MLB 2011 Part Two

Off Topic
481

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I said that Votto doesn’t play a position as hard as CF and/or SS. 1B is definitely harder to play than RF. 3B isn’t really that hard either. All you have to do over there is stay out of the SS’s way on balls to your left and basically knock anything down hit to you and wing it over to first as hard as you can.[/quote]

What do the rest of you think about this? I always considered 1B the easiest position to play on the field, you don’t need foot speed, you don’t need arm strength, you rarely have to leave your feet and you don’t need to have a super accurate arm.

482

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
One thing about the top RBI guys being on two teams. Think about that for a second. There are only so many RBIs to go around. The fact that there are 3 yankees in the top 4 of the AL rbi leaders makes it MORE impressive that Granderson has 103 RBI. [/quote]

I don’t buy this argument. Even if the Yankees hit a lot of home runs they still get on base mostly through singles, doubles and walks meaning there are plenty of opportunities for Granderson to get RBI. If you need proof scroll up and look at how many times Granderson has hit with RISP vs Bautista. It’s not even close.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

I actually didnt realize that Granderson is batting 277 at this point. If he gets his average up to 290 or better he’s my pick. 119 runs score 36 homers 10 triples 20 doubles 70 walks 26 stolen bases. Baustista only has a better AVG and OBP and 1 more homer. But whats the point of the high OBP if he isnt going to score. Thats the point Im trying to make. Bautista has fewer chances to drive people in, fine, thats a valid reason for having lower raw rbi numbers. But he’s been on base 236 times not including HBP ompared to Granderson being on base 203 times. Granderson has put himself in scoring position more often because of the amount of triples and stolen bases he has. Scoring runs is more important to winning games than being on base. [/quote]

No Bautista also has a better SLG, OPS, WAR, not just AVG and OBP. Bautista has a very good walk to strikeout ratio and low strikeouts in general (86) vs Granderson (136). In fact, Granderson has the 5th most strikeouts in the Major Leagues while Bautista is 70th.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

Granderson blows Bautista away in runs scored 119 to 93 and RBI 103 to 83. [/quote]

All this tells me is he is a superior baserunner and hits in a better lineup

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

It’s fine to say that Bautista WOULD have better numbers if he swapped teams with Granderson, but that’s not how this works. [/quote]

Of course not, but there are certain ways you go about assessing a player’s value. I mean Felix Hernandez’s W/L record wasn’t nearly as pretty as Sabathia’s last year. Should Hernandez’s poor record have counted against him since you can’t magically put him on the Yankees?

Or look at Jayson Werth. Don’t you think some of his huge dropoff in production can be attributed to hitting in the Nationals lineup instead of the Phillies?

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

Bautista’s numbers are good but they arent freakish. Like when Bonds had a 600 OBP with over 200 walks you could look past his RBI numbers. Baustista has a 450 OBP, surely not high enough to single it out as THE stat to win him the MVP. [/quote]

Why do they have to be freakish? They just have to be the best this year to win. I stated several times that he’s doing well in OTHER stats too just OBP is a better indicator than RBI.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

WHy do you feel that Home Runs is a relevant stat? A solo homer counts the exact same as a run scored via a sac fly (aside from the fact that the same person gets the RBI and run scored; but this just reinforces my point about those two being the most valuable stats). Why is a homer more valuable than rbi double or rbi single? And obviously a 3 run homer is valuable because it leads to 3 runs crossing the plate. So as I said, it’s good to have home run hitters because they have the potential to get the most RBI but what’s the value in having the most home runs if you dont have the most RBI? It’s an over glorified stat IMO. [/quote]

Because it’s a very individual stat and has little to do with what the rest of the team is doing. In order to get an RBI single or double you need someone in scoring position. The performance of those in front of you is crucial. A home run is almost completely generated by a single individual.

The threat of a homerun has a large impact in close games.[/quote]

  1. You dont have to buy the argument. It’s still true though. It’s not my opinion lol.

  2. What do strikeouts matter at all? It’s the same as home runs. It simply doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things. A strike out is the exact same thing as a ground out to SS with no one on. In certain situations a strikeout is better than a ground out (when there is a runner on first for example). You still dont seem to understand that stats were created to give spectators something to do during all of the downtime between at bats and games and have now been hyperemphasized in the time of fantasy baseball and sabremetrics. Runs scored affect wins. And winning is all that matters when it comes to value. THATS IT.

