CubColtPacer

Hmm, this sounds like a winner to me. 1) If I had to pick one of each pair, I'd pick OBP, SLG, and ERA. I think AVG is an important stat to look also with OBP, and I think ERA+ is a good stat to look at, but I'm taking ERA for it's flexibility (ERA can be used inside of a game, during a season, or after a season-ERA+ is more accurate but has less times where it can be calculated and used). 1a)I do like several traditional statistics (although not nearly all of them), and yes, the newer statistics do interest me. I'm all for learning as much as I can about the game, and so anytime that I can find stats that refine the understanding of the game (OBP, SLG, OPS for example) I think that's a great thing. I also am very interested in the continuing research into several new stats that I don't put much stock in right now (fielding metrics for example) but that I know is continually improving and will be the future of analyzing those fields. 2)Hmmm-I use OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, ERA+, K/BB ratio, K/9, BB/9, and WHIP on a regular basis. There are many other stats that I understand and put pretty good value in but don't regularly use like ISOD, VORP, and other things like that, but I am always comparing things like VORP to what I think the stat would say about the player (if I have enough knowledge on the subject, like if it's my team). I also understand defensive stats like FRAA, even if I look at them with skepticism because of many aberrant numbers. 3) Most of the ones I don't know very well are only because I have only heard them a couple times, and so I can't remember their initials. However, there are a few stats out there that do sound like a different language, although I hope I can change that over time.

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion. People don't like to hear stats they don't understand mentioned on screen. Most of the people are not going to take the time to look it up either. Occasionally the common fan will let a stat like that slide (such as QB rating, where the common fan knows what is good and what is bad, but has no idea how to calculate it)-but most of the time, it turns people off to hear things that they don't get mentioned. I see it as very reasonable that if these more complicated stats are being heavily used in shows that the common fan watches (their teams telecasts and Baseball Tonight, for example) they will be turned off by the amount of material that they really don't understand, and they will just stop watching. I don't agree with that at all. Just like QB rating, someone doesn't need to know how to calculate a stat to understand its importance. As long as it's explained that a high number is good and a low number is bad and possibly show leaderboards to give some context, people will get used to it over time. Take OBP for example. It is becomming more widely accepted. It may be a relatively simple stat, but there are people who accept it - even on this forum - that couldn't tell you exactly how to calculate it. The important thing is how it's presented. If you start forcing new stats on people, it probably will turn a few people away. However, if you gradually ease some new stats in and explain their use, most people will begin to at least recognize their presence. You'll always have people that will resist change for one reason or another, and the traditional stats such as batting average, home runs, RBI, SB, etc. will always have their place. However, if some of the newer stats get more exposure, younger fans will grow up knowing these stats as part of the game. I think we're on different wavelengths, but I agree with you that gradually easing in new stats will be the best thing for the game, and a synthesis between the new stats and the old stats will be the way to go. I think another failure of the stats community is to automatically say that their stats are better than or there to replace the traditional stats. While it's true that many of them are more accurate, for people to accept something they have to be receptive to it from the beginning. When they hear their traditional stats have to be downplayed in order to accept the new stats, they get defensive and would just try to shut out the new stats. So just present the stats as another help in evaluating players that's not there to do anything but provide another perspective on the old stats (as QB rating has done). Let the people decide over time which one is more accurate-they'll get used to some of the metrics that better understand aspects of the game and would be ready to accept it as the better statistic eventually.

Exactly. QB rating is a really good example. I'd say that almost no football fans know how it's calculated but they do understand how to use it and what it signifies. OPS+ and ERA+ are also good examples. I'm not exactly sure how they go about adjusting it but I understand that it takes into account league and park effects and is a better tool to compare players. A commentator wouldn't need to explain how OPS+ or ERA+ is calculated they would just have to explain what it means. I think these two stats are something the casual fan would understand the importance of quite easily. It's intuitive. It's also easy to understand what is good what is bad with the average being 100. I agree-those two stats should be able to have a pretty smooth transition, because it's easy for people to understand what's good and what's bad.

