Out of the Past

I emailed Boog something about lineup configuration and I'll post here a portion of the email just to see what bobbob and the other stat gurus think. ========= Lets assume the Baseball Stat Gurus are correct and lineup configuration only flips five games per season and also lets assume the Baseball Stat Gurus are correct when they claim that 15 additional runs equates to 1 additional win. If you assume both of this assumptions are correct then lineup configuration equates to 75 additional runs per season (15 x 5). I was playing with the runs created formula that the Baseball Stat Gurus swear by and as a rule of thumb for a player with 500 ABs .010 OPS points is equal to 1 run created and thus 75 runs (or lineup configuration) equates to .750 OPS (.010 x 75) points for a player with 500 ABs. In other words, lineup configuration is the difference between a guy with a 1.250 OPS and a guy with a .500 OPS. Do you still believe that lineup configuration doesn't matter? What am I missing?

The chances of Criterion getting the license for this title are slim to none. Warner holds the rights and typically does as good a job as Criterion does anyway. A HD re-release is almost certainly on the horizon. I'd rather see Criterion concentrate their efforts more on films without major studio backing anyway. Criterion has a couple of amazing titles coming out in the next several weeks: Stranger Than Paradise, Breathless, and Days of Heaven I have the Breathless DVD although from what you wrote I guess it's not Criterion? I was happy with my version although I don't really care much about all the extra stuff. I pretty much care about the movie itself and that it's a quality transfer and that they didn't cut off the sides to make it fit a full screen. I hate that.

I think when Miguel is in shape he's adequate at 3B. We just need to figure out a way to keep him in shape all season long. Hammer is also adequate in LF. I would move Hermida to 1B before moving Miguel or Hammer. Waste of his arm. He's a terrible outfielder arm and all.

I think when Miguel is in shape he's adequate at 3B. We just need to figure out a way to keep him in shape all season long. Hammer is also adequate in LF. I would move Hermida to 1B before moving Miguel or Hammer.

I don't know who came up with the 15 run number but you were accepting it and then all of a sudden you question it. Interesting.

The chances of every single one of those 15 runs having even a marginal effect on the outcome of the game they are played in it pretty slim. Chances are 13 of them would come in a game that is won by more than 2, or lost by more than 1. Does any of these very creative stats you like to use use translate 15 runs into OPS points? Would the 15 runs be equivalent to .075 OPS points? Do you know? It's not perfect, but the simplest Runs Created formula is: OBP*SLG*AB So, a 0.075 difference in OPS points would amount to various values for additional runs created over the course of a 500 AB season. With Hermida's stats, it would be about a 10.5 run difference. I'm not really buying too much into this as I type this because I have issues with the Runs Created stat. Some odd mathematical things are at play with a formula like that but, for a quick stat that gives you some idea of how to quantify the contribution I'd go with that, for now. I'll see if I can think up some better way of going about this. Thanks for the formula. Using the formula with Hermida's numbers I got the 15 runs to translate to .079 OPS points. I don't knwo but maybe I screwed-up the calculation but if I did not then I wouldn't blow-off the 15 runs as if they're inconsequential. .361 x .449 x 500 = 81.0 runs (i) .326 x .405 x 500 = 66.0 runs (ii) (i) - (.361 + .449 = .810 - Hermida's OBP / SLG / OPS) (ii) - (.326 + .405 = .731 - Hermida's OBP / SLG / OPS discounted for 15 runs)

