I would like hermida put in a hole in the line up where his walks would be of more value. I mean walking with maybin,gload,fredo behind you doesnt do much for the team. I do wonder about hiting him 8th though. With his good eye he could turn the lineup over a good amount.

One last thing regarding Jeremy Hermida and runs scored.

 

Albert Pujols had a .462 OBP last season. He also had 641 Plate Appearances. That equates to him reaching base about 296 times.

 

Out of those 296 times on base... Albert Pujols, one of the top 3 greatest hitters of this generation only scored 100 runs. This is with a team's cleanup and 5th hitters behind him.

 

He scored 1/3 of the time with Ryan Ludwick, Troy Glaus and Rick Ankiel hitting behind him, all proven ML sluggers.

 

Jeremy Hermida is not going to sniff a .462 OBP... ever... maybe in the first week of a season, but never ever. So, even best case scenario, he finished with a .400, that's 250 times reaching base... assuming the same total of PAs, which it'd probably be less, batting lower in the order and all.

 

That means, assuming the 7-8-9 hitters hit similarly to Glaus, Ludwick and Ankiel (laughable, I know) Hermida would score around 70 (77) runs. That is the ultimate in best-case scenarios, at this point.

I really enjoyed reading this thread. There has been some very good posts in here, so my hats off to you all.

 

:goodpost

 

I agree with the idea that Amezaga does not have what it takes to be an everyday hitter. He is being used best, IMO as a defensive sub. The same can be said for a guy like Carroll. EB, on the other hand, has such blazing speed that it (kind of) justifies forcing him into the lineup. Basically, if he can get on base, he is going to be such a demon on the bags that at this point in his career its worth a look (plus we have limited lead-off options)

 

As far as the shift in discussion to Hermida, I do not see any reason to hate on him for taking a ton of walks. One thing our offense lacks is consistency (really something every team is looking to achieve). Walks are an absolute result, and one stat that that a patient hitter will always succeed in generating. Sure, in the middle of the order you want slugging, ideally, to drive in high OBP guys who hit early in the lineup.

 

So it seems like the biggest issue is not HOW Hermida is playing, but WHERE he is playing. Why not move him to the 2 slot, then? Or have him there against righties (isn't that where we're at right now?) Walks in the 2 slot are not a bad thing by any means. Doesn't this solve the issue? Or is it so objectionable that he might hit 6 against righties? Personally, I think Hermida has been a pleasant surprise of this season, and represents the least of our worries moving forward (offensively, that is).

Hermida in the 6 or 7 spot is the same problem as when had uggla batting 3, only the opposite. Not the player's fault the manager isn't putting him in the spot where his skills play best.

 

Baker can kind of only hit 2nd, so I want hermida leading off, honestly.

My my my ... look what I started

 

Amezaga would be best deployed like the Cubbies used DeRosa and just sub for a player like Boni or Maybin two or three times a week to help the TEAM. He shouldn't start I think because that eliminates what he is and brings to the team. His versitalielity should be used to exploit mismatches with the pitchers and the TWO ROOKIES we have in the everyday lineup.

I really enjoyed reading this thread. There has been some very good posts in here, so my hats off to you all.

 

:goodpost

 

I agree with the idea that Amezaga does not have what it takes to be an everyday hitter. He is being used best, IMO as a defensive sub. The same can be said for a guy like Carroll. EB, on the other hand, has such blazing speed that it (kind of) justifies forcing him into the lineup. Basically, if he can get on base, he is going to be such a demon on the bags that at this point in his career its worth a look (plus we have limited lead-off options)

 

As far as the shift in discussion to Hermida, I do not see any reason to hate on him for taking a ton of walks. One thing our offense lacks is consistency (really something every team is looking to achieve). Walks are an absolute result, and one stat that that a patient hitter will always succeed in generating. Sure, in the middle of the order you want slugging, ideally, to drive in high OBP guys who hit early in the lineup.

 

So it seems like the biggest issue is not HOW Hermida is playing, but WHERE he is playing. Why not move him to the 2 slot, then? Or have him there against righties (isn't that where we're at right now?) Walks in the 2 slot are not a bad thing by any means. Doesn't this solve the issue? Or is it so objectionable that he might hit 6 against righties? Personally, I think Hermida has been a pleasant surprise of this season, and represents the least of our worries moving forward (offensively, that is).

 

As you know, I disagree with the opinion on Bonifacio, and I think we'll see Gaby Sanchez sooner than later.

 

As far as your last point...Hermida should probably leadoff. I'd like to see that experiment. Also...the reason he no longer hits 2nd is because Baker does a great job there, specifically when Bonifacio/Maybin types get on base for him.