Because the vast majority of the media continue to mock stats like OBP, to say nothing of more advanced metrics. One more time: The biggest reason for the "fear" of stats amongst fans is the way SABR inclined analysis is mocked by 95% of the mainstream baseball media. I disagree-a large part of the nation is not in a baseball market. Those people do not read these articles or hear usually the mocking of these stats-if you put the initials SABR in front of them or even the word sabermetrics, most of them would say they have never heard of it. Some of these stats will make their way in (as they should)-it will just take time though-the biggest impetus to the stats coming in is the general fan's glossing over it-it may be on the screen, but the fan sees it as meaningless data, just like the general fan only looks to see a pitcher's ERA when they come in as a relief pitcher. To get them to realize the importance of these stats will take time and patience.

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion. Not only baseless, but a big reason that the "casual fan" can't/won't embrace new metrics is articles like this from journalists like Chass that deride and mock the metrics, rather than simply integrating them into conversation. I think it might help if the metrics are explained and not just thrown out there to overwhelm the viewer. If you just throw out the term VORP and assume everyone knows what it is isn't the best way to go about it IMO. That's my point. No attempt has been made to expose the general fan to these metrics other than to mock them at every opportunity. Think about the beat writers and show hosts in this city. Only Bruce Miles talks about advanced metrics, and I can't think of any radio hosts in the city that consistently bring up metrics like VORP. No wonder people can't embrace them and feel that they "ruin" the game. They have no idea what they are because the media doesn't properly educate people about them. That's certainly a good point, and I think a few of the advanced metrics will eventually bleed through and become a part of the game-it would have to be done very slowly and carefully though, and that would include only introducing one new stat at a time and giving a sufficient adjustment period before having a new one. You've got to be kidding me. I don't necessarily think very highly of the general population's ability to absorb information, but you're talking about integrating stats like spoon feeding an infant. It doesn't have to be that way. Metrics like VORP, ERA+ and OPS along with OBP aren't all that complex to understand. There's no reason not to utilize them along with the "conventional" numbers. People can handle getting acclimated to more than one at a time. Look at how slowly OBP and OPS are coming into the game and are being used by the common fan, even with things like WGN actually putting OBP in their graphic. Even with that in the graphic and Len explaining it at times, I bet you that at least half of the fans out there still couldn't tell you what a good OBP was or how to calculate it.

I'm gonna disagree in turn. Stats don't threaten anybody's enjoyment of the game. If people don't want to know about them, they don't have to; they can choose not to pay them any mind. Introducing them, however, certainly adds to the enjoyment of many, as it broadens the overall scope of baseball as a whole, thus attracting more people and appealling to a wider spectrum of types of enjoyment. this reminds me of a quote from "The Secret Game of Baseball". "You don't need to look at stats to enjoy baseball, but you need them to understand baseball." for fans who simply want to enjoy the game, stats don't mean much, and i wouldn't begrudge them that. but i don't want those fans to come back from a game and try to debate with me based on what their eyes told them on that particular day. even if said fans want to go to every single game and never miss a single monent of baseball, you can still learn more about the game from statistics. the human tendency, from an observer's perspective, is to make the game more dramatic than it is--to pay attention to the meaningless details as if they're of the utmost importance. if someone makes a baserunning error once, they must do it all the time. if someone scores a runner from third on a bunt one time, it must be effective all of the time, no matter how many times the observer witnesses the opposite. I think this is a great post-I would put as the combination of statistics and observation that will give you the most understanding, but I really like the rest of your post.

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion. People don't like to hear stats they don't understand mentioned on screen. Most of the people are not going to take the time to look it up either. Occasionally the common fan will let a stat like that slide (such as QB rating, where the common fan knows what is good and what is bad, but has no idea how to calculate it)-but most of the time, it turns people off to hear things that they don't get mentioned. I see it as very reasonable that if these more complicated stats are being heavily used in shows that the common fan watches (their teams telecasts and Baseball Tonight, for example) they will be turned off by the amount of material that they really don't understand, and they will just stop watching. Not only do I believe that to be nonsense, but it's pretty much a defense of the continuation of conventional ignorance. Don't talk about stats because John Doe will stop watching. Bunk. First off, if you're so closed minded that you'd stop watching baseball games because the analysts had the audacity to actually analyze the game, then too freaking bad. But I don't think the average fan would do anything of the sort. Nobody is going to make every telecast a baseball prospectus symposium. But discussing the advancement in statistical analysis, and throwing some stuff out there, with reasonable explanations, should be a major factor in every broadcast. There's no reason to stay stuck in the dark ages because you're afraid some dinosaurs will be offended. Television shows are still about ratings, and yes, they do have to be worried if people will get offended and stop watching, especially if they view that as a large part of their viewing audience. Anything that reduces their ratings is a bad thing to television, even if it better explains the game.

