Transmogrified Tiger

http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/mlb/2006/0215/photo/a_springtraining_412.jpg

Let's see: Sammy hit for a higher batting average, scored more runs, drove in more runs, hit more doubles, hit more triples, hit more HR and stole more bases. Plus, McGwire was not durable as the most number of games he played in a year was 156 games, while Sammy had 6 seasons of 156 games and more. Sammy never batted .187..never. Give me the guy who always answers the bell, puts up better numbers and is an MVP. McGwire's year when he hit .187 > Sosa's 2005 Sosa had better durability than McGwire, it's a valid point(and the only point brought up in your post by posting all the cumulative stats). When McGwire played, he was better. He got on base more(about 50 points of OBP), and he hit for more power(about 50 points of SLG). If you have to begin any argument by saying 'when', then the selective stats tend to ignore the big picture. It denotes that people want to inject some limits to the argument, because the full stats are so overwhelming. It's similar to taking one season of success by Quin Snyder coaching at Missouri and then comparing that to Norm Stewart's full career. If you look long enough, I'm sure anyone can find made-up comparisons. It goes back to production over a career and clearly Sammy has done that far greater than McGwire. What are you talking about? You're the one who said Sammy never batted .187 like it was something to be proud of. Turns out, even though he was never that low in batting average, he had a season worse than McGwire's .187 season. Like I said before, McGwire's disadvantage in playing time is a valid concern. For me, I don't think McGwire's numbers would've dipped with more PT(it's not like Murton having 100 big league AB's, we're talking a full career), and when he did play he was significantly better than Sosa. For me that's enough to conclude that Sosa is not definitively better.

Exactly, Slugging is undoubtedly flawed as is, and adding walks would improve it's accuracy most likely. Problem is, that improvement would still leave the metric flawed, and it would no longer give you the focused look at power that it does now.

Let's see: Sammy hit for a higher batting average, scored more runs, drove in more runs, hit more doubles, hit more triples, hit more HR and stole more bases. Plus, McGwire was not durable as the most number of games he played in a year was 156 games, while Sammy had 6 seasons of 156 games and more. Sammy never batted .187..never. Give me the guy who always answers the bell, puts up better numbers and is an MVP. McGwire's year when he hit .187 > Sosa's 2005 Sosa had better durability than McGwire, it's a valid point(and the only point brought up in your post by posting all the cumulative stats). When McGwire played, he was better. He got on base more(about 50 points of OBP), and he hit for more power(about 50 points of SLG).

http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/rumor.gif That's cause they do go far in the tournament.

Aramis Ramirez would be a lot better if he hit .450, but that doesn't mean he's not a very good player. A low batting average and/or a high number of K's don't negate actual production, but it's more difficult to produce with them. In Dunn's case, he's still one of the best hitters in the game, so it matters much much less than say, Corey Patterson. Ok...you're argument doesn't make any sense because NO ONE is going to hit .450, but it's not out of the question for a guy to hit over .266(which Dunn has never done). Calling Dunn one of the best hitters in the game is a bit crazy, even for this site. Not crazy at all. The point is that a low batting average(or number of K's) isn't something that takes away from the production already provided. It makes it more difficult to achieve, but Dunn's proven able to do so. Also, asking Dunn to hit for a higher average might have a worse effect. If he tries to make contact more, he'll hit for less power, and may on the whole be less productive. It's the same maddening approach that Pierre and Neifi have. Do anything to avoid the strikeout, even if you hurt your production on the whole.

They've been as good on the road as any team in the Big 10. Only one other team has beaten one of the other contenders on the road. Their schedule is really unfortunate as well. OSU's efficiency makes them a good bet to go deep in the tourney, I agree.

LOL, I love watching you guys whine about officiating everytime Iowa wins at home. For your information MSU was called for 21 fouls while Iowa was called for 14. MSU fouled Iowa 4 times in the last three minutes to put them at the line, so really it was 17-14. The officials were letting a lot go both ways. And if you've watched MSU play under Izzo or were paying attention last night, they were doing far more grabbing and holding than Iowa was. They play the most physical defense in the Big Ten as far as making contact. Jay Bilas even talked about it last year. They know the officials won't blow the whistle every play, so they play extremely physical and get a lot more benefit in the second half. Actually, the officiating improved after that point. Michigan State got off to a great start, playing in your face defense and attacking the basket. Then they pretty much got that taken away from them with a horrifying sequence of ticky tack calls(and swallowed whistles at the other end) that led to Iowa being in the bonus with over 13 minutes remaining. After that MSU's crappy play pretty much took care of the rest.

Honestly, I don't believe that you understand what those statistcs represent at all. I'm not even one that is a huge fan of Win Shares or VORP myself(I'm sure CardsFaninChiTown could tell you that :wink:), but dismissing "Billy Beane's calculator crap" out of hand is ignorant, especially when it's far from the only thing pointing to Adam Dunn being a good player.

