CubColtPacer

Forgive me if this sounds unkind, but one thing you are not is grounded in reality. Why would you say that? After reading several strawman arguments based on imposible premises, I believe I've accurately charachertized your recent work on this board. Ok, let me try to explain. I use extreme examples sometimes because it i s easier to see that there is actually a difference by inflating the difference to a ridiculous level. Obviously there would be no team that would have players with a 1.000 OBP and 0 OBP. Instead, though, by seeing how that team would have a large difference by what batting order does, it is made easier to see how batting order does make a difference even using real life numbers. If my extreme examples are not working, I will stop. Here is a real life example that my friend and I were just discussing. Let's say that the Giants with Barry Bonds of the previous few years moved him to the 8th spot in the lineup with the pitcher batting behind him, and move the 8th place hitter into Barry's spot. They make no other changes besides this. What do you think would happen? Now many times Barry might come up with runners on-but pitchers will never pitch to him with the pitcher on deck. If there are two outs, Barry gets walked, and the pitcher makes an out that will end the inning. Therefore, Barry's production in the order is partially wasted, and the Giants run production goes down. The same thing happens at the top of the order. The 8th place hitter, with a worse OBP, cannot drive the runners at the top of the order in with regularity. Therefore, switching two people in the lineup makes the run production at the top and the bottom suffer.

Forgive me if this sounds unkind, but one thing you are not is grounded in reality. Why would you say that?

Using a stretched out extreme example negates any value in your example. It's pretty interesting to note that in nearly everyone of your diatribes about what is and is not worthwhile, you use extreme examples that have no basis in reality. I use extreme examples because it easier to see my point. So let's use a real life example. The Cubs sign somebody who has a .400 OBP, and bat him 7th. He gets on base 40 percent of the time, but he dies on first because Neifi and the pitcher strike out everytime he is on base. So this guy never scores even though he gets on base a great deal. If you moved him to 2nd in the order though in front of Lee, this person would be driven in 30 percent of the time. Therefore, run production would go up. How do you account for the fact that Neifi Perez has arguably been our best RBI man this year ??? Percentage of baserunners driven in 04/03 - 07/18 BDI LOB RBI% Restovich 1 2 0.333 Perez 20 59 0.253 Blanco 15 45 0.250 Walker 31 96 0.244 Jones 33 112 0.228 Barrett 26 89 0.226 Ramirez 37 136 0.214 Murton 23 103 0.183 Lee 10 55 0.154 Nevin 9 51 0.150 Mabry 6 36 0.143 Bynum 4 25 0.138 Cedeno 20 130 0.133 Hairston 4 27 0.129 Pagan 2 16 0.111 Pierre 12 101 0.106 Womack 1 14 0.067 Theriot 0 3 0.000 CUBS 267 1172 0.186 Sorry Fred..I actually don't mind Neifi, but I know most people can't stand him and he has a low OBP, so I thought using him would ground it more in reality.

Using a stretched out extreme example negates any value in your example. It's pretty interesting to note that in nearly everyone of your diatribes about what is and is not worthwhile, you use extreme examples that have no basis in reality. I use extreme examples because it easier to see my point. So let's use a real life example. The Cubs sign somebody who has a .400 OBP, and bat him 7th. He gets on base 40 percent of the time, but he dies on first because Neifi and the pitcher strike out everytime he is on base. So this guy never scores even though he gets on base a great deal. If you moved him to 2nd in the order though in front of Lee, this person would be driven in 30 percent of the time. Therefore, run production would go up.

The only problem I see with that study is that batting order affects so many managerial decisions that he can't account for. What reliever to bring in is affected by who is coming up. Do you intentionally walk somebody-Bonds is a perfect example of this for years. Where your pitcher hits and how many times he gets to sacrifice versus how many times he comes up where he has to hit makes a difference. All these, and many other things affect the game, and are directly related to batting order that a computer analyzing statistics cannot measure.

