chopsx9

Not commenting on the oppurtunity cost but I have seen more than one quote from scouts that have said Dunn is incapable of playing 1st base at the major league level. You'd think the Reds would have put him there by now if he could - how much worse of an outfielder could Joey Votto be?

oh my granny goodness! I have about 1,000 Montanez rookie cards currently worth about 12cents from my short and ill fated venture into dealing baseball cards... GO MAN GO!! Seriously though I am surprised he is only 26, thought he'd be older - he could still have a decent career if he can take advantage of this opportunity.

The value of OBP is more significant than the value of SLG, simply because of the difference in the numbers. A perfect OBP is 1.000, while a perfect SLG is 4.000. In the same vein, a .450 OBP is much more impressive than a .450 SLG. Of course, teams need both to win, and power and discipline are both important factors. The fall-back argument on why the equivalent OBP is more impressive: would you rather have a team OBP of 1.000, or a team SLG of 1.000? Easy, the team OBP of 1.000 means you're never out. Granted, the value of SLG is not 4 times more inflated than the value of OBP, either. Different people assign a different factor to equate the two, but I'm personally fond of a simple 1.5 factor right now (Recent years, it was inflated a bit by a league-wide power surge, but the gap has closed a bit). That is, OBP * 1.5 will be about the equivalent number of SLG. It's not technically that simple, but it'll find values that are essentially close enough: .400 OBP = .600 SLG .380 OBP = .570 SLG .360 OBP = .540 SLG .340 OBP = .510 SLG .320 OBP = .480 SLG This is why I said "point for point". It takes more than one point of SLG to equal one point of OBP. Mathematically, it takes 4. In terms of evaluating individual players, 1.5 is as good an estimate as any. OBP is more valuable as a team statistic because the number of outs in a season is fixed, but the number of TPA is not fixed. I have 3 outs x the number of innings, which because of extra inning games and not batting in the bottom of the 9th at home, varies slightly, but either way, there's no way for me to get more outs than 3xInnings batted. I can, however, get more TPA by increasing my OBP because TPA=Outs+"Not Outs" (yes I made that word up), and "Not Outs"=TPA*OBP. I'll spare you the math, but moving the numbers around, you get TPA=Outs/(1-OBP). As you can see, as OBP goes up, TPA goes up as well. It then becomes obvious why this is so important. OBP increases the number of opportunities for something good to happen over a season, while simultaneously increasing the chance something good will happen in any particular AB. That's without even considering arguably more important effects like forcing a starter to throw a lot of pitches and getting into the pen sooner. SLG doesn't have the same sort of effect. It simply measures how affective a particular player is likely to be given a single AB. It is an excellent tool for comparing individual players, but does not have as profound a significance on the team level. But does your TPAs not go up with slugging as well? You have to have gotten on base to have a slugging percentage. In addition you have to have gotten on base via a hit and a high SLG means you are getting exta base hits. In addition many of the anciliary effects, because again you are still getting on base, would be the same, I think, and players are more likely to be in scoring position (or in case of a HR already scored) putting even greater pressure on the pitcher.

I understand the comparison of the actual numbers to each other and that doing so is a little bit apples and oranges, but that is not really what I was getting at. Looking at the team numbers it appears that a better than average team SLG (without a corresponding OBP total) leads to a roughly equivalent better than average run scored total. The same does not appear to happen with a better than average OBP (with a lower corresponding SLG total). Looking at that would lead me to think that SLG is more important; which is not the conventional wisdom. I am obviously assuming more runs is better which I don't think is an issue.

Why is this OBP viewed as more important than SLG? By virtue of definition if you have a high slugging you are going to score runs. Unless you assume everyone gets thrown out at the plate. You can have a high OBP and not score runs. Obviously if you have a high OBP your slugging will be more effective. The current Blue Jays are a perfect example of this: Essentialy tied for 5th in OBP (as high as 2nd earlier in the year) 12th in SLG and 11th in runs scored (3 out of 13th). This seems logical to me; especially if your OBP is weighted heavily with walks. The Sox and the Yanks are always touted for their high OBP but their slugging is always good as well. The flip side of the 08 BJ's last year Texas was 6th in SLG, 5th in Runs and 11th in OBP. I am asking out of a ligitimate interest. I always heard OBP was viewed as more important but when looking at the BJ's struggles this year noticed their relatively good OBP really wasn't helping them out. Hence my question. Any insightful comments would be appreciated.

I believe it is because there is an age limit of 23 which means many stars can't take part.

Great news about the boy!! I don't take a glove if my son is not with me - which is partly because I think there is no point 'cause I figure it's not coming my way anyway. But, if I'm being honest, I will admit that I think there is a little bit of hesitation because I think it would be viewed as being dorky. Which is a stupid reason to do or not do something. Lord knows there's no lack of evidence of my dorkiness anyway. If I am with my son or daughter (8 and 6). I absolutley bring it. Primarily for safety. I figure it's easier to catch a scereaming line drive with a glove than with a hot dog or a bare hand. Like someone said earlier it's one in a million shot; but as far as my children are concerned that's not steep enough to ignore completely.

All this chit chat is well and good but everyone is missing the big picture here!! The Cubs rotation is 40% CANUCK May as well embroider a maple leaf right in the middle of the "C"!!!

He's got to be lobbying Lou hard for a start in the upcoming interleague games. Is there any chance at all that he gets a shot?

I bought the Cubs DVD box set. I can't bring myself to watch Game 1 of the 84 NLCS (this is the one they won 13-0). So no, I won't be.

