TheCouga23

You could say this about his insight into politics, or pretty much everything as well. I wish I had emotional appeal to thousands of listeners every day. That way I could become a millionaire, and all I would contribute to society is complaining.

The only flaw I have seen is that he is overly aggressive, and he swings at some bad pitches. The fact that he is still hitting .342 while doing this speaks volumes. What is he going to hit like once he finally settles in?

Yeah, I don't get it. My Tigers board had detractors last year, but nothing like this. Both teams are very similar. Both had grown accustomed to losing for so long that it was hard to deal with the fact that the team is not only winning, but dominating. People don't want to believe that their team is good because they don't want to be let down when they (supposedly) inevitably collapse. But Brewer fans need to get over it. The Brewers are dominant this year, and it's not because they are getting lucky. It's because they have a ton of talent. Lucky teams regress, talented teams do not. I was pretty confident before this season started that the Brewers were going to win the Central this year. Now I am in the category where I would be shocked if they didn't. It would take injuries and flukes of great proportion to turn the Brewers into a .500 team this year, and even with a .500 record, they might win the division. They have 7 capable starters, decent bullpen depth, and above average backups at catcher and the outfield. And in the case of a long term injury to the IF, Hall could be moved out of center. And Counsell and Graffanino are still pretty decent for utility guys. They are definitely better than anyone the Cubs or the Cardinals have on the bench. And Turnbow is a far better setup guy than anyone else in the NL Central. The Cubs WISH they had Turnbow. So do the Cardinals. So do half the teams in the NL East.

Not that this is atypical of baseball fans, but why is it always the relief pitchers that get blamed for losses if a one run lead is blown late in the game? Take a look at this game. I blame the offense. How were we only winning by one run after the performance Gallardo gave when we were facing the Royals and Odalis Perez? I think the offense should be expected to give us a bigger lead than one run by the 8th inning.

I disagree. The Cubs have three or four talented players, and a bunch of overpriced scrubs to fill in. One of those talented players is on the DL, and the other will be facing a suspension soon. The Cubs, even on paper, do not look like a good team, or a team that could even pull off a .500 season. Just because you pay guys a lot doesn't mean they are good. Even Soriano is overrated, and batting him leadoff accents his weakness (OBP) and minimizes his strength (SLG). The Cubs are an organization that is about as clueless as the Pirates. The only difference is the Cubs have money to spend on payroll. But that does not equal wins. You have to spend that money wisely.

No DH vs. RHP 1. Weeks 2. Hardy 3. Fielder 4. Braun 5. Jenkins 6. Hart 7. Hall/Gwynn 8. Estrada 9. SP vs. LHP 1. Weeks 2. Hardy 3. Fielder 4. Braun 5. Hall 6. Mench 7. Hart 8. Estrada 9. SP DH vs. RHP 1. Weeks 2. Hardy 3. Fielder 4. Braun 5. Jenkins 6. Hart 7. Gross (DH) 8. Hall/Gwynn 9. Estrada vs. LHP 1. Weeks 2. Hardy 3. Fielder 4. Braun (DH) 5. Hall 6. Mench 7. Hart 8. Estrada 9. Graffanino (3B)

That's not necessarily regression analysis though. That's regression towards the mean. If I am correct, the OP wants to know about the percentage of variance explained in an outcome variable by one or more predictor variables. This is fairly easy to do in SPSS. If anyone wants to still know how to do this, let me know.

Maybe the best way to sum it up is: The difference between getting on base in any manner and getting out is FAR greater than the difference between taking a walk and getting a single in terms of having your team score runs. Simply getting on base and not handing the bat over to the next guy with one extra out is the #1 way to score runs. The team that gets out at a slower rate will almost always score more runs. OBP is really just inverted out rate. AVG totally ignores walks, and HBP. But OBP does not ignore base hits. It's just a more complete stat.

This is another good point. Detractors of OBP seem to see walks as an alternative to hits, when really they are in addition to hits. The fact is, most hitters are very poor at getting hits on pitches out of the strike zone. If you don't walk when a pitcher throws you balls, you are a lot more likely to get out. So if instead of not swinging at balls, you swing at them and get yourself out simply because you don't want to walk and you want to be a run producer, then you are making yourself a worse player. No player ever walked on pitches down the middle of the plate that were easy to get hits on. So it's simple. If a pitcher throws you balls, you are unlikely to get a hit, so it's better to walk. If a pitcher throws you strikes, you are likely to get a hit, unless it is a very good pitcher that can fool you with pitches in the zone. But walks don't replace hits, they are a result of a pitcher giving you nothing to hit, and you making the most of it instead of swinging and missing or popping it up.

