ESPN just said Coghlan got on base at a terrible rate. What's with all the hate?

 

Strange, ESPN picked him as their Rookie of the Year.

 

 

Keith Law was the one that said it. =/ ESPN.com insider guy who seems to favor McCutchen.

And after listening to Keith Law's analysis on Coghlan, he is more than upset, he seems furious at the writers for voting Coghlan as the ROY, basically saying "oh, he had a lot of hits, but that shouldn't make him rookie of the year, voters rely too much on old school stats"

 

I agree on the fact that they rely on old school stats a little too much, but come on Law, a .372 BA in the 2nd half? Led the majors in hits in the 2nd half. The numbers Coghlan put up just cannot be ignored, don't be upset that your "buddy" McCutchen didn't make the top 3. I mean the ESPNEWS anchor asks him what set Coghlan apart from the rest of the hitters, and instead of stating what he did good, he criticizes him, I mean come on Law, have some balls to at least give credit to a player where credit is due, regardless of whether you agree he is the ROY or not.

 

And he criticizes Andrew Bailey for playing the position he does. He was lights out this year at closer, give him credit for what he did. Law actually turned a question stating why Bailey deserved it into a rant about how Porcello is so great, not saying a word about why Bailey deserved to win it, good going Law, lost some respect in my eyes, not just for the Coghlan comments, but for the way you conducted yourself in that interview.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that's what I saw. The woman looked kind of put off by his criticism and apparent distaste of Cogs winning. He did speak kind of well of Bailey after saying he would've given the award to Porcello.

ESPN just said Coghlan got on base at a terrible rate. What's with all the hate?

 

Strange, ESPN picked him as their Rookie of the Year.

 

 

Keith Law was the one that said it. =/

Well yeah. He's basically standing behind WAR. It's all nice and dandy, and I love Keith Law, but sometimes things really should be looked at objectively, not just the actions but the situations. Plus, leading in OBP and OPS is too old school?

Yeah I don't know what Law was thinking when he did that interview. It seemed like a dick move to try to take away what Coghlan did to deserve the award by blaming the other voters for relying on old school stats.

Keith Law=Douche

atta boy Cogs. Hell of a season. Him and Cody are my fav fish right now, GO FISH!!

Coghlan had a year for the record books. That is what set him apart from the rest.

And after listening to Keith Law's analysis on Coghlan, he is more than upset, he seems furious at the writers for voting Coghlan as the ROY, basically saying "oh, he had a lot of hits, but that shouldn't make him rookie of the year, voters rely too much on old school stats"

 

I agree on the fact that they rely on old school stats a little too much, but come on Law, a .372 BA in the 2nd half? Led the majors in hits in the 2nd half. The numbers Coghlan put up just cannot be ignored, don't be upset that your "buddy" McCutchen didn't make the top 3. I mean the ESPNEWS anchor asks him what set Coghlan apart from the rest of the hitters, and instead of stating what he did good, he criticizes him, I mean come on Law, have some balls to at least give credit to a player where credit is due, regardless of whether you agree he is the ROY or not.

 

And he criticizes Andrew Bailey for playing the position he does. He was lights out this year at closer, give him credit for what he did. Law actually turned a question stating why Bailey deserved it into a rant about how Porcello is so great, not saying a word about why Bailey deserved to win it, good going Law, lost some respect in my eyes, not just for the Coghlan comments, but for the way you conducted yourself in that interview.

 

 

 

 

 

You lost respect for someone who was just stating the truth?

Since when were hits, OPB, OPS, and battle average considered old school stats? I must need to get with the times or something..

 

Both are plenty deserving and congrats to both of these guys, especially Chris.