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion. Not only baseless, but a big reason that the "casual fan" can't/won't embrace new metrics is articles like this from journalists like Chass that deride and mock the metrics, rather than simply integrating them into conversation. I think it might help if the metrics are explained and not just thrown out there to overwhelm the viewer. If you just throw out the term VORP and assume everyone knows what it is isn't the best way to go about it IMO. That's my point. No attempt has been made to expose the general fan to these metrics other than to mock them at every opportunity. Think about the beat writers and show hosts in this city. Only Bruce Miles talks about advanced metrics, and I can't think of any radio hosts in the city that consistently bring up metrics like VORP. No wonder people can't embrace them and feel that they "ruin" the game. They have no idea what they are because the media doesn't properly educate people about them. That's certainly a good point, and I think a few of the advanced metrics will eventually bleed through and become a part of the game-it would have to be done very slowly and carefully though, and that would include only introducing one new stat at a time and giving a sufficient adjustment period before having a new one.

Frankly I find that to be a baseless assertion. People don't like to hear stats they don't understand mentioned on screen. Most of the people are not going to take the time to look it up either. Occasionally the common fan will let a stat like that slide (such as QB rating, where the common fan knows what is good and what is bad, but has no idea how to calculate it)-but most of the time, it turns people off to hear things that they don't get mentioned. I see it as very reasonable that if these more complicated stats are being heavily used in shows that the common fan watches (their teams telecasts and Baseball Tonight, for example) they will be turned off by the amount of material that they really don't understand, and they will just stop watching.

I think the Padres used him as insurance at 2b. The Padres had no guarantee of getting Marcus Giles. In fact, they waited until the Braves non-tendered him. At that point, Walker became nothing more than a spare part to the Padres. The Padres gambled on Walker by offering arbitration. They lost. They should pay him. The Padres are in the wrong here. So if Walker accepted arbitration, and then realized he wasn't going to be a starter, then declined to go to arbitration after the club gave them their offer and became a free agent again (which is his right in the CBA even after he accepts arbitration) you would say that he would be in the wrong?

Who knew Lilly had a sinker? It would be great if Barrett/Blanco convince Lilly to use it more often! When was Lilly in Montreal? I assume Lou meant Toronto. I have to assume that Lou knows that using this type of strategy/plan for hitting helps his offense too. That was Barrett talking about Lilly. Lilly started in Montreal, and Barrett was the catcher then in 1999 when Lilly came up. Lilly pitched 24 innings there, and was gone to the Yankees the next year.

I'm gonna disagree in turn. Stats don't threaten anybody's enjoyment of the game. If people don't want to know about them, they don't have to; they can choose not to pay them any mind. Introducing them, however, certainly adds to the enjoyment of many, as it broadens the overall scope of baseball as a whole, thus attracting more people and appealling to a wider spectrum of types of enjoyment. It depends on how far they go. Right now, they are a pretty good balance. Those who want to find the stats can find them easily, and the others just don't hear them. I think the pendulum should swing a little bit further and have more analysts and commentators using stats more than they actually are-if it becomes where most of the analysts are using the more complicated stats as a large part of their argument, then I think that threatens a large part of the enjoyment for fans (although not the enjoyment for me).

