2 stats that should never be used to evaluate an individual player.

I agree, but don't try to tell that to Uggla. When asked in early April (pre-game by Minervini or Forte, IIRC) what his goals were for this season, he said (and I paraphrase) "Score 100 runs and drive in 100 runs."

 

See ball, hit ball.

The thing with runs scored and RBIs is that they're not as important as the old timers think but they are far more important, particularly RBIs, than what the younger fans think.

 

Going back to Uggla's goal, can you name players that had 100 RBIs and scored 100 runs in the same season (Uggla's goal) and had a bad season?

 

For each guy you name I'll name 20 that did it and had good seasons.

They are nice to look at, but they don't tell you much about the season the player had if you don't look at them in context. Case in point, Joe Carter had two seasons where he had an OPS+ under 100 (below league average) and had 100 RBIs. He also had 7 seasons of 100 RBI and an OBP under .315. Those are not good years, despite the RBIs. The guy had a f***ing .681 OPS in 1997 with 100+ RBI because he batted 3rd or 4th 157 times that year.

 

Are you going to argue that (taking two players from the same team, the 2004 expos) that Tony Batista (.241/.272/.455, 110 RBI) is a better hitter than Brad Wilkerson (.255/.374/.498, 67 RBI) or had a better year than him? RBI is almost (ALMOST) entirely related to opportunity.

 

Guys that drive in 100 runs and score 100 runs generally have good seasons because they are getting on base and slugging a lot, two good things. But they also have really good hitters around them.

RBI is almost (ALMOST) entirely related to opportunity

 

Both are highly dependent on others.

 

What bothers me about Uggla's comment was that it was devoid of any emphasis at all on staying back and driving doubles to right or right/center and trying to cut down on his 27% strike-out rate of last year.

 

Hopefully, he's trying to hit 60 doubles and 30 HR and not 60 HR. At least he's only striking out 22% of the time so far during his less-than-impressive start.

They are nice to look at, but they don't tell you much about the season the player had if you don't look at them in context. Case in point, Joe Carter had two seasons where he had an OPS+ under 100 (below league average) and had 100 RBIs. He also had 7 seasons of 100 RBI and an OBP under .315. Those are not good years, despite the RBIs. The guy had a f***ing .681 OPS in 1997 with 100+ RBI because he batted 3rd or 4th 157 times that year.

1990, 30 years old, peak of his career, MVP candidate. 115 RBIs with a .681 OPS. Any wonder why no one behind him in the order had 60 RBIs and his team was under .500.

2 stats that should never be used to evaluate an individual player.

I agree, but don't try to tell that to Uggla. When asked in early April (pre-game by Minervini or Forte, IIRC) what his goals were for this season, he said (and I paraphrase) "Score 100 runs and drive in 100 runs."

 

See ball, hit ball.

The thing with runs scored and RBIs is that they're not as important as the old timers think but they are far more important, particularly RBIs, than what the younger fans think.

 

Going back to Uggla's goal, can you name players that had 100 RBIs and scored 100 runs in the same season (Uggla's goal) and had a bad season?

 

For each guy you name I'll name 20 that did it and had good seasons.

First off, I wasn't saying that having 100 RBI and 100 Runs is likely for a bad player. Last year, 13 hitters reached both 100 R and 100 RBI, all of them had a OPS+ of at least 120.

 

More over, it's about how players who had better years than many of those guys didn't reach that goal. There were 55 players with an OPS+ of at least 120 who didn't reach that goal, most, if not all, better than Bobby Abreu, who did.

 

And as far as Runs+RBI=200, would you say Chipper Jones, Milton Bradly, Hanley Ramirez, Carlos Lee, Joe Mauer, Matt Holliday, J.D. Drew, Brian Giles, Brian McCann, Ian Kinsler, Nick Markekis, Jack Cust, Vlad Guerrero, Andre Ethier, Adam Dunn, Xavier Nady, Prince Fielder, Ryan Domit, Jason Giambi, Ryan Braun, Aramis Ramirez, Dan Uggla, Magglio Ordonez, Evan Longoria, Jermaine Dye, Carlos Pena, Joey Votto, Raul Ibanez, Adam Laroche, Alfonso Soriano, and Jim Thome all didn't have good years or were worse than Bobby Abreu?

 

There are a good number of All-Stars there. AL MVP Dustin Pedroia barely made it with 201.

Joe Carter's career makes me angry...

