haltz

How about first basemen that make runs happen at a historically prodigious rate? That do anything for you? Should he have hit more grounders to the right side? Won more than one Gold Glove at 1B? Hit for a higher than league average BA? Swiped some bags? He didn't make outs and his hits went for lots of bases. Those are the elements of runs scoring and he played an extremely offense-first position, with few guys who have multiple "tools." So "your HOFers" need to help teams win games, but they have to diversify their methods?

Yeah, I didn't turn that into a rate. I think you are underestimating how much bad corner infield defense, and OF play could affect that. Park and pitcher tendencies do have something to do with it as well. There's an obvious tradeoff by being a FB or GB pitcher (and in that sense it's a skill). Where's Meph? I want some numbers on SLGBIP.

I don't get your opinion. Glaus is likely the better player at this point, on a shorter, cheaper contract. How does this hurt, especially for "awhile?" Rolen has a huge defensice advantage if UZR is to be believed. Almost three wins last year. Enough to bridge the gap between a 95 OPS+ and a 120 OPS+. The defensive numbers may not represent a projection, but needless to say, Rolen is superior there by that metric. Some others like Glaus now, but only since he's moved to the turf, which is curious. The rest of how you feel about the trade is entirely speculative on his medical prognosis. The 2006 version of Rolen is worth quite a bit more than any year Glaus has put up. The Cardinals aren't trading him because of straight up analysis and medical projection, but because he doesn't get along with Tony. So, they are already at a disadvantage as Mo likely has a directive to make "the best move possible" and that's it. Within that framework he's actually done really well, IMO, but the framework sucks (and as long as players like Miles and Izturis types are on the roster, TLR directives will continue to hamper the team). What you are left with is just a guess medically, however, the only people that have had doctors look at Rolen and have an objective stance are the Blue Jays. That's scary. It's kind of a catch-22, but if it's a gamble that other teams want to take, it's a gamble that I think the Cardinals should take. He's a 7-win player if healthy. If nobody wanted him, I'd want him moved ... This is not an opinion shared by many Cardinals fans, apparently.

I'm not following you at all unfortunately. I don't see how those numbers you posted place Marquis and Capuano on different ends of that spectrum. I'm saying that Marquis' career DIPS numbers are worse, and that those guys were hurt by defense in XBH. I was sort of joking, but most balls to Braun's right go for extra bases, for example. Bill Hall was bad in CF, etc.

I bet 78 of them were to Braun's right. Seriously, though. They all have better DIPS numbers than Marquis. Suppan is the only one that's all that close.

Check the post above yours. Flyball pitchers give up less hits than groundball pitchers.

Rationalization is a wonderful thing. Fact is, you cannot swap and statistical analysis doesn't work that way. I think you should have stopped at "the Brewer's defense sucked last year and likely cost them games. If they play better defense and the pitching doesn't regress they should be better". I can buy that. Offhand dismissal of arguments is not a wonderful thing. How is it that the RA part of the ledger isn't mostly made up by a difference in defense? They can't actually swap defenses in real life? OK.

I said I thought he was a good defensive SS and posted some numbers. That's not the point. Replacement levels for fielding and hitting within the same metric is silly. Has a shortstop ever even gotten a cup of coffee that hits like Cesar Izturis and is 25 runs worse with the glove? Anyway, I totally agree on Trammell, just a minor point about comparing him and Rock with WARP.

Trammell gets 625 all-time adjusted FRAR to make up half that value, which is useless beyond the fact that it's a bad measure of fielding. I think Trammell should get in, but this just illustrates how WARP is essentially a junk stat. Sean Smith has him at +44 over his career defensively, and he's one of seven SS with 2,000 games played and an OPS+ over 110 or better. He's in pretty nice company with Wagner, Ripken, Appling, Yount (who played half his career in the OF), and Larkin. This list shows how rare it is to a) play 2,000 games mostly at SS, and b) to be an above average hitter while doing so. It's not perfect, maybe especially to compare this group of players, but unfortunately BRef won't be including EQA anytime soon.

Braun is a decent athlete and has a strong arm. He's just a mess at third due to mechanics and accuracy, I believe. They'd probably be better off with him in RF than LaPorta if it comes to that, though I think one of them will be traded before 2009. Anyway, just speculation on my part, but assuming he can track a fly ball, he'll probably be at least average out there just because he isn't Burrell, Duncan or Dunn. NL LF are just awful fielders in general.