To which Fire Joe Morgan fires back with pure brilliance. I'm going to disagree with Outshined here. There is only one sentence in this article that makes sense to me-and that the pushing on too many statistics on the game does threaten most fan's enjoyment. It happens in all sports-most fans want to be able to sit back and enjoy the game, not know exactly how it is played. For example, there is plenty to football that is rarely ever explained-someone on a Colts board posted an article that went through a process of one play in the Colts-Denver game this season, and it was a fascinating thing to read. However, I know that many of my friends wouldn't care to read it-they don't want to think about how complicated the game is, but rather they would just like to make it simple and enjoy it. That doesn't mean that the use of statistics doesn't make understanding the game more accurate-it does. Most fans only want to hear about it though in a limited fashion. The rest of his article? Simply ridiculous-you're supposed to be a baseball writer that caters to all types of fans-to ridicule the ones who love the game so deeply that they want to understand better how the game is played, and to dismiss a stat that he hasn't even looked at is just irresponsible. He doesn't have to completely accept it or even accept it at all-but if he doesn't, he at least has to have an informed decision on why he can't accept it, and at least try to figure out what it is and how it is calculated. I can't believe to state how silly the article was except for that one sentence.

Hmmm-well, if he means starts, then I think that is high-but I can easily see him getting into 125-130 games. If they divide the starts evenly, each one of the 3 outfielders at the corners will have 108 starts (probably closer to 100-105 each because Ward will get some time out there in the corners, and even lower than that if they go with some sort of other platoon option). That means Floyd is pinch-hitting in about 1/3-1/2 of the games he's on the bench, which is actually probably a little low.

If the CBA allows for such a maneuver, what would be the basis for their greivance? The article doesn't say. My guess is that arbitration must be entered into with good faith. The PA could argue he's only being released because he won his hearing. They might argue if the Padres didn't want to take the risk of losing arbitration they should never have offered. I'm not sure of the nuiances of the CBA, but my guess is it would revolve around a "good faith" clause. I don't buy the good faith argument. Clearly the CBA has an out clause for exactly this situation. It is not like Walker is going to walk away empty handed. He is going to get 1/6 of his salary without having to do a thing. How would you feel if your boss fired you for getting a raise and decided to give you two months salary when he fired you? Walker's agent should have informed him this was a possibility of happening before he accepted arbitration. His union gave away that right, and they can't be upset about it now just because it might possibly be used. I would feel bad about it (your analogy of getting fired, but I would have to accept it if it was in my contract, and I can't see how their challenge will result in anything but possibly eliminating that in the next CBA. The process of arbitration is agreed upon by both parties, on good faith that the result of the hearing will be abided to. Releasing Walker after he won an arbitration case is not bargining in good faith. There are plenty of things in the CBA that allow for things that would violate "good faith". For example, looking in the old CBA (2003-2006) there is a provision that a player can back out of arbitration after receiving the club's offer-effectively declining arbitration after agreeing to it. I'd hardly call that "good faith". So good faith gets violated by agreements like these all the time on both sides, but the key is that both sides agree. I do understand what Walker would be challenging though. In the old CBA (which I am assuming this language has not changed) the club can release the player and pay only 1/6 of the salary for what is deemed "failure to exhibit sufficient skill and competitive ability." Walker's people would be challenging that saying that the club has no reasonable basis for making that claim without an injury because the contract he has was just deemed fair for his production level by the league a short time ago, and that there has been nothing that has changed since then. Here is a copy of the old CBA (sorry that I couldn't find the new one, but I have no idea if it's even out there right now): http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/spo/mlbpa/mlbpa_cba.pdf

If the CBA allows for such a maneuver, what would be the basis for their greivance? The article doesn't say. My guess is that arbitration must be entered into with good faith. The PA could argue he's only being released because he won his hearing. They might argue if the Padres didn't want to take the risk of losing arbitration they should never have offered. I'm not sure of the nuiances of the CBA, but my guess is it would revolve around a "good faith" clause. I don't buy the good faith argument. Clearly the CBA has an out clause for exactly this situation. It is not like Walker is going to walk away empty handed. He is going to get 1/6 of his salary without having to do a thing. How would you feel if your boss fired you for getting a raise and decided to give you two months salary when he fired you? Walker's agent should have informed him this was a possibility of happening before he accepted arbitration. His union gave away that right, and they can't be upset about it now just because it might possibly be used. I would feel bad about it (your analogy of getting fired, but I would have to accept it if it was in my contract, and I can't see how their challenge will result in anything but possibly eliminating that in the next CBA.

