fromthestretch

1. The fact that it is painfully obvious and most likely has been known for several decades makes it that much more frustrating when a sports writer or broadcaster, who gets paid to discuss the sport, can't grasp that simple concept. 2. I don't know of anyone that acts condescending towards the casual fan who is enjoying a game with their kid. How often do you really see that happen? 3. My guess is that when anyone uses the phrase "won/loss records don't matter," they're speaking in the context of pitcher's records. When looking at the big picture, I could care less about an individual's won-loss record. The team's won-loss record is what counts. If the Cubs win 100 games, does it really matter if Zambrano personally won 14 of them or 21 of them? You really think that the sportscasters are so ignorant ( Joe Morgan excluded ) that they don't know the difference ? Come on. The sportscasters have to appeal to everyone, including the millions of so called casual fans who take their kids to the ballpark . They know what statistics matter, but frankly they aren't going to be too popular of a sportscaster if they try to blither on and on about stuff like this to the "average" fan. I don't particularly agree with this approach, but I certainly do not think they " cant grasp that simple concept ". Some of them simply don't grasp that concept. They were spoonfed that garbage from journalists and broadcasters when they were kids, and they're doing the same to this generation of fans. They don't have to get into the really complex stats, but they can introduce basic things like OBP (which has been getting more air-time), WHIP, OPS, etc. They can also do a better job of putting things into context. Do you really think the average fan would be turned off from the game if Joe Buck said something to the effect of, "Juan Pierre is routinely in the top ten in steals each year, but is limited in his chances due to the fact that he has struggled to get on base for the past four years" during a Dodgers game (ignoring the fact that many people are turned off from the game simply because it's Joe Buck doing play-by-play)? Simple things like that or pointing out that a guy has 15 wins despite an ERA of 4.75 because his team has scored a lot of runs for him are not too complex for the casual fan to grasp. Someone who gets paid to talk about the game should be able to do this without confusing people. I want to further add to this by saying that if your job is to broadcast or write about a sport, you yourself should be willing to learn about more advanced statistical analysis. That doesn't mean you have to talk about all of it, but considering that you are getting paid to be what is basically viewed as a "subject-matter expert," then you should learn as much as you can about that subject. A good broadcaster should know where to draw the line when deciding what to use in a broadcast and what would be deemed too complex for a large audience. Explaining that a guy won 15 games due in large part to run support is not too complex for the average fan. Explaining that stealing 50 bases in a season isn't all that great if you got caught 22 times isn't too complex. Explaining that getting on-base increases your chances of scoring a run because you can't score a run without first getting on base isn't a complex concept. You don't have to talk about WARP or EqA or Park Adjusted statistics to communicate some of the basic concepts. For example, I could say that Vinny Castilla's 1998 stats were inflated due to playing half his games in Colorado, and people would understand that. I don't need to say that his OPS+ was only 127 or that his OPS would have been closer to .830 rather than .951 in a netral setting in order to convey that.

1. The fact that it is painfully obvious and most likely has been known for several decades makes it that much more frustrating when a sports writer or broadcaster, who gets paid to discuss the sport, can't grasp that simple concept. 2. I don't know of anyone that acts condescending towards the casual fan who is enjoying a game with their kid. How often do you really see that happen? 3. My guess is that when anyone uses the phrase "won/loss records don't matter," they're speaking in the context of pitcher's records. When looking at the big picture, I could care less about an individual's won-loss record. The team's won-loss record is what counts. If the Cubs win 100 games, does it really matter if Zambrano personally won 14 of them or 21 of them? You really think that the sportscasters are so ignorant ( Joe Morgan excluded ) that they don't know the difference ? Come on. The sportscasters have to appeal to everyone, including the millions of so called casual fans who take their kids to the ballpark . They know what statistics matter, but frankly they aren't going to be too popular of a sportscaster if they try to blither on and on about stuff like this to the "average" fan. I don't particularly agree with this approach, but I certainly do not think they " cant grasp that simple concept ". Some of them simply don't grasp that concept. They were spoonfed that garbage from journalists and broadcasters when they were kids, and they're doing the same to this generation of fans. They don't have to get into the really complex stats, but they can introduce basic things like OBP (which has been getting more air-time), WHIP, OPS, etc. They can also do a better job of putting things into context. Do you really think the average fan would be turned off from the game if Joe Buck said something to the effect of, "Juan Pierre is routinely in the top ten in steals each year, but is limited in his chances due to the fact that he has struggled to get on base for the past four years" during a Dodgers game (ignoring the fact that many people are turned off from the game simply because it's Joe Buck doing play-by-play)? Simple things like that or pointing out that a guy has 15 wins despite an ERA of 4.75 because his team has scored a lot of runs for him are not too complex for the casual fan to grasp. Someone who gets paid to talk about the game should be able to do this without confusing people.