What study? The seven years of park factors? It's a statistic about what happened. If you don't think he gets discredited, then we agree.

I told you that it was a stat based on what happened and not to take the title literally in my first post. If that's your point I have no idea why this exchange is taking place. So he should get demerits if, over and above how it helps all players, he adapts to his surroundings and learns how to throw out runners in his home park? (If that's even true.) I'm pretty sure all players play better at home anyway.

What are you talking about? Does it matter that someone hit a homer because of a hanging slider? Who cares about why? It's a stat that counts something that happened, not writes a thesis about it. I read the article, realize that it's based on holds, kills and a park factor and that's that. And what's with the anecdotal MLB.com garbage? Opportunities are included. EDIT: And an actual entire section on turf. Just read it again and stop freaking out because of what you saw when you watched Cuddyer throw.

Every projection system is going to. PECOTA is usually the most negative to guys with little time in the majors. They ought to be out within a week or two. They came out the fifteenth last year, iirc. I think Nate Silver said somewhere that PECOTA loved him too. I'll believe a line like that from Soto when I see it. Dan projected Dempster as a starter: 9-11, 4.96, 1.1 HR/9, 4.1 BB/9, 6.7 K/9 People use them for their fantasy leagues.

I must be typing in Esperanto today.

Blyleven went into the seventh inning having given up 2 runs or less 323 times. He lost 46 of those games. So that's a Win% of .857 in those games. I'm underwhelmed by this tragedy. EDIT: Must've been 7 innings, not "into the seventh". He lost 40 of those, but I have no idea where the 60 comes from. LINK Win% was .854. EDIT2: Greg Maddux has a Win% of .865 in games where he went seven innings and gave up less than two runs. How many times did he take the loss? 41

Chavez is a good defender and at his 2005-2006 level of performance (.280 EqA) is a valuable player, but he hasn't been elite since 2004 and is coming off a .306 OBP in a year where he had both labrum and back surgery. And he's owed $34 million over the next three years. Beane would pull the trigger on that trade before Colletti finished his first sentence.

Despite the subjectiveness of "best outfield arm", the article is about 2007 performance. He had the same number of baserunner kills as Francoeur, in less opportunities, but if you say so. Soriano only trails himself (last year) in assists for a LF since 1970. Bobby Higginson also had 19 in 2000.

Parra posted excellent walk-rates in over 200 AA innings. Whereas Gallagher's control was a question mark in there in 2006, though he reeled it in for the most part last year. Being younger and not repeating levels is a definite point in Gallagher's favor. Why did Manny get sent to the FSL after a 4.1 K/BB double-A performance in 2005? That seems odd.

Strikeouts vs. outs, numeric starter notation, and leadoff hitters. This thread is awesome.

Well, hyperbole is "intentional and obvious exaggeration". By definition it is not a statement of fact. It is a statement of fact that Marquis is not the pitcher that Willis is. Just because he had a year where they came close is relatively meaningless. He said "never" which is true, Marquis has never been as good, and usually far behind. According to you, one is "terrible" and the other one "above average". You can also interpret that as true talent, which would make it meaningless even if he did pitch better once. I bet if you divide by their pitching runs, you will get a number larger than 25% though. So you've shot that hyberbolic statement of fact down, I suppose. You're going to have to tell me why he was statistically better, instead of dismissing my argument out of hand. ERA+ is good measure of how many earned runs crossed the plate, adjusted for context. That's it. It is not good at telling you how well a pitcher pitched. You've completely destroyed another notion. That being that he is "one of the best pitchers in baseball". I've yet to see someone take that absurd position in this thread.

You are talking about a spectacularly good defensive team and a historically awful one. And Willis' HR/FB is a fluke, just like Marquis'. I think that takes care of everything but the K/BB where Willis has the advantage. I actually don't really care all that much. I was just annoyed that Wilco took up a literalist position to counter what he admits is hyperbole, then used a ridiculous measurement as a statement of fact.

Not really. Single season ERA numbers are a pretty silly way to say who was "a better pitcher". ... it's hyperbole.

What happened isn't the same thing as a player's performance for evaluation purposes. Errors are bad, Meph.

Devon White. I don't know half as much about Pie as most of you guys, but how's a mediocre OBP, decent slugging for his era, and excellent defense work?