The chances of every single one of those 15 runs having even a marginal effect on the outcome of the game they are played in it pretty slim. Chances are 13 of them would come in a game that is won by more than 2, or lost by more than 1. Does any of these very creative stats you like to use use translate 15 runs into OPS points? Would the 15 runs be equivalent to .075 OPS points? Do you know? It's not perfect, but the simplest Runs Created formula is: OBP*SLG*AB So, a 0.075 difference in OPS points would amount to various values for additional runs created over the course of a 500 AB season. With Hermida's stats, it would be about a 10.5 run difference. I'm not really buying too much into this as I type this because I have issues with the Runs Created stat. Some odd mathematical things are at play with a formula like that but, for a quick stat that gives you some idea of how to quantify the contribution I'd go with that, for now. I'll see if I can think up some better way of going about this. Thanks for the formula. Using the formula with Hermida's numbers I got the 15 runs to translate to .079 OPS points. I don't knwo but maybe I screwed-up the calculation but if I did not then I wouldn't blow-off the 15 runs as if they're inconsequential. .361 x .449 x 500 = 81.0 runs (i) .326 x .405 x 500 = 66.0 runs (ii) (i) - (.361 + .449 = .810 - Hermida's OBP / SLG / OPS) (ii) - (.326 + .405 = .731 - Hermida's OBP / SLG / OPS discounted for 15 runs allowed)

Regardless of how you word it, Bob, you just agreed that CERA is significant. From my perspective, CERA is by no means a good measure to compare catchers who've caught different pitchers, but it will tell you whether one catcher is better than another if both are working with the same pitchers. It's essentially a controlled experiment versus an uncontrolled experiment. What you say is true but if you had to assign weights between the pitcher and the catcher to who was responsible for their ERA when they work together I would give the pitcher about 95 and the catcher 5. How would you assign the weight? BTW, Treanor's CERA is 4.55 and Olivo's is 4.73. Pretty much the same.

The chances of every single one of those 15 runs having even a marginal effect on the outcome of the game they are played in it pretty slim. Chances are 13 of them would come in a game that is won by more than 2, or lost by more than 1. Does any of these very creative stats you like to use use translate 15 runs into OPS points? Would the 15 runs be equivalent to .075 OPS points? Do you know?

If the Marlins sign Bonds is very likely I stop being a Marlins fan. Dont need scum like that on the Fish. Don't let the door hit ya in the a**. Anyways, I agree with Swift to an extent. Yeah, move Hammer to 1B, make a big signing in the offseason for LF. As far as printing playoff tickets.........thats a big stretch. JJ is out practically forever, Olsen is Olsen and we don't know how Willis is going to look after the inevitable offseason wind up overhaul. And those are just SOME of the "unknowns" about the starting pitching for 2008. Anibal Sanchez is a true difference maker who should be in the rotation by June at the latest, who will also have a full offseason of proper rehab under his belt, which is a huge difference from what Anibal and JJ went through last offseason. Plus a healthy Ricky Nolasco is better than 3/5 of what we have now, and Gaby should be ready to be a 5 starter. IMO, Dontrelle/Anibal/Olsen/Nolasco/Gabby or RVH is a better 1-5 than any team in the NL East can pencil in, with certainty, for next season. And that offense should be able to hang, especially if De Aza is for "real." Ok, I see where your coming from now. Yeah if you compare our potential 2008 1-5 against the rest of the NL East, we should be very competitive. And someone else mentioned the defense. Look at it this way, the defense can't get any worse than it is now so improvement will be the only thing we will see. If the FO makes NO moves in the offseason (a very real possibility), I don't really see 2008 as "our" year. If we move Hammer to 1B and add a proven power bat in LF (also offering Miggy more protection), then our offense can offset our defensive insufficiencies. I think pitching will be a big question mark. I guess based on potential our rotation has a high ceiling but I wouldn't look at it based on potential. I prefer to look at it based on waht's reasonable to expect out of each guy. Will Sanchez stay healthy and if healthy how will he pitch? The 120 innings or wahtever he pitched in '05 is not that much of a track record. Will DTrain bounce back? I wouldn't expect Nolasco and Olsen to be better than 5th type starters. If they pitch better than that it would be a pleasant surprise. RVH has proven he's not a MLB pitcher. Will he along with any of the minor leaguers be ready next year? Noone knows. Which Mitre will show up?

