Thurston Fluff

WAR is a counting stat, so you can just add it (and then regress if you are looking for an estimate of true talent). I think we can use WAR effectively in this instance by combining all the numbers into one number not by adding then averaging them. The main reason is the same as always. UZR is not a stat that gives any useful information in one year quantities. To simply take 4 misused calculations add them and average them is to use four bad pieces of information and expecting them to give you something good. That can be solved by adding all the data from four years into one WAR. For instance if one season's UZR is off because he played really well/poor for a 2 month stretch (or got un/lucky) that year's UZR would be significantly effected by it because that is 30% of the season. To then average that WAR with 3 other years WAR would mean the odd one counts for 25% of the average. Now take that same 2 month stretch and add it into all the other months over a 4 year stretch and it's effect is much less than it would have been by adding and averaging the four single years.

WAR is quick and easy, and like Russ said, 4 + years worth is pretty telling. I'm not going to argue the merits of WAR in this thread though. If you are going to use it then you should be prepared to argue it's merits. Quick and easy is fine but good and accurate are better. Using 4+ years worth of fangraph's WAR is a pretty decent way of estimate their true talent over that period. I think using four years as a composite is ok but not compiling four single seasons into one average. My main reason for that is the same issues with single season UZR accuracy is there as opposed to four years of stats rolled into one. A four year WAR instead of averaging four single season WARS together would eliminate that pesky problem of single season UZR inaccuracy that renders single season WAR useless. Merely averaging single season ones together doesn't eliminate that problem.

I've said everything I've needed to say, and presenting more stats isn't going to sway anyone anyways. There's a mountain of data that's out there, and if at this point, people want to ignore it, that's their prerogative. Then use those stats instead of always going back to WAR like it's the end all be all of stats that cannot be argued. I agree Yuni is bad but WAR is just a bad stat.

Ray Durham was a freqeunt 3 to 4 WAR player for a long stretch of his career. Betancourt has never been above 2.2. I'm sorry, but that's a terrible comparison. As is using WAR to decide how good a player is.

No, he doesnt, he is a horrible hitter, currently he has an 80 wRC+, which is WORST in all MLB for qualifying SS But he's still a better option than Counsell which is who you suggested would help us beat Philly more than Yuni would. I suppose it is possible having no chance to hit against Halliday or Lee for better defense is better than a little chance to hit against them. Then again it is possible that defense upgrade will not be needed even once. It doesn't really matter. Counsell or Yuni will not be the reason we win or lose. Our good players have to be better than their good players. As far as it being very smart to trot out an all defense team against a good pitcher just don't agree. I think this season so many of us are so focused on our weak defense we seem to forget it hasn't hurt us from being in first place three games up. There is a reason poor fielding hitters find jobs in the majors when the minors are littered with good fielding guys who can't hit. It isn't a 50/50 deal. Offense is necessary defense is nice.

The point is do you expect Yuni to hit .380/.390/.500 against the Phillies? If the answer is no, then we would be better off starting Counsell at SS every game because his defense upgrade over Yuni is more important than his hitting downgrade from the average Yuni. I don't expect any of our batters to hit that against Philly. Why not go all in and remove everybody we shouldn't expect to hit well against them in favor of defense? GoGo in center Plush in right and maybe Harriston JR at third. Pity Carrol is gone his cannon for an arm would have allowed him to play right and we could replace Braun with Plush. Kotsay might be better at first and Prince will struggle against Lee so remove him as well. Yuni isn't a very good overall player. He does have the ability to hit some and he is our best option there this season. He will give us the best chance to beat any team not just the bad ones.

Plus at the end of the day, how to you think he is going to fare against Roy Halladay or Tim Lincecum in the playoffs? They will make sure to pitch him outside and he will ground into tons of 6-3s. As well as I expect any of our players to hit them. Not very well at all. That is why we traded for pitchers who will give their batters the same problem. What we need out of Yuni is to hit the guys he should hit well against. Maybe then he can hit Philly or SF relievers and help us out.

