Mephistopheles

Posada is on pace for 102 RBI and 106 R. Just 20 HR Lee is on pace for 101 RBI and 101 R. Just 12 HR Griffey is on pace for 110 RBI and 84 R (Bad Legs/Bad Reds).

name a player with a high ops that doesn't add runs to the scoreboard i can name some that haven't been great at putting runs on the board: Derrek Lee Todd Helton Jorge Posada Ken Griffey Jr. yeah youre really making a good argument pulling random names out of your ass. i guess you went OMG OPS but no R and RBI to back up your claim. It's pretty lame.

I CAN DO IT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RISP w/ 2 outs .211/.348/.474/.822 - Chipper .227/.320/.409/.729 - Hardy Close and Late .360/.500/.880/1.380 - Chipper .270/.289/.730/1.019 - Hardy Tie Game .302/.483/.767/1.250 - Chipper .258/.300/.470/.770 - Hardy The game is within one run either way .347/.467/.867/1.334 - Chipper .307/.346/.614/.960 - Hardy There ya go, beaten at your own game.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/business/?p=16 lol

How do you know? Have you ever seen video on Moustakas or Vitters besides a minute clip on milb.com (serious question, not trying to sound like an ass)? If not, are you just going by what you read? Because what you read says Vitters won't be a bust, and will likely be better than Moustakas. And yes, obviously, I know "don't believe everything that you read". But what else can we believe unless we've seen these kids play for longer than 60 seconds? because I think scouts overvalue things that dont translate to wins as much as other things. Being a "pure hitter" is one of them. Moustakas is just a bit behind there and has more power, and is a much better defensive talent and might even catch well with his plus-plus arm.

how many homeruns and at bats does each player have? Player A had 643 AB's and Player B 509 There was a HR differential less than 5 Unless I'm reading baseball reference wrong, isn't B's OPS+ 217, not 182? yes, thanks. I looked on the wrong line So can you tell me what it was that A did that was more valuable? besides be the key offensive component to a wildcard team? See, I (unlike many) think the MVP is a contextual award. It's not "player of the year". It's "who was the most valuable," which I define as "whose contributions spelled the difference between his team being a success or a failure". By that measure, Player A's offensive contributions played a large part in his team making the playoffs while Player B's, while greater on an individual level, were gained on a, what, 4th place team? the problem with this definition is that if you take Sosa off the Cubs and put him on the Cardinals and take MCGwire off the Cardinals and put him on the Cubs. The Cubs win more games with McGwire than they do with Sosa and the Cardinals win less games with Sosa than they did with McGwire, but Sosa's your MVP. Great definition.

I didn't say he was stupid. And I didn't misrepresent his argument. He's saying Sosa deserved it because of Kerry Wood. That's pretty much his entire argument. I guess then Kerry Wood shoulda won it over McGwire. And Mark Grace. And...

Wow, some of this stuff is terrible. For instance just because you picked Sosa and McGwire and wanted to say that Sosa deserved it over him because he had more "value" to his team or some stupid line of thought around that, it does not mean he's the MVP. I don't understand the relevancy of the number of ABs. Person B clearly demonstrated a significantly higher walk rate and since walks aren't included in ABs, he's going to be significantly lower than his counterpart despite having a similar PA total. In this case Sosa had 722 and McGwire 681, Sosa had 40 more, but had about 140 more ABs. Too look soley at offensive statistics is to be stupid. There's a real effect on defense, although in this case neither guy plays a position of scarcity or is extremely good or bad at their position. I was guessing that DERWOOD was going to say "OMG ITS SOSA BE-CUZ OMG R AND RBIS AND PLAYOFFS!!! CLUTCH!!!!" Of course using any line of reasoning like this makes this assumption: "A player is better than another player if players on his team are better." You can't argue against this, it is fact. That's the problem with runs and RBIs. They're too team dependent. In this case, the difference in RBI and R totals are due to ONE THING, and only one thing: The other players on each player's team. Sosa got those 40 more PAs because the players on his team were good enough to turn the lineup over more often. So therefore the only reason he "created" more runs and RBI was because he was surrounded by better players. Why should we hold that against McGwire? Is it his fault? No. If you want to use the argument for a team MVP, you can use the argument but the best and probably only way to do it is marginal analysis of the two teams. You can do this several ways, from simplicity I'll just chop off their VORP. Taking Sosa off the Cubbies and they lose an additional 6.3 games. Take McGwire off the Cardinals and they lose an additional 10.0 games. It's not even close. BTW, using this methodology: which of the following players would you expect to have added the most wins to their team? Player A - .343/.417/.483 138 OPS+, 715 PA below average defensive SS Player B - .320/.400/.519 137 OPS+, 622 PA average defensive SS Player C - .321/.375/.559 140 OPS+, 661 PA above average defensive 1B

Yay! I went 7-2-1 and had my best overall week of the season (in any league, period) Unfortunately Im only up to 21.

or heyward or ....

because hes not better than moustakas.

why? because hes not as good as wieters.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm too uncub to take?

yes

I feel obliged to reply. Because looking at runs and runs batted in to decide who is better is stupid. You're not down with sabermetrics if you make an argument based on RBI and R. Just because has scored more runs and has more runs batted in it does not mean he has produced more runs for his team. Production is not scoring runs, period. For instance, the difference in OBP for the guys is 40 points. Over the 200 PAs that we're looking at, the difference is almost a third of a game lost because Hardy gets out. That's half the value of OBP, it makes you and your teammates bat more, not so much the fact you physically get on base. If that's your argument, the clear answer isn't Hardy, it's Bonds. Bonds OPS and stuff is leagues beyond everyone AND his WPA is leagues quite a bit of ahead of anyone. So unless the defensive difference between SS and LF over a fourth of the season is worth a half a win, it's Bonds -- and it's close. But in the case of the tie you have to take the sure thing (offensive production).

Ooh the write up on Vitters includes

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/draft/rankings/?rank=draft

dont we already have enough guys who can play lf, rf, 2b and 1b?

Bonds

what!? you dont think marshall can close?

oh please be a dfa on eyre.

I do to. That wasn't mean. It's just fairly obvious IMO that this is a bad idea. Heilman's track record hasn't shown much to expect he's anything but back of the rotation material. He has a very unique throwing motion that may cause him to weaken quickly and opponents to get a better look the second or third time through the lineup. He's doing okay in the bullpen, might as well leave him there. You're also trying to trade Jacque Jones and Scott Eyre to a team in contention who does not need a worthless middle reliever (Eyre), nor a poor corner outfielder (Jones). Their RF is having a great comeback season and their LF have combined for a line of .327/.380/.473 and their CF is the second-best on the planet. So no.

Useless information. Basically you're saying let's throw out all the bad starts, and average starts and see how well guys pitch.

is estes doing anything these days.

no, i just got tired of people asking.