Sorry for my ignorance, but are you saying something like "not you, Bruce," here? Or are you just asking his take? I think its "and you" Well I know what it means in French, I was just wondering what he meant by it I'm pretty sure it's Latin and he is referencing Julius Ceasar's remark to his best friend Brutus as Brutus literally and figureatively stabs him in the back. So I assume he is sacrcastically suggesting that Bruce has defected to the Dark Side so to speak. Shakespeare, Star Wars...now if I could only work Elvis in there somewhere all would be good.

You must go to an establishment called "The Brass Rail". You'll thank me later. Definately not to be confused with the Silver Rail which is their upstairs establishment - keep it ground level and you will be fine...unless you like that sort of thing...not that there's anything wrong with that!

This is basically a gamble by both sides. You will only be able to say whether its good or bad with hindsight. If Braun gets beaned tomorrow and never takes the field again it will be a brilliant move on his part. If he hits 50 hrs a year for the life of the contract; brilliant move by the Brewers. It's going to be somewhere in between, but I think Braun still makes out because we are still talking pretty substantial money. It's one thing to possibly leave millions on the table while still getting millions (the situation he is in now) and leaving millions on the table and ending up with nothing. So I think the Brewers are taking on more risk. How many would have given this contract (or more) to Prior after his first full year? or Rocco Baldelli or Eric Chavez or Jorge Cantu or heck Rick Wilkins, Jerome Walton, Dwight Smith or dozens other. (obviously all are not quite in the same league)

I don't think so 2nd Worst?

Thanks CM. I entered your list exactly. If I end up in the money I will send you a cut!

I hope this is okay to post this here. Office playoff NHL pool - I know nothing about Hockey. I tried to pick Gretzky, apparently he does not play anymore!?!? So needless to say any help would be appreciated!! The rules: Roster will consist of 18 players: 10 forwards, 6 defensemen, and 2 goalies. There will be no trading, or adding or dropping of players, so choose wisely. Point system Forwards: 1 point for goal, 1 point for assist Defense: 1 point for goal, 1 point for assist Goalies: 2 points for a win, -1 point for a loss, and 5 points for a shutout. Again thanks for any help...and I know Bobby Orr doesn't play anymore either so no fast ones!!

The runs scored number is meaningless. That all depends on where he hits and who hits around him. I don't care if you care about his SLG, just because he can't SLG doesn't mean it's alright to accept incompetence in the category. That would be like saying you don't care if a power hitter only has a .300 OBP, because getting on base isn't his game, hitting for power is. Theriot is not likely to approach a .350 OBP. He's likely to stay in the very weak range similar to what he had last year, which, when combined with no SLG, is completely unacceptable. If he had made 10 more hits or walks (or some combo) in his PA's last year he's at .343 and at .360 with 20. That's not asking for a complete turn around for a player with just 1 full year. Just sayin'. That said I'd like to see Ronny make a run.

That's probably right. He WAS next in line!

Junior Kennedy was a favorite of mine from that era. Was he there in '81?

Is anyone else getting the immature humor out of this that I am. I hope so. I was gonna say...'cause I don't know where that quote came from but I ain't got no vagina...I've checked...frequently.

He has a terrible arm, Pierre is probably better maybe even Damon, so he is not ideal in CF...defensively speaking anyway.

Lots of cheaters in the hall of fame. Spitball throwers, sign stealers...how about Ty Cobb's sharpened spikes? willing to cheat =/= steroid user i know. i just don't want people patting themselves on the backs about being "right" about sammy being innocent I don't think anyone is patting themselves on the back. First of all this in no way means Sosa is innocent. He just wasn't named in THIS report. It's just that some people seem to experience euphoric glee at the prospect of Sosa being named a steriod user when there is no more than circumstatial evidence. I would argue that there is at least as much, if not more, circumstatial evidence to suggest that the whole corking incident was, as Sosa claimed, just a mistake. (He just used the bat when fooling around in BP I believe was the story). I don't know if he used stroids or not but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. And while I admit I won't be the first to come down on him if it does come out he used; I won't be far behind and I won't be pleased about it either.

Blasphemy to some, unfortunately.

The Jays are desperate for offense I am not sure why they would do this. They have some options on the mound, but struggled at the plate last year. I am not sure Rios is getting enough credit here. I think he will continue to get better and better. There isn't much he can't do. He's got a gun for arm as well and can play centre.

Your skill level will not change given the situation. Your skill is constant, it is what is (at a given time - over time it can chage- i.e aging). The ability to perform to the full extent of your skill level is absolutely variable. Performance suffering in pressure situations is fairly evident I think (See Latroy Hawkins, Rick Ankiel) But can you perform better?? Can knowing being in a pressure situation cause you to concentrate more and thus perform better?? ( I could see a personality like Manny Ramirezs' being a palyer like this) I don't think that it is that huge of a streach to think that is possible. Should it happen in professional atheletes? Absolutely not, and I would imagine it happens much less and to a much smaller degree but I certainly think it could happen. I imagine it is the definiton of a clutch hitter that needs to be determined. I have always thought (perhaps erroneously)a clutch hitter as one that comes through in "clutch situations" more often than the typical player. Not so much that he is better than he is in other situations. What is the major league average (or OBP or OPS or whatever you want to use) of all players in non-clutch situations? Then in clutch situations? Is there a difference? (I have no idea) If a players performance in clutch situations is greater than the league average I would say he is a clutch hitter. (It's a fairly loose term) You could even look at their deviations from league averages in each situation to assess their relative performance to the league. I don't think a player has to perform "better" (than himself in other situations) to be clutch - I just think he has to perform well. So, yes, better hitters are more likely to be clutch hitters but I think that is fairly logical. Maybe the difference is in what your definition of clutch is. I would think that some players are better at playing to fullest extent of their abilities in pressure situations than others and I would also assume that in most cases these are the same players that can do so in non pressure situations. And I am sorry but the cancer analogy is incorrect (and other things) but I'll leave it at that.