topper09er

It is better to have speed then to not have speed, but it is better to have a higher slugging % than a lower sluggin % + speed. Your point gets a little better is you assume Escobar is a leadoff hitter because he will have fewer men on base, however, it would be very bad to be caught stealing with Braun/Fielder coming up. So as a leadoff hitter you can assume a double is worth slightly less than .78 runs, but a caught stealing is worse than only -.52 runs.

Offensive runs (or linear weights method) whether you agree with it or not (I fully dont but that is another subject) is as follows: .47*1B + .78*2B + 1.09*3B + 1.4*HR + .33*(BB+HB) - .27*(AB-H) +.3*SB -.52*CS - .02K so 50 doubles is worth 50*.78 =~ 39 runs, 50 times on base (assuming a Escobar's career minor league BB% that would be 3 walks plus 47 singles) plus 50 NET stolen bases (notice a CS is comparatively worse than a SB is good, so to using Escobar's career 75% SB rate to get 50 steals he would need to go 50 for 66) is worth 47*.47 + 3*.33 + 50*.3 - .52*16 =~ 30 runs That should not be taken to precisely but it does show they are not as equal

I really think the overall effect of the PEDs was to allow players to get and stay stronger and thus play in more games feeling closer to 100% than before and that is the reason for the increased power. Now that is still an advantage over guys like Ruth who felt the wear and tear of 6 months of baseball more, but you still have to hit the ball, and the vast majority of players in the era were known as power hitters who had increased primes. I think the increased HRs came from more at bats feeling fresh and not tired then some magical ability of steroids which increases your bat speed and allows you to get better contact with a baseball. I really think these guys should all be in the HOF and we should look at their numbers in context just like when you see that Nap Lajoie hit .426 in 1901 and understand it is not as impressive as Ted Williams hitting .406 in 1941. McGwire hitting 70 HRs on juice is not as good as Ruth hitting 60 on beer in 8 fewer games. Do we penalize pitchers for getting Tommy John surgery, something that would have significantly changed baseball history and would have allowed many pitchers to stay around much longer? Why doesnt anyone look at John Smoltz and say he is cheating because he has a much bigger advantage compared to older pitchers then steroids could ever give to a hitter? Times change and in this era players had better primes because of drugs they took which were not tested for at the time. They are all still good players and would have been perenial all stars in the 30s just like in the 90s.

Unless runs would have scored without the IBB, which we will never know but Im sure there are times when it is the right decision. IBB has 4 "uses": setting up a double play, walking someone to get to the pitcher (partially to pitch to a bad hitter and partially to force the other team to pull the pitcher from the game), avoiding having to face a Pujols/Bonds type and setting up what you think is a good matchup between the pitcher and on deck hitter. I think walking the 8 hitter to get to the pitcher is always a bad idea since the 8 hitter is usually the worst position hitter (I still dont understand how Jason Kendall was intentionally walked 6 times last year). I would however be interested to see the percentages on DPs turned when the IBB caused a force out and percentages of times 0 runs were scored in a innings when a guy like Pujols was walked.

It would be more interesting to see # of innings with an IBB where 0 runs scored after the IBB and # of times the guy who was IBB'd actually scored himself.

I think that problem for Alomar was the spitting so some people held him back on his first time, hell be in next year for sure. The problem for Larkin was that people look at his numbers as a SS and compare them to A-Rod and he looks bad, but for his time he was better than Ripken and not too far behind Yount. He was injured a lot so his counting stats are a little low but his rate stats are very good and played very good defense. He had a 30/30 season and finished with .295/.371/.444 for a 116 OPS+ (in the 90s mostly). Ripken .276/.340/.447 112 OPS+ including more years in the 80s. Yount .285/.342/.430 115 OPS + including more years in the 80s. Ripken and Yount had longer careers and better peaks than Larkin but overall I think they are all on the same tier. Larkin just doesnt have the magical 3000 hits. Larkin is easily in the top 10 SS all time which should be a lock for HOF

His counting stats are not HOF worthy because he wasnt a full time player until later than most, but his rate stat are pretty good:.418 OBP is 20th best ever, higher than guys like Musial or Mel Ott 147 OPS + is top 40 all-time, considering he played in the AL in the 1990s that is very high

Why doesnt Blyleven deserve to be in? 5th most Ks all time, and 60 shoutouts rank him 9th all time and 4th in the live ball era behind only Spahn (63), Ryan and Seaver (61). He ranks 91st in CG with 242 but 9th in shutouts. His 287 wins are still 27th most ever and he lost 11 CGs allowing 1 or 0 ER. He mostly played for bad teams and has the record for most no-decicions ever in a single season with 20. In his few postseason appearances (for 2 WS winnings teams in 79 and 87) he went 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA in 47.1 IP with 36 K and only 8 BB. If he played for slightly better offensive teams and had 300 wins or the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs he would easily be in.