And after listening to Keith Law's analysis on Coghlan, he is more than upset, he seems furious at the writers for voting Coghlan as the ROY, basically saying "oh, he had a lot of hits, but that shouldn't make him rookie of the year, voters rely too much on old school stats"

 

I agree on the fact that they rely on old school stats a little too much, but come on Law, a .372 BA in the 2nd half? Led the majors in hits in the 2nd half. The numbers Coghlan put up just cannot be ignored, don't be upset that your "buddy" McCutchen didn't make the top 3. I mean the ESPNEWS anchor asks him what set Coghlan apart from the rest of the hitters, and instead of stating what he did good, he criticizes him, I mean come on Law, have some balls to at least give credit to a player where credit is due, regardless of whether you agree he is the ROY or not.

 

And he criticizes Andrew Bailey for playing the position he does. He was lights out this year at closer, give him credit for what he did. Law actually turned a question stating why Bailey deserved it into a rant about how Porcello is so great, not saying a word about why Bailey deserved to win it, good going Law, lost some respect in my eyes, not just for the Coghlan comments, but for the way you conducted yourself in that interview.

 

 

 

 

 

You lost respect for someone who was just stating the truth?

 

 

What "truth" did he state? All I read in Dim's post was that Law criticized Coghlan every chance he got.

And after listening to Keith Law's analysis on Coghlan, he is more than upset, he seems furious at the writers for voting Coghlan as the ROY, basically saying "oh, he had a lot of hits, but that shouldn't make him rookie of the year, voters rely too much on old school stats"

 

I agree on the fact that they rely on old school stats a little too much, but come on Law, a .372 BA in the 2nd half? Led the majors in hits in the 2nd half. The numbers Coghlan put up just cannot be ignored, don't be upset that your "buddy" McCutchen didn't make the top 3. I mean the ESPNEWS anchor asks him what set Coghlan apart from the rest of the hitters, and instead of stating what he did good, he criticizes him, I mean come on Law, have some balls to at least give credit to a player where credit is due, regardless of whether you agree he is the ROY or not.

 

And he criticizes Andrew Bailey for playing the position he does. He was lights out this year at closer, give him credit for what he did. Law actually turned a question stating why Bailey deserved it into a rant about how Porcello is so great, not saying a word about why Bailey deserved to win it, good going Law, lost some respect in my eyes, not just for the Coghlan comments, but for the way you conducted yourself in that interview.

 

 

 

 

 

You lost respect for someone who was just stating the truth?

 

Oh come on. Law was asked what made Coghlan a good choice for ROY and he basically went on to say that the other voters only looked at his batting average and voted him based on that. I mean really Keith? Does not get on base that well? A .390 OBP says otherwise. And "terrible defense"? Granted he is not GG material, but that's overstating it a bit, don't you think?

And after listening to Keith Law's analysis on Coghlan, he is more than upset, he seems furious at the writers for voting Coghlan as the ROY, basically saying "oh, he had a lot of hits, but that shouldn't make him rookie of the year, voters rely too much on old school stats"

 

I agree on the fact that they rely on old school stats a little too much, but come on Law, a .372 BA in the 2nd half? Led the majors in hits in the 2nd half. The numbers Coghlan put up just cannot be ignored, don't be upset that your "buddy" McCutchen didn't make the top 3. I mean the ESPNEWS anchor asks him what set Coghlan apart from the rest of the hitters, and instead of stating what he did good, he criticizes him, I mean come on Law, have some balls to at least give credit to a player where credit is due, regardless of whether you agree he is the ROY or not.

 

And he criticizes Andrew Bailey for playing the position he does. He was lights out this year at closer, give him credit for what he did. Law actually turned a question stating why Bailey deserved it into a rant about how Porcello is so great, not saying a word about why Bailey deserved to win it, good going Law, lost some respect in my eyes, not just for the Coghlan comments, but for the way you conducted yourself in that interview.

 

 

 

 

 

You lost respect for someone who was just stating the truth?

 

Oh come on. Law was asked what made Coghlan a good choice for ROY and he basically went on to say that the other voters only looked at his batting average and voted him based on that. I mean really Keith? Does not get on base that well? A .390 OBP says otherwise. And "terrible defense"? Granted he is not GG material, but that's overstating it a bit, don't you think?

