Peter Gammons: "it's a dump, Wrigley Field."

[FirstTimer]

Hehe...yeah, Posey had 18, Soto had 17, but Posey also had about 60 more plate appearances to get that extra homer.

So Posey is penalized for satying healthy?


The sport doesn't exist in a vacuum and players aren't robots. Injuries, fatigue, etc happen. IMO trying to take those out of the equation dehumanizes the sport and tries to ignore the fact that humans play it.

Just two cents.

Posey also had a slightly higher SLG. He was definitely deserving of the ROY award although if you graded it by WAR Jason Heyward probably should've gotten it. Push comes to shove, you give it to the catcher because his position's much more demanding.

Yeah, and it's tough to ignore Posey was in some ways the main offensive catalyst for the Giants reaching the playoffs.

You couldn't go wrong either way really.

Overall, Posey is younger (albeit broken at the moment) and has a pretty good future so I'd build a team around him instead of Soto, assuming Posey can continue to play catcher, or even play at all after that injury.

I'm waiting for the day where all top flight hitting catching prospects are treated like Bryce Harper and moved to 1B or the corner OF spots

 

[FirstTimer]

I completely disagree. wOBA is a stat that evaluates it perfectly. It uses linear weights. Each PA outcome is weighted by a run value. wRC+ can be used for park factors though.

But that possibly ignores(in this case) that Soto's OBP could be artifically higher(for lack of a better term) because he took increased walks from hitting in front of the pitcher and he was being pitched around more than a guy like Posey was. Simply looking at the OBP number doesn't show that "flaw" or qualifier so plugging it into the equation anyways kind of misses the point. It ignores possible reasons behind one of the base line stats to begin with.

 

[poodski]

But that possibly ignores(in this case) that Soto's OBP could be artifically higher(for lack of a better term) because he took increased walks from hitting in front of the pitcher and he was being pitched around more than a guy like Posey was. Simply looking at the OBP number doesn't show that "flaw" or qualifier so plugging it into the equation anyways kind of misses the point. It ignores possible reasons behind one of the base line stats to begin with.

His slugging and HR numbers could also be artificially lowered because he got nothing to hit because of no protection.

Honestly it works both ways.

 

[Rice Cube]

I was thinking Kelly Johnson for 3B and Barney/Baker for 2B. I would actually like to find a 2B that can hit RHP. Someone like Adam Kennedy could probably be had for around a million and a platoon of Baker/Kennedy would at worst be league average.

I hope Byrd isnt in RF. I would like to see someone like Kubel/Ludwick/Fukudome out there.

How does Fielder feel about the Cubs? That I don't know. There is some bad blood between the Cubs and Brewers and that could be a detriment. Ultimately though money talks.

I'm not very enthusiastic about any of the free agents you speak of. While they are capable players, you just look at their overall career numbers and they're all average at best with one blip year where they went nuts and then fell back to earth. I don't think signing those guys is enough to convince Prince Fielder that the Cubs are a contender. I doubt they can even convince most Cubs fans that the team can contend. Just an opinion though. They might go nuts again.

 

[poodski]

I'm not very enthusiastic about any of the free agents you speak of. While they are capable players, you just look at their overall career numbers and they're all average at best with one blip year where they went nuts and then fell back to earth. I don't think signing those guys is enough to convince Prince Fielder that the Cubs are a contender. I doubt they can even convince most Cubs fans that the team can contend. Just an opinion though. They might go nuts again.

They don't really need to go nuts. They just need to be good, and I would disagree on Kubel. I think if he can handle RF he would be a big asset.

Ludwick is just a good player. Nothing fancy just solid. Hasn't been below average offensively since 2004.

Kennedy sucks, but he isn't bad solely vs RHP. He is better than anything we have and would be pretty cheap.

 

[FirstTimer]

His slugging and HR numbers could also be artificially lowered because he got nothing to hit because of no protection.

Honestly it works both ways.

Yep.

So, using one stat can suck. Using multiple stats can suck.

"Why are long pants long? Why are bushes bushy? I mean, you know, if we're gonna get in that area, we're gonna be here all day..."

 

[poodski]

Yep.

So, using one stat can suck. Using multiple stats can suck.

"Why are long pants long? Why are bushes bushy? I mean, you know, if we're gonna get in that area, we're gonna be here all day..."

Or you just use the stat that shows actual production rather than some coulda shoulda woulda scenario.

 

[FirstTimer]

Or you just use the stat that shows actual production rather than some coulda shoulda woulda scenario.

Then again the "production" stat can be directly effected by other factors and the base stats that are use to help calculate that stat can be flawed. It's akin to people saying the BCS sucks and is flawed, but then arguing that the BCS should be factored into helping to figure out teams for a playoff.

Every stat we have used shows "actual production". Really none of the stats, counting or otherwise, involve hypotheticals or theoretical production. Every stat that has been shown that is trying to normalize things can't take into account strategy of the game and other real world factors. Same with the counting stats.

