David

Oops, you're wrong again. How can I be wrong on my opinion? I think I know what I want. And if I would rather have Roberts and Theriot then thats a fact. I cant be wrong about that. I would like to have Roberts and DeRosa, but I dont think they would move Mark to SS. The fact may be that you want what you want. The fact also might be that what you want is misguided.

Question... why do you fixate so much on OBP but not on SLG at all? OBP is extremely important...slightly more important than SLG, actually. But SLG is also very important (in terms of the more traditional stats) in terms of determining a player's offensive worth. Almost as important as OBP. And seriously. Greene & DeRosa > Theriot & Roberts Do you realize how much better Greene is than Theriot in every facet of the game? Roberts over DeRosa is a nice upgrade (in fact, I've made the case on here that it's a bigger upgrade than some people want to give credit for), but not nearly as significant as Greene over Theriot.

Who wouldn't be? That's like 2004-2006 Barrett with good defense. Don't even put Barrett and Defense in the same sentence. My god was he a butcher. I don't think I've ever seen a player just mentally and physically lose it in the span of one season, in his prime. It was actually sad to see, because he's the type of player you pull for. Yea, that was kind of my point. Not sure if you're arguing or agreeing with me, lol.

Why is it ridiculous? Leadoff is not a team need. I agree with you that the skills he does possess would improve the team. Again though, it has nothing to do with him batting leadoff. If the Cubs acquire Roberts and bat him second behind Soriano, this team will still be better. Basically, with this whole thing, I'm trying to figure out if you like Roberts more because you think he can leadoff or because he's simply a better player than we currently have starting at his position. While I can't say whether or not a player like that is available, a player like that does exist and has been discussed quite a few times on this board. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking he (and others will) thought the .330 was BA, not OBP.

Pessimistic? You think my prediction was pessimistic for a rookie catcher? You're talking about him putting up superstar (for a catcher) numbers in his first season. That's a little unreasonable. I'm not saying he CAN'T do it. I'm saying it's pretty unreasonable to expect that he will. You're setting yourself up to be disappointed even if he has a very solid rookie season.

Who wouldn't be? That's like 2004-2006 Barrett with good defense.

I agree, no one knows if he would have still hit 3 HR's in the 5 hole, and I agree that he needs protection behind him, but that is why Geovany Soto will be there. This guy will prove to be a monster behind Soriano. In my opinion Soto will hit 25-30 HR's and bat .300. This is good protection for him. I'm as optimistic about Soto as anyone, but I think that's a bit much to expect from him. Don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE to see him do it. That type of production over what we had last year from catcher would likely be enough alone to propel us over the 90 win mark. I'd say .275/.350/.475 (maybe 15-20 HR) would be a more reasonable "optimistic" expectation of Geo.

The bolded is a load of crap and does not meaningfully contribute to this discussion in any way. I especially like the implication that "play[ing] defense and react[ing] to the mental aspects of the game" might contribute more to winning games than the evil pitching and hitting stats people focus on.

I think it's a lame excuse. Give the guy enough AB's in a different spot in the lineup and he'll get comfortable. If he had his way he'd still be a second basemen. Players don't like change...Nothing new here. He'll be fine out of the leadoff spot. Yep. Going into 2006, he wasn't comfortable anywhere but 2B. Then in 2007, after we tried him out in CF, we moved him to LF, because he was more comfortable there. I felt like the leg injury was convenient excuse to move him back. Once he started hitting, there was no way they'd move him again. This year he should be 100%, but him playing LF is set in stone.

Base-stealing is overrated. Granted, Roberts does it at a good enough success rate that he's actually making an offensive contribution by doing it; he's very good at it and is one of the rare examples of someone whose base-stealing ability is actually helpful. That said, that doesn't mean we need it. Teams don't need speed or base-stealers. It's a luxury that's nice to have if all other needs are filled adequately.

FWIW, I don't completely dismiss the possibility that Soriano is uncomfortable anywhere but #1 in the batting order and that his own confidence affects his ability to hit. I just don't think that it's necessarily the most likely explanation for the splits, and obviously, I don't think it should be assumed that it is. A lot of people just take the idea that Soriano can't hit anywhere else in the lineup as truth.