Just a random number actually. When I first got an account with hotmail 12 years ago or so, the name I wanted was taken, as well as the name with the first 22 numbers in order after it. Also, Kirk Gibson was my favorite player as a kid, so it seemed to fit. But I really didn't think about that until after I got the account.

I did remember reading about this in the back of my mind somewhere. I never found out how they did this calculation. What I would like to know is how this regression was done. Were the numbers adjusted to reflect the fact that MLB players have a much higher range of SLG than OBP? Since OBP is on a scale of 0 to 1 and SLG is on a scale of 0 to 4, was this taken into account? Also, were these numbers standardized before regressing them against run scoring? Is a 90th percentile SLG equivelant to a 90th percentile OBP in this model? I think I will fit in. I've been reading here for about a month, and I decided this was never going to work if I didn't join. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

I guess I have yet to find out what blue text means...I've seen it on here before. Edit: I think it means sarcasm, but I could be wrong. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Edit again: I should really refresh my webpage and look at subsequent posts before making future edits http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Thanks for the welcomes, everyone! I'm glad I found this forum. It looks like a great place for informed discussion about baseball, free from the flame wars and typical reactionaryism of the typical internet forum. The Brewers are my second favorite team. I have to admit, I am first and foremost a Tigers fan. But I grew up in Milwaukee, and ever since Selig sold the team I have been very interested in how things have been run. I've been telling my friends for years that the Tigers and Brewers were both going to be awesome soon, and that the Brewers were about one year behind the Tigers. It looks like I was right so far. I put money on the Brewers winning the NL Central this year. I think Melvin has done a tremendous job in consolidating talent at every position of the field that is at that perfect stage of their career where they are just getting good, but don't cost a fortune. The entire infield including catcher falls into this category once Braun is called up. In fact Hall and Hart in the outfield fall into this category as well. Bush, Capuano, and Gallardo form a great trio of bargain starters. This is basically the ideal situation for a small market team. It's the only way for them to win. Not only do you have to draft and develop talent well, you have to get a bunch of it at the same age so that it arrives in the major leagues like a tidal wave that costs nearly nothing to keep, yet it pushes the talent level of your team up into the stratosphere for three or so years. As this is something I experienced last year with the Tigers, the advice I can give now is not to worry too much about losing to really good teams on the road. All you need to do is beat up on the bad teams to be good, especially in the NL Central. No team, no matter how good, slaughters other good teams on the road. It didn't matter last year when the Tigers went into Fenway and lost 3 of 4 games. Beating up on the bad teams and sweeping them makes up for it. I'm glad the Brewers got at least one in Shea, and I will be satisfied if they only get one in Philly. Although two would be nice. If they finish this road trip losing more than they won, I wouldn't really be that upset. The fact is that the Brewers are a very talented team, and also a very deep team, so there is no reason why they shouldn't continue winning throughout the season. As for the manager, Leyland makes all kinds of kooky, frustrating moves that make no sense to me. If the Tigers #3 hitter sits out for a game, Leyland will bat his backup #3. This is a foolish decision strategy wise, but he wants everyone else on the team to come to each game with the same role. The fact is that Yost has these guys focused, motivated, happy, and ready to play. Happy and motivated are probably byproducts of the team being good, but it also means that the Brewers clubhouse is going to be an attractive spot for talent (either regarding trades, retaining talent, or free agency). There was a time when the Tigers had to vastly overpay players to get them to come there (see: Ordonez, M.) and sometimes - thank you sweet Jesus - even offering to overpay didn't work (see: Gonzalez, J.). This offseason, however, the Tigers resigned 5 players to extensions for below market value (Bonderman, Inge, Casey, Sheffield, Guillen). These players all wanted to play there. Why? Because the Tigers are good, and will be for years to come. And because Leyland is a great guy to play for. It was the main reason Sheffield is happy there. This same thing will hopefully happen with the Brewers. They have a lot of talent that will be looking for extensions in a few years. And so far, it looks like Yost is fostering an agressive, winning attitude. It's the kind of atmosphere star players like, and are willing to take a little less money to play under. I hope the Brewers never promote players like Capellan. Dombrowski has a no BS attitude with the Tigers. Urbina was getting into drunk fights on the plane, and a week later, he was traded for Polanco. Farnsworth was getting into fights on the field, and a week later, he was traded for two decent prospects. Jeff Weaver was smoking pot on the team plane. Soon after, Weaver was traded in a three way trade for Bonderman. No BS. I think Milwaukee looks the same way this year. The players on the field are there to win, not to collect a paycheck and live the high life. Those kinds of players stick together in the long run. In short, this is going to be a good season.