"Actual production" can be used as an argument for the traditional counting stats or the more "sabre-ized" ones.

 

[poodski]

Then again the "production" stat can be directly effected by other factors and the base stats that are use to help calculate that stat can be flawed. It's akin to people saying the BCS sucks and is flawed, but then arguing that the BCS should be factored into helping to figure out teams for a playoff.

Every stat we have used shows "actual production". Really none of the stats, counting or otherwise, involve hypotheticals or theoretical production. Every stat that has been shown that is trying to normalize things can't take into account strategy of the game and other real world factors. Same with the counting stats.

"Actual production" can be used as an argument for the traditional counting stats or the more "sabre-ized" ones.

Show me how wOBA is flawed.

 

[FirstTimer]

Show me how wOBA is flawed.

Because the same flaws that exist for the most part with OBP and SLG still exist with wOBA as the results of certain on the field results, which wOBA still relies on, can be effected by Soto batting in front of the pitcher and having an inflated OBP or more walks, and Posey batting in the middle of the order and seeing more pitches to hit can artifically inflate his factors in the scenario.

wOBA doesn't give it's base factors and numbers context as to where the player was hitting in the lineup, game situation, etc. Is Posey losing possible run values etc by trying to move runners over? Sac flying? Is Soto not getting a chance to see as many pitches as he should hitting in front of the pitcher thus missing out on value? Is Sota swinging more freely knowing he has a weak hitter behind him and he needs to produce, thus putting more balls in play and increasing the odds of results?

wOBA doesn't tell me Soto was batting 8th or Posey was batting in the heart of the order. It doesn't give the stats context as to why they may have been amassed the way they were. That's why it's flawed.

Simply looking at the number and drawing broad conclusions off of it such as one player being better than the other is a large stretch.

I'm not "anti-sabremetrics" or whatever. They are a great tool and I think can give you somefeelings or ideas but basing broad conclusions off of them, and especially one stat alone, is absurd.

I just think sometimes stats in general can miss the forest from the trees.

 

[Rice Cube]

Because the same flaws that exist for the most part with OBP and SLG still exist with wOBA as the results of certain on the field results, which wOBA still relies on, can be effected by Soto batting in front of the pitcher and having an inflated OBP or more walks, and Posey batting in the middle of the order and seeing more pitches to hit can artifically inflate his factors in the scenario.

wOBA doesn't give it's base factors and numbers context as to where the player was hitting in the lineup, game situation, etc. Is Posey losing possible run values etc by trying to move runners over? Sac flying? Is Soto not getting a chance to see as many pitches as he should hitting in front of the pitcher thus missing out on value? Is Sota swinging more freely knowing he has a weak hitter behind him and he needs to produce, thus putting more balls in play and increasing the odds of results?

wOBA doesn't tell me Soto was batting 8th or Posey was batting in the heart of the order. It doesn't give the stats context as to why they may have been amassed the way they were. That's why it's flawed.

Simply looking at the number and drawing broad conclusions off of it such as one player being better than the other is a large stretch.

I'm not "anti-sabremetrics" or whatever. They are a great tool and I think can give you somefeelings or ideas but basing broad conclusions off of them, and especially one stat alone, is absurd.

I just think sometimes stats in general can miss the forest from the trees.

Unfortunately I think that sample size and statistical power can't really measure context as well as we'd like so oftentimes it's ignored, which it really shouldn't be.

 

[FirstTimer]

Unfortunately I think that sample size and statistical power can't really measure context as well as we'd like so oftentimes it's ignored, which it really shouldn't be.

Agreed, which is why when discussing players we can't simply throw out stats and base broad conclusions off of them. We are allowed to use our brains and reasoning to find not only what stats were created, regardless of how you try to normalize them, but WHY and HOW they were.

(Not saying you feel this way) Just stating it.

 

[poodski]

Because the same flaws that exist for the most part with OBP and SLG still exist with wOBA as the results of certain on the field results, which wOBA still relies on, can be effected by Soto batting in front of the pitcher and having an inflated OBP or more walks, and Posey batting in the middle of the order and seeing more pitches to hit can artifically inflate his factors in the scenario.

wOBA doesn't give it's base factors and numbers context as to where the player was hitting in the lineup, game situation, etc. Is Posey losing possible run values etc by trying to move runners over? Sac flying? Is Soto not getting a chance to see as many pitches as he should hitting in front of the pitcher thus missing out on value? Is Sota swinging more freely knowing he has a weak hitter behind him and he needs to produce, thus putting more balls in play and increasing the odds of results?

wOBA doesn't tell me Soto was batting 8th or Posey was batting in the heart of the order. It doesn't give the stats context as to why they may have been amassed the way they were. That's why it's flawed.

Simply looking at the number and drawing broad conclusions off of it such as one player being better than the other is a large stretch.