Manny's obviously a better offensive player than Dunn, but is it really fair to compare the two? Manny's career OPS is .101 higher than Dunn's, and his 2008 OPS is .071 higher. On top of that, do you really want to label Manny as a contact hitter? He's been over 100 strikeouts 10 times in his career. While he may not strikeout as often as Dunn, it's not like Pujols who only Ks about 60 times a season. But it's ok to compare the Neifi guys with Dunn who hit "weakly" to the pitcher? Manny swings hard and hits the ball hard and that is what has been said about Dunn. I'd rather have Manny then Dunn. I keep reading "Well, they'll not swing as hard" but yet Manny doesn't change his approach and Pujols is another guy who swings hard and is always a tough out while being more productive than Dunn. I don't think of Manny as a contact hitter but a guy who puts the bat on the ball and gets results more often than Dunn. Putting the ball in play with a hard swing gets Manny on base and drives in runs. Yes, maybe the error rate may be 2% (Which is the before said average) but with more contact you also have more of a chance of getting a hit as well due to getting a solid piece of the ball and bat speed with a guy like Manny or Pujols. I don't think anyone's seriously comparing Neifi to Dunn. Regardless, Dunn has been in the majors for eight seasons. If he was capable of maintaining his production at this level while cutting back on the strikeouts, don't you think he would have by now? He is what he is. A high strikeout, high walk, power hitter. Obviously, guys like Manny and Pujols are better hitters, and if you can get one of them for your team, that's great. No one's saying Dunn is the best hitter around, but there simply aren't a ton of hitters that are capable of consistently producing an OPS of .900, strikeouts or not.

1. The fact that it is painfully obvious and most likely has been known for several decades makes it that much more frustrating when a sports writer or broadcaster, who gets paid to discuss the sport, can't grasp that simple concept. 2. I don't know of anyone that acts condescending towards the casual fan who is enjoying a game with their kid. How often do you really see that happen? 3. My guess is that when anyone uses the phrase "won/loss records don't matter," they're speaking in the context of pitcher's records. When looking at the big picture, I could care less about an individual's won-loss record. The team's won-loss record is what counts. If the Cubs win 100 games, does it really matter if Zambrano personally won 14 of them or 21 of them?

Manny's obviously a better offensive player than Dunn, but is it really fair to compare the two? Manny's career OPS is .101 higher than Dunn's, and his 2008 OPS is .071 higher. On top of that, do you really want to label Manny as a contact hitter? He's been over 100 strikeouts 10 times in his career. While he may not strikeout as often as Dunn, it's not like Pujols who only Ks about 60 times a season.

You seriously have something against people that try to gain a better knowledge and understanding of a game they really enjoy? No, I have something against people who discount parts of the game because they can't figure out how to crunch the numbers. I've read this board everyday for years, and what's kept me hooked is the stats. I enjoy the conversations of people who understand "old" baseball and use the stats to make it better. I'm curious as to what parts of the game you feel are being discounted by those who prefer statistical analysis.

You seriously have something against people that try to gain a better knowledge and understanding of a game they really enjoy?

On the flip side, I hate seeing a LHP that doesn't have a good move to first. I mean, c'mon, you're facing the damn base. You should be able to at least have a decent move. There are umps that will call a guy safe if he deems the tag is "high" (tagging the runner's upper body on a feet-first slide) Doesn't matter if the fielder tags him 10 feet before the bag. If the tag is high, some umps will still call the runner safe. Doesn't necessarily happen a lot at the professional level, but it does at just about every other level.

