BillScottCanRake

I felt it made more sense to keep the ML thread going because: - I felt one of the threads needed to be locked to ensure the discussion remained in a single thread. While elminating duplicate threads is important, I felt it was more important for all users to use the same thread so everyone had a chance to make their points in the same place. - There were already 7-8 posts in the thread in the ML forum when I noticed them, while the thread in the Trade Rumors forum had only three posts, and one was a link to the other, and it was newer than the ML thread. - The thread in the ML forum had a post by the user started the thread in the trade rumors forum. It seems logical to me that the entire discussion had moved to the thread in the ML forum. - I didn't want to move the discussion from the ML forum into the Trade Rumors forum for fear those interested in the thread might lose track of the thread. It would have been preferable to have this thread end up in Trade Rumors, but all of those things led me to believe leaving the more active thread open, even if the thread I locked was technically in the correct forum and the other wasn't.

All this statistic does is it converts a players 2005 minor league statistics and converts it into an equivelent ML line. It looks to me like it assumes a certain level of performance is needed to put up certain numbers in certain leagues, and it translates that performance into an equivelent ML statistic. A player who hit 25 AA home runs, if they could take those swings and ABs to Milwaukee, would have hit X number of home runs. It doesn't try to project what sort of numbers a player will put up next year, because it doesn't take into account things like age, repetition of levels, return from injuries, etc. A 32 year old AAA OFer will probably have an artificially high ML Equivelent because they are really old for their league, and a 19 year old AAA player coming of elbow surgery might have an artificially low ML Equivelent. What these numbers do is provide a sort of baseline from which we can adjust the numbers based on those factors not considered. This allows us to make an educated guess about next year should that year be in the majors. One could look at JJ Hardy's 2004 Major League Equivalency and see that he'd have a good shot at hitting pretty well once fully recovered from his injury and the rust were knocked off. EDIT: Forgot to say thanks for posting that. It was an interesting read!

batting ave with runners on is a very good stat imo and in this case it shows who has knocked in more runs while the slugging % would suggest otherwise. Is that the exception or the rule? Or someplace in between? Beyond that, why I appreciate simple stats like OBP, SLG and OPS is just that- they are simple. It's not because they are perfect, and not because they are the end-all-be-all, but as a fan who'd like to know a lot about the players without losing my wife or having to take a stats class, OPS does a great job telling me a lot about a player in not a lot of time. I see this stat-line: 290/370/550 and in a few seconds I can see: 920 OPS, if the sample isn't small, he's a productive hitter. That's all I want. I don't want to have to spend all sorts of time looking at BA with runners on base, or percentage of runners driven in. I don't have to worry about some dude having a low RBI total because his mates only had a .320 OBP. I don't need to spend all sorts of time trying to figure out how many home runs were solo, 2-run, 3-run or grannys, or how those numbers might change with a better lineup. I can guestimate how that dude might perform on a different team, or how he'll do next year, or three years from now. That's all I want to do. And that's why I like OBP, SLG, and adding them together to get OPS. It gets me where I want to go quickly, and it's "accurate enough" for me.

Don't forget that Hall was drafted out of HS and Scarborough played at Texas A&M. That, in all likelyhood, make Steve more ready to advance more quickly thru the system, as he was not only older but had played baseball at a higher level than Hall.

I have a story from my childhood about observations and memory. For years, I told a story about how when my brother was five years old, he was sleep walking and peed in our closet all over our brand new Christmas toys. It was pretty funny story, until my mom corrected me and told me I was the one who did the sleep walking. It wasn't until my dad confirmed mom's side of the story that I believed them, because I had told that story so often and was entirely convinced I had it right. Needless to say I don't tell that story nearly as often as I used to. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif i love stats too but think OPS can be inflated and hitting with runners on and one or two outs should count more than hitting a double with two outs and nobody on or launching a 440 foot homerun in a 11-2 loss A few things to consider in this regard. - You can't have a 9 run come from behind victory without scoring that first run. Everyone remembers Bill Hall squeezing home the winning run to cap that rally from 9 down to the Reds last year. But, quick, and without looking it up, who scored the winning run? Who drove in the first two runs of that rally? While those types of games are obviously few and far between, I think it underscores the fact that "garbage time" stats aren't always what they'd appear. Espeically in baseball, when you aren't fighting a clock, and you can hit all day as long as you don't record three outs. - A two out double with no one on sets up a two out base hit to score a run. Again, that double is useless unless the next hitter or hitters do their job, but you can't have a two out run scoring single unless you put a runner or two on base first. The driver-inner can't be clutch without the scorer getting on base first. Human nature is such that everyone will remember the RBI guy, but few will remember the guy who kept the inning alive with a two out double. Nor will the guy who scored get credit for a "clutch" hit, because there isn't really a stat that tracks that sort of thing. That's why I am not really impressed with stats like BA w/RISP. And it's also why I'm don't like to use my own personal observations as to who is or isn't clutch. I'm not staying that stats are everything, because stats alone can tell a story that skewed, or worse. Look no futher than the pitches per plate appearance stat for Bill Hall. I wonder how his P/PA stat was due to him striking out SO often last year. You've got to see three pitches to K, and Hall did that enough last year that I think it probably inflated his P/PA total. But observations are just a prone to being skewed, espeically with our memory being as selective as it can be. And I know from experience how selective memories can be! That's why using statistics to support obersvations, and using stats to locate information that can be confirmed by observation, seems the best way to go. For those interested in the trivia posted above: - Trent Durrington scored from third - Overbay singled home Spivey from third in the 4th and doubled home Jenkins in the 6th And, yes, I had to look it up.

I'm sort of undecided, mostly because I'm not even sure if I have any set criteria in my mind regarding what exactly a Hall of Famer is. However, I tend to think of HOFers as players who truly dominated the game while they played - not necessarily for their whole career, but at least for a portion of it. For me, that tends to eliminate a lot of very good players who were not the best at their position but still were very good. My biggest concern with Bert is he doesn't seem to have dominated his era, but that could just be because I don't really remember him. I'll go back thru the numbers again, and take a look at his stats season by season, because I honestly don't remember as much about his as I'd like to. He sure as heck was consistent, tho, and played forever, which I think are a good starting point to a yes vote. I'll need to think about it more, but I thought I'd throw my thoughts out for some discussion, and maybe someone can convince me one way or another.

I don't know how this site was before, I am assuming everyone agreed pretty much and there was no challenging any thing someone else said. That's not really true. There were plenty of very spirited debates, or even arguements, when Brewerfan.com opened. There were still plenty of "stats vs scouts" type debates, and plenty of "pro-player, anti-player" discussions. The difference is not in the type of discussion but rather the nature of the discussion. From my point of view, the debates and discussions were more about sharing opinions and simply talking baseball. Disagreements were embraced as a way of learning more about the game, and seeing a different point of view. I might not agree with a point of view, but often times seeing that point of view, and understanding why a poster thought that way, allowed me to incorporate some of their thinking into my own, and often times made me a more knowledgable fan. It seems these same discussion today are much more about "converting the non-believers" or "being right" instead of sharing ideas. Genuine discussions often degrade into a contest of wills and button pusing. There are fewer and fewer threads that I read and say "wow, I learned something here" - not because I know it all (anyone who reads my posts knows I don't), and certainly not because there aren't a bunch of smart posters here. I'm feel like I am learning less and less because that intelligent conversation we used to see here all the time either gets buried in a sea of "I'm right, and not only are you wrong but you are stupid for being wrong", Or, worse, the intelligent converstaion is never started. I wonder how many good posts have never been posted because the poster is afraid of what their point of view will do to a thread, or maybe because someone with something to add skipped a thread he/she figure would turn into a contest of wills? Hopefully this doesn't sound elitist, or like you need to conform to belong here, because it's neither. But it would be nice if a sense of civility and humbleness returned to the board.

I'm going to try my best to follow all the rules and sometimes just "bite my lip" for the good of the board. I respect the moderators, even met one of them (whoever used to be Squarepusher) at a game earlier this season. Super nice guy. Squarepusher and Brian the Automator are one in the same. It was just a change in forum names.

Clancy, can you imagine the flak Yost would have gotten if he left Jenkins in the game today and hurt his back and missed the rest of the year? Or if he left Lee in and he pulled a hamstring and missed two weeks? I understand that hitting for the cycle is cool, but if .500 is an important goal, you can't blame Yost- I think he made the absolute correct move- for protecting his productive players from injury in a game that has been out of hand for an hour.