 

 

But he is absolutely right. The voters probably saw that high batting average and automatically thought that he deserved it, and used the "old school" stats just like he said. Maybe he was a little off on the "getting on-base" thing, but for the most part he was spot-on. And yes, he defense was pretty bad. Little range + weak arm = bad defense.

In all honesty if McCutchen was the Marlins player and Cogs played on another team I would never ever expect McCutchens to win I would be happy but never expect it

And after listening to Keith Law's analysis on Coghlan, he is more than upset, he seems furious at the writers for voting Coghlan as the ROY, basically saying "oh, he had a lot of hits, but that shouldn't make him rookie of the year, voters rely too much on old school stats"

 

I agree on the fact that they rely on old school stats a little too much, but come on Law, a .372 BA in the 2nd half? Led the majors in hits in the 2nd half. The numbers Coghlan put up just cannot be ignored, don't be upset that your "buddy" McCutchen didn't make the top 3. I mean the ESPNEWS anchor asks him what set Coghlan apart from the rest of the hitters, and instead of stating what he did good, he criticizes him, I mean come on Law, have some balls to at least give credit to a player where credit is due, regardless of whether you agree he is the ROY or not.

 

And he criticizes Andrew Bailey for playing the position he does. He was lights out this year at closer, give him credit for what he did. Law actually turned a question stating why Bailey deserved it into a rant about how Porcello is so great, not saying a word about why Bailey deserved to win it, good going Law, lost some respect in my eyes, not just for the Coghlan comments, but for the way you conducted yourself in that interview.

 

 

 

 

 

You lost respect for someone who was just stating the truth?

 

Oh come on. Law was asked what made Coghlan a good choice for ROY and he basically went on to say that the other voters only looked at his batting average and voted him based on that. I mean really Keith? Does not get on base that well? A .390 OBP says otherwise. And "terrible defense"? Granted he is not GG material, but that's overstating it a bit, don't you think?

 

 

But he is absolutely right. The voters probably saw that high batting average and automatically thought that he deserved it, and used the "old school" stats just like he said. Maybe he was a little off on the "getting on-base" thing, but for the most part he was spot-on. And yes, he defense was pretty bad. Little range + weak arm = bad defense.

 

 

Keith Law is merely speculating, like everyone else, on how the writers chose the NL ROY. He doesn't know what quantifications were used to reach the conclusion they did, so he can't possibly be absolutely right because he doesn't know for certain. He was also wrong when he said that Coghlan didn't get on base and honestly, he just used this opportunity to bash Coghlan and the BWAA.

Since when were hits, OPB, OPS, and battle average considered old school stats? I must need to get with the times or something..

 

Both are plenty deserving and congrats to both of these guys, especially Chris.

 

 

 

I know it's kind of ridiculous. Average, hits, OBP... these aren't "old school", they are the core of the game. What's next ERA and K's become "old school" stats? Coghlan was the best rookie, hands down. Hell he was statistically the best leadoff hitter all year and the best hitter in general in the second half, not just out of rookies but the whole MLB. This kid hit like a madman and played respectable defense in a new position. Congrats Cogs you earned this honor!

And after listening to Keith Law's analysis on Coghlan, he is more than upset, he seems furious at the writers for voting Coghlan as the ROY, basically saying "oh, he had a lot of hits, but that shouldn't make him rookie of the year, voters rely too much on old school stats"

 

I agree on the fact that they rely on old school stats a little too much, but come on Law, a .372 BA in the 2nd half? Led the majors in hits in the 2nd half. The numbers Coghlan put up just cannot be ignored, don't be upset that your "buddy" McCutchen didn't make the top 3. I mean the ESPNEWS anchor asks him what set Coghlan apart from the rest of the hitters, and instead of stating what he did good, he criticizes him, I mean come on Law, have some balls to at least give credit to a player where credit is due, regardless of whether you agree he is the ROY or not.

 

And he criticizes Andrew Bailey for playing the position he does. He was lights out this year at closer, give him credit for what he did. Law actually turned a question stating why Bailey deserved it into a rant about how Porcello is so great, not saying a word about why Bailey deserved to win it, good going Law, lost some respect in my eyes, not just for the Coghlan comments, but for the way you conducted yourself in that interview.

 

 

 

 

 

You lost respect for someone who was just stating the truth?

 

Oh come on. Law was asked what made Coghlan a good choice for ROY and he basically went on to say that the other voters only looked at his batting average and voted him based on that. I mean really Keith? Does not get on base that well? A .390 OBP says otherwise. And "terrible defense"? Granted he is not GG material, but that's overstating it a bit, don't you think?

 

 

But he is absolutely right. The voters probably saw that high batting average and automatically thought that he deserved it, and used the "old school" stats just like he said. Maybe he was a little off on the "getting on-base" thing, but for the most part he was spot-on. And yes, he defense was pretty bad. Little range + weak arm = bad defense.

 

The time for speculation on who deserved the award was before the award was presented. Coghlan was not an awful choice, and had a .390 OBP and 2.3 WAR, even considering his fielding, so he certainly wasn't horrible by any stretch. Law's been ripping Chris Coghlan for weeks. Now was a time to congratulate him. It's just not classy for him to act the way he acted [allegedly, I didn't see the clip]. This wasn't the time. It also seemsas if he dislikes Chris Coghlan personally......all the guy is doing is trying his best.

And after listening to Keith Law's analysis on Coghlan, he is more than upset, he seems furious at the writers for voting Coghlan as the ROY, basically saying "oh, he had a lot of hits, but that shouldn't make him rookie of the year, voters rely too much on old school stats"

 

I agree on the fact that they rely on old school stats a little too much, but come on Law, a .372 BA in the 2nd half? Led the majors in hits in the 2nd half. The numbers Coghlan put up just cannot be ignored, don't be upset that your "buddy" McCutchen didn't make the top 3. I mean the ESPNEWS anchor asks him what set Coghlan apart from the rest of the hitters, and instead of stating what he did good, he criticizes him, I mean come on Law, have some balls to at least give credit to a player where credit is due, regardless of whether you agree he is the ROY or not.

 

And he criticizes Andrew Bailey for playing the position he does. He was lights out this year at closer, give him credit for what he did. Law actually turned a question stating why Bailey deserved it into a rant about how Porcello is so great, not saying a word about why Bailey deserved to win it, good going Law, lost some respect in my eyes, not just for the Coghlan comments, but for the way you conducted yourself in that interview.

 

 

 

 

 

You lost respect for someone who was just stating the truth?

 

Oh come on. Law was asked what made Coghlan a good choice for ROY and he basically went on to say that the other voters only looked at his batting average and voted him based on that. I mean really Keith? Does not get on base that well? A .390 OBP says otherwise. And "terrible defense"? Granted he is not GG material, but that's overstating it a bit, don't you think?

 

 

But he is absolutely right. The voters probably saw that high batting average and automatically thought that he deserved it, and used the "old school" stats just like he said. Maybe he was a little off on the "getting on-base" thing, but for the most part he was spot-on. And yes, he defense was pretty bad. Little range + weak arm = bad defense.

 

The time for speculation on who deserved the award was before the award was presented. Coghlan was not an awful choice, and had a .390 OBP and 2.3 WAR, even considering his fielding, so he certainly wasn't horrible by any stretch. Law's been ripping Chris Coghlan for weeks. Now was a time to congratulate him. It's just not classy for him to act the way he acted [allegedly, I didn't see the clip]. This wasn't the time. It also seemsas if he dislikes Chris Coghlan personally......all the guy is doing is trying his best.

 

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4660933&categoryid=2521705

 

Enjoy

Just heard the news after a HELLISH day at work and I am so happy! CONGRATS CHRIS!!!

Yeah, saying Coghlan doesn't get on base at a great rate showed that he was just being a troll and nothing more.

 

He finished tied-23rd in OBP, and walked at an above average rate.