They are nice to look at, but they don't tell you much about the season the player had if you don't look at them in context. Case in point, Joe Carter had two seasons where he had an OPS+ under 100 (below league average) and had 100 RBIs. He also had 7 seasons of 100 RBI and an OBP under .315. Those are not good years, despite the RBIs. The guy had a f***ing .681 OPS in 1997 with 100+ RBI because he batted 3rd or 4th 157 times that year.

 

Are you going to argue that (taking two players from the same team, the 2004 expos) that Tony Batista (.241/.272/.455, 110 RBI) is a better hitter than Brad Wilkerson (.255/.374/.498, 67 RBI) or had a better year than him? RBI is almost (ALMOST) entirely related to opportunity.

 

Guys that drive in 100 runs and score 100 runs generally have good seasons because they are getting on base and slugging a lot, two good things. But they also have really good hitters around them.

Guys that drive in 100 runs and score 100 in the same season (Uggla's goal) are extremely likely to have a very good OPS+ and that's a good thing. Had Uggla said his goal was to have a very good OPS+ noone would complain and that's basically what he said in player's lingo.

 

Carter and Batista didn't reach 100 runs scored in those seasons so they're not relevant to what Uggla said or to what I said in defense of what Uggla said.

 

Runs scored are dependent on how often you get on base, how many homers you hit and how the guys hitting behind you hit. RBIs are dependent on how many homers you hit, how many guys you have on base and on how good you're at driving those guys in.

Joe Carter's career makes me angry...

What do you think about his low babip (.265)?

 

If his babip was about league average (.290 - .300, I think?) would his career make you less angry?

I said all that in my last paragraph, but I was specifically responding to your notion that RBI are more important than 'younger' fans think.

 

Maybe, but I'll take obp and slug over r and RBI if I only get two stats. Why? Because one pair is team dependent and isn't a true or complete picture of a player's skill.

Joe Carter's career makes me angry...

What do you think about his low babip (.265)?

 

If his babip was about league average (.290 - .300, I think?) would his career make you less angry?

 

Why would it?

 

Without look at his numbers, if his babip was that low over his career, it can't really be said to be anything other than a lack of skill. He didn't hit the ball squarely enough.

 

Babip is useful because it can help you see why players might inexplicably slump or get hot over small runs, but it tends to equalize. Given his skillset, his equalized level is lower than most, probably because he hit a lot of fly balls and not a lot of line drives, if I had to guess.

 

But what's the point of that post? Because I bring up babip every once in a while? This is a dumb post. Joe carter's career makes me mad because h epitomizes what is wrong with traditionaly baseball analysis.

If it gets to the point where Maybin needs to be sent down then I wouldn't mind Fredo at SS, Cody in CF and Hanley in either LF or RF with Hermida in the other.

If they are going to change Hanley to another position, that is an offseason issue.

A change in position is preferably an offseson issue but not necessarily as far as this FO is concerned. Think of Miguel in '03. And Hanley is a far better athlete than Miguel ever was.

 

Wasn't Miggy brought up because our 3B at the time (and then won the GG) was injured, then moved to the OF to keep his bat in the lineup after Mikey came back? Can't see how that is even remotely comparable.

 

But like I said before, I do agree with one point; if a move happens, it is an off season move.

He was brought up to play left field for Todd Hollandsworth in May, then when Lowell went down in Sept. he played third till lowell came back and then was put back in the outfield but in right.

 

You are right. Forgot all about Todd. But in order for those moves to be comparible, when Mikey got healthy they would have had to move him to the OF. I do remember Miggy getting a little upset he was the one moved. I don't remember if it was made public or just in the rumor mill tho.

As Tommy pointed out yesterday the complaint regarding Hermida is not that he isn't getting on base, but really how he is and the lack of production he brings to the team. Walks are great but in his mind JH should be driving in more runs, that's what he's paid to do. I think to some extent it's a valid complaint and its impossible to ignore the batting slump he's going through, having gone hitless five of his last seven games, his average falling nearly 50 points in the interim. But everyone goes through dry spells so I guess all we can do is hope he starts showing some of that aggressiveness at the plate we saw earlier in the season.

 

Is it really a slump if you are walking like it's going out of style? Is he supposed to chase bad pitches to try for a hit instead of taking the walk? So what if his average sits around .250 if his OBP is .400. Gotta remember, maybe he's been hitless the past few games, but

 

It's been shown several times that OBP outweighs things like BA and SLG by a lot in terms of production, it's not about individual production, it's about team production, Hermida leading the league in walks is providing outstanding production for the team, which is ultimately more valuable than putting up a .270 BA. I'd be lying if I didn't say I wanted more players to slump like Hermida if that's the case.