I think this one is going to be nearly impossible to quantify, because there are a lot of things that have to be considered beyond "how many more outs would Krynzel record than Clark" and defensive stats are somewhat unreliable. That's not to say that defense isn't important, or that Krynzel's defense won't be able to make up to some degree for his lack of offense. When comparing Clark to Krynzel, a few things I think that should be considered, in addition to your question, are: - How many extra plays can Krynzel make that Clark cannot? - How many extra plays can Clark make that Krynzel cannot? I think one has to consider both of these issues. Because of the type of defense they play, positioning, etc, Clark is going to get to some balls that Krynzel, for all his prowess in the OF, won't be able to get to. While I think Krynzel will get to more balls on a whole, it's easy to forget Clark is going to make some plays Dave won't. - For those outs that Krynzel records that Clark cannot, what type of hits would Clark be allowing? - For those outs that Clark records that Krynzel cannot, what type of hits would Krynzel be allowing? This is pretty important, too. Clark, for example, plays pretty deep and tends to let a lot of balls drop in front of him. For the most part, this type of conservative style results in "extra" singles. Because Krynzel is so much faster and better defensively, he plays a shallower CF. While he'll get to a lot of balls hit over his head that Clark can only get to playing deeper, there are probably some balls that get past Dave that Clark would get to. Maybe Dave would give up "extra" doubles and triples? - How does the addition of Krynzel in the the OF effect the LFer and RFer? How would having a CFer who can cover a lot of ground affect those players around him? Might the LFer and CFer get to more balls down the lines than they might have in the past having to play more towards the gaps?

JJ is playing in the AFL after the season. While I'd love to see him play everyday the rest of the year, my guess is they are trying to keep him somewhat fresh. Even tho he hasn't played 150 games this year, he's still been active for more games this year than any other of his career. He's not going to get anything out of the AFL is he's out of gas.

An OPS figure is blind to a 75/25 split in a batter's favor. A Wes Helms can turn in an .844 OPS, but it doesn't discern that most of those at bats are the result of favorable match-ups. Stats are just tools, like observations. Stats are just as easy to misuse and observations are to bias. They are useless when not used properly, just as a hammer is useless when trying to put a puzzle together. A good GM and/or manager will use the Helms data and determine "Wes Helms should be used as a pinch hitter and occasional starter against lefties. When used this way, he's likely to produce. As a starter, he's less likely to be that productive." A GM/manager who's able to come to that sort of conclusion, whether it be by observations, statistical analysis or a combination thereof, will be able to maximize the talent on the roster. Rather than letting Helms rot on the bench as a valueless player, Melvin and Yost have done a good job using him in situations where he's got a good chance of succeeding. That's as good as they can do. If a GM sees an 844 OPS and thinks he can plug Helms in at third for 150 games and get that sort of production, he's using a hammer to put a puzzle together. I have always said that I think stats are best used in post-season self-evaluations. They can help tell you if your team was really as good as it's record, or if your team was really as bad as it's record. Which players are likely to rebound from poor years, or return to earth after above average years. That sort of thing can go a long way in helping a team maximize their talent.

i'm aware that over the course of a full season, overall numbers are generally a good indicator of success, but i'd be curious not so much about overall risp BA, but something like how many individual games have the brewers batted under .200 w/risp, and how does that stack up against the rest of the league? I like that idea, but I think you'd be better off doing something with the number of chances in games rather than the RISPBA. Using your .200 threshold, it probably would list a lot of games where the team was 0-1, 0-2, etc, but miss a lot of games where they were 1-2. While a .500 RISPBA is nice, only having two chances in a game probably says more about how many runs the team scored than their success rate. I'd like to see, for example, how many RISP/game to score 3 runs, 4 runs, 5 runs, etc. I'd also like to see how many plate appearances with RISP/game to score 3 runs, 4 runs, 5 runs, etc. If I had to guess (and that's all I am doing at this point), I'd say that opportunity is as important in scoring runs than is the rate at which a team converts.

I'll admit to being a bit torn on this one, but I have decided to vote YES. I think the key for me is to make sure to vote him in not as an OFer, but as a lead off hitter. His ability to hit for a good average, get on base at a very good rate, and steal bases at a high rate all make him the second best leadoff hitter of the 80s. While I wouldn't go so far as to say he was one of the dominate players of his generation, he was a dominate leadoff hitter, and it's that line of thought that lead me to vote YES.