What would Yuni's salary be next season? If we used the money KC gave us for his buyout to pay for part of his salary next season would that make him a cheap alternative?

Yes it is dangerous to stand too close to the plate. No one ever denied that. I wonder if anyone took the time to explain baseball to that fool. Obviously not so let me help with the relevant part. There is this thing called a batters box. It's outlined in by a white line that clearly show the hitter where the he can stand while batting. The hitter can stand anywhere he chooses to in that box. He does not have to stand at the very front of it if he is afraid of getting pitched high and tight. There you go Mr. Real Bad Sports Writer. I hope this helps you understand the subject matter you were paid to cover. Otherwise Tony might have to give you a call and lecture you about telling it as it is instead of worrying about your paycheck.

Couple that with below average defense and he still projects to be well below average but he's also getting paid league minimum. What is average this season for third base?

What does it look like if you remove the monster 3 HR day? Like any other guy's stats when you take away their best days. Why take away that day? Didn't it happen? Take away Prince's two shots since the break and his OPS looks even worse. It happened so it counts.

Obviously McGehee wasn't going to be replaced immediately but Green should've been given a shot by the all-star break. How can you say he should have been replaced by then when he has done what he has since then? I would argue the exact opposite given the hindsight we have today. I don't think anyone can honestly say Green would have put up the 861 OPS McGehee has since the break. Yuni & McGehee have helped offensively for the past couple weeks, but they're still bad on the year. McGehee's 3 HR day yesterday shot his OPS all the way up to the low-.600s. Does it really matter if McGehee's hot streak now won't make up for the early struggles at this point? Once we saw he was struggling the question shifted to what will get us the most production for the remainder of the season. That he won't have good overall numbers even with a hot finish is something to be worried about in the off season not over the remainder of the playoff push. When the season is over then I think you will have a fair argument that a big finish might not negate the horrible start. Now all I care about is who will be most likely to give us the most production at third over the next three months. That today to me seems to be Casey.

I've read several articles on this now and it seems most people are getting kind of sick of the Cards and TLR's antics. This seems to be a pretty typical take on the situation.

It's been about 40,000 years since the Neanderthals became extinct. Is it still ok to gloat?

This is a nice site to get started. I honestly don't know much about them but there are warnings for inexperienced dog owners. Overall when looking into purebreds take some time to look up the lineage. If the line tends to have show champions vs field trial ones then you have a line that was bred more for looks than ability. So choose the breeder by the type of dog you want. I am not a fan of show dogs as they tend to exaggerate certain traits for the "look" even if it means it isn't good for the dog's health. If you want show looks then be very careful to vet out the breeder. There are very good ones who do show type dogs but you have to be prepared to evaluate if they went too far for a look. If they have neither then you have either the best or worst type. The best IMHO is the ones who bred their line for their use. These guys sell very few. Many times only the excess pups when they matched two dogs for their next dog. They may never bring dogs to trials or shows just use them to hunt or whatever thus no traceable lineage markers. They usually match up very well to ones who do trials. They also tend to be healthier and more durable. I have always felt those produced the best dogs. The worst is those who find two dogs with papers and breed them without ever checking for compatible characteristics. You can usually tell these types because they won't know much about health and character issues the breed has. Know the breed, both the good and bad, and ask a lot of questions. I think vetting out your breeder and their goals are as important as the type of dog for your needs.

I didn't notice the response until after I PM'ed you Funketwon but if he only started doing that in the heat then it probably is just that. Even my dog takes more breaks in the summer. Well now that she's middle aged anyway. No I haven't done any herding but I have a friend who herds ducks with his.