Derrek Lee's 2005 is the exact reason I don't buy it. I wonder if the assumption was that each position was filled with players performing right at the league average. I don't remember. Anyway, I believe the assertion was that the difference was a handful of runs over the course of a season, not a single run per game. Derrek Lee's RBI total may have been higher with higher OBP in front of him, but the team's run production probably would not have been. That is what matters. Lee's RBI goes up if you flip a better OBP from the bottom to the top, but the run production at the bottom goes down. What matters is those extremely low OBPs were on the team, not where they hit. By using a stretched out extreme example, you can see this is simply not the case. Let's say you have 9 hitters, 3 of them have an OBP of 1.000, and the other 6 have an OBP of 0. If you put the 3 hitters who have 1.000 at 1, 4, and 7-they are not going to score nearly as many runs as if you put the hitters at 1,2,3. A smaller version of the same effect happens with a team like the Cubs. If a person batting 7th gets on at a good clip, but the hitters at 8 and 9 are terrible, then that hitter will never be driven home. If he hits in front of Lee though, then he will sometimes be driven home. The difference is that in one inning, we will get 2 hits and a run, instead of getting 1 hit and 1 LOB every inning.

The Cubs got a career year out of a healthy Lee last season and still finished in the bottom third in the majors in runs scored. Barrett's having a career year this season, and Jones has been an improvement over Burnitz. Ramirez has been worse than last year. Walker has been ok but has hit for a lot less power than last year. A healthy Lee would make a difference, but I don't think it would be enough to really vault this offense up the charts too many spots. There is one other big difference in the team from last year. As bad as many people think Pierre is doing, he has had to have much more of a help then Patterson did last year posting a .254 OBP in 451 AB's. Also, left field has been significantly improved-remember Hollandsworth got the plurality of at bats there and posted a .301 OBP. I think that would be enough change-I mean, we finished 20th in runs last year, and all he's saying is that we might be 13th-20th again with a healthy Lee.

I disagree that the lineup order would improve this team much. Wow Thanks for the insight. OBP off all of those spots in the lineup with current players and splits included. Pierre (320), Barrett (399), Lee (396), Aramis (324), Jones/Murton (372), Walker (356), Jones/Murton (287), Cedeno (280). no need for the sarcasm just because your argument has been proven wrong by dozens of people who do nothing but analyze baseball. It's not like he's saying that if the Cubs just "tweaked" their lineup a little bit they'd be scoring 9 a game, he's just saying that the awful lineups Dusty puts on the card every morning are only worsening the offensive potential of this club. I see nothing wrong with the argument that batting the sadly scarce high OBP/lowish power guys the Cubs have 1 and 2 with the decent power guys they have 3-4-5, instead of this Neifi Perez #2 crap, would improve the Cubs' offensive situation. Worst in baseball to middle of the pack is a large improvement. True, but he said also that they would be in the middle of the pack if Lee was healthy all year. If Lee had been healthy, that would have made a big difference in the offense.

But that's not even true. Giambi produces more runs with his OBP than Ichiro because much of his OBP is from extra base hits. You can't just eliminate power from the equation and expect to come up with good results. When we isolate one variable though, we are assuming the other variables are the same. So slugging in this example is equal. Edit: There is one more thing though. A higher average is loosly correlated to a higher slugging percentage. So a higher average usually comes with a greater slugging percentage, but now always.

Actually, I think the next stat to look at is SLG. I second that. I third that Wow I guess I wasn't clear, because a whole lot of folks missed the point. SLG isn't an element of OBP. If two guys (or teams) have equal OBP, then AVG will tell you which is producing more runs from that same OBP. Remember that the issue at hand is walk rate versus hit rate (AVG). SLG may trump them all, but that wasn't what the argument was about. Thank you Dave ..that is the point I was originally trying to make.

I'm not really sure that SLG actually is our biggest problem. But that aside for the moment, why didn't you frame the debate in those terms? Why squabble over the tertiary matter of how much of the OBP is average? I did this because a high OBP can be achieved by either a high average or high numbers of walks, and high averages influencing OBP have a greater effect on runs scored then high walk totals. Do we need to walk more? Definitely. Do walks correlate with runs scored? Not very well-I only got into what makes up OBP when a poster thought that I was confusing the two topics. We need to do both, but if we can increase one by the same amount, average would be the better one to increase in order to maximize run production.

Actually, I think the next stat to look at is SLG. I second that. I third that, but teams with higher averages tend to have higher slugging percentages. The poster originally said that the reason our offense was struggling was due to lack of walks-I was just showing that he just hit a minor piece of the puzzle-our lack of slugging is a far bigger problem.