Oh give me a break. You know damn well that you were implying that his 2006 was the only reason his career splits were noticable. Don't even try to act like you weren't. Go read what I said. I said that 2006 made his leadoff splits look more pronounced, particularly in terms of OBP (because of all the IBBs he got). And seriously, stop trying to put words into my mouth just because, in your head, you misinterpreted what I said. First assuming that I had no idea that Soriano had hit leadoff before 2006, now this. Here is your exact quote. Your point about his 2006 numbers being more pronounced DIRECTLY followed your statement about the Soriano "crap" needing to stop. I don't see how I was wrong to assume that you were using the second sentence to qualify the first. Way to omit rest of the quote. And you're right. I worded it too strongly.

Why are you so worked up? Causational link? All that means is that one thing causes the other. Cause and effect. Chillax. Agree to disagree.

Oh give me a break. You know damn well that you were implying that his 2006 was the only reason his career splits were noticable. Don't even try to act like you weren't. Go read what I said. I said that 2006 made his leadoff splits look more pronounced, particularly in terms of OBP (because of all the IBBs he got). And seriously, stop trying to put words into my mouth just because, in your head, you misinterpreted what I said. First assuming that I had no idea that Soriano had hit leadoff before 2006, now this.

By the way, the purden of proof was just as much on you for making the statement that Soriano's number dropoffs had nothing to do with where he batted during those times. You have done ntohing to prove that or defend it, other than saying that 2006 was the reason his splits are pronounced, which is untrue. If someone knew a site where I could view career totals while omitting a season, we'd be able to see that the pronounced didfference is still there. If you're going to make a claim like that, then yeah, I'd say the burden of proof is on you for it. I need to prove that the best year of his career, which was pretty [damn good], which he was hitting leadoff for most of, makes his overall leadoff numbers look better than they do without that year? Seriously? Even if I show the splits, you're free to disagree with what "significantly" means, because it's a subjective term. So, I give up. As for the bolded, no, it wasn't. I don't have to prove that a causational link doesn't exist. It should be pretty obvious why this is insane. I could make up a bunch of things and ask you to prove they don't exist. Look, it's similar to clutch hitting. I recently read that Mark Grace was statistically the best clutch hitter of the 90's (or maybe even ever.. I don't know... something like that). I don't believe that clutch hitting exists (at least, not in the sense that people think it does) and would sooner attribute his better numbers in these situations to pure coincidence or chance (or just other factors - like he was just a good, smart hitter who did well in these instances) than to think he actually did better in those situations because they were so-called clutch situations. Edited..

What are you even talking about? I don't even get why you're so worked up. This reminds me of when that dude kept saying that posters could criticize Dusty all they wanted because he probably got more gals than they did.

I don't even know why I'm wasting time arguing about this. I'd be just fine with Soriano staying in the leadoff role. Logical fallacies like this strike a nerve with me, especially when I already, in principle, strongly disagree with the potential link being proposed. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that a player's spot in the lineup could cause him to perform better or worse. I prefer to look at other potential causes first. You disagree with that. That's fine with me.

First you said the only reason his splits were so bad was because of his big 2006. Now it's "well, splits don't convince me". The 2006 argument was weak. As for reasons to why he bats better in that spot, it's very simple. I'll copy and paste what I just said a few posts ago. Honestly, why is it so hard to understand why his numbers go down? You're doing it again. Splits merely show the correlation. The splits would HAVE to be there for there to be any correlation. That doesn't mean that hitting leadoff was the CAUSE of the difference. And yes, the career year in 2006 makes those splits significantly more pronounced. What isn't true about that?

What are you even talking about? This is a baseball message board, not a message board to flex your muscles and try to impress people with how smart you are. I'll make this very simple for you. Why do Soriano's numbers always drop when he's not batting leadoff. The "career year" argument was very poor. If you're the one (among many, of course) proposing that one causes the other, you have to prove that link. The burden of proof isn't on me. I could just as easily say, "Hey, not playing in Texas makes Soriano a better hitter. Prove that it isn't true."

Again, I have no problem with him leading off. He's a ~.900 OPS guy, and having him get more PA's is a good thing. It's going to take more than some splits to prove to me that his lineup spot is CAUSING his better production. Fundamentally, that's not something I typically buy into and I'd have to be convinced, considering Soriano would be the rare exception if it were the case. There are plenty of alternative causes. It could be pure coincidence. It could be that pitchers had figured him out in the AL and then adjusted in the NL. It could be a lot of things.

The funny part is that you keep citing logical reasoning as the basis for your argument. It's people like you that caused my LSAT study sessions to drag on forever.