And after listening to Keith Law's analysis on Coghlan, he is more than upset, he seems furious at the writers for voting Coghlan as the ROY, basically saying "oh, he had a lot of hits, but that shouldn't make him rookie of the year, voters rely too much on old school stats"

 

I agree on the fact that they rely on old school stats a little too much, but come on Law, a .372 BA in the 2nd half? Led the majors in hits in the 2nd half. The numbers Coghlan put up just cannot be ignored, don't be upset that your "buddy" McCutchen didn't make the top 3. I mean the ESPNEWS anchor asks him what set Coghlan apart from the rest of the hitters, and instead of stating what he did good, he criticizes him, I mean come on Law, have some balls to at least give credit to a player where credit is due, regardless of whether you agree he is the ROY or not.

 

And he criticizes Andrew Bailey for playing the position he does. He was lights out this year at closer, give him credit for what he did. Law actually turned a question stating why Bailey deserved it into a rant about how Porcello is so great, not saying a word about why Bailey deserved to win it, good going Law, lost some respect in my eyes, not just for the Coghlan comments, but for the way you conducted yourself in that interview.

 

 

 

 

 

You lost respect for someone who was just stating the truth?

 

Oh come on. Law was asked what made Coghlan a good choice for ROY and he basically went on to say that the other voters only looked at his batting average and voted him based on that. I mean really Keith? Does not get on base that well? A .390 OBP says otherwise. And "terrible defense"? Granted he is not GG material, but that's overstating it a bit, don't you think?

 

 

But he is absolutely right. The voters probably saw that high batting average and automatically thought that he deserved it, and used the "old school" stats just like he said. Maybe he was a little off on the "getting on-base" thing, but for the most part he was spot-on. And yes, he defense was pretty bad. Little range + weak arm = bad defense.

 

 

Keith Law is merely speculating, like everyone else, on how the writers chose the NL ROY. He doesn't know what quantifications were used to reach the conclusion they did, so he can't possibly be absolutely right because he doesn't know for certain. He was also wrong when he said that Coghlan didn't get on base and honestly, he just used this opportunity to bash Coghlan and the BWAA.

I agree with this.

And after listening to Keith Law's analysis on Coghlan, he is more than upset, he seems furious at the writers for voting Coghlan as the ROY, basically saying "oh, he had a lot of hits, but that shouldn't make him rookie of the year, voters rely too much on old school stats"

 

I agree on the fact that they rely on old school stats a little too much, but come on Law, a .372 BA in the 2nd half? Led the majors in hits in the 2nd half. The numbers Coghlan put up just cannot be ignored, don't be upset that your "buddy" McCutchen didn't make the top 3. I mean the ESPNEWS anchor asks him what set Coghlan apart from the rest of the hitters, and instead of stating what he did good, he criticizes him, I mean come on Law, have some balls to at least give credit to a player where credit is due, regardless of whether you agree he is the ROY or not.

 

And he criticizes Andrew Bailey for playing the position he does. He was lights out this year at closer, give him credit for what he did. Law actually turned a question stating why Bailey deserved it into a rant about how Porcello is so great, not saying a word about why Bailey deserved to win it, good going Law, lost some respect in my eyes, not just for the Coghlan comments, but for the way you conducted yourself in that interview.

 

 

 

 

 

You lost respect for someone who was just stating the truth?

 

Oh come on. Law was asked what made Coghlan a good choice for ROY and he basically went on to say that the other voters only looked at his batting average and voted him based on that. I mean really Keith? Does not get on base that well? A .390 OBP says otherwise. And "terrible defense"? Granted he is not GG material, but that's overstating it a bit, don't you think?

 

 

But he is absolutely right. The voters probably saw that high batting average and automatically thought that he deserved it, and used the "old school" stats just like he said. Maybe he was a little off on the "getting on-base" thing, but for the most part he was spot-on. And yes, he defense was pretty bad. Little range + weak arm = bad defense.

