Transmogrified Tiger

Does Missouri still have a team? We're a volleyball school now. And James Augustine has never set a legal screen in his life. Some of the time I don't know how he gets away with it.

In all seriousness, the only chance they have of getting back in the game is if Gardner takes every shot the rest of the game and he goes nuts. They aren't giving up a ton of points, especially against a top 10 team, but a point a minute isn't gonna cut it.

2 hours This really is a no-lose situation from my perspective. Mizzou wins, pandemonium. Mizzou loses by a couple, we kept it close, and U of I looks bad because they can't convincingly beat a team that Sam Houston State knocked off. U of I blows them out, that's what should happen, Mizzou is a mid-major.

I think the Outbox is where outgoing messages go once they are sent, and can still be edited. Once the other person opens the PM, it goes to the Sentbox. I think.

When you factor in that he's only expected to be an end-of-the-rotation guy and when you consider how little he's going to make, I'm going to call it high reward. From a purely performance-based standpoint... yeah.. medium-reward. But other things considered, it has a big payoff. Was Grudz a high reward or medium reward? We paid him $1 million. He didn't overwhelm anyone offensively. In fact, he was average in that department. I consider him high reward, though, because he was a big benefit to this team and it was a risk-less investment to make. But if Reyes is going to be in the rotation, he doesn't have a spot.

Are you talking about a Jones/Pie platoon? I have a real hard time seeing Dusty doing something like that, and I'm not sure it'd be the greatest thing for Pie to be facing almost strictly LHP in his first big league stint. Of course, this goes without saying that I prefer Pie not sniff the Majors till the AAA season is over.

He knew that Jones was coming up and said 'why bother'? Seriously, just take your lead, watch him K, then toss your helmet to Sarge and wait for Neifi to scurry out with your hat and glove.

I also have a hard time seeing Ensberg and especially Pettitte repeating last year's success.

It may be lower than last season, but not because it was "lowered", if that makes any sense. I think Hendry had the same payroll to work with, and as of now he isn't going to use all of it, although there won't be a huge drop from last year to this year.

I could've sworn I already made this post, not enough sleep I guess. To me, it was pretty clear that Giles wanted to stay in SD, and some could go as far to say that Giles' perceived interest in other teams was just to drive SD's offer up. However, given the dearth of RF opportunities available to Hendry, and given how good a RF Giles is, I'm pretty unhappy with his lack of any interest at all.

do they have one big enough? They have one that will make him feel like royalty.

Absolutely incorrect. The number of strikeouts you have has absolutely no direct bearing on whether, if you put a ball in play, that ball goes for a hit. How could it? Strikeouts and balls in play are mutually exclusive. I can see the fuzzy math that is leading you to make the above incorrect statement. You're thinking of a hypothetical Player A, that in 5X at-bats (X being a very large number, such that sample size isn't an issue) doesn't hit a home run or a sacrifice fly (for the sake of keeping things simple, including them would make no difference), strikes out 2X times, makes 2X ball in play outs and amasses X hits. A .333 BABIP. Now you're thinking of a hypothetical Player B, that in 5X at-bats doesn't hit a home run or a sac fly, strikes out X times, makes 3X ball in play outs and amasses X hits. A .250 BABIP. Therefore, you're arguing, strikeouts lead to higher BABIP. Rubbish. The entire difference in BABIP is based on the completely unfounded assumption that every single extra ball in play that Player B manages instead of a Player A strikeout results in that ball in play being converted into an out. The reason that the BABIP changes is because you're changing it, you're simply making it the case that Player B hits .000 on the X extra balls in play! Obviously that's going to supress a guy's BABIP, if on X balls in play you just automatically award him with a 6-3 groundout! The drop in BABIP is entirely caused by that, and has nothing to do with the strikeouts. Player B only exists as a hypothetical, because no player is ever going to go X balls in play (where X is a very large number) and not get a single hit. What happens if you don't accidentally fiddle the numbers in your head is you end up with a player C, that in 5X at-bats doesn't hit a home run or a sac fly, strikes out X times, makes 8X/3 ball in play outs and amasses 4X/3 hits. A .333 BABIP still, only a higher average (.267 as opposed to Player A's .200). That's why it's fair to say that strikeouts suppress batting average. But they have absolutely nothing to do directly with BABIP. That said, as I mentioned before, on the whole strikeouts do have a slight indirect effect upon BABIP, in that players that strike out more, on the whole, have slightly higher BABIPs. That's simply because major league players that strike out tend to have power (because players that strike out a lot and don't have any power, unless they walk a ridiculous amount, aren't major leaguers), and power hitters tend to swing harder and thus hit the ball harder and further, meaning it is generally fielded less successfully. But striking out more isn't leading to a higher BABIP, just as striking out more isn't leading to power. It's just that they're all affected by the same thing: players "swinging for the fences" (sadly that phrase comes with a lot of negative connotations, but none are here intended). You guys are right, my apologies. I was recalling some faulty info or recalling good info badly. Thanks for the great explanation as always Diffusion.

it seems like people who subscribe to the conventional wisdom of baseball often see the new guys as smug. if anything, it's the unwillingness to change or see something as an improvement that maddens me. who cares if they're smug if they're right? does it matter? is it reasonable to go on believing myths because the guys who've busted those myths are sort of jerks? Did you read the description of the book at amazon? I'm all for new thinking, and the editorial review is probably supposed to be exaggerated a little, but it's almost over the top. I remember being turned off to the book reading that the other day when the thread first came up.