  3. Superior baserunner? I already told you that Bautista has been on base 30 more times than granderson and is STILL 20 runs behind him. The fact that Granderson puts himself in scoring position more often makes him a more valuable player (Granderson is in scoring position far more often via the triple and stolen base)(Another thing about Granderson’s 10 triples; if any of them have come with a man on 1st base his ‘avg w/ RISP’ is skewed, only slightly but still so). And not only does he put himself in scoring position, he actually scores!

  4. I already said which criteria I find most telling for pitchers. I didnt once mention W/L.

Jayson Werth is a horrible example. He went from playing half his games in THE most hitter friendly park in the league. That is only one of many factors that account for his drop off. Pressure to produce for big money for the first time ever or complacency after securing a big contract are more important IMO (which it is depends on what type of guy he is, I’ll go with the latter).

  1. My point about not having freakish OBP number is this. OBP is a useless stat is assessing a player’s value, UNLESS it is SO remarkably high that it is apparent that all of his other stats are significantly affected by it. The case of Bonds is a perfect example. I know I’ll be corrected if Im wrong by anyone here, but Bonds’s lineup around him was not special in his hey-day.

  2. A HR is generated by one person. But a run is a run. A home runs value is the exact same as a run scored or an RBI (or not exactly since it’s both but since they are measured separately the RBI is more telling). Another thing about home runs. Importance of the home runs is a recent phenomenon in baseball. No one gave a shit about homers until about 20 years ago. Homers put asses in seats. RBI’s win games. Until everyone plays in uniformly sized parks the home run will always be less important than RBI in terms of winning games. For watchability, yes, home runs are great and very exciting.

Further, Granderson has 1 less homer than Bautista. In this discussion it’s a complete wash.

The threat of a homer in close games is part of your argument for its value? Come on. That completely negates what you said about it being a solo stat as the closeness of a game is heavily dependant on the pitcher and other hitters. EVEN PITCHERS AND HITTERS ON THE OTHER TEAM.

483

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
I am obviously of the camp that believes that the MVP Award can go to a pitcher.

I am also of the camp that believes that the candidates should be compared to other candidates for that given year, NOT years past. Take the Oscars for example, you compare films to others during that same year, not others of all time. Same goes for the MVP award.

With those two statements on the table, I still think Verlander takes it in my opinion (with A-Gon coming in second and Granderson third). There is obviously some season left to play, but right now I don’t give it to Bautista because his team isn’t even in the playoff hunt.[/quote]

First. I wasnt comparing Verlander to Pedro or RJ. I was comparing the domiancne showed by them in those years. Verlander isnt showing the same dominance IMO.

Second. Why does whether a team is in a playoff race matter to an individual award? You see the MVP as a team award, that’s the only way you can give Verlander the award. Verlander wouldnt have 20 wins without Valverde and his offense. The MVP is definitely not a team award. If you want to give it to a pitcher he has to lead the league in Ks and ERA (most important) then walks and WHIP. BUt as I said, a pitcher should only even be in the conversation for MVP in very rare and special years. THere’s no way this is one of those years for Verlander.

But yea, why does it matter whether the team is in the playoff race? Winning the World Series is all that matters and most teams DONT make the playoffs. As I said earlier, precendent is misleading simply beacuse being on a good team gives an individual the best chance to have the best stats. But that doesnt mean ONLY someone on a good team can have the best stats. If you think about that it doesnt even come close to making sense to think of it that way. Bautista shouldnt win it because he doesnt have the best stats not because he isnt on a good team. [/quote]

Not only that, but why is it okay to give the Cy Young to a pitcher on a bad team but not the MVP? Or WC7 do you also feel Cy Young should only go to players on contending teams? If it were up to you would you have given Sabathia the Cy Young over King Felix last year?[/quote]

Yes. I don’t know why I believe in it, but I believe that MVP or other similar “best of” awards should go to players that are on contending teams. Not neccisarly championship teams, but at least ones that are playoff bound.