Sure, unless you're striking out on a pitch headed for the backstop, not much good comes from a K, since the pitcher isn't depending on anyone else to get you out. But it is still just one out. Yes, but if you put the ball in play, you have a chance of the defense messing up, and therefore something good happening out of it. The chances are slim, yes, but they're a hell of a lot better than if you strike out. so what? The rates that he produces at tells us what he produces, which is good, much better than the vast majority. It does not matter what could happen if he didn't strike out, what matters is what does happen. And what happens when Adam Dunn comes to the plate is a more than acceptable rate of success. The fascination with the strike out is so obnoxious. I'd still rather have a guy who makes the same number of outs, who is able to at least have productive outs.... move the runners over and such. A K isn't the end of the world, and given the choice I'd take a K over a DP, but excessive amounts of strikeouts hurt the team. Yes, he produces well, but he could produce much better if he didn't strike out so damn much. Exactly. It's almost like the hustle argument. All else equal, you'd rather take the guy who hustles over the guy who doesn't, right? (Unless there are nagging injury issues, obviously) Are you saying that you would not prefer someone of Dunn's abilities who struck out less? How many fewer strikeouts are you looking for? There really aren't that many .900 OPS players that strikeout less than 120 times per season. And of those that do, not many draw 110 walks per year.

Sure, unless you're striking out on a pitch headed for the backstop, not much good comes from a K, since the pitcher isn't depending on anyone else to get you out. But it is still just one out. Yes, but if you put the ball in play, you have a chance of the defense messing up, and therefore something good happening out of it. The chances are slim, yes, but they're a hell of a lot better than if you strike out. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but at the major league level, the percentage of times that a batted ball put into play results in an error is less than 2%. That's less than two per 100. Over 550 at-bats, let's say the average hitter strikes out 80 times (I have no idea how accurate that is, but let's go with that). Adam Dunn averages about 180 strikeouts per 550 at-bats. If he were to cut down on the strikeouts to where he was only striking out 80 times per season, that's 100 more times he's putting the ball in play. Based on the average number of balls in play that result in an error, you're probably talking about only a couple more times per season where his at-bat would result in him getting on base via error. You also have to factor in how many of those are going to happen at a time when it actually could make a difference in the game. We're not even mentioning the effect that a more contact-minded approach could have on the rest of his game (less power, fewer walks). But nobody has said he should change. I wouldn't want him to change. He SO's a lot; it is not a positive part of his game. That's all. I was just showing erik how slim of a chance it is that the defense is going to mess up if Dunn starts putting the ball in play more.

Only if they say that Dunn is a bad player because of it; which I don't think anybody has said. I don't think anyone has suggested Dunn should change his approach - at this point his game is what it is. He hits a ton of home runs and walks a lot which are fantastic. He strikes out a lot and is a terrible defender which is bad. The good outweighs the bad at this point and he is a very productive player - but that doesn't change the fact that SO's are bad and should not simply be dismissed, especially in the quantities in which Dunn accumulates them. wrong dead wrong absolutely positively wrong no where near correct, rather, you are wrong If another player were to duplicate Dunn's numbers and strikeout 100 times less that player would be a more productive player (Again no one is saying Dunn is NOT very productive) So in fact you are wrong...and I will leave the obnoxious arguments all to you for obvious reasons. That's just it, Dunn wouldn't duplicate his numbers if he took a more contact-minded approach. His power and walk totals would most likely suffer for it.