See, you're missing the fact that walks are the single most underrated result a batter can pull, and I can't even figure out why, to this day, it still is.

Why are walks underrated? What makes you say this?

 

If anything I think walks are overrated because in the OBP calculation walks are valued the same as singles, doubles, triples and home runs but in reality walks are not nearly as valuable as these other things.

 

So in the OBP calcualtion walks are overvalued.

 

Where are they undervalued?

 

For the posters with reading comprehension issues, note that I did not walks are a bad thing. Walks are a good thing. I'm just saying they're overrated. There's a differerence.

 

 

 

So really...what you are saying is that .OBP is overrated?

Also, a walk is just as valuable as a single. They both get you to the same base. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what you intended to write, just sayin'...

See, you're missing the fact that walks are the single most underrated result a batter can pull, and I can't even figure out why, to this day, it still is.

Why are walks underrated? What makes you say this?

 

If anything I think walks are overrated because in the OBP calculation walks are valued the same as singles, doubles, triples and home runs but in reality walks are not nearly as valuable as these other things.

 

So in the OBP calcualtion walks are overvalued.

 

Where are they undervalued?

 

For the posters with reading comprehension issues, note that I did not walks are a bad thing. Walks are a good thing. I'm just saying they're overrated. There's a differerence.

 

 

 

So really...what you are saying is that .OBP is overrated?

Also, a walk is just as valuable as a single. They both get you to the same base. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what you intended to write, just sayin'...

I think OBP is useful but I think it has major flaws in it as mentioned earlier. I also think it's overrated and misused. But I can't blame the stat for others misusing it. There are several run estimators that assign values to each event and most of them value a single at about 0.50 run and a walk at about 0.32 run so yes I think a single is more valuable than a walk.

 

If bases are empty I guess I would take either a walk or a single but with runners on I'll take the single because of the value in moving runners over or in.

See, you're missing the fact that walks are the single most underrated result a batter can pull, and I can't even figure out why, to this day, it still is.

Why are walks underrated? What makes you say this?

 

If anything I think walks are overrated because in the OBP calculation walks are valued the same as singles, doubles, triples and home runs but in reality walks are not nearly as valuable as these other things.

 

So in the OBP calcualtion walks are overvalued.

 

Where are they undervalued?

 

For the posters with reading comprehension issues, note that I did not walks are a bad thing. Walks are a good thing. I'm just saying they're overrated. There's a differerence.

So really...what you are saying is that .OBP is overrated?

Also, a walk is just as valuable as a single. They both get you to the same base. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what you intended to write, just sayin'...

how can a walk be as valuable as a single when in x% of situations there are men on base?

 

* nm, guess you mean in the context of .obp....

I think OBP is useful but I think it has major flaws in it as mentioned earlier. I also think it's overrated and misused. But I can't blame the stat for others misusing it. There are several run estimators that assign values to each event and most of them value a single at about 0.50 run and a walk at about 0.32 run so yes I think a single is more valuable than a walk.

 

If bases are empty I guess I would take either a walk or a single but with runners on I'll take the single because of the value in moving runners over or in.

 

There aren't ANY major flaws in it, or any flaws I can think of.

 

On-Base Percentage

 

Percentage of times a player is on-base (versus opportunities).

 

There are only two values OBP takes into consideration: The player gets on base (doesn't use an out) and The player doesn't get on base (uses an out).

 

It has nothing to do with how many bases are accrued in the process, so the "value" of a single, double, triple or homerun doesn't mean anything to it, all those events are non-outs.

 

This morning, in talking with a friend, we did come up with SAwOPS which is Speed-Adjusted weighted OPS. Nothing fancy and very crude, but the thing about it was:

 

We subtracted CS from a weighted OBP and added SBs to the slugging percentage. The logic is that, if a batter draws a walk and gets caught stealing second, that's as good as not getting on base at all. If a batter draws a walk and steals second, he's "slugged" two bases on his own merit. It compensates slugging points to the Bonerfaces of the world while also punishing them for getting caught.

how can a walk be as valuable as a single when in x% of situations there are men on base?

 

When it's in a stat meant to evaluate whether or not a player used an out, in both cases, he didn't use an out...

 

/broken record

OBP measures exactly what the name implies (a rarity these days) but just because it measures what the name says it measures it doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws. Using your logic then ERA and BA are flawless stats because they measure what the name implies.

OBP measures exactly what the name implies (a rarity these days) but just because it measures what the name says it measures it doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws. Using your logic then ERA and BA are flawless stats because they measure what the name implies.

 

They are flawless if you don't make more of them than what they are. Batting average reflects the amount of hits a guy gets in so many At Bats... it doesn't evaluate the quality of those hits, only that a player gets a hit at a given rate. When you say "Ichiro's the best hitter in the AL" because his BA is so high, then the person saying that is wrong... the stat's not wrong... Ichiro DOES get a hit at that given rate, but that stat is not an indicator for the QUALITY of hitter Ichiro is.