This is true. Batting average can be very deceiving. Alex Sanchez batting .320 is not the same as Albert Pujols batting .320. Sanchez has no power, and never walks. OBP is the least understood and most underappreciated stat in baseball. Slugging average and OBP are the two most predictive stats as far as scoring runs are concerned for a team. OPS is simply the addition of the two. To fully understand the importance of OBP, think of it as inverse out percentage. If you have an OBP of .400, the batter has a 60% chance of getting out when he steps to the plate. Say this batter is only a .250 hitter batting average-wise (think Rickey Henderson in his last years). He still will only get out 60% of the time. Now take someone like Sanchez, who would hit .300 regularly, but he would never get on base any other way aside from hitting singles. So his OBP would be close to his batting average, which is .300. This makes Sanchez' out percentage 70%, or a full 10% higher than the .250 hitter. The fastest way to kill a rally or end an inning is by making outs. If you have people that get on base and don't produce an out, your other hitters have one more chance to get a big hit and drive in a run. Plus there is someone on base when they do it. Take a typical first inning for a team. Let's say they have Juan Pierre batting .300 leading off. A speedy guy that rarely walks or gets extra base hits. And they have the typical "grinder" 2 hole hitter, like David Eckstein. He bats about .290, but doesn't hit many extra base hits, and doesn't walk all that much because he never hits any home runs, so there is no reason for opposing pitchers to pitch around him. While Pierre may be the "typical" leadoff man with speed, a decent batting average, and the ability to tear up the basepaths, he really isn't all that good at getting on base in the first place (especially if you consider the last 2.5 years). In other words, he is pretty good at turning at bats into outs, and allowing the next batter to come up with less chances to produce runs. As soon as there is one out, a double play ends an inning, and as soon as there are two outs, a sacrifice will not score a run. He then turns the inning over to David Eckstein with one out. Eckstein is farily good at getting to first base, but not so good at getting beyond that by himself. He lacks the ability to get an extra base hit. So maybe he singles. Now the third hitter is up with one out already and a runner on first. Even a single won't score the run, a double play will end the inning, and nothing is going to happen with a sacrifice. Basically, you need an extra base hit to score the run. The "traditional" baseball lineup is oftentimes constructed like this. The speedy leadoff guy gets on base, maybe steals second, the "grinder" 2-hole hitter moves him over with a groundout to second, and the best hitter drives him in. But this is an ideal situation, one that happens far less often than not. This is really an imaginary situation. Even the best leadoff hitters make outs more than they get on base. Leadoff hitters like Juan Pierre make outs more frequently than even the average major leaguer. And players like Eckstein may take a walk or get a single, but a single means you need an extra base hit or two more singles to score, therefore decreasing your team's chances of scoring period. Lineups that score the most runs don't necessarily have speedy guys batting leadoff, they have guys that don't get out. OBP measures how often you don't get out. SLG measures how often you allow yourself to be driven in by only one subesquent base hit rather than two, and your ability to drive guys in from first base, the most frequently occupied base in the game. Rickey Henderson wasn't the best leadoff man in the history of baseball because of his speed, he was the best leadoff guy because he rarely got out. His career OBP is a whopping .401. He stole so many bases because he gave himself so many opportunities by getting on base. Pierre will never get as many stolen bases as Rickey because he simply lacks the ability to get on base in the first place. Now take a lineup constructed for maximum run production. Instead of getting out, your leadoff hitter with a .420 OBP actually gets on base. You have a guy who can actually hit doubles and home runs batting second, so you can drive the leadoff guy in from first with one hit. Stringing together multiple hits is a hard thing in baseball, especially when even the very best hitters get out more often than they get a hit. But even if this guy only walks, your third hitter gets up with no out and two guys on base, instead of one out and a guy only on first. No, these scenarios won't happen like this all the time. But the higher your OBP, the less chance your hitters have of producing a rally-killing out. So over the course of the season, your team will make outs at a slower rate, and thereby extending innings. And instead of having three or four batters up per inning, you will have 4 or 5. It's like buying an extra lottery ticket every time your team comes to bat. Because the more at bats you get, the more chances someone has per inning of driving in runs. And of course, the more you wear the opposing starting pitcher out and get to the usually weaker bullpen. And the higher your SLG, the higher chances you have that that an average of one hit per inning will drive in runs. Therefore, knowing a team's and a player's OPS tells you a hell of a lot more about how many runs their offense will score as opposed to using their batting average. Computer simulations back this up. Regression analyses of past data back this up. OPS isn't perfect, because from a pure correlational standpoint, I think that OBP is more correlated with scoring runs than SLG, but it's good to have high numbers of both. Batting average only tells you a fraction of the picture. I'll take a team full of Russel Branyans any day over a team full of Alex Sanchez. The All Sanchez team will bat over .300, the All Branyan team will bat .230, but the Branyan team will score a ton more runs. And that's not even considering the fielding errors and the baserunning blunders on the former team http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif