CubColtPacer

I'm quoting you, but I'll reference everyone. Sure, OPS is a flawed stat, but so are all the others-OPS still is the best indicator of runs scored out there. Sure, it's not complete, but shouldn't it still be held in high regard for how predictive it is? I'm not 100% sure on this one, but I think OBP is actually more predictive of runs scored. I think someone on this board calculated it a while back, that if you look at OPS, OBP, and SLG, OBP ends up being the best predictor of the three in runs scored. I don't remember enough of my stats classes to calculate it myself. Anyone else remember that thread? Nah, it was actually found that OPS was much better-I'll try to find that thread though.

I'm quoting you, but I'll reference everyone. Sure, OPS is a flawed stat, but so are all the others-OPS still is the best indicator of runs scored out there. Sure, it's not complete, but shouldn't it still be held in high regard for how predictive it is?

I'm not really counting on Jones or Soriano learning enough to actually improve. But the big difference is those are actually decent ballplayers. Novoa is just another hard throwing wild man. I don't see how Lou's presence could possibly change that. Maybe not Lou but somebody over the off season. Didn't he pitch over the winter? I just believe to not always have preconcieved ideas on how good a player is either. Personally, I've been burned by that and I've learned not to do it. Hard throwing wildman...I can just picture what that type of player would look like! I think you're more likely to get burned thinking a bad pitcher will suddenly improve, than assuming he has not. I agree but you don't just write it off until you find out all the facts. Another thing, what makes Novoa a bad pitcher? Has he always had a 1.8 WHIP the whole time because there has to be a reason why Hendry traded for him in the first place. It was mostly based on potential-at the time of the trade it seemed somewhat likely that Novoa could develop. So far, that hasn't happened (he actually had a 109 ERA+ last year, but that's not really the best way to measure a reliever).

Being a closer is more about mental toughness than anything. Most teams best relievers are their closers, because those relievers are good against all types of hitters and have the mental toughness needed. However, the Cubs are in a situation where 3-4 of their relievers have all the capabilities to be a closer. With that, they don't necessarily need their best pitcher back there, but can rather use their best pitcher in other situations. If Dempster bounces back at all he should be fine back there.

I hadnt see Houston play so i can't comment on his skills compared to Hall's. Hall being the first CB selected is a good indicator that this CB class doesn possess the lock down corner. If he is selected first i think thats more of an indicator than the publicity he garnered from playing for Michigan or how good of a CB he truly is. #1 by default, any other year he is not the first CB taken, however he would still be 1st rounder. He really hadnt got much publicity in his four years, Marlin Jackson got much more publicity than Hall ever had and in the end didnt possess the coverage/ball skills nor the timed speed Hall just put up. Hall>Marlin but by the publicity it would be reversed dramtically. I definitely appreciate Marlin's cover skills a lot more after this postseason-in fact, I think Marlin will be burned into every Colts fan's memory for a long, long time :D -I've actually heard many Colts fans say that it was more fun winning that AFC title game than winning the Super Bowl was.

Murton hitting second!!! OMG!!!!! Sweet! Man, things are going too good this Spring. Let's not get too excited. Murton might only be playing, and in the two hole, because we're facing a lefty. Which is a major bummer. That's my guess as well. I think Murton will be playing against some-right handers, but I don't know how often he'll be in the 2 spot against them. Even if he bats in the 2 spot against left-handers though, that's still an improvement though and one that was unexpected (considering that there have been rumors about 3 possible people in the 2 spot, and Murton was not one of those hitters).

Realistically, I wouldn't have wanted to trade for Young and pay him that kind of money anyway-he'll be 31 at the end of the year, and 16 per plus the players to trade for him? No thanks.

Okay, that's one thing, but Wuertz doesn't have to have a better spring than 2006 to win a job. That's the silly thing. It would be silly to option him just to keep Miller, unless Miller looks really good. Basically, the only reason he should be optioned is if everybody else is healthy and looks really good. That's the only point where he should be squeezed. And that's the least likely scenario. When you're saying everyone else though, it's really only Prior, Miller, and Wuertz-3 men fighting for 2 spots. If Prior is healthy, he'll get one of them-so then it just comes down to who pitches better-Miller or Wuertz. If they pitch about the same, then Wuertz should get the nod.

I think this might be the standard lineup against left-handers-I'm interested to know now what Lou has up his sleeve against right-handers (my guess is that right-handers will have a lot more variation in it depending on if Jones and Floyd are playing together, or if Murton and Floyd/Jones is playing).

Well that's just silly. Why should his ST results determine whether or not he wins a job, when he's shown repeatedly to be among the better Cubs relievers. He had a nice debut in 2004. A very solid 2005 campaign and regardless of his 2006 spring, he was fantastic with the Cubs. Sure, but who do you get rid of then? There are too many bullpen guys, somebody who is talented has to either be sent down, released, or traded, and so pretty much all of the jobs down there are up for grabs. I don't care about their talent, I care about the results. Novoa should not be considered a serious candidate to unseat Wuertz in spring training. The bullpen of Dempster, Howry, Eyre, Wood, Wuertz, Ohman and Cotts should be all but set. If Wade Miller isn't good enough to crack the rotation, then cut him lose. There isn't a single "kid" who should be given a bullpen job over Wuertz. The only possible way he should be optioned is if everybody, by some miracle, is 100% healthy and pitching great. That's unlikely. Wuertz is a top 3 arm in the Cubs bullpen, as far as showing he can be an effective reliever. The decision to option Wuertz or not should not lie in his spring training results. He's shown enough in the past, when it matters, to comfortably ignore spring results. I would agree that Novoa should not get it over Wuertz-I disagree a little bit about Wade Miller, although I think you did mention it if everyone is healthy and pitching good. If Wade is pitching well (and better than Wuertz) and everyone is healthy in the rotation in front of him, which means he can't crack the rotation, then I can certainly understand why they would rather option Wuertz than release Miller. That's the only case I see where the bullpen might change over ST though.

Well that's just silly. Why should his ST results determine whether or not he wins a job, when he's shown repeatedly to be among the better Cubs relievers. He had a nice debut in 2004. A very solid 2005 campaign and regardless of his 2006 spring, he was fantastic with the Cubs. Sure, but who do you get rid of then? There are too many bullpen guys, somebody who is talented has to either be sent down, released, or traded, and so pretty much all of the jobs down there are up for grabs.

I'm much much much rather have Murton in RF than Jones. After seeing him play last year, I certainly wouldn't say Jones is qualified to play RF. After seeing both of them play there, Jones is a much better fielder at getting to balls and making plays (along with the stronger arm, if he would ever show it). Murton has the much more accurate arm. I'm all for putting Murton in RF part of the time (and I think Murton is an average defender in LF, which is higher than most people think)-but if our defensive outfield on a regular basis is Floyd-Soriano-Murton, there's going to be plenty of gap shots that will be hit against them.

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.