 

So far this year he's put up a .240/.421/.425 line... even if he finishes with that, that's very much awesome... if he likely starts alternating the walks for hits and finishes closer to .270/.380/.460 or something like that, it's still awesome.

 

All this being said, he's still in the top 3 most productive hitters on the team in terms of conventionals (HR/RBI) and in the rates (OBP/OPS)... Hermida's been fine this season... And to Waxheaven there... NOBODY... ZERO PEOPLE expect Hermida to be a Manny Ramirez... even the most ardent of Hermida supporters expect Brian Giles-lite (Basically, Giles's 2004 in SD)... .270/.370/.450-ish lines

 

Although full of holes, not a bad post PWG. But let's just concentrate on the bolded part. Production means runs scored. I think if you were to ask anyone that is proud of their bat, they would say their goal is to account for 200 runs a season. Runs scored + RBIs. Jeremy is going to have to come very close to that number to be on this team next season. Saying he will do this or he should do that is irrelevant. The bottom line is going to be relevant.

 

And like I have said many times. I'm a fence sitter on Jeremy. Neither pro or con. Simply willing to wait and see what he accomplishes this season.

Not just going on whether or not this is right, that's a bit excessive sir. Not a single person on our 2008 squad, 3rd best record in team history, reached that number. Not either NL All-Stars Hanley Ramirez or Dan Uggla, not MB favorite Jorge Cantu, no one.

 

For you, he'd have to have a year up there with NL MVP Albert Pujols, who only had 216 Runs+RBI.

 

I wasn't real clear. Sorry.

 

Actually I got that 200 number from one of the pre game shows during an interview with Uggla. It's not something I just made up. It's what good hitters strive for. At first I also thought it was a bit high, then I sat back and thought about it. It's a goal. A bottom line number. Getting into the 190s is very acceptable, but they shoot for that 200 mark. It's like hitters striving for that 100 ribbie mark, which is something you hear alot about towards the end of the season. They like getting 97, but they are disappointed if they don't hit that century mark. We actually had a guy that got to 98 or 99 one year and he stated he was disappointed he didn't get 100.

 

And last year they really weren't that far off. Cantu was 92 runs scored, 95 ribbies....187. Hanley was 125 and 67....192. Uggla at 97 and 92....189. Cutting back on the Ks and making better contact (one of the things the FO and coaches were hoping to do this season) could/should lift either of those numbers a bit. And hitting 3rd, Hanley could very easily make that goal. Cantu could also come very close. Uggla maybe tops 190.

 

And I think Jeremy is going to have to get that number close. The 180s may be acceptable. The 170s or 160s may not be enough to keep the job. I like the patience and that he is drawing walks, but I think the FO and coaches are going to be looking for production (runs) from him. Especially seeing Uggla may very well be gone next season. They are going to have to replace his production elsewhere. If one or more of the prospects develope enough, then Hermida is going to have to produce to save his job. He sure isn't going to keep it with his glove. Production = accounting for runs. All the other numbers are great to mull over for all the stats people, but runs wins games.

 

BTW Do you think Pujols wins that MVP if he accounts for 189 runs? Or 192? He met and surpassed that unwritten goal. It's a large part of what made him the most valuable to his team's success.

BTW Do you think Pujols wins that MVP if he accounts for 189 runs? Or 192? He met and surpassed that unwritten goal. It's a large part of what made him the most valuable to his team's success.

 

Albert Pujols "accounted for" 216 runs.

Ryan Howard "accounted for" 251 runs.

 

Albert Pujols led the league in slugging percentage and had a .462 OBP. Also led the league in OPS with a 1.116 OPS.

RYan Howard's OBP was .100 lower than Pujols', and he had an .881 OPS.

 

 

Which one, OPS or "Runs accounted for" won Pujols the MVP?

I said all that in my last paragraph, but I was specifically responding to your notion that RBI are more important than 'younger' fans think.

 

Maybe, but I'll take obp and slug over r and RBI if I only get two stats. Why? Because one pair is team dependent and isn't a true or complete picture of a player's skill.

We agree on that.

Joe Carter's career makes me angry...

What do you think about his low babip (.265)?

 

If his babip was about league average (.290 - .300, I think?) would his career make you less angry?

 

Why would it?

 

Without look at his numbers, if his babip was that low over his career, it can't really be said to be anything other than a lack of skill. He didn't hit the ball squarely enough.