 

The time for speculation on who deserved the award was before the award was presented. Coghlan was not an awful choice, and had a .390 OBP and 2.3 WAR, even considering his fielding, so he certainly wasn't horrible by any stretch. Law's been ripping Chris Coghlan for weeks. Now was a time to congratulate him. It's just not classy for him to act the way he acted [allegedly, I didn't see the clip]. This wasn't the time. It also seemsas if he dislikes Chris Coghlan personally......all the guy is doing is trying his best.

 

 

I never said Coghlan was an awful choice, I just thought that McCutchen was the better one.

 

I don't see why you think that Law has to congratulate him if he doesn't agree with the choice. He voiced his opinion, which was that the voters are still stuck on the "old school" stats. I also don't see how you saw anything personal in there.

 

There are just two different types of people. The anti-sabermetric people will see all of the hits and the high batting average and fall in love with Coghlan, while the sabermetric people will look deeper and see past the "old school" stats.

I never said Coghlan was an awful choice, I just thought that McCutchen was the better one.

 

I don't see why you think that Law has to congratulate him if he doesn't agree with the choice. He voiced his opinion, which was that the voters are still stuck on the "old school" stats. I also don't see how you saw anything personal in there.

 

There are just two different types of people. The anti-sabermetric people will see all of the hits and the high batting average and fall in love with Coghlan, while the sabermetric people will look deeper and see past the "old school" stats.

 

 

Pretty silly to draw a line in the sand that way, and shows that for all of your espoused open mindedness, you're pretty close minded.

 

There is no one right way to judge a baseball player. I'm big on the sabermetrics, but even saying that, to just unquestioningly accept the opinions and outcomes of the sabermetric community goes against the spirit of the community itself, which is supposed to be based on being open minded to the analysis of baseball.

 

McCutchen might have been more valuable, but I'll take the record setter who absolutely set the world on fire over the guy who wasn't as good of a hitter but who probably had more value as a fielder. I like the evolution of fielding stats as much as anyone, but to hold them up as gospel truth makes me nervous.

I never said Coghlan was an awful choice, I just thought that McCutchen was the better one.

 

I don't see why you think that Law has to congratulate him if he doesn't agree with the choice. He voiced his opinion, which was that the voters are still stuck on the "old school" stats. I also don't see how you saw anything personal in there.

 

There are just two different types of people. The anti-sabermetric people will see all of the hits and the high batting average and fall in love with Coghlan, while the sabermetric people will look deeper and see past the "old school" stats.

 

 

Pretty silly to draw a line in the sand that way, and shows that for all of your espoused open mindedness, you're pretty close minded.

 

There is no one right way to judge a baseball player. I'm big on the sabermetrics, but even saying that, to just unquestioningly accept the opinions and outcomes of the sabermetric community goes against the spirit of the community itself, which is supposed to be based on being open minded to the analysis of baseball.

 

McCutchen might have been more valuable, but I'll take the record setter who absolutely set the world on fire over the guy who wasn't as good of a hitter but who probably had more value as a fielder. I like the evolution of fielding stats as much as anyone, but to hold them up as gospel truth makes me nervous.

 

 

You're putting words in my mouth. Never did I say that one side was clearly more knowledgeable, but that there are obviously two different types of baseball fans who will say the complete opposite of each other. Although I don't think that anything is guaranteed, I do think that relying on advanced stats is more reliable than just going with your gut feeling or looking at the more "publicized" stats. That isn't the same thing as saying that I'm going to disregard all of the opinions of those who aren't as advanced with the stats. The problem is that the opinions of the non-sabermeric fans commonly lack any type of support for their argument (statistical evidence, at least.)

 

You can take the guy that broke all of the pretty hitting records and throws the ball like Johnny Damon, and I'll take the guy who will get me three wins more than the average replacement player rather than two.

You obviously have an air of superiority around yourself. Whether I'm putting words into your mouth or not, read your own posts.

 

I also think you are putting a bit too much weight on Coghlan being worth a win less. I think you are thinking too concretely. These things don't work out that neatly, and frankly, with WAR, I think it's worth going with a grey area.