Transmogrified Tiger

I'm sick of the disregard for psychology. It offends my intelligence. Then provide evidence of the effects. Either it's real and has effects, isn't real, or is real and has an impact too small to see.

Yes, Pittsburgh is closer to Cleveland than Cincy. Over twice as close. Yep, Mapquest says 4 to Cincy and 2 and a quarter to Pitt. Plus it's an easier drive with the turnpike. I can get to Cleveland in an hour and a half. Oh, no doubt. Mapquest is notoriously conservative with their estimates. They assume the speed limit.

Yes, Pittsburgh is closer to Cleveland than Cincy. Over twice as close. Yep, Mapquest says 4 to Cincy and 2 and a quarter to Pitt. Plus it's an easier drive with the turnpike.

Seth = Nicholas Cage in Matchstick Men

Yes, Pittsburgh is closer to Cleveland than Cincy.

Uh, they print them out and bring them to the park to sell?

I have my doubts as to the level of havoc it causes being anything but minimal, but MLB pitchers have commented on the fact that they sometimes pitch differently or pay too much attention to the runner. The fact that I love my wife and child is no less true because I can't show proof that I do. In Pierre's case, we have the benefit of him and Castillo batting almost exclusively 1 and 2 for several years. Look at the numbers, when Pierre is performing well(i.e. he's on base a lot), Castillo does poorly. When Pierre isn't performing well and not on base very much, Castillo performed very very well. Their OPS's made almost a perfect ratio. Not that I doubt you, but is there any sort of study or any numbers someone has crunced that support this conclusion? I'm curious as to how this conclusion was derived, as I'd never heard this theory before. Not a study by any means, but when Pierre was brought up at some point I looked up his numbers. We have the good fortune of Pierre/Castillo being 1/2 for a significant sample, and those were the findings. I have class to go to in a minute so I don't have time to look them up again, but someone feel free to look at their numbers. IIRC, the numbers held true for "runners on" situations as well as overall production.

But we're talking specifically about Pierre. And we have evidence that runs contrary to the "he distracts the pitchers because he's a top 10 speed guy or whatever" theory. There's no evidence for that cause aside from logic that makes sense and has player support for either side. That theory is pretty much shot(especially Pierre's case) unless there's something else besides an individual's dogged belief to back it up.

If pitchers get distracted, then why did the person following Pierre perform worse when Pierre was on base more?

Both seem logical, and I'm sure you could find players that will vouch for either side.

I have my doubts as to the level of havoc it causes being anything but minimal, but MLB pitchers have commented on the fact that they sometimes pitch differently or pay too much attention to the runner. The fact that I love my wife and child is no less true because I can't show proof that I do. In Pierre's case, we have the benefit of him and Castillo batting almost exclusively 1 and 2 for several years. Look at the numbers, when Pierre is performing well(i.e. he's on base a lot), Castillo does poorly. When Pierre isn't performing well and not on base very much, Castillo performed very very well. Their OPS's made almost a perfect ratio.

I'm still bitter about playing @ Kohl while Wisconsin was at full strength. Of course with last night's loss, I'm not going to make any concerted effort to watch MSU until the U of I game and the following tourneys.

His speed has value, and it's already reflected in his production by means of beat out singles, extra bases on balls in the gap, stolen bases, etc. Murton's still pretty likely to match or better Pierre's production, and there's not a lot outside of that helping Pierre's cause. Speed can't only be measured as only tangible. This has been argued over and over here though, so I'll leave it at that. Whatever you want to attribute to speed, Murton is a pretty fast guy as well. There's not an enormous difference.

His speed has value, and it's already reflected in his production by means of beat out singles, extra bases on balls in the gap, stolen bases, etc. Murton's still pretty likely to match or better Pierre's production, and there's not a lot outside of that helping Pierre's cause.

Isn't blindly looking at OPS without respect to ballpark or anything else picking and choosing?

But that doesn't explain a certain type of kid, which is what Goony was originally referring to.

Bummer.

What are the odds we see Howard for that Poland match?

I think Lee should start in the 3 hole, and if he doesn't repeat his maddening start to last year(i.e. 1.000+ OPS) then Ramirez should hit 3rd. On the whole, I don't think there's a ton of difference between the two.

That is what I meant. Small fast athletes, what Dusty considers to be prototypical leadoff men, aren't abandoning the sport en masse to another sport. maybe some to soccer, actually when i mentioned soccer, i was being serious. the news has been reporting for some time that younger kids are more interested in soccer leagues than they are pee-wee baseball and football. when those kids grow up, they tend to stay with the sports they were interested as kids. it seems that the juan pierre/david eckstein type of players are going by the wayside. you tend to see players of their height and athletic build in other sports. Part of it is the specialization that goes on nowadays, IMO. If a kid wants to be pretty good at a sport, he has to choose a pretty young age which sport or couple sports to specialize in. Littler guys at a younger age are more likely to be better technically at soccer, and less with bat speed and arm strength in baseball. Speed is also a greater asset in Soccer than in Baseball, especially at younger ages.

Yeah, I think some players have some innate "ability" to get hit. Biggio because he wears Terminator's elbow as protection. In Hairston's case, he wears an elbow guard and doesn't shy away from the plate, and his movement in his stance may cause more pitchers to be momentarily distracted and hit him. IIRC he also has his front foot closer to the plate than his back foot, which increases the likelihood of him being hit through proximity or optical illusion to the pitcher. I don't think it holds true with all players, but Hairston's had a long enough career that I think we can attribute that to him.

I think the fact that he'll likely be our best OF is more of a function of our outfield being an offensive abomination than Murton being a stud.

Actually, IIRC we were significantly better in close games last year than in 2004(when we had a better record).

I'd be interested to see if Hairston's OBP last season was inflated by his HBPs. He'd definitely be a better option than Neifi. AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS Hairston 380 51 98 24 2 4 138 30 31 46 0.258 0.332 0.363 0.695 If you subtract out Hairston's 11 HBP's, that OBP drops to .314. what if he's just good at getting hbp? a walk is a walk. should people count that against guys like Bonds or Biggio too? I second that. On Base Percentage is not a statistic looking forward, it's a statistic that looks at what you've done. It doesn't matter if getting hit by a pitch is a skill. All that matters is that you were hit by the pitch and that you got on base. Getting rid of HBP from on base percentage would be like taking triples out of batting average because triples are fluky, lucky hits that don't happen often. If Hairston had gotten hit 30 times, then it would be a valid point in projecting what he could do going forward. The hitter has much less control over a HBP than hitting a triple, or even drawing a walk. If a guy has a high number of HBP, then it's a logical and worthwhile point to see if it's flukish. Is it that much more flukish than BABIP? Couldn't that fluctuate just as much if not more than getting HBP? Doesn't it seem like the same guys always seem to be getting HBP? It may not necessarily a skill but it seems like it would be a result of an approach to hitting. If a player is not likely to change his approach to hitting shouldn't his HBP remain relatively constant? That's the point I was making. Hairston has some ability to get hit, and since he didn't get hit a ginormous amount of times, it was consistent with the rest of his career. Had he gotten hit 30 times, that would be much more flukish, and his regression back to the norm would have much more impact on his OBP.

The Cubs brass kept saying how they were happy with Hairston's second half and how well he did, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sounds like the unlearned media is picking up on it.