No Alomar is shocking, best 2nd baseman in the league in th 90s, better than Biggio and Kent plus Sandberg and most 2B in the HOF except for Hornsby, Morgan and maybe Carew, Collins, Lajoie Gehringer and Robinson

Even though I hate the DH I think Edgar is very close to HOF standards and probably deserves to be in. Im not sure I like that arguement that Ozzie and Bill Maz are in only because of defense, which is true, but that that is because they are regarded as the best defensively at their position EVER. So if you say you can ignore Edgar's defense and only vote offense he should be one of the best hitters EVER, which is is not. However, I think if he played in the NL he would have been a below average defensive 1B, he played 500+ games at 3B with a barely below average FD% and RF. Would we ever penalize a 1B with great offensive because of bad defense? Would anyone not vote for Mark McGwire (based on stats only) because they thought he wasnt good enough at defense? If you compare Edgar to other 1Bs he is short on counting stats but his rate stats are amazing and he sustained very high rate stats for a long period. 8 seasons with a 150 or better OPS+ and 12 seasons with a 130 or better OPS+. a 147 career OPS+, while playing in the AL in the 1990s! A 7 year stretch from '95-'01 he averaged .329/.446/.574 (163 OPS+) 32 HRs, 123 RBI and 330 TB per full season. That is not counting 1992 when he won the batting title with a 164 OPS+. Another player who had amazing rate stats but less counting stats is Hank Greenberg (who missed years due to war service not because he were held back in the minors). Greenbergs 7 best full seasons are .321/.417/.631 (OPS+ 165) 42 HR 158 RBI 387 TB per full season. Edgar finished with 309 HR/1261 RBI/2247 H/1219 R Greenberg finished with 331 HR/1267 RBI/1628 H/1051 R I dont think Edgar is first ballot material (in my opinion only guys with great rate and counting stats are first ballot material) but I would vote for him in his second year. Same with Larkin. This year I would vote for Alomar, Blyleven, McGwire and Raines.

I would say by definition this is impossible because a perfect pitch would result in the indended result of the pitcher, strikeout or double play ball etc. If the the ball is hit for a HR it was not a perfect pitch obviously. You cant ignore the mental aspect of hitting and the fact that a batter may be looking for a certain pitch in a certain situation. If he guess exactly what you are going to throw then you threw the wrong pitch.

I think the conclusion that just because all the average pitch speeds and breaks are similar he had the smae stuff in both samples must be wrong. The difference has to be that over 1000 or so pitches in both sets a few hangers will not change the average, but in the bad outings he must have hung the wrong pitch at the wrong time. I think the biggest thing this article indicates is the worst fear of any super stats person, that how the player performs based on the situation is the most important aspect of baseball, or any sport. Stats guys want to think that as long as you try to walk or hit a HR every at bat no matter the situation you are doing the best you can or as long as you have the same velocity and break on your pitches no matter the situation you are performing at a maximum level and anything that shows that is not true is just based on luck.

The playoffs are not a coin flip. You just said that if we went in with Sheets, CC and Yo we would have been able to go deeper, but we had Suppan instead of Sheets and the better team, the Phillies, beat us. If they are just a crapshoot then we had the same chance of winning no matter who was in our rotation because it is just luck anyways. Sorry for getting off topic but this is my main problem with moneyball, Beane just assumes the only goal of a baseball team is to make the playoffs and the rest is just luck. I think his teams falter in the playoffs because if your mentality is only the 3TO you are always going to lose to good pitching. Good pitchers dont walk batters or give up many HRs. You need players who can hit for average to beat good pitching, who you usually face in the playoffs.