True-walks are a key variable, but remember also that a team is going to have about 80 percent of the at bats come from average, while only 20 percent will come from walks or less in OBP. So the difference in the percentages will have to factor that in. You're right-a team that is dead last in either will not have a good OBP. It is just better to be 1st in average and 15th in walks then 1st in walks and 15th in average. That will cause many more runs scored, but being in the bottom 10 of either one makes it very difficult to have a top 10 OBP, and therefore very hard to have a top 10 OPS.

OBP is more than just walks, my friend. Exactly..you'll agree with me that OBP is basically BA and walks combined, wouldn't you? I know there are other factors to OBP, but they are pretty unimportant. If that is the case, then what is the bigger factor in OBP? Why is OBP so good? Of course OBP is a better stat then average-it is a more complete stat. The question is-of the two components that primarily make up OBP, average and walks-which one is more important to have a higher number in? If you have a .350 OBP, would you rather have a team hit .320 with a few number of walks, or a team who hit .270 with a great number of walks? What I'm saying is that with similar OBP's, it is the team with the greater average who will typically have the much better offense.

The 2005 Cubs were 9th in BA, 20th in runs scored. Their OBP was 20th. The 2006 Cubs are 17th in BA, 30th in runs scored. Their OBP is 29th. Ok, Tampa Bay last year-29th in walks, 12th in runs scored. 3rd in Batting Average, 16th in OBP. the Angels- 24th in walks, 11th in runs. 7th in batting average, 19th in OBP. If you look at teams with a high batting average and low walk totals, you notice that their runs scored are much closer to their average then to their level of walks. Typically, a team will be close in rank of their league between their OBP and runs scored, yes. A team with high walks and low average will be on the lower end of the range of rank, and a team with high average and low walks will be on the higher end of that spectrum. Note-this does not mean that it is not the most beneficial to have a high BA and high numbers of walks-it is, and the best scoring teams generally do that because it is the best of both worlds. However, the best indicator is average, and then walks. I will have a post in baseball discussions either tonight or tomorrow showing this fact in better detail.

Sounds like something Dusty would say. The Yankees have been doing the walk/obp/slg thing for years. They can just pay for better versions of that stuff. They have good offensive numbers because they get the most talented players who have the best plate discipline. If the Cubs were smart they'd do a scaled down version of the same thing. You don't need to go after every big time free agent, and there's no need to throw huge money after problems that can be fixed with minimal effort. Are people still arguing that the lack of walks isn't behind the Cubs lack of runs and lack of wins for the past several years? Are we still debating whether or not the Cubs should take more walks? Yes, we should take more walks. Do you need to be anywhere near a leader in walks to win the WS? Absolutely not. The White Sox last year-25th out of 30 teams in walks. The Astros? 20th out of 30 teams. 3 of the top teams in walks last year finished in the bottom 10 team of runs. There is simply no clear evidence that walks have more than a slight effect on runs scored. OBP, yes-it adds the high effect of average and the slight effect of walks. Walking a great deal is not a great indicator of scoring runs or having success on the field. Jim, is that you? Well, look at the numbers, and tell me which one is a better indicator of runs scored-average, or walks. You will find that average does a 2 to 3 times better job of pointing to a high scoring team. Walks do help-which is why we use OBP to combine their help with the greater help of average. The stats absolutely bear this out 100 percent, and if you want, I'd be happy to prove it to you.

Sounds like something Dusty would say. The Yankees have been doing the walk/obp/slg thing for years. They can just pay for better versions of that stuff. They have good offensive numbers because they get the most talented players who have the best plate discipline. If the Cubs were smart they'd do a scaled down version of the same thing. You don't need to go after every big time free agent, and there's no need to throw huge money after problems that can be fixed with minimal effort. Are people still arguing that the lack of walks isn't behind the Cubs lack of runs and lack of wins for the past several years? Are we still debating whether or not the Cubs should take more walks? Yes, we should take more walks. Do you need to be anywhere near a leader in walks to win the WS? Absolutely not. The White Sox last year-25th out of 30 teams in walks. The Astros? 20th out of 30 teams. 3 of the top teams in walks last year finished in the bottom 10 team of runs. There is simply no clear evidence that walks have more than a slight effect on runs scored. OBP, yes-it adds the high effect of average and the slight effect of walks. Walking a great deal is not a great indicator of scoring runs or having success on the field.