 

Babip is useful because it can help you see why players might inexplicably slump or get hot over small runs, but it tends to equalize. Given his skillset, his equalized level is lower than most, probably because he hit a lot of fly balls and not a lot of line drives, if I had to guess.

 

But what's the point of that post? Because I bring up babip every once in a while? This is a dumb post. Joe carter's career makes me mad because h epitomizes what is wrong with traditionaly baseball analysis.

It's not a dumb question to ask you because in the past you've routinely equated babip solely with luck.

 

It's good to see you've moved forward from that dumb position.

That being said, the year to year fluctuations are mostly random chance (since I know how you despise the word 'luck' so.)

It's not a dumb question to ask you because in the past you've routinely equated babip solely with luck.

 

It's good to see you've moved forward from that dumb position.

 

BABip from the pitcher's perspective is highly influential of luck, the pitcher doesn't have control of the defense or the batter's swing... the batter does have control of his swing and ultimately determines the fate of the ball. The better hitters hit more line drives... line drives are harder to catch/field than GB/FB so... better hitters typically have better BABips

It's not a dumb question to ask you because in the past you've routinely equated babip solely with luck.

 

It's good to see you've moved forward from that dumb position.

 

BABip from the pitcher's perspective is highly influential of luck, the pitcher doesn't have control of the defense or the batter's swing... the batter does have control of his swing and ultimately determines the fate of the ball. The better hitters hit more line drives... line drives are harder to catch/field than GB/FB so... better hitters typically have better BABips

Babip, from a pitcher's perspective, is largely dependent on the percentages of line drives he allows compared to ground balls and flyballs. Line drives have an extremely high babip while ground balls have a very low babip and flyballs have an even lower babip. I think a pitcher has control over the trajectory of the batted balls he allows so I think a pitcher has control over the babip he allows. A guy that allows a ton of line drives will have a very high babip.

It's not a dumb question to ask you because in the past you've routinely equated babip solely with luck.

 

It's good to see you've moved forward from that dumb position.

 

BABip from the pitcher's perspective is highly influential of luck, the pitcher doesn't have control of the defense or the batter's swing... the batter does have control of his swing and ultimately determines the fate of the ball. The better hitters hit more line drives... line drives are harder to catch/field than GB/FB so... better hitters typically have better BABips

Babip, from a pitcher's perspective, is largely dependent on the percentages of line drives he allows compared to ground balls and flyballs. Line drives have an extremely high babip while ground balls have a very low babip and flyballs have an even lower babip. I think a pitcher has control over the trajectory of the batted balls he allows so I think a pitcher has control over the babip he allows. A guy that allows a ton of line drives will have a very high babip.

 

But he doesn't have control over fielding a Miguel Cabrera at 3B or an Adam Dunn in RF... so, yes, he may be a Brandon Webb and control, let's say GBs at an insane rate, but if the guys behind him have no range, then it's moot...

Emilio Bonifacio can get on base at a perfect clip...if no one drives him in, he'll end up with 0 runs scored.

Hanley Ramirez can hit 90 HR's...if Bonifacio(ut) and Baker never get on base, he won't get 100 RBI's.

 

Team dependent stats.

 

Why are we using them for individual players?

For both pitchers and hitters, babip is highly dependent on random chance, which is why there tend to be so many short term fluctuations. Now over the course of a few seasons and a career, it tends to even out, but individual seasons can be highly susseptible to random chance.

The issue with BABIP is that the majority of pitchers have roughly the same skill set when it comes to being hit.

 

Ricky isn't "unlucky" with his BABIP because he has a 30% LD rate. But he's also not going to continue being a major league pitcher if he continually has a 30% LD rate. Regression to the mean says that's going back under 20%.

 

But you're also kidding yourself if you think BABIP always matched what expected BABIP is. That is where "lucky" and "unlucky" comes in.

 

Also a lot more goes into BABIP than just LD/FB/GB rates. K/BB, opponent speed score, pitches thrown per PA, contact rate, few more. All these play a part, several of which are batter dependent. LD/FB/GB rate is just a lot easier to calculate and certainly a good "quick fix".

Joe Carter's career makes me angry...

You should check out Terry Pendleton's career line. It's magical.

Joe Carter's career makes me angry...

You should check out Terry Pendleton's career line. It's magical.

 

His MVP is the worst over the last 80 years.

Joe Carter's career makes me angry...

You should check out Terry Pendleton's career line. It's magical.

 

His MVP is the worst over the last 80 years.