A little off topic, but using the chart lets evaluate Braun's chances: Last year's winners: OF Carlos Beltran New York OF Nate McLouth Pittsburgh OF Shane Victorino Philadelphia Still a good hitter (we know the gold glove standard for being a good hitter is AVE/HR/RBI): OF Carlos Beltran New York .325/10/48 NO OF Nate McLouth Pittsburgh .256/20/70 NO OF Shane Victorino Philadelphia .292/10/62 NO Next best hitters at position: Ryan Bruan .320/32/114 Jason Werth .268/36/99 Andre Ethier .272/31/106 Dives on Routine plays: Ryan Braun YES I realize the incumbents are still very likely to repeat, especailly Victorino who played on a playoff team and I recognize Braun does not deserve the award but based on how it is handed out he should have a chance in theory. If he played on the Mets he would be winning his 2nd gold glove this off season.

Jason Kendall can do it whenever he wants to, so I would say that anyone else can. If you cant then just bunt.

Braun has the best chance to win one this season because had a good offensive year and he is a young star.

Its good for the brewers to get a little national exposure, but I dont like BA at all. He is boring and never adds anything interesting to the broadcast, just harps on the same few things over and over and usually makes several mistakes every broadcast by quoting incorrect stats. Also, I KNOW THAT THE BREWERS WOULD LIKE A GROUNDBALL WITH THE BASES LOADED AND 1 OUT.

It is up to manager if the team will try to move runners and play baseball correctly or just try to hit dingers every at bat. It is the hitting coach's job to teach the players to hit dingers every at bat and just give them reps at moving runners, everyone in the majors should be good enough to ground out to 2B if they want to. I do think situational hitting is more important than the previous posters who seem to be laughing at the idea you should ever try to do anything in baseball other than hit a HR or walk, but the hitting coach cannot be blamed for lack of moving runners. Every time the team strikes out with a runner on 2nd 0 outs the manager has to be happy with that because that is his mentality, not the hitting coach. Teams have a sign for hitting behind the runner, it just hasnt been used since 1987. He is obviously the scapegoat for going from WS to no playoffs.

He also batted Kendall leadoff 8 games with these results:.243/.317/.270/ 3 R/ 1 RBI

To make things a little more even lets use Pujols first 9 seasons: (Ages 21-29) .334/.427/.629=1.056/1068 R/1710 H/808 BB/385 2B/366 HR/1109 RBI/60 SB Bonds last 9 seasons (Ages 34-42): .316/.505/.712=1.217/863 R/1018 H/1201 BB/198 2B/351 HR/780 RBI/69 SB And A-Rods last 9 seasons (Ages 25-33): .302/.399/.584=.983/1054 R/1561 H/749 BB/251 2B/392 HR/1104 RBI/164 SB Obviously based on that Bonds wins in a landslide. For A-Rod it pretty much went right through his prime and Pujols may still have a few more seasons which may be his best ever. Since I cant stand letting Bonds win lets look at his "prime" numbers: (Ages 25-33, starting in 1990 when he won his first MVP) .305/.438/.600=1.038/1000 R/1385 H/685 BB/279 2B/327 HR/993 RBI/328 SB Based on that I would have to say Pujols wins, and Pujols 25-33 will probably be even better than his 21-29.

I disagree. I do not think Weeks has above average range and he has a weak, inaccurate arm mostly due to his horrible throwing mechanics. I would also say he is the worst double play turner in the entire league at 2B.

Telly just said "degress"

Um, Jason Kendall is the worst everyday offensive player in the entire major leagues, it is basically impossible to be worse than him offensively. He has a .238/.326/.290=.616 OPS, which is 3rd worst in the majors among starters, but the only reason he is not lower than Emilio Bonifacio's .612 is because he has been issued a staggering 6 IBBs, which is infinity % higher than the worst hitter in the league should get. Without his 6 IBBs, he is at .238/.318/.290 =.608 OPS. Also remember his only triple came from Soriano basically walking around the left field corner and handing him third base, and his only HR was a pathetic flyout in Houston. He is the worst hitter in the major leagues, no one is not an improvement over him.

Man, Eddie Cedar wont be able to contain himself with the thumbs up if Suppan reaches base tonight.

This offseason would be the perfect time to sell high on McGehee, especailly since we have Gamel waiting to take over. If McGehee will not be a starter and has any trade value he should be traded and we can easily find someone to be a backup 3rd baseman. That of course means Melvin wont trade him because he is too conservative and never wants to trade a young player with any "potential" because he doesnt want to regret it if the guy turns out to be good, but he doesnt realize that doesnt happen very much and we would be better off overall if he just sold high on all of these guys who were never great but had shown some major league potential (Hart, Hardy, Hall).