Anyone else here ever had a shiba can tell you, they're amazing escape artists, and will put all their energy and through process into figuring a way out. Shibas are miniature Akitas. Add 80 pounds and an extra 5' of height an hind legs and see how good of a fence you need. Fortunately for us he's more interested in his back yard than getting out. If you tell your dog to sit and he doesnt there should be a consequence.(not just yelling of course) Most of the problem with yelling is once the dog responds you have to stop yelling and reward him for responding instead of continuing like they still understand what you are mad at them about. They don't. They would think you are now mad at them for heeding your call or be completely confused as to what you want. that only leads to them tuning you out in the future. A quick sharp NO or HEY is not a bad thing. A continuous yelling as the dog cowers beneath your feet is not good. Overall I don't believe yelling is a good way to go with an Aussie. Just make sure there is a consequence when he doesnt listen. He is playing with you and seeing how much he can get away with. That may or may not be true. It could be as simple as they are so focused on somethign they really don't hear anyhting else. The key is to penetrate that wall of focus or misbehavior. Herders, Borders and Aussies in particular, generally don't do well with negative training. It could do more harm then good. Given the breed I tend to think rewards for good behavior is better than consequences for bad is best when training. It should be fun for the dog not stressful. Try shakers or whistles at home when calling the dog to you. Then give him his most favorite treat or toy. The shaker should be loud enough to be heard even in a mist of excitement. The dog's natural reaction to come to you once he hears that should take over. It also could be just not enough work. That breed probably should get a couple hours a day. Not just a walk or a ride but actual real work. I have a border collie who is insane. Aussies are not much behind that energy level. I have developed a couple things I can do with her in the back yard that gets her all the work she needs to be happy. No dog parks no off leash in open areas needed anymore. If you wish pm me and I'll give you some things you can do in your backyard that is both fun for the dog and entertaining enough for you to actually want to work that much with your dog. Oh and it's cheap to do.

He's also 36 years old. In the steroid era that was middle age. Now not so much. That is the major reason why I'd put my money on Casey having a better shot at turning it around.

Not to belittle the problems Casey has been having but look at Scott Rolen's numbers this season .242/.279/.397. Granted he's a very good defender but is he $7,688,666 good? That is the difference in salaries between he and McGehee. Not saying that should change our view of McGehee. Just saying it could be worse. We could be paying over $8 million for essentially a defensive specialist. Comparing the two moving forward I think it easier to see Casey regaining form than Rolen.

Gamel has even said he's not comfortable playing 3rd, and it shows. He has barely played any 3rd base this year. He also said he is comfortable there now after Weeks helped him with his footwork. Which is it? All of his comments are him playing his part. He's not complaining or putting himself at odds with the team. I'm glad he's doing it but I don't really put a lot of credence to his actual words. Any move made on the left side of the IF must include an improvment on defense. No it doesn't have to. It simply has to improve the offense more than it hurts the defense. IF we can platoon Gamel and McGehee we have the same defense we have now yet better offense. I have no doubt Gamel is a better offensive option now than Green. I don't see why less offense for better defense is necessarily better. Let alone the only way to go.

Trying alternatives when guys have failed over a half season isn't "Machaing it." This is about the time of year you start to see changes made not earlier. Lately he is using other options more. To the best of his what he has to work with anyway. We all knew going into this season that it was not a deep team. That kind of means you are stuck with trotting some guys out there more and longer than may be ideal but what is the alternative? This next month or so is going to be telling if he waits too long like Yost sometimes did, not give a guy enough time like Macha tended to do or maybe he sort of gets it right and we have a strong finish and everyone is happy.

But what if McGehee does get back to OPSing .750 or so? That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing. So even though I feel strongly he should have been sent down a month a ago, if he can turn it around I'm all for it. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Off the top of my head I can think of Hart, Hall, Hardy and Weeks as guys who really struggled over a long period of time. Each of them got replaced at one point or another. 75% of them returned to form and contribute today. The problem as I see it is McGehee is more similar to the one who didn't return to form than the three that did. It's a calculated risk either way. All of this is moot because Gamel is going to get the first shot. First of all Ron already said publicly he's the first one up. I don't think he says that without it being a forgone conclusion throughout the organization. Second Gamel is more ready for major league duty. Third you have to take circumstances into consideration. Gamel has played the good solider and did everything asked of him. He said all the right things when it came to switching positions. He is understanding of why he isn't in the majors even though he is the one who has the least to prove at AAA. I could see why he wouldn't be so understanding if they bypass him now to replace someone at his old position. Espcially considering he is the player with the better track record. In all reality he's also the one who is most likely to help right away. I just don't see a sound reason to bring up Green when Gamel is there. Some people have expressed their surprise that Green isn't even being mentioned as a possibility by Melvin. I'm quite sure he's looked at him even if he isn't mentioning him publicly. Why talk publicly about the third man in a two man race? Green could be an option to compete with McGehee next season. By then Gamel will be given first base and allowed to grow there like all the rest of the top prospects have when they were ready.