 

The difference in ERA is that it's subject to way more variables... ERA rewards only the pitcher for the actions of his defense, in addition to his only preventative measures (HRA, K, BB). If you have an infield consisting of Miguel Cabrera, Adam Dunn, Rickie Weeks and Derek Jeter... then Brandon Webb's ERA will be much higher than an infield of Albert Pujols, Chase Utley, Adrian Beltre and Adam Everett. It's the same exact pitcher, and he'd probably have similar GB/FB, K:BB ... etc rates, but he'd give up more hits and therefore more earned runs.

 

However, in its simplest terms, yes, I suppose ERA is fine if, in retrospect, you want to see how many ERs a pitcher gave up per 9 IP, though the 9 IP mark is seeming rather antiquated these days with the rarity of the CG.

 

You said that OBP is flawed because it doesn't weigh XBH (or hits in general) but that's not what it measures, how is it flawed if you're expecting it to measure something it's not designed to. It's like saying WHIP is flawed because it doesn't weigh double plays as eliminating a baserunner... that's not what it's designed to do.

Lol this topic was funny. It was basically:

 

PWG - LOGIC!!

 

Others - BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS?!

 

PWG - SAME LOGIC!!

 

Flawless victory.

OBP measures exactly what the name implies (a rarity these days) but just because it measures what the name says it measures it doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws. Using your logic then ERA and BA are flawless stats because they measure what the name implies.

 

They are flawless if you don't make more of them than what they are. Batting average reflects the amount of hits a guy gets in so many At Bats... it doesn't evaluate the quality of those hits, only that a player gets a hit at a given rate. When you say "Ichiro's the best hitter in the AL" because his BA is so high, then the person saying that is wrong... the stat's not wrong... Ichiro DOES get a hit at that given rate, but that stat is not an indicator for the QUALITY of hitter Ichiro is.

 

The difference in ERA is that it's subject to way more variables... ERA rewards only the pitcher for the actions of his defense, in addition to his only preventative measures (HRA, K, BB). If you have an infield consisting of Miguel Cabrera, Adam Dunn, Rickie Weeks and Derek Jeter... then Brandon Webb's ERA will be much higher than an infield of Albert Pujols, Chase Utley, Adrian Beltre and Adam Everett. It's the same exact pitcher, and he'd probably have similar GB/FB, K:BB ... etc rates, but he'd give up more hits and therefore more earned runs.

 

However, in its simplest terms, yes, I suppose ERA is fine if, in retrospect, you want to see how many ERs a pitcher gave up per 9 IP, though the 9 IP mark is seeming rather antiquated these days with the rarity of the CG.

 

You said that OBP is flawed because it doesn't weigh XBH (or hits in general) but that's not what it measures, how is it flawed if you're expecting it to measure something it's not designed to. It's like saying WHIP is flawed because it doesn't weigh double plays as eliminating a baserunner... that's not what it's designed to do.

Heh, he actually used that argument.

EqA is a flawed stat too, because it doesn't factor in if a player had taken a huge dump earlier in the day and was feeling much more nimble.

EqA is a flawed stat too, because it doesn't factor in if a player had taken a huge dump earlier in the day and was feeling much more nimble.

 

:lol

 

almost all stats have their short-comings. probably a big part of the reason OPS (on base plus slugging) is so popular is because it is a hybrid - combining two fairly unrelated means of evaluation. not only does it measure whether or not an out was made, but also factors in extra base hits. in that sense, it accounts for everything a batter is being asked to accomplish.

You said that OBP is flawed because it doesn't weigh XBH (or hits in general) but that's not what it measures, how is it flawed if you're expecting it to measure something it's not designed to.

I agree it measures what it says it measures so there's no flaw in that. I guess the flaw is on how the OBP touts misuse all the time but that's not OBP's fault. One example. You have two guys with the following stats:

 

PAs - 519 / 519

ABs - 482 / 437

BBs - 37 / 87

1B - 57 /57

2B - 27 / 27

3B - 2 / 2

HR - 32 / 15

Outs - 364 / 329

 

Basically everything is the same except Guy 1 had 50 more walks, 15 fewer homers and 35 fewer outs than Guy 2. Guy 1 had a .366 OBP and a .428 SLG. Guy 2 had a .299 OBP and a .508 SLG. Who had the better year? The OBP touts like you will say that Guy 1 had hands down the better year and that Guy 2 was a loser because of his low OBP. Well, Guy 2 created 1.5 more runs than guy 1 using the values from the "Extrapolated Runs" formula which is supposed to be the best run estimator.