Someone is doing a happy dance in our living room. Congrats to Dennis!

I thought they were trying to limit Eveland's innings? Wouldn't Ty be a better choice? Actually, I think they are still. LINK: Brewerfan.net Player Profile: Dana Eveland To date, Eveland has pitched 127 innings between Huntsville (109) and Milwaukee (18). Those 18 major league innings have been accunulated over about 5 1/2 weeks in the majors. If that pace holds for the rest of the year, he'll finish with about 135-140 innings, which is just a small increase over the 133.2 he pitched last year. Accepting that it's unwise to increase a players innings pitched by more than 20 percent, that would still allow Eveland to safely work about 20 to 25 innings in Arizona.

I thought I read/heard that Cabrera will eventually be the Marlins third baseman, that he's only there until Lowell isn't and that he (Cabrera) moved because he was athletic enough to handle moving. Can anyone confirm this?

I tend to agree with Patrick on this one. While it isn't the biggest deal in the world, it would certainly have been nice if spliiterpfj would have been allowed to complete his series, which he's obviously put a lot of time and effort into, before others would have started threads like this.

Weeks can still be signed after classes start, so long as he hasn't attended a class, correct? If things get close, Weeks could always get a "sore throat" the first couple of days of class to give both sides extra time to work out a deal or not.

The tornado death was in Stoughton

Here are the current league averages: AL (BA/OBP/SLG) .269/.334/.427 NL .263/.331/.417 To have a top-20 OBP (among qualifiers), a players OBP needs to be .390 or higher. To have a top-20 SLG (among qualifiers), a players SLG needs to be .541 or higher. All statistics found at hardballtimes.com

So, let's stop side-stepping the issue and start getting to the bottom of this: - Who amoung Brewer players doesn't have heart? And which ones do? Let's start naming names. Given our access to a players weight program, their off season training programs, their pre-game workouts, etc, we can easily identify those players with enough heart to work hard and those who don't have it. Not only that, but given how easy it is to determine the limit of a players physical ability, we can easily see whether a player has reached those physical limits or whether their lack of heart is causing them to under-perform. I'm most interested in finding out which players are too weak-willed to put their entire heart into each of the 162 games played each year. Those players who skip work outs or games to be with family members who are sick, having babies, graduating, etc, obviously are not committed to the team and should be pointed out. - How much has a lack of heart contributed to this teams current record? Given the list of names above, how has the lack of heart in certain players contributed to this teams medicority? Rickie Weeks, for example, probably doesn't have enough heart to have a truly historic rookie season. He shouldn't be in the mall buying beds, he should be taking four, five extra hours of BP to work on hitting sliders and curve balls. - How much has heart contributed to this teams current record? Given the list of names above, how the precence off heart in certain players contributed to this teams medicority, and helped prevent them from being less bad? I look forward to seeing some replies.

Being in the "stathead" crowd, I'll admit that "heart" or "grit" exist, yet in an unquantifiable state. I'll admit it readily. What kills me, is day in and day out, people on here and other forums claiming as fact that "this team has no heart" or "there's no fight in this team" Ain't a guy here (aside from the lucky few who work in the organization) who know how much effort is being given, or how much they "want to win". No one here knows what's in the mind of those guys, and shouldn't be claiming to know. "This team has no heart" is a blanket statement, and a ridiculous one at that. So we lost to the Cardinals bench. This is freakin' baseball. 162 games. GOOD teams LOSE to BAD teams now and then. It happens. And we're not even a GOOD team, we're a *mediocre* team. It doesn't mean we "threw in the towel" or "didn't care", or (sigh) "have no heart". It means it was one of those days, that are BOUND to happen over a 162 game schedule. I swear to god I've read on here that of our 118 games this year, about 80 of them were "must win" games, and that if they didn't win the "must win" game in question, then the team has (yeah, you guessed it) NO HEART! I don't know how hard Bill Hall is trying. Or Damian Miller, or Chad Moeller. I'm not going to CLAIM to know. And I won't claim to know how important "heart" is in determining wins and losses, because nobody knows, let alone li'l ol' me. I think some people might have missed this post, because I haven't seen a reply yet. So, I thought I'd repost it, since its one of the best posts I have seen in the last couple of months here.

So much for Corey being famous for a foul ball....

Have I mentioned how much I like Rickie Weeks lately?