AB

Let's try the AL only, to eliminate(except for a few interleague) pitcher sacrifices. 2005 Rank in Sacrifices : Rank in Runs 1st : 9th 2nd : 12th 3rd : 11th 4th : 7th 5th : 14th 6th : 10th 7th : 4th 8th : 13th 9th : 8th 10th : 2nd 11th : 5th 12th : 6th 13th : 1st 14th : 3rd And now 2004: 1st : 3rd 2nd : 7th 3rd : 8th 4th : 5th 5th : 6th 6th : 10th 7th : 14th 8th : 11th 9th : 2nd 10th : 13th 11th : 9th 12th : 4th 13th : 12th 14th : 1st And 2003: 1st : 14th 2nd : 4th 3rd : 10th 4th : 11th 5th : 13th 6th : 8th 7th : 6th 8th : 7th 9th : 12th 10th : 3rd 11th : 1st 12th : 5th 13th : 9th 14th : 2nd So now the average for each spot, remember Sacrifices : Runs 1st : 8.6 2nd : 7.6 3rd : 9.6 4th : 7.6 5th : 10.3 6th : 9.3 7th : 8.0 8th : 10.3 9th : 7.3 10th : 6.0 11th : 5.0 12th : 5.0 13th : 7.3 14th : 2.0 Rank 1-5: 8.6 average Rank 6-9: 12.6 average Rank 10-14: 5.0 average EDIT: Again, the above is likely skewed by small sample size in attempts and in years. Doing this for a lot of years would eliminate some of the organizational bias built in. For example, Toronto, Oakland, and Boston are near the bottom in sacrifices all 3 years. A lack of sacrifices isn't the main reason why Boston scores a ton of runs, although it probably helps. On a larger scale any conclusions you could draw would be more definitive[/obvious].

Interesting correlation... It's impossible to say decisively that the sacrifice attempts caused those two teams to be at the bottom of the league in runs...it could just as easily be something like they played more for sacrifices because they felt their teams were incapable of big innings anyway...as evidenced by the trouble they were having scoring runs. Either way, still interesting. Top 10 in sacrifices- Average rank in Runs: 20th Bottom 10 in sacrifices- Average rank in Runs: 10th This is skewed because ALL of the top 10 are in the NL(only Cincinnati had fewer sacs than any AL team), and ALL of the bottom 10 are in the AL. I wish we could isolate non-pitcher sacrifices.

A lot of things that are bad have been around for a long time, progression is real. The White Sox were 16th(16 sacs behind the Cubs) in sacrifices last year. It's been proven to be an ineffective strategy. EDIT: San Francisco and Washington tied for the most sacrifices last year. They were last and second to last in Runs.

Kleiza also had several inches and an inside/outside game. There aren't many players that can post up and step outside, there are dozens of players who can shoot a 3 and penetrate a little as a SG.

That would be a terrible decision on his part. I don't know about that. Mizzou basketball will likely blow next year. He's having his best season and he's being talked about on a national level. I think it'd be wise for him to leave after this season. Bad teams can still have NBA caliber players. Gardner was mentioned for his spurt through the kU game, but since then he's really fallen off. There's a much better chance of him getting drafted after his senior season than this one. Well, he's still one of the top scorers in the Big 12, if not THE top scorer. I don't know where he ranks now. Someone will draft him, that's for sure. Edit: And he's had a couple bad games lately, but he's still put up 20+ in 3 of his last 7. Vedran Vukusic leads the Big 10 in scoring, and like him it's a function of him being the best scorer on a bad team. Gardner doesn't shoot particularly well as a percentage, nor is he very efficient. He's also not known for his defense, although he has the potential to be a pretty capable defender. I'd be very surprised if someone drafted him, especially since this year's draft is supposedly deep.

That would be a terrible decision on his part. I don't know about that. Mizzou basketball will likely blow next year. He's having his best season and he's being talked about on a national level. I think it'd be wise for him to leave after this season. Bad teams can still have NBA caliber players. Gardner was mentioned for his spurt through the kU game, but since then he's really fallen off. There's a much better chance of him getting drafted after his senior season than this one.

Good work.

MSU loses :(

Aramis Ramirez would be a lot better if he hit .450, but that doesn't mean he's not a very good player. A low batting average and/or a high number of K's don't negate actual production, but it's more difficult to produce with them. In Dunn's case, he's still one of the best hitters in the game, so it matters much much less than say, Corey Patterson.

That would be a terrible decision on his part.

Dunn HASN'T done anything (no pun intended) to show he is a "difference maker". He hasn't improve the Reds since he's been there (granted not many players could improve that team). Granted Dunn hits a few out, and walk a few times, but in no way would I consider Dunn a "difference maker" until he proves it. What else exactly would he have to do to be a difference maker? How about becoming....I don't know....a COMPLETE player? Or...helping the Reds WIN MORE GAMES....maybe.....doing those things. No doubt Dunn is a GIFTED POWER THREAT, but having power doesn't mean he is a "difference maker." Who would you consider to be a difference maker? uh........Albert Pujols.....Alex Rodriguez....Barry Bonds? I'm sorry if I don't view Dunn as "God's golden boy of baseball," but I am not at all convince he would be the "final" piece to a puzzle, a great piece, just not the "final" piece. This is a very easy argument to make since you never quantify anything.

Can Gardner transfer? He'd have to be really really upset to choose the NBDL over the new coach.

THANK YOU! I feared I was alone. Let's join the ABBB (Anti BB Brigade) That's a brilliant double entendre.

Calm down illiniguy, I know it's Iowa, but it's not even your team. :lol: MSU down 4 at the 8 minute TV timeout, 3 Spartans have 2 fouls.

Michigan State is being whistled for more than one foul per minute at this point. They lead by 2 in Carver.