No, it doesn't need to stop. You're ignoring his years with the Yankees at leadoff. Furthermore, you're ignoring his past shows a history of struggling in RISP situations. When it comes to moving Soriano around, I view it as a choice. You can choose 1. To have a .890 OPS #1 hitter. 2. To have an .810-.820 OPS #3-5 hitter. I choose #1. What does need to stop is trying to convince ourselves that Soriano is something he isn't. I don't know why we have to be so stubborn on this issue. You don't see the Indians trying to force Casey Blake into an RBI slot when he isn't that guy. You didn't see the Red Sox pushing Bill Mueller to hit 2nd when he was much more comfortable 8th. But people here won't be happy until we see Soriano hit .260 with a .310 OBP and 28 home runs, his meaningless 100 RBI, and his near-record LOB total. Only then will we be getting our $17 million a year worth. What is the difference between Brian Roberts hitting 1st and Brian Roberts hitting 2nd? I'd like to know why people have a mental block on this. They start sweating profusely and stammering. "Why... Roberts can't hit 2nd. Because... because... he's a LEADOFF MAN. It would cause a rip in the space-time continuum!" Soriano does his best hitting with the bases empty. I'm merely pointing out that people are incorrectly confusing correlation with causation in the case of Soriano's leadoff splits. It's flawed and faulty logic. No, you made the statement that Soriano's career leadoff numbers were only so much better than his non-leadoff numbers because of a monster year in 2006, which is flat out wrong. Even if Soriano in 2006 only put up the typical numbers he puts up in years where he leads off, the career differences would still be very pronounced. It sounds to me like you were unaware that Soriano had hit leadoff in previous years. Now you're realizing that he did, and are trying to cover it up but saying the above statement, which doesn't even make sense with what you originally said. Actually, you're completely wrong in just about everything you said here. But that's fine. Do you think I just started watching baseball in 2005 or something? Who the hell doesn't know that Soriano hit leadoff with the Yankees? Repeat with me. Correlation =/ causation. It's one of the most common logical fallacies that people fall victim to. Cause and effect.

No, it doesn't need to stop. You're ignoring his years with the Yankees at leadoff. Furthermore, you're ignoring his past shows a history of struggling in RISP situations. When it comes to moving Soriano around, I view it as a choice. You can choose 1. To have a .890 OPS #1 hitter. 2. To have an .810-.820 OPS #3-5 hitter. I choose #1. What does need to stop is trying to convince ourselves that Soriano is something he isn't. I don't know why we have to be so stubborn on this issue. You don't see the Indians trying to force Casey Blake into an RBI slot when he isn't that guy. You didn't see the Red Sox pushing Bill Mueller to hit 2nd when he was much more comfortable 8th. But people here won't be happy until we see Soriano hit .260 with a .310 OBP and 28 home runs, his meaningless 100 RBI, and his near-record LOB total. Only then will we be getting our $17 million a year worth. What is the difference between Brian Roberts hitting 1st and Brian Roberts hitting 2nd? I'd like to know why people have a mental block on this. They start sweating profusely and stammering. "Why... Roberts can't hit 2nd. Because... because... he's a LEADOFF MAN. It would cause a rip in the space-time continuum!" Soriano does his best hitting with the bases empty. Yea, I really don't care about where any of these guys get lined up. It wouldn't bother me one bit if Roberts was acquired and Soriano remained in the leadoff slot (other than the fact that I'd still have to hear the idiots on sports radio complaining that Soriano is hitting there). I'm merely pointing out that people are incorrectly confusing correlation with causation in the case of Soriano's leadoff splits. It's flawed and faulty logic. Roberts doesn't NEED to hit leadoff if he's here. I just feel, given the Cubs old-school braintrust, that it's likely he would. Roberts fits that mold that old timey baseball types get their panties wet about. Hendry and Lou are old-timey baseball types. They dream about having guys like him at leadoff. If they were just looking for a two hitter, they'd be fine with DeRosa. Just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe they want Roberts just because he can hit lefty (vs. righties), and they'll still hit Soriano leadoff if they do get him. Hendry did proclaim his strong desire to get more lefty bats in the lineup early on this offseason. Either way, I couldn't care less where any of our hitters hit as long as Pie and Theriot aren't near the top (unfortunately, Theriot will be, at least at first).

This is awesome. Great job, Meph...

It's not just because he has a higher OBP, although that is a big part of it. It's because he's an overall more productive hitter. He gets on base more and he hits for better power. The two of those things = more runs. Doesn't matter where in the lineup. The point about Roberts being better than DeRosa is completely irrelevant. Don't veer off topic. The argument is about your suggestion that you have to take the leadoff "position" into account when putting together a team. You don't. You have to get the best hitters you can at every position. Then you worry about where to line them up.