I think most of the Treanor starts came in '06 when DTrain pitched relatively well and I think most of Olivo starts came in '07 when DTrain has stunk. That skews things a bit.. or a lot. Do you think Olivo is to blame for DTrain's '07 struggles?

BTW, this is a list of players that includes a large number of HoF candidates. What my list and your list show is that a boat load of good players are already good by age 23. You don't have to be Miguel or a Hanley to be good at 23. In baseball terms you're no longer a baby at 23. That list represents like 25 of the 775 players in major league baseball. Or like 3 percent. Thats not a boatload by any definition. The fact of the matter is most players are not even in the majors by the age of 23. The pool of players in the discussion are the good players. BTW, most good players are already good at 23.

BTW, this is a list of players that includes a large number of HoF candidates. What my list and your list show is that a boat load of good players are already good by age 23. You don't have to be Miguel or a Hanley to be good at 23. In baseball terms you're no longer a baby at 23.

He's 40th in OPS among ML OFers and his defense is horrendous. He still has yet to justify all the hype he came into 06 with. Ok, he's young and still has plenty of time, whatever. The point is that it takes more than a month to be able to say that "he has arrived" Yet one typically has to look to first ballot hall of fame players with better age 23 performance. There is nothing wrong with Jeremy Hermida that playing time will not fix. As long as nobody tried to make him more aggressive (like last season) we are going to have a reliable .850+ OPS left-handed hitter playing in a park that is death on lefties. Tony Gwynn wasn't a reliable .800 OPS player until his 30s, by that time he wasn't a reliable everyday player, he routinely missed 20-40 games every year. I think you're way off on that. Just guessing but I think there must be somewhere around 20 position players in MLB right now who were better at 23 than Hermida is right now adn I doubt all these guys will be first ballot hall of famers. Maybe not first ballot guys (though there is a lot of candidates here), but these are elite players and Hermida may surpass some of these guys' age 23 OPS performance. Miguel Cabrera Hanley Ramirez Albert Pujols Jose Reyes Grady Sizemore Ken Griffey, Jr. Alex Rodriguez Jim Thome Barry Bonds Scott Rolen David Wright Manny Ramirez He's 23. Most players, even future hall-of-fame guys, are not major league starting position players (much less good hitting ones) at age 23, and Hermida is a good hitting starting position player. The Marlins have several very special young hitters, and Hermida is one of them. This team will have an outstanding offense for as long as this core is maintained. Here are a few more.. with 4 or 5 of them it may be debatable as to whether they are / were better than Hermida at age 23 but with most of them it's not debatable. The point is that some of you make it seem as if only hall of famers are good at age 23 and taht's nonsense, in my opinion. Dustin Pedroia Robinson Cano Melky Cabrera Troy Glaus Frank Thomas B.J. Upton Gary Sheffield Jhonny Peralta Joe Mauer Justin Morneau Paul Konerko Vladimir Guerrero Garret Anderson Brian McCann Andruw Jones Jeff Francoeur Ryan Zimmerman Prince Fielder Ryan Braun Aramis Ramirez Scott Rolen Adam Dunn Luis Gonzalez James Loney Ryan Klesko

I think we have a good idea of what we have in Uggla, Hammer, Hanley, Olivo and Jacobs. Uggla, Hammer and Hanley are good or better. Olivo and Jacobs are bad or worse. Jeremy is still to be determined.

Can someone explain why Treanor is better at handling pitchers? I admit that Tommy and Rich going gaga over Treanor talking to the pitcher in the dugout between innings didn't convince me. The performance of pitchers while Treanor is catching is better than when Olivo is catching. I can't tell you why he is better, but it is easy to demonstrate that he is. Their CERA is about the same. I know CERA is the worst stat ever but it's the only one I know of. If you can quantify or prove how Treanor handles the pitchers better I would love to read it.