Maybe it’s from my days playing collegiate lacrosse on a great team, but I think it’s much more impressive (and also harder) to perform at a high level on a team that is contending for a championship/playoff spot, than on a team that has no chance of making it.

Performing under pressure is always much more impressive. Putting up great numbers for a team that has zero chance of making the playoffs just isn’t impressive to me, and I also think it’s much easier to do.[/quote]

I disagree completely.

I think theres far more pressure to be THE MAN on the team and still perform. Miguel Cabrera has been doing it for years. Same with Hanley. When you have studs all around it takes a ton of pressure off any single player. What Arod did in Texas in his MVP year is pretty nuts. To be able to hit 54 homers with absolutely no protection in the lineup is crazy.

Playing for a bad team requires a ton of discipline. It’s very very easy to take at bats off in a season where you get 600 of them.

Performing under pressure is impressive but being impressive is not the criteria for what makes the best player. If clutch hits were a criteria Pedroia may be MVP every single year. It’s an intangible you look at when building a team but it doesnt have any effect on who’s the best player.

You cant compare lacrosse to baseball. No sport with a time limit and a ball being put in a goal compares to baseball (or puck; basically every other sport are exactly the same except for the size and shape of the ball, baseball is special). It’s a completely different dynamic. Your opinion may work for lacrosse but it doesnt for baseball.

484

Raj. Youre argument is devolving into saying that guys on comparatively bad teams should have their stats be viewed as MORE impressive than a guy on a better team. That’s a slippery slope to walk down.

485

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
I am obviously of the camp that believes that the MVP Award can go to a pitcher.

I am also of the camp that believes that the candidates should be compared to other candidates for that given year, NOT years past. Take the Oscars for example, you compare films to others during that same year, not others of all time. Same goes for the MVP award.

With those two statements on the table, I still think Verlander takes it in my opinion (with A-Gon coming in second and Granderson third). There is obviously some season left to play, but right now I don’t give it to Bautista because his team isn’t even in the playoff hunt.[/quote]

First. I wasnt comparing Verlander to Pedro or RJ. I was comparing the domiancne showed by them in those years. Verlander isnt showing the same dominance IMO.

Second. Why does whether a team is in a playoff race matter to an individual award? You see the MVP as a team award, that’s the only way you can give Verlander the award. Verlander wouldnt have 20 wins without Valverde and his offense. The MVP is definitely not a team award. If you want to give it to a pitcher he has to lead the league in Ks and ERA (most important) then walks and WHIP. BUt as I said, a pitcher should only even be in the conversation for MVP in very rare and special years. THere’s no way this is one of those years for Verlander.

But yea, why does it matter whether the team is in the playoff race? Winning the World Series is all that matters and most teams DONT make the playoffs. As I said earlier, precendent is misleading simply beacuse being on a good team gives an individual the best chance to have the best stats. But that doesnt mean ONLY someone on a good team can have the best stats. If you think about that it doesnt even come close to making sense to think of it that way. Bautista shouldnt win it because he doesnt have the best stats not because he isnt on a good team. [/quote]

Not only that, but why is it okay to give the Cy Young to a pitcher on a bad team but not the MVP? Or WC7 do you also feel Cy Young should only go to players on contending teams? If it were up to you would you have given Sabathia the Cy Young over King Felix last year?[/quote]

Yes. I don’t know why I believe in it, but I believe that MVP or other similar “best of” awards should go to players that are on contending teams. Not neccisarly championship teams, but at least ones that are playoff bound.

Maybe it’s from my days playing collegiate lacrosse on a great team, but I think it’s much more impressive (and also harder) to perform at a high level on a team that is contending for a championship/playoff spot, than on a team that has no chance of making it.

Performing under pressure is always much more impressive. Putting up great numbers for a team that has zero chance of making the playoffs just isn’t impressive to me, and I also think it’s much easier to do.[/quote]

I disagree completely.

