Login

kbwsb · 07-21-2010, 01:08 AM

I got these stats from baseball-reference:

Career WAR for Cub 3rd basemen

Ron Santo 66.4 (including a monster 1967 season when he was, by far, the best player in the National League, according to WAR)
Aramis Ramirez 21.5 (and he got a decent amount of those in Pittsburgh)
Stan Hack 54.8 (wildly underrated. Played 16 years, all with the Cubs, in the 30's and 40's. Helped Cubs to 4 World Series. FOUR!)

Over 50 WAR for a career is solid HOF territory. BTW, former Cub Ron Cey (who had most of his good years with the Dodgers), had a surprisingly high 52 WAR. Must have been a much better fielder than I remember.
Harry Steinfeldt had a pretty good career (30 WAR), and besides, he's the answer to a trivia question: When Tinker, Evers and Chance were roaming the Cub infield, who was the 3rd baseman?

VanSlawAndCottoCheese · 07-21-2010, 01:48 AM

Soooo . . . guess Ramirez was actually hurt, hmm?

kbwsb · 07-21-2010, 02:41 AM

QUOTE (VanSlawAndCottoCheese @ Jul 21 2010, 12:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Soooo . . . guess Ramirez was actually hurt, hmm?
One more reason for ousting Hendry.
This is his culture; the idea that guys should tough it out, man up, and play. It's a football mentality. It doesn't work for a 162 games season.
A month or two ago, I made a bunch of posts on this board and on Ace's board, basically asking "why the hell don't they just rest him and let him heal?"

Because that's not how they do things. This fucking obscene culture has got to change, unless you guys enjoy having supremely talented guys like Mark Prior and Aramis Ramirez bludgeoned into submission.

bz · 07-21-2010, 04:34 AM

QUOTE (KBwsb @ Jul 21 2010, 01:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VanSlawAndCottoCheese @ Jul 21 2010, 12:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Soooo . . . guess Ramirez was actually hurt, hmm?
One more reason for ousting Hendry.
This is his culture; the idea that guys should tough it out, man up, and play. It's a football mentality. It doesn't work for a 162 games season.
A month or two ago, I made a bunch of posts on this board and on Ace's board, basically asking "why the hell don't they just rest him and let him heal?"

Because that's not how they do things. This fucking obscene culture has got to change, unless you guys enjoy having supremely talented guys like Mark Prior and Aramis Ramirez bludgeoned into submission.
</div>

On what planet BB=overrated has that been the recent trend? In the days you enjoy referencing the most, yes, probably BB=overrated there was a tendency for players to play through injuries. But there are BB=overrated few and far between Cal Ripken's out there in this day and age. It's BB=overrated an investment in players these days, and management surely doesn't want their million dollar invests injuring themselves more. You also don't BB=overrated take into account that most people don't tell everything that is wrong with them to their doctors in real life...why would BB=overrated baseball life be exempt? I really, really find it hard to believe that Hendry and Piniella were like BB=overrated, "A hurt thumb? You better man up and quit being a little chocha!"

bz · 07-21-2010, 05:00 AM

Baseball will FOREVER live and die by the hit. At every stage of the game players are trained to hit the ball. Players in little league try to hit the ball as far as possible just like in MLB. It's really that simple. The idea that WAR, OBP, Vorp, etc. means anything to baseball exists only in the minds of sports writers and people like you all and