There's another thing I really don't understand.

I get it that OPS is an incredible stat to determine a player's hitting ability, but why do we care so much if someone like Michael Bourn OPSes around .700? His job is to get on base, he's not a power hitter, and he gets on base very well, thus allowing him to utilize his speed. I'm pretty sure we were fine with Juan Pierre in 2003 with his .734 OPS.

 

Nothing against the stat, but maybe it shouldn't be used to judge EVERYONE.

 

 

A player's value should always be based on his overall game and the position he plays, as well. .OPS is definitely not an all-telling stat, but it's definitely great to determine hitting.

 

The Michael Bourn's and Juan Pierre's of the world are valuable but it's not because they're productive hitters.

 

Sirspud isn't wrong in regards to the hitting part but he doesn't seem to understand the player's overall value, which is most important.

 

With that said, I hope we don't give Bourn a long-term deal, either.

I don't think Bourne is a bad player, but I wouldn't have signed Juan Pierre to a big money deal after 2003 either. I think speed and and OBP, along with good defense, have a place, but if you want a real money contract you better be Kenny Lofton good. Otherwise, you're just providing production that the Emlio Bonifacio's and Cameron Maybin's of the world can provide with one fluke year.

I thought one of the problems with OPS was that it values SLG too highly. And that there was a variation of OPS that de-valued SLG in it's caluclation. Anyone know what that is?

I'm a big Michael Bourne fan, I think he's a game changer. But like others here (can't believe I agree with Erick) I think the kind of money he's going to get paid is better spent on a more complete player.

 

Somebody brings up Juan Pierre, I think he's a great example. We got the most out of him, didn't sign him long term, and the Dodgers spent WAY too much money on a player with his kind of talents.

 

The problem with tying up so much money in a guy like that is all his worth is in his legs, so he's one leg injury from being useless defensively or on the base paths. Also, not to mention you usually slow down with age. What would Michael Bourne be worth in the 4-5 years of a big deal?

I'm a big Michael Bourne fan, I think he's a game changer. But like others here (can't believe I agree with Erick) I think the kind of money he's going to get paid is better spent on a more complete player.

 

 

That's really the way I should have put it all along.

I thought one of the problems with OPS was that it values SLG too highly. And that there was a variation of OPS that de-valued SLG in it's caluclation. Anyone know what that is?

 

 

OPSMHOS of course!

Kouzmanoff is 30 and had a .632 in AAA last year.

 

We can only hope Cox wins the job in ST.

Isnt kouz a worse defender than Miguel Cabrera?

I thought one of the problems with OPS was that it values SLG too highly. And that there was a variation of OPS that de-valued SLG in it's caluclation. Anyone know what that is?

 

 

OPSMHOS of course!

I don't get it.

KK is a sound adquisition I am not sure Cox will ever be the answer but KK can fill the hole adequately untill we have some of the very young talent ready to take over or another trade is made