I think theres far more pressure to be THE MAN on the team and still perform. Miguel Cabrera has been doing it for years. Same with Hanley. When you have studs all around it takes a ton of pressure off any single player. What Arod did in Texas in his MVP year is pretty nuts. To be able to hit 54 homers with absolutely no protection in the lineup is crazy.

Playing for a bad team requires a ton of discipline. It’s very very easy to take at bats off in a season where you get 600 of them.

Performing under pressure is impressive but being impressive is not the criteria for what makes the best player. If clutch hits were a criteria Pedroia may be MVP every single year. It’s an intangible you look at when building a team but it doesnt have any effect on who’s the best player.

You cant compare lacrosse to baseball. No sport with a time limit and a ball being put in a goal compares to baseball (or puck; basically every other sport are exactly the same except for the size and shape of the ball, baseball is special). It’s a completely different dynamic. Your opinion may work for lacrosse but it doesnt for baseball. [/quote]

Interesting points, but to me it’s still much more impressive to continually perform at a high level on a team that’s in contention, than a team that has no expectations. We can agree to disagree on that.

I think your distinction between a timed sport and a somewhat solo performance sport was the most interesting to me, and one that definitely makes sense.

486

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I said that Votto doesn’t play a position as hard as CF and/or SS. 1B is definitely harder to play than RF. 3B isn’t really that hard either. All you have to do over there is stay out of the SS’s way on balls to your left and basically knock anything down hit to you and wing it over to first as hard as you can.[/quote]

What do the rest of you think about this? I always considered 1B the easiest position to play on the field, you don’t need foot speed, you don’t need arm strength, you rarely have to leave your feet and you don’t need to have a super accurate arm. [/quote]

I consider 1B to be the easiest to play as well. This isn’t saying that it’s easy, there are still very difficult dig plays and such, but it is the easiest to play out of all the fielding positions IMO.

Prime example = Aubrey Huff…

487

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

  1. You dont have to buy the argument. It’s still true though. It’s not my opinion lol. [/quote]

I don’t see how this is true. If there are “only so many RBI to go around” as you say how is it possible for Granderson to have so many opportunities to hit with RISP? Unless the Yanks score most of their runs through sacrifices and HRs, someone ends up on base after they earn an RBI.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

  1. What do strikeouts matter at all? It’s the same as home runs. It simply doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things. A strike out is the exact same thing as a ground out to SS with no one on. In certain situations a strikeout is better than a ground out (when there is a runner on first for example). You still dont seem to understand that stats were created to give spectators something to do during all of the downtime between at bats and games and have now been hyperemphasized in the time of fantasy baseball and sabremetrics. Runs scored affect wins. And winning is all that matters when it comes to value. THATS IT. [/quote]

You can still have a productive AB without getting a hit or a walk by moving the runner into scoring position. Grounding the ball to right side with a runner on 3rd, hitting a ball deep enough for a runner on 2nd to advance to 3rd etc. Strikeouts do absolutely nothing for the team and are only advantageous to double plays. Think about it, every time you put the ball in play you give yourself a chance to get on base. Strikeouts negate that almost completely unless they are accompanied with a wild pitch/pass ball.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

  1. Superior baserunner? I already told you that Bautista has been on base 30 more times than granderson and is STILL 20 runs behind him. The fact that Granderson puts himself in scoring position more often makes him a more valuable player (Granderson is in scoring position far more often via the triple and stolen base)(Another thing about Granderson’s 10 triples; if any of them have come with a man on 1st base his ‘avg w/ RISP’ is skewed, only slightly but still so). And not only does he put himself in scoring position, he actually scores! [/quote]

Isn’t what you described a superior baserunner? He can steal bases, turn singles in doubles, doubles in triples and score more often. What I’m saying is it doesn’t tell you a whole lot about what he’s doing at the plate just that he’s a much better base runner than Bautista due to his speed. That is definitely one thing he is vastly superior than Bautista at.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

  1. I already said which criteria I find most telling for pitchers. I didnt once mention W/L.

Jayson Werth is a horrible example. He went from playing half his games in THE most hitter friendly park in the league. That is only one of many factors that account for his drop off. Pressure to produce for big money for the first time ever or complacency after securing a big contract are more important IMO (which it is depends on what type of guy he is, I’ll go with the latter). [/quote]