I agree it measures what it says it measures so there's no flaw in that. I guess the flaw is on how the OBP touts misuse all the time but that's not OBP's fault. One example. You have two guys with the following stats:

 

PAs - 519 / 519

ABs - 482 / 437

BBs - 37 / 87

1B - 57 /57

2B - 27 / 27

3B - 2 / 2

HR - 32 / 15

Outs - 364 / 329

 

Basically everything is the same except Guy 1 had 50 more walks, 15 fewer homers and 35 fewer outs than Guy 2. Guy 1 had a .366 OBP and a .428 SLG. Guy 2 had a .299 OBP and a .508 SLG. Who had the better year? The OBP touts like you will say that Guy 1 had hands down the better year and that Guy 2 was a loser because of his low OBP. Well, Guy 2 created 1.5 more runs than guy 1 using the values from the "Extrapolated Runs" formula which is supposed to be the best run estimator.

 

That's subject to opinion and you know it. "Extrapolated Runs" is only as "valuable" as someone who lauds it would want it to be. One could also equally argue that wOPS would probably say player 1 had a better season.

 

I'm a wOPS guy.

I agree Erick. I would love to see Hermida batting lead off. He has good enough speed, and he can get on base. That should make our offense much more dynamic.

That's subject to opinion and you know it. "Extrapolated Runs" is only as "valuable" as someone who lauds it would want it to be. One could also equally argue that wOPS would probably say player 1 had a better season.

 

I'm a wOPS guy.

 

1) what?

 

2) when you have a 99.9% correlation to runs, you're pretty god damn close to properly valueing each play.

 

Even if the OBP guy would have a better season, doesn't change the fact that they were basically equal.

Hey, the first guy (AKA Guy 2?) is REEEAAAALLY close to being Mike Jacobs.

I agree it measures what it says it measures so there's no flaw in that. I guess the flaw is on how the OBP touts misuse all the time but that's not OBP's fault. One example. You have two guys with the following stats:

 

PAs - 519 / 519

ABs - 482 / 437

BBs - 37 / 87

1B - 57 /57

2B - 27 / 27

3B - 2 / 2

HR - 32 / 15

Outs - 364 / 329

 

Basically everything is the same except Guy 1 had 50 more walks, 15 fewer homers and 35 fewer outs than Guy 2. Guy 1 had a .366 OBP and a .428 SLG. Guy 2 had a .299 OBP and a .508 SLG. Who had the better year? The OBP touts like you will say that Guy 1 had hands down the better year and that Guy 2 was a loser because of his low OBP. Well, Guy 2 created 1.5 more runs than guy 1 using the values from the "Extrapolated Runs" formula which is supposed to be the best run estimator.

 

That's subject to opinion and you know it. "Extrapolated Runs" is only as "valuable" as someone who lauds it would want it to be. One could also equally argue that wOPS would probably say player 1 had a better season.

 

I'm a wOPS guy.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...for-the-masses/

 

In that article they compared various run estimators and Extrapolated Runs was the best... Weighted OPS came in 5th and was virtually the same as the very simple RC (OBP * SLG). I'll use the best estimator. I guess you can use whatever you want.

That's subject to opinion and you know it. "Extrapolated Runs" is only as "valuable" as someone who lauds it would want it to be. One could also equally argue that wOPS would probably say player 1 had a better season.

 

I'm a wOPS guy.

 

1) what?

 

2) when you have a 99.9% correlation to runs, you're pretty god damn close to properly valueing each play.

 

Even if the OBP guy would have a better season, doesn't change the fact that they were basically equal.

 

Typically though, and I don't like to get too much into such things, but I'd bet that the guy with the higher OBP typically has a higher P/PA, a very subtle value that I'd prefer. So, if they're equal, I'd take the dood that sees more pitches.

 

and, to specifically answer:

 

1) I knew they were basically equal, which is why saying one is better than another is basically "subject to opinion"

 

2) Extrapolated Runs is the next vogue in stat-works till something better is eventually found, and it's still not at 99%, it's only apparently been found to be .005 more reliable, as it says at the tail end of that page:

 

Now of course the bigger question, which I won?t tackle here, is whether run estimators like XR and Runs Created and consequently regression equations used with OPS can really be applied to individual players rather than only the team statistics from which they are produced.

 

Which means it's limited to a macro vs a micro scale, we're comparing individuals at the moment, so when the answer to Mr Fox's question is "Yes, yes you can", confidently I prefer to use a cruder, if not just simpler, scale to evaluate the players for the time being. For simplicity's sake, .005 (the difference in correlation coefficient) off is certainly noteworthy, but not dramatically staggering for this setting, and ultimately will provide you with similar answers.