The part I never understand is that bringing up Green doesn't preclude you from bringing up McGehee again later. It really is one of those "can't lose" situations. If you're right and Green just can't handle Major League pitching, you send him back down and bring McGehee back. Either way, you have nothing to lose. McGehee gets some time out of the spotlight to work on his swing...his head...whatever the issues are. Unless Green Barnwells it and MaGehee slips even further down the hole he's stuck in. Sending guys down isn't a magic elixir and believing it can't get worse is challenging worse. Never challenge worse. It has a way of proving you wrong. Somewhere along the line it has to be addressed. I am not so sure it has to be in July.

Not true at all, the whole point is making sure the worst hitters are furthest down in the order. Not that it'll convince you, since all we are is internet nerds that complain about everything. Where did he call you a nerd or say you complain about everything? You are quite good at stats and understand them very well. As someone who does understand stats I would assume you know there is a minimal at best connection between batting order and runs scored. Which leads me to ask why are you so concerned about it? It's pretty much irrelevant. If it was as simple as putting the best hitters the highest in the order why did LaRussa's putting the pitcher in the 8 hole not produce worse results? IIRC it actually worked slightly better. That cannot happen if the way to score more runs is simply to have the hitters lined up strictly according to ability. Thats all well and good but there is still no logical explanation as to why Kotsay should ever bat 3rd or why Casey had an extra month batting 5th or why Betancourt plays as much as he does. The entire point was that batting Casey there as long as he did for example was BECAUSE he was giving him the time to play the way he did the previous two years there. That allows the other players to relax and trust the manager is looking out for their careers. That matters more than anything to these guys. It's literally million dollar decisions that effect everyone. They understand performance is key but they also understand the fickleness of the sport. Allowing players to get enough time to tun things around can be more useful to the overall concept of putting players in the best possible position to succeed as moving people around for a half a season of bad play. AT this point I think it's clear Yuni is getting reduced playing time. Hell Ron as much as said it's now an open competition at this point. Kotsay would be playing less if Braun was healthy. Casey might get more time because of his two solid years prior and the fact there are fewer options but we have even seen signs of his leash getting short. That to me seems fair. More importantly I would guess most of the players on the team agree. They have all been given a fair shot and we are seeing changes accordingly.

The managers job should be putting the players in the best position to succeed as a team. Obviously he feels those moves are the best moves for the team to succeed over the long haul. Since the long haul hasn't been completed it seems a bit premature to think they have failed. You seem to be assessing the move in a vacuum. Yet the game isn't played in a vacuum. It is played in context of a long season with players being told by coaches what is expected of them. Usually that also includes a rough idea of how long they have to achieve those goals. If you assume all those things you mentioned are not putting the team in the best position to win then you need to know what the ramifications of doing something different are. Did he tell his players they are going to be given a long leash or short one? Did he tell them this is their role or did he say it's an open competition for that role? Those things matter when deciding if he is putting the team in the best position to win as possible. Maybe you feel Machaing it and ticking off or unduly adding pressure to the players is ok and it doesn't effect how the team plays over a long period of time but I think it does matter. In other words putting the players in the best possible position to win isn't as simple as not letting Loe pitch against lefties ever because how Loe is treated effects how the next guy in line performs in his place. That may not be putting that guy in the best position to win as well.