Not saying you did, just giving an example of how certain stats favour players on winning teams, this being an extreme example. Yeah maybe Werth wasn’t the best example, perhaps scj119 who watches the Nationals regularly can shine some light on the situation.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

  1. A HR is generated by one person. But a run is a run. A home runs value is the exact same as a run scored or an RBI (or not exactly since it’s both but since they are measured separately the RBI is more telling). Another thing about home runs. Importance of the home runs is a recent phenomenon in baseball. No one gave a shit about homers until about 20 years ago. Homers put asses in seats. RBI’s win games. Until everyone plays in uniformly sized parks the home run will always be less important than RBI in terms of winning games. For watchability, yes, home runs are great and very exciting. [/quote]

A solo home runs value may be equal to a run scored in game, but runs scored is too much of a context driven stat to assess a players actual value. Lets say Granderson and Bautista both hit doubles for their teams. Granderson eventually comes around to score after his teammate hits a double, while Bautista is left stranded because his teammates are unable to come up with a hit. Even though Granderson earns a runs scored on the play did he really help his team anymore than Bautista?

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

Further, Granderson has 1 less homer than Bautista. In this discussion it’s a complete wash. [/quote]

Then so are the rates at which RBI are earned while hitting with RISP on the page back. You didn’t feel that stat was a wash when it favoured your argument lol. In any case I bet Bautista will finish atop the HR leaderboard with a bigger gap between him and Granderson. He’s had monster Septembers the last 2 years. Looks like Granderson just hit his 37th so they’re tied.

Lastly, you haven’t addressed some of the other stats Bautista leads in. Do SLG%, OPS and WAR mean anything to you?

488

When I say assess value I mean you don’t know how much credit Granderson deserves on a runs scored. As I said earlier, it’s too context dependent.

IMO the best thing a player can do is get on base, not make outs and hit for power.

489

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I said that Votto doesn’t play a position as hard as CF and/or SS. 1B is definitely harder to play than RF. 3B isn’t really that hard either. All you have to do over there is stay out of the SS’s way on balls to your left and basically knock anything down hit to you and wing it over to first as hard as you can.[/quote]

What do the rest of you think about this? I always considered 1B the easiest position to play on the field, you don’t need foot speed, you don’t need arm strength, you rarely have to leave your feet and you don’t need to have a super accurate arm. [/quote]

You don’t know what you’re talking about. First base is hard, period. Even though they aren’t charged with an error when they can’t dig out a bad throw, they are expected to make these plays and they are tough plays to make.

They also need good foot speed and quick hands. Often times, they are holding a runner on at first and must get off the bag quickly and into position. Fielding anything hit hard at them at this point, especially from a lefty, is a very tough play. Typically, they play closer to the hitter on a more regular basis than 3rd basemen, so the demands placed on them on balls hit hard at them are greater.

They also need an accurate arm, albeit not a strong one. JT Snow, Keith Hernandez, Todd Helton and Mark Texeiria are prime examples of good-throwing first basemen, as is Adrian Gonzalez. I don’t know what you mean by “rarely have to leave their feet.” They dive on balls and make plays on them just as much as 3rd basemen do, and probably just as often as middle infielders too.

It’s also a very IMPORTANT position. As mentioned earlier, they make the rest of the infield better if they’re good at scooping balls in the dirt or stretching for a wide throw. In this respect, they have responsibilities on balls hit to all infielders AND on balls hit to them. SS and 2nd base have responsibilities in this manner as well, as do catcher, which is why I would say that those positions and CF are the only ones more important, defensively-speaking, than 1st base.

490

[quote]therajraj wrote:
When I say assess value I mean you don’t know how much credit Granderson deserves on a runs scored. As I said earlier, it’s too context dependent.

IMO the best thing a player can do is get on base, not make outs and hit for power. [/quote]

You’re off your rocker. The most important thing a player can do at the plate is hit well when runners are in scoring position. It’s more important to seize the opportunity when it’s THERE, to lead the charge and take advantage of opportunities to score, rather than leave the responsibility to someone else. That’s called being a leader, being a valuable player. The MVP is the player that seizes opportunity, not creates it. The opportunity can be created by all sorts of factors outside of the hitter’s control, but the seizure of said opportunity is largely placed solely in the hitter’s hands.