I don't think that most people would claim that Beane is a bad GM. I think 2 problems arise though when looking at following his offensive philosophy. 1) Yes, Beane has a much smaller payroll. Do you think his offensive philosophy might change with a larger payroll? As some have said, Beane values efficiency because he has to. Most efficient does not always equal ideal. The Yankees are not efficient whatsoever, but yet they have very good offensive numbers. The Cubs could easily do somewhat of the same thing. 2)Many times, Oakland's offense has kept them from advancing further in the playoffs. They simply have not had enough offense to get past the first round even when they had their big 3. I think even Beane would say that he might value different types of hitters if he had the flexibility that the Cubs have.

That's one of the problems of moving Jones to center. There's no reason he should be starting against lefties and he'd need a platoon partner. Murton wouldn't be able to be that guy. I think most people who want to move Jones to center are trying to get more power in the outfield with Murton in left, so they need to open up the other corner outfield spot. If Murton moved over as a platoon partner though, we could add the power with a left fielder, and then figure out what to do in center.

I really wish Cubs fans would be a little more patient with a guy who has a half season of ML before making a determination that he is best utilized as a platoon player. people should stop calling for running good players out of town or out of the lineup for the sake of the here and now. one little adjustment and the guy will be a masher. give him a little time, some good coaching, rely on getting corner outfield production from your catcher, and let the kid play and develop. if he has the same numbers at this point of next year or the year after, fine. until then, let the guy keep getting on base at a good clip and develop his power. I think it will take more than one little adjustment for him to be a masher. And I'm nowhere near convinced he could ever be a true masher. Acceptable leftfielder? Sure. An efficient use of team resources? Definitely. I have no problem with Murton as the starting LF, but your other OF have to be much more productive than the current crop, and more importantly, the rest of your lineup has to produce much more. I'd prefer a lineup with a stud RF and never a guy like Neifi starting, not to mention an adaquate CF. Then you can fit Murton in just fine. But when your lineup is as bad as the Cubs, and it has been as bad as the Cubs' lineup has been for so long, you would be much better off platooning a guy like Murton unless you found much greater production elsewhere. The added benefit to that is-a Jones/Murton platoon gives you a very productive outfield spot-I mean a very productive spot. Here are their splits against right handers and left handers respectively. Jones .333/.365/.569 Murton .310/.385/.452 That would be absolutely outstanding in a corener outfield spot. Then if we sign another good player to play the other corner outfield spot, we could really start to have the makings of a good offense.

Hmm..does Juan Pierre play well in big games? Maybe the World Series? .333 BA, .481 OBP-I would call that good.

Do you truly expect that Pierre will have a .322 OBP at the end of the year though? From his past history in the second half and his hot bat, I'd expect his number to end up between .340 and .350.

Oakland is 2nd from the bottom in runs scored in the AL, and have still outscored the Cobs, 411-376 Exactly-so our strategy is definitely wrong, but it doesn't mean their strategy is right-don't you think we would have about the number of runs they have if Lee was here the entire season though? We'd still be bad-and we still need to make changes, but so do they. Oakland is also over 500 and currently in 1st place. So maybe we should be looking at their pitching philosophy, but not their hitting philosophy.

Oakland is 2nd from the bottom in runs scored in the AL, and have still outscored the Cobs, 411-376 Exactly-so our strategy is definitely wrong, but it doesn't mean their strategy is right-don't you think we would have about the number of runs they have if Lee was here the entire season though? We'd still be bad-and we still need to make changes, but so do they.

Because Ronny Cedeno, our most ready rookie right now (not counting Murton-he's had a little more service time) certainly is playing as well as Pierre-except that's not true, and the gap is widening every single day. So no, the minors are not full of guys who can provide Pierre's production. I'm sorry. I wasn't referring to just "our" minors. Just about every team has a guy that could provide CF production that Juan Pierre has provided. I was referring to the fact that Juan Pierre 2006 production could easily be matched by minimum salary replacement. I think the Cubs could put Buck Coats or Sam Fuld in CF tomorrow and you wouldn't have much of a drop off. Is it worth 6m or more to bring Pierre back when you can the same production from a rookie? Cedeno is a SS and he's hitting exactly like I expected he would. You mean like the teams that have people playing similarly to Pierre-Aaron Rowand, Steve Finley, Cory Sullivan, Corey Patterson, Mark Kotsay, Willie Taveras. Pierre is outperforming many of those players, and if he has a good second half like he usually does, he could easily move up into the next bunch of center fielders. Are you saying that none of these teams have minor leaguers who could play that well? Pierre will likely be performing in the top 10-15 of center fielders very soon.