe, it would gut their team. They should try to get him, and no player should be untouchable.

Not trying to hijack this thread into a Pacers thread, but I've been hearing the same thing. Actually, we've all been hearing variations of that deal for awhile now. If I was the Pacers, I'd really insist on the #19 pick being in the deal, but maybe dumping Tinsley would be worth excluding it. I'd want Odom, Bynum and at least Farmar, but would prefer the pick. Who cares about anything in Indiana make your own thread. :wink: jk But why in the hell did they hire O'brien? Has he ever won anywhere hes went? I would have thought they could have found somebody a hell of a lot better Well, it's certainly not a sexy hire, that's for sure. He does have a winning NBA record and is a decent enough coach. He also has Celtic ties, which seems to be overly important with Bird running the show. Honestly, I think it's a case of no one really wanting the job. Stan Van Gundy evidently turned it down. The Pacers aren't very good, they don't even have a draft pick this year (a terrible year for that fate) and their best player may be traded this offseason. Not a very appealing situation if you ask me. They likely did about as well as they could. That said, I think they are likely a better team than they showed last season. Not great, but better. Dealing O'Neal for Odom, Bynum and the Lakers pick could infuse them with some young talent in addition to Granger, Williams, Diogu, etc. If I were them, I'd then look to move Odom for another pick/young player. I like Odom, but the Pacers need an infusion of young talent. Oh, this is a Bulls thread you say? Well, in that case I'll throw in my two cents: the Bulls are going to have to bite the bullet and trade one of their core guys to get a big man. Wow didnt realize he had a winning record. Ya their job isnt that appealing right now I agree. I didnt realize they didnt have a pick this year either, that will suck for them. And as for the Bulls trading one of their core for a big man, Im fine with it. Id prefer that its Gordon though. Yeah, O'Brien was 139-119 in Boston and 43-39 in Philadelphia. He's not bad. Not having a pick is a bad thing -- especially for a bad team. I agree, Gordon is the player the Bulls should be most willing to part with.

Not trying to hijack this thread into a Pacers thread, but I've been hearing the same thing. Actually, we've all been hearing variations of that deal for awhile now. If I was the Pacers, I'd really insist on the #19 pick being in the deal, but maybe dumping Tinsley would be worth excluding it. I'd want Odom, Bynum and at least Farmar, but would prefer the pick. Who cares about anything in Indiana make your own thread. :wink: jk But why in the hell did they hire O'brien? Has he ever won anywhere hes went? I would have thought they could have found somebody a hell of a lot better Well, it's certainly not a sexy hire, that's for sure. He does have a winning NBA record and is a decent enough coach. He also has Celtic ties, which seems to be overly important with Bird running the show. Honestly, I think it's a case of no one really wanting the job. Stan Van Gundy evidently turned it down. The Pacers aren't very good, they don't even have a draft pick this year (a terrible year for that fate) and their best player may be traded this offseason. Not a very appealing situation if you ask me. They likely did about as well as they could. That said, I think they are likely a better team than they showed last season. Not great, but better. Dealing O'Neal for Odom, Bynum and the Lakers pick could infuse them with some young talent in addition to Granger, Williams, Diogu, etc. If I were them, I'd then look to move Odom for another pick/young player. I like Odom, but the Pacers need an infusion of young talent. Oh, this is a Bulls thread you say? Well, in that case I'll throw in my two cents: the Bulls are going to have to bite the bullet and trade one of their core guys to get a big man.

Not trying to hijack this thread into a Pacers thread, but I've been hearing the same thing. Actually, we've all been hearing variations of that deal for awhile now. If I was the Pacers, I'd really insist on the #19 pick being in the deal, but maybe dumping Tinsley would be worth excluding it. I'd want Odom, Bynum and at least Farmar, but would prefer the pick.

Ah, life as a Cub fan.

That was insane. Wow, LeBron James is absurdly good. That was amazing.

Are you sure about that ?They may be taking different routes,but their ending up at the same place. Eh, at least Hendry has done some things right. Those 2 have never done anything right as GMs. But I would say hes in that company. I would say drafting Channing Frye and Damon Stoudamire where both better than anything Jim has done. We're giving Thomas credit for a guy that just slipped to 9.5 ppg, 5.5 rpg and 43% shooting? As the 8th pick in the draft? (Granted, there wasn't much behind him). I'd say David Lee looks like an excellent selection at #30 that year, though. I'm just not terribly impressed by Frye. He had a good rookie year.

Well then he's not going to get traded and the Lakers are going to suck forever. Sounds good to me. The former is certainly true. The latter very well may be too (if you consider losing in the first round of the playoffs sucking). The Lakers do have a couple movable pieces that could net a player that would push them to the upper tier of the NBA. Hope it doesn't happen, though.

Guys, we're talking about Kobe Bryant. First, the Lakers aren't going to trade him. Second, it's going to cost a fortune. The proposed deals wouldn't come close to getting it done. The Bulls would have to build a package around Deng. Even then, I'm not sure the Bulls could come up with a deal that wouldn't completely gut their team.

I agree you could play Lewis at the 4, depending on your team. I wouldn't be surprised to see Houston make a push for him (he is from there), depending on their salary cap issues (I have no idea what's their situation). They'd basically have three interchangeabe players at the 2-4 with T-Mac, Battier and Lewis. He is not, however, what the Bulls need at all.

Agreed. Game 4 will be extremely important in both series, but the home teams are/were going to win game 3.

ding ding ding we have a winner. Why is it that basically all of us know this but our old senile manager cant? um... Oh no did I spell a word wrong on an internet message board? Um, who cares I don't think it's the spelling that's the issue. Edit: or maybe it was. Im lost because I have no clue what he was getting at? Me too. Senile - 1 : of, relating to, exhibiting, or characteristic of old age ; especially : exhibiting a loss of cognitive abilities (as memory) associated with old age I think the problem might be that you're expecting a senile person to behave rationally and logically. Senile old people often act, well, senile.

What about the portion that the bullpen controls? Well, there's nothing that says the bullpen is required to pitch. While I'm certainly not endorsing complete games every time out, a starter certainly influences how long he pitches by effectiveness and efficiency in pitch count.

BK Kim? Do you mean BH Kim or is it someone i've never heard of. I'm too lazy to look. His nickname is, and has been, BK Kim.

Why cant Lewis play center? Umm, because he's a small forward?