491

Alright, I think this discussion has gone as far as it can go.

That being said, Granderson is playing great and if he continues this pace until the end of the year I would give the award to him assuming Bautista doesn’t also get hot.

492

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

  1. You dont have to buy the argument. It’s still true though. It’s not my opinion lol. [/quote]

I don’t see how this is true. If there are “only so many RBI to go around” as you say how is it possible for Granderson to have so many opportunities to hit with RISP? Unless the Yanks score most of their runs through sacrifices and HRs, someone ends up on base after they earn an RBI.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

  1. What do strikeouts matter at all? It’s the same as home runs. It simply doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things. A strike out is the exact same thing as a ground out to SS with no one on. In certain situations a strikeout is better than a ground out (when there is a runner on first for example). You still dont seem to understand that stats were created to give spectators something to do during all of the downtime between at bats and games and have now been hyperemphasized in the time of fantasy baseball and sabremetrics. Runs scored affect wins. And winning is all that matters when it comes to value. THATS IT. [/quote]

You can still have a productive AB without getting a hit or a walk by moving the runner into scoring position. Grounding the ball to right side with a runner on 3rd, hitting a ball deep enough for a runner on 2nd to advance to 3rd etc. Strikeouts do absolutely nothing for the team and are only advantageous to double plays. Think about it, every time you put the ball in play you give yourself a chance to get on base. Strikeouts negate that almost completely unless they are accompanied with a wild pitch/pass ball.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

  1. Superior baserunner? I already told you that Bautista has been on base 30 more times than granderson and is STILL 20 runs behind him. The fact that Granderson puts himself in scoring position more often makes him a more valuable player (Granderson is in scoring position far more often via the triple and stolen base)(Another thing about Granderson’s 10 triples; if any of them have come with a man on 1st base his ‘avg w/ RISP’ is skewed, only slightly but still so). And not only does he put himself in scoring position, he actually scores! [/quote]

Isn’t what you described a superior baserunner? He can steal bases, turn singles in doubles, doubles in triples and score more often. What I’m saying is it doesn’t tell you a whole lot about what he’s doing at the plate just that he’s a much better base runner than Bautista due to his speed. That is definitely one thing he is vastly superior than Bautista at.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

  1. I already said which criteria I find most telling for pitchers. I didnt once mention W/L.

Jayson Werth is a horrible example. He went from playing half his games in THE most hitter friendly park in the league. That is only one of many factors that account for his drop off. Pressure to produce for big money for the first time ever or complacency after securing a big contract are more important IMO (which it is depends on what type of guy he is, I’ll go with the latter). [/quote]

Not saying you did, just giving an example of how certain stats favour players on winning teams, this being an extreme example. Yeah maybe Werth wasn’t the best example, perhaps scj119 who watches the Nationals regularly can shine some light on the situation.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

  1. A HR is generated by one person. But a run is a run. A home runs value is the exact same as a run scored or an RBI (or not exactly since it’s both but since they are measured separately the RBI is more telling). Another thing about home runs. Importance of the home runs is a recent phenomenon in baseball. No one gave a shit about homers until about 20 years ago. Homers put asses in seats. RBI’s win games. Until everyone plays in uniformly sized parks the home run will always be less important than RBI in terms of winning games. For watchability, yes, home runs are great and very exciting. [/quote]

A solo home runs value may be equal to a run scored in game, but runs scored is too much of a context driven stat to assess a players actual value. Lets say Granderson and Bautista both hit doubles for their teams. Granderson eventually comes around to score after his teammate hits a double, while Bautista is left stranded because his teammates are unable to come up with a hit. Even though Granderson earns a runs scored on the play did he really help his team anymore than Bautista?

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

Further, Granderson has 1 less homer than Bautista. In this discussion it’s a complete wash. [/quote]

Then so are the rates at which RBI are earned while hitting with RISP on the page back. You didn’t feel that stat was a wash when it favoured your argument lol. In any case I bet Bautista will finish atop the HR leaderboard with a bigger gap between him and Granderson. He’s had monster Septembers the last 2 years. Looks like Granderson just hit his 37th so they’re tied.