First of all, K's are way down the list on why Jones is terrible. K's are not evil. Most times they are no different than any other out, and they chiefly harm you on the whole by hampering your BABIP(a stat I did not make up). No, you didn't make up BABIP, but you did make up the bit about K's harming BABIP. They don't. There is no direct relationship between K's and BABIP, by BABIP's very definition (the formula specifically throws out all ABs in which the player K's). There is an indirect relationship, in that strikeouts correlate with power and power correlates with a slightly higher BABIP. But that assists BABIP, it doesn't hamper it. K's are bad, but it's not that simple. If the search button was working I'd repost the few paragraphs that I've honed to explain everything. As it is, right now, I don't have the time to rewrite it. The fact that K's are not included in BABIP is the relationship. The more K's you have, the fewer outs come from balls in play, the higher your BABIP is, making it harder to sustain. I probably should've added sustainability to "harming BABIP".

Lest we forget, you were the one who brought up that topic with this post. The back slappin started long before that post. I don't see any.

Lest we forget, you were the one who brought up that topic with this post.

Can he play RF?

Mizzou landed a 4-star WR this evening, he'll make a nice replacement for Coffey. Doesn't look to be a star-studded class, but at least the commits are at places of need. Next year's basketball class looks to be pretty solid too, I'm optimistic about next year for both major sports.

I could buy Jones having a down year because of external factors, these things happen. However, there's no discernable difference in production between the rest of his career and '05. He was performing the same as he always was. Not to nitpick a generally good post, but Jones' 2005 numbers were significantly below his career averages pretty well across the board, aside from XBH. His OPS was about 30 points below his career norm. That's true, but his '05 was nearly identical to his '04 and similar to his '01. It wasn't an aberration for him.

That's one of the most bizarre lines I've ever seen. Either he makes them look stupid for bunting him twice, or they are stupid for bunting him twice after he hits a HR.

I'm pretty sure it was White who some member here got to chat it up with on a cruise. IIRC, he loved Chicago. White would be a great pickup at this juncture.

Okay then... First of all, K's are way down the list on why Jones is terrible. K's are not evil. Most times they are no different than any other out, and they chiefly harm you on the whole by hampering your BABIP(a stat I did not make up). This is garbage. It's enough that Patterson has been unfairly criticized for not caring, but there's never any evidence that he of all people doesn't "leave it on the field every time". And furthermore, who cares if he "leaves it on the field every time"? He's not good, players like Augie Ojeda and Bo Hart leave it all on the field, that doesn't make them worthwhile ballplayers. So Jones has a good glove, is fast, and doesn't screw up on the basepaths. Okay, so do many other people who are terrible baseball players. Corey Patterson fits all those criteria, to carry over a common theme. We certainly shouldn't be giving him a huge contract. I could buy Jones having a down year because of external factors, these things happen. However, there's no discernable difference in production between the rest of his career and '05. He was performing the same as he always was. I really hope that Pierre and Jones inspire the team to new heights, I really do. I'll set the likelihood of it happening at negative 2 percent though. Baseball isn't basketball or football, where the players need to act in harmony to make things work. It's mostly a collection of individual performances. There's no evidence of Jones and Pierre motivating teammates to perform better at their previous gigs, how is it going to start now? He's got VCS though. Hopefully Merck will have a prescription out soon. Yes, Jones is an outstanding defender. And no, we are not always saying we want defense. Jim Hendry is, but most certainly not all of us here at NSBB. This is cliched nonsense. There's no proof of this, it's just platitudes to make him sound better based on what you've seen of him.

Jacque Jones, like so many baseball players before him, suffers from VCS. VCS is, of course, Vanishing Clutch Syndrome. Take 2005 for instance. He performs great with Runners on and with RISP, a .879 and .881 OPS respectively. But when those RISP happen with two outs, BAM, VCS strikes. Poor Jacque only mustered a .612 OPS w/ RISP 2 outs. Or how about 2004? Stellar marks with Runners on, RISP, RISP 2 outs. But when the bases are loaded, VCS turns Jacque into a little leaguer. A staggering .100 OPS in that scenario in '04, that's not a misprint. Also, despite having great production w/ runners on, and RISP 2 outs, when it's just runners on and 2 outs, VCS hampers Jacque to a paltry .702 OPS. There may be a cure out there somewhere, but some people don't think VCS exists at all. In fact, they think that there isn't anything depriving the players of their clutchness. They claim that since performance in those situations changes so much from year to year, and comes under such small samples, that Clutch itself is not real. You be the judge.

a team w/ a 100 mil payroll shouldn't need platoon buddies for their corner OFer's. Good in theory, but what RF was out there that's far superior? Unfortunately, Giles & Abreu were pipedreams. Bring on Rondell White. YES If we're forced into this crap, let's at least have some depth. White or C. Wilson should start on this team, but we should get them even though they won't because they aren't "athletic". [rant]What bloody good does it do to be athletic in baseball? Is being athletic going to get you more hits? more extra base hits? More K's pitching? No, they don't do any of that. The only thing you could remotely claim it helps you is on a small handful of defensive plays, and I'm sure glad we sacrificed a vast majority of our offensive output trying to look good while we glide to the ball in the field.[/rant] BTW, that was directed at Hendry's comments, not at anyone else.

My apologies for quoting myself, but in order to give those numbers some context, here's the same for Manny Ramirez. Batting: 62 above replacement, 44 above average Fielding: 1 below replacement, 13 below average Net: 61 above replacement 31 above average