I'm not "anti-sabremetrics" or whatever. They are a great tool and I think can give you somefeelings or ideas but basing broad conclusions off of them, and especially one stat alone, is absurd.

I just think sometimes stats in general can miss the forest from the trees.

Can you prove ANY of that matters. At all. Can you prove that where you bat matters? As far as game situations those are completely team based, and should not be considered when comparing two players.

I CAN just look at one seasons raw stats and say this person did better in this period of time. In this case its 2010. Its really not hard.

However where you and others seem to be lost is that saying that this player being better over a period of time does not mean that they are better period.

Here are some examples:

In April of this year (among qualified hitters)Carl Crawford was the worst hitter in baseball: fact

Carl Crawford is the worst hitter in baseball: Not fact

In April of this year (among qualified hitters) Albert Pujols was the 96th best hitter in baseball: Fact

Albert Pujols is the 96th best hitter in baseball: Not fact.

Last night Michael Brantley hit better than Alex Rodriguez: Fact

Michael Brantley is a better hitter than Alex Rodriguez: Not fact.

It's fairly simple comprehension really.

 

[Rice Cube]

There is something called "sequencing" that suggests that pitchers will throw different pitches in different situations (I'm not completely familiar with it so I could be totally wrong) but it's not out of the realm of logic that a pitcher will pitch a guy different if he were hitting in front of Ryan Dempster than if he were hitting in front of Albert Pujols. But trying to do too much with a single stat would get really messy. For the most part wOBA should work because it weights each base-hit and extra base hit accordingly to take into account on-base ability as well as power.

You also can't use small samples to judge a player, that's why the SABR dudes created IP and PA cutoffs to determine when particular stats become statistically significant.

 

[FirstTimer]

Can you prove ANY of that matters.

I'm not the one drawing teh borad conclusions off the stats.

If you acknowledge those situations exist(which they do), then it's on YOU, the supporter of drawing the broad conclusions off the stat, to prove that those situations do not matter in regards to the conclusions you drew off that stat. I'm not drawing any broad conclusions off the stat to defend. Soto had a better wOBA. Ok great. But what does it mean in context and regards to the way the games were actually played and what the game situations were?

Simple/general baseball logic would say that hitters who bat in different places in the batting order(regardless of what team they play for) are approached differently and based on certain game situations approach at bats differently.

Who had more at bats against the better pitchers in the league? Who saw the better specialty relievers in the game? and on and on and on.

Throw in what team they play for, who they have hitting around them, what pitchers they facced etc, and it becomes incredibly more complex than doing some math equation.

The game doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not played by robots and computers...etc. For whatever reason slide rule dorks completely forget that.

I'm not stating that that stat is useless, just that in order to be able to evaluate it and truly use it in any meaningful way it can't and shouldn't be taken by itself in general, let alone to draw overall conclusions about players, and should be given and evaluated under the proper context.

As far as game situations those are completely team based, and should not be considered when comparing two players.

This is one of the most incredibly absurd things I have ever read in regards to player comparison.

 

[poodski]

You also can't use small samples to judge a player, that's why the SABR dudes created IP and PA cutoffs to determine when particular stats become statistically significant.

Hence why saying Soto was the best in 2010 does not equate the best overall.

Another reason why you can't look at a month and say this player's power is gone.

It takes I think what 500 PA to determine if the power is really there or not there?

 

[Rice Cube]

Hence why saying Soto was the best in 2010 does not equate the best overall.

Another reason why you can't look at a month and say this player's power is gone.

It takes I think what 500 PA to determine if the power is really there or not there?

Yeah, but if we're talking about a guy like Aramis Ramirez who is A) coming off an injury, B) old, and C) has been slumping for an entire season and then some...there are WAR curves and a whole slew of stats to compare his particular aging to established age/decline curves, so it's not just a sample size issue, sometimes you can just kind of look at those patterns and realize that a guy is done. And that's one of the reasons why I don't think the Cubs pick up Rami's 2012 option.

 

[poodski]

Well yeah and who really knows how old he is.

Thats a scary thought as well.

I would like to try and renegotiate with him for next year. Something like a 3/24 deal or something. Even up to 3/30. Definitely want no part of 16 million.

 

[Rice Cube]

Well yeah and who really knows how old he is.

Thats a scary thought as well.

I would like to try and renegotiate with him for next year. Something like a 3/24 deal or something. Even up to 3/30. Definitely want no part of 16 million.

Why would you want to give a declining player even more money than he was originally guaranteed?

 

[FirstTimer]

Well yeah and who really knows how old he is.

Thats a scary thought as well.

I would like to try and renegotiate with him for next year. Something like a 3/24 deal or something. Even up to 3/30. Definitely want no part of 16 million.

A-Ram seems like the guy that could get ass hurt pretty easily. I have a feeling if we waive him he won't really be all that interested in re-signing with us.

He has that "washed up/old" Baltimore Oriole 4 years too late signing smell about him................