Lastly, you haven’t addressed some of the other stats Bautista leads in. Do SLG%, OPS and WAR mean anything to you?

[/quote]

SLG is nice but it’s not more significant than avg and obp. The reason I dont like slugging a whole lot as a measure of power is that a single adds to your slugging percentage. Isolated Power (ISO) is a better metric for measuring pure power production.

OPS is a waste in this discussion because its just SLG and OBP added together. It’s redundant.

WAR is a funny stat. It depends heavily on how strong a teams bench and minor league system is in addition to how the player performs. Obviously I’m a person that prefers to look at the most concrete stats when deciding an MVP. WAR doesnt say how much better a player is than other players in the league, it says how many more wins he accounts for than a bench player or a minor leaguer or someone on the waiver wire. Obviously WAR depends on how the player produces but we have all the other stats to figure that out, WAR just adds in the dynamic of how deep the bench/farm system is.

Good to show contribution to the TEAM but doesnt say who’s the best in the LEAGUE, IMO

edited

And just because I think this is funny. The regular season in my league just ended. Playoffs start this weeked. I led the league of 26 teams in OBP. 585 OBP with a 350 AVG. 17 RBI and 26 runs scored over 28 games. Some kid had a 474 AVG 560 OBP with 39 runs scored and 29 RBI. He was on the best team in the league. And my team is a 5th seed out of 8 in the playoffs. He is clearly a better candidate for MVP than I am. Id be lucky to be top 5 in the MVP vote. I led the league in OBP by over 10 points and that guy was 4th. It’s just not as significant a stat as you make it out to be. His production blows me away. It’s basically the exact same situation with Bautista and Granderson at this point (and Gonzalez).

493

The Giants are now down 5 games with 27 more games to play. This is going to be very uncomfortable.

494

The Giants are done. It’s over. They just suffered too many injuries to overcome when all is said and done. I think they used the DL 25 times this year for 18 different players. Even if they had Buster Posey this whole time I’m not sure they would have been able to pull it out anyways, given all these other injuries they’ve sustained.

495

I want to ask you guys something.

Ricky Romero is good pitcher having a great year, but for some reason he gets his ass handed to him every time he pitches against the Red Sox (.370 opposing average). The next closest team is nowhere close to Red sox batting 50 points lower against him. It’s also not just this year but last year.

My question is this: When one team hits extremely well against a pitcher while no other team in the league does, would it be more likely than not that team has found a tell in his pitching mechanics?

496

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I want to ask you guys something.

Ricky Romero is good pitcher having a great year, but for some reason he gets his ass handed to him every time he pitches against the Red Sox (.370 opposing average). The next closest team is nowhere close to Red sox batting 50 points lower against him. It’s also not just this year but last year.

My question is this: When one team hits extremely well against a pitcher while no other team in the league does, would it be more likely than not that team has found a tell in his pitching mechanics? [/quote]

No, it would be less likely than not that a team had found a tell. Usually when a pitcher has a tell, more than one team knows about it, especially when you take into consideration that a player who knows it will tell his team each time he gets traded or whatever.

With a team like the Red Sox, it’s much more likely that they just see the ball well from him as a team. They’re a good-hitting team, so when they happen to see the ball well they’re going to pound the ball as a team. Romero certainly isn’t the only guy who does well against everyone but the Red Sox.

497

So I’ve never been a huge baseball movie guy. Sitting down and spending 2 hours watching a schizophrenic claim he’s being told to build a baseball diamond has never really been my thing.

But I do want to see Moneyball. Moneyball Trailer 2011 HD - YouTube

I really hope Barry Zito is in the movie. I would love to see him portrayed on the silver screen after all the great things I’ve heard about him in this thread. heh.

498

link appears to screw up in the thread, here it is again

499

I’m excited to see Moneyball as well. I may even read the book!

500

^^ It’s debuting at a film festival in my city on September 9th. I’m debating on whether I should pay 10 extra dollars on a movie ticket to see it 2 weeks before its release date.