Offensively, I agree that Treanor would not put up those same numbers if starting him everyday, but the fact that he will give you a quality at bat at least a reasonable percentage of the time deserves some credit. Olivo just looks overmatched everytime he is in the box unless he gets a fastball down the middle or a lefty misses with a slider. Overmatched Guy (Olivo) has a higher career OPS than Quality At Bat Guy (Treanor). Overmatched Guy also has the higher career RISP OPS than Quality At Bat Guy. Career OBP of Treanor though is much higher, which is in actuality much more telling of a quality AB than OPS as a whole. Treanor does get on base more often but overall Olivo is the "better" hitter. Except that he's not the better hitter. Except for last season, he's never demonstrated the ability to do anything at the plate other than suck. His career OPS is higher and to me that makes him the "better" hitter. Both of them suck but one of them sucks a little more.

bobbob, I didn't know pitchers were removed from OPS+. I think it's more relevant to compare RFs to a pool that includes only his peers than to a pool that includes the lighter hitting positions. If Jeremy was stinking it up I could see the need to blurry things up by comparing him to catchers, SS and 2B to make him look good but you don't need to do that to make him look good. Out of the 32 RFs with the most PAs Jeremy ranks 17th in OPS. That's good enough for a 23 year old. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/battin...nd=a&pos=rf

ok. Over the course of this season, he's been 15% better than the average player. His OBP is 95 points higher than his average. He has 10 home runs in 256 at bats. Oh and he's 23. There you go again comparing Hermida with a grouping that includes pitchers and catchers. You do him a disservice when you pull that stunt because you don't need to do it to show his bat in a good light.

He's 40th in OPS among ML OFers and his defense is horrendous. He still has yet to justify all the hype he came into 06 with. Ok, he's young and still has plenty of time, whatever. The point is that it takes more than a month to be able to say that "he has arrived" Yet one typically has to look to first ballot hall of fame players with better age 23 performance. There is nothing wrong with Jeremy Hermida that playing time will not fix. As long as nobody tried to make him more aggressive (like last season) we are going to have a reliable .850+ OPS left-handed hitter playing in a park that is death on lefties. Tony Gwynn wasn't a reliable .800 OPS player until his 30s, by that time he wasn't a reliable everyday player, he routinely missed 20-40 games every year. I think you're way off on that. Just guessing but I think there must be somewhere around 20 position players in MLB right now who were better at 23 than Hermida is right now adn I doubt all these guys will be first ballot hall of famers.

Willingham shouldn't even be considered a catcher anymore. I still can't bring myself to consider him a LFer. He does a okay job in LF.

Can someone explain why Treanor is better at handling pitchers? I admit that Tommy and Rich going gaga over Treanor talking to the pitcher in the dugout between innings didn't convince me.

Offensively, I agree that Treanor would not put up those same numbers if starting him everyday, but the fact that he will give you a quality at bat at least a reasonable percentage of the time deserves some credit. Olivo just looks overmatched everytime he is in the box unless he gets a fastball down the middle or a lefty misses with a slider. Overmatched Guy (Olivo) has a higher career OPS than Quality At Bat Guy (Treanor). Overmatched Guy also has the higher career RISP OPS than Quality At Bat Guy. Career OBP of Treanor though is much higher, which is in actuality much more telling of a quality AB than OPS as a whole. Treanor does get on base more often but overall Olivo is the "better" hitter.

Offensively, I agree that Treanor would not put up those same numbers if starting him everyday, but the fact that he will give you a quality at bat at least a reasonable percentage of the time deserves some credit. Olivo just looks overmatched everytime he is in the box unless he gets a fastball down the middle or a lefty misses with a slider. Overmatched Guy (Olivo) has a higher career OPS than Quality At Bat Guy (Treanor). Overmatched Guy also has the higher career RISP OPS than Quality At Bat Guy.

Not only the arm but the way he charges the ball... he attacks it. He's fun to watch.