40 reps? are you sure? that's more than most linemen.... I would read his statement again :D

You can't keep an interim tag for too long though-at most, he could have finished the season under that tag, but still that would have caused him troubles because an interim can often not make the changes he would like to make. I like this move, although I would like to know how long of a period they are going to give him before deciding on his future again (if it's more than 4 years before they even think about doing anything if things are going sour, then I don't like this move).

I try to read my posts again, but most of my proof-reading is done as I type. If I see a mistake afterward though, I'll usually edit my mistake.

Or 5 new guys get induced in the next vote! It seems to me these guys like to feel they are in an inclusive club and the fewer in that club the better it makes them look. Unfortunately, with the 75 percent rule, it's going to take more than 5 new people. If none of the existing committee changes their vote and votes for him, Santo would need the next 18 newly elected members to vote for him.

Honestly? I'd rank the Red Sox pitchers according to those categories (I'd rank the Cubs options as Z, Hill, Lilly, Prior as the 4th) and then I'd put Z against the best starter from the Red Sox, Lilly against the second best, and Hill against the third best. I do that for one reason-I think Z is going to beat any of those 3 Red Sox pitchers, so you want to take out their best. I think Hill is the second best option, but you only need to win 2 out of 3-make it a more guaranteed win by putting him against the worst one of the 3 for the Red Sox. Then, you maybe sacrifice Lilly, but he still has a chance against the second best person. I like your line of thinking. The real question is how do I rank the Red Sox? 1. Matsuzaka (what do we really know?) 2. Beckett (last year's ERA a likely abberition). 3. Papelbon (surprised he took him over Schilling) That's probably the best rankings I can come up with also. That would be pretty likely to win as well if you put Matsuzaka vs Z-you have to think Z will win, but like you said, who knows? Hill vs Papelbon-Hill should go more innings, so more K's will almost certainly be yours-Hill will likely have a better ERA as well, so this category is likely yours Lilly vs Beckett-not quite as much of a mismatch as you might think. Lilly has beaten Beckett in K's 2 out of the last 3 years-Beckett will likely take ERA if he comes back from the debacle last year, and then it will just come down to wins, which are unpredictable. That's probably the way I'd match them up.

Honestly? I'd rank the Red Sox pitchers according to those categories (I'd rank the Cubs options as Z, Hill, Lilly, Prior as the 4th) and then I'd put Z against the best starter from the Red Sox, Lilly against the second best, and Hill against the third best. I do that for one reason-I think Z is going to beat any of those 3 Red Sox pitchers, so you want to take out their best. I think Hill is the second best option, but you only need to win 2 out of 3-make it a more guaranteed win by putting him against the worst one of the 3 for the Red Sox. Then, you maybe sacrifice Lilly, but he still has a chance against the second best person.

I think you have to play it safe and go with Z, Hill, and Lilly on that one-they are the most sure things to stay in the rotation for the most starts, and with the categories you've picked 2 out of the 3 get better the more starts they have. Prior would be my 4th choice, but he's a question mark for the entire season, and I think Lilly gives you enough of a chance that you don't need to take the gamble on Prior.

Oh, a little funny factoid from the article: Pretty soon you'll hear Perry addressing the media: "When I played, and I was on base when Mark Whiten...." :D

I think the big difference is that Perry wants guys to look for a pitch that they can make solid contact on, regardless of whether it's a strike or not. Baker wouldn't acknowledge that sometimes pitches can be strikes and also be more or less unhittable (unless you're looking for Juan Pierre quality contact), and wanted them swinging at anything that was close enough for blind Angel Hernandez to call a strike. That, and he didn't' seem to acknowledge that there was any value, at times, to taking pitches for the sake of taking more pitches (i.e. getting a better look at a pitcher's stuff and how he's attacking you, tiring the pitcher out a little over the course of a game, etc.). True, but Perry doesn't acknowledge that either. I could have sworn I've heard Perry talk about wearing down a pitcher with patience. Hmm, I haven't seen anything about that (I doubt that Perry would consider that anything more than a side benefit of taking pitches that you cannot drive rather than a strategy-if the pitches were in the right spots, I think Perry would be fine with every hitter swinging at the first pitch), but just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not there.