Sure, unless you're striking out on a pitch headed for the backstop, not much good comes from a K, since the pitcher isn't depending on anyone else to get you out. But it is still just one out. Yes, but if you put the ball in play, you have a chance of the defense messing up, and therefore something good happening out of it. The chances are slim, yes, but they're a hell of a lot better than if you strike out. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but at the major league level, the percentage of times that a batted ball put into play results in an error is less than 2%. That's less than two per 100. Over 550 at-bats, let's say the average hitter strikes out 80 times (I have no idea how accurate that is, but let's go with that). Adam Dunn averages about 180 strikeouts per 550 at-bats. If he were to cut down on the strikeouts to where he was only striking out 80 times per season, that's 100 more times he's putting the ball in play. Based on the average number of balls in play that result in an error, you're probably talking about only a couple more times per season where his at-bat would result in him getting on base via error. You also have to factor in how many of those are going to happen at a time when it actually could make a difference in the game. We're not even mentioning the effect that a more contact-minded approach could have on the rest of his game (less power, fewer walks).

Although I'm sure Soriano trying to speak Japanese would just further piss of Kosuke IIRC, Soriano does speak it a little. I remember reading somewhere that he learned some Japanese when he played over there. Oh he definitely speaks a little. The article calls him "semi-fluent". Do they call his English "semi-fluent"? :lol: Guess it would have helped if I read the article. "Semi-fluent" can certainly be open to a wide range of interpretations.

Although I'm sure Soriano trying to speak Japanese would just further piss of Kosuke IIRC, Soriano does speak it a little. I remember reading somewhere that he learned some Japanese when he played over there.

The Cubs were one win better in 2004 than in 2003. The rest of the division just got better.

Would he really be an improvement over Buchholz? and secondly are they already giving up on Buchholz? isn't the guy like 23? The way Buchholz has been pitching, Byrd would probably be an improvement for the remainder of the season. The Red Sox aren't giving up on Buchholz, but he's clearly not getting it done this year. He hasn't had even a quality start in his last eight starts (0-6, 8.61 ERA over that span). They can send him down for the remainder of the minor league season, bring him back up when rosters expand, and use him out of the 'pen.

It may not be their primary concern, but they should be concerned about it. Lohse has been bad his last three starts. Pineiro has been awful over his last six, and Wellemeyer has an ERA over 5.00 since July 1.

Adam Dunn in his career with a runner on third and less than two outs: 253 PA, 11 2B, 1 3B, 12 HR, 134 RBI, 49 BB (13 intentional), 63 K, 21 SF, .270/.403/.545

Basically 4 series each, or 12 games, not that big of a deal. In other words, no more than at present, just spread out more. The DH wouldn't really be an issue; it would just continue as present (DH in AL parks, pitchers bat in NL). Yeah, that's not bad. If it's only 12 games, there's no real issue. I'd be more concerned if it was something like 30-40 games, but 12-15 wouldn't be an issue.

or maybe the cubs are just paying bruce off. this is a conspiracy. that's what this is, it's one big damn conspiracy. and everyone's in on it. In 2008, Ryan Theriot escaped from Wrigley Field. All they found of him was a dirty baseball uniform, a tube of eye black, and an old pair of baseball shoes, the cleats damn near worn down to the nub.

My apologies if someone has already posted this, but how many interleague games would teams be forced to play if there were 15 teams per league? If it's a decent amount, then this raises the question of what to do with the DH.

I don't see how you can include Alomar when he spent only five of his 17 seasons with Toronto. Granted, that was the most time he spent with one team, but still. Delgado was there for longer and is the franchise leader in career OPS (by a decent margin). He has to be on that list.

Listening to the Phillies game on XM, and it sounds like they just acquired Eyre from the Cubs for some minor league pitcher. I didn't catch the name.

previously, pedro martinez was blowing away the field in the ERA+ department. but mariano rivera has now reached 1000 innings in his career, so he's the leader. Pedro's ERA+: 157. Rivera's ERA+: 197!!! billy wagner has a 180 ERA+, but he's probably not going to reach the required number of innings or decisions. k-rod is at 186 ERA+, but he still has a long way to go. I mentioned this back in April when he was on the verge of taking over the top spot: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=47880&p=1729902&hilit=mariano#p1729902 It really is amazing how dominant he has been. Eight seasons (including this one so far) with an ERA under 2.00. Six seasons (including this one) with a WHIP under 1.00.

I've posted this before, but I find it interesting when discussing steroid use: http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/008374.php