Transmogrified Tiger

Ugh. Let Gallagher start, wherever that is. It's not worth it for him to sparingly pitch in blowouts, Cherry can do that just as effectively.

It's a moot point since Gallagher is on the 40-man and wouldn't clear waivers in a million years.

There was an update with that info in the thread about the A's releasing Kielty. I'll merge them.

I say we give Burnt until 9:30(24 hours since the last pick) before we flip a coin between giving him Michael Vick or Pacman Jones.

I haven't read it, but I've heard a lot of good things about "The Book". Tom Tango (tangotiger) is one of the authors. I've heard mixed reviews on "The Book on the Book" by Bill Felber, but it sounds like exactly the type of reading you're looking for(I think the same would apply to "Baseball Between the Numbers"). No personal experience with any of the three though.

You've apparently made up your mind about what other people think, so I can't convince you. You're completely wrong though. You didn't answer my question. Do you see it as realistic to expect any meaningful segment of this board to lobby for Jones over Pie in CF, or Kendall over Soto at C (to name just two)? Are those plausible scenarios to you? Of course. Have you read the threads about them? There's plenty of people who think Kendall's OBP over the rest of the season will outweigh his power and defense disadvantage v. Soto, and there's people who think that Pie still needs to work on his plate discipline in AAA. For example, Truffle is the biggest proponent of Soto around and he wants Pie to stay in AAA.

You've apparently made up your mind about what other people think, so I can't convince you. You're completely wrong though.

But OBP*SLG*ABs approximates Runs. So it would seem easy to compare two players by adjusting Runs for outs used. Two .800 OPS guys, one .400 OBP and one .300 OBP, the .400 guy would create more runs and would use fewer outs. At that point though you might as well just use one of the more accurate Runs Created formulas. That's what I was getting at. It's slightly better than the widely available OPS, but not as good as the still widely available better RC formulas, EqA, etc. how accurate is it compared to the more complicated formulas? I can't remember off hand. If you google some combination of "correlation" "runs" "OPS", etc. you should find something. That's how I found a table that had run a bunch of different metrics. Or we could wait for Meph to get here.

But OBP*SLG*ABs approximates Runs. So it would seem easy to compare two players by adjusting Runs for outs used. Two .800 OPS guys, one .400 OBP and one .300 OBP, the .400 guy would create more runs and would use fewer outs. At that point though you might as well just use one of the more accurate Runs Created formulas. That's what I was getting at. It's slightly better than the widely available OPS, but not as good as the still widely available better RC formulas, EqA, etc.

This is an enormous pet peeve of mine. Just because you hear calls for all of those players at one point does not mean it is the same people calling for him. Some people may think Pie and Murton should be starting while they think Kendall and Fontenot/Floyd is better than putting Soto and EPatt or Cedeno out there. Others only would like to see Murton out there. Others still Murton + Soto. People having varying opinions on which prospects they think should be up does NOT equal a unified demand for a lineup consisting of Lee+Ramirez+kiddies galore. Stop stereotyping a large group of people to fit the opposite of your argument.

From what I remember, OBP * SLG is slightly better than straight OBP + SLG, but I don't think the increased utility was worth the effort in calculating it, since there are options better than both.

... and the sample size alarms blare. Marquis' monthly ERAs, 2004-2007: April: 3.59 May: 4.02 June: 6.12 July: 4.03 August: 5.75 September: 4.11 So historically, he's pitched like a #5 starter (or worse) in June and August, and significantly better than a #5 starter in April, May, July, and September. I don't understand what point you're addressing. The insinuation from several people all along in this thread is that Marquis has been worse than his season numbers for a while because of the downward trend. What's the relevance of 4 year monthly splits?

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/transanctionsprimer.html http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/08/death_taxes_and_1.php

Tim, you may want to add a y somewhere in "Chicago stle".

Szetela is going to be headed to Roma. Link

The alternatives of Floyd, Pagan, Jones, Kendall, and Fontenot are looking like decent likelihoods for that .600 OPS too. And the Cubs haven't earned any type of benefit of the doubt when it comes to their decision making, especially when it comes to building an offense.

Apparently Murton will turn to dust if he makes contact with a pitch thrown by a RHP.

My goodness, that's an awful comparison. Why? they are the same type of player-passive, non run producing for a production position and mediocre defensively. You may like that type, but Lou doesn't. I'm not saying either opinion is right or wrong, but they are very similiar. That's so vague it's not even worth making a comparison, even if you include the cliched terms used(what is passive?). vague comparisons are better than no comparisons, which is what you have given. Grieve, after a similar amount of PAs as Murton currently has, had slightly better walk rate and slightly better power (albeit at a younger age). Murton has a little more speed and defensive ability. the comparison might not be exact, but their skill sets and short comings are very similar. and even if they weren't, outright statements without explanation, argument or analysis like the two you have made in this discussion suck. Outright statements without explanation, argument, or analysis? That sounds like saying Murton is a RH Ben Grieve and then not elaborating or responding with vague, subjective statements. Murton makes contact more often(lower K rate) and better contact more often(better AVG). Grieve was three true outcomes to the extreme, he saw more pitches, struck out more often, and hit more home runs. On the other hand, this comparison to Grieve is supposed to be a negative one, while anyone would want what Grieve put up his first 3 seasons in the league out of Murton, or anyone in our outfield for that matter.

My goodness, that's an awful comparison. Why? they are the same type of player-passive, non run producing for a production position and mediocre defensively. You may like that type, but Lou doesn't. I'm not saying either opinion is right or wrong, but they are very similiar. That's so vague it's not even worth making a comparison, even if you include the cliched terms used(what is passive?).

That's really interesting stuff, thanks for the link.

My goodness, that's an awful comparison.

I just hope he plays.

You've scooped some moves before. Are you playing coy about it or is that really a guess on your part?

As in, before tonight's game?

Good news, hopefully he continues to pitch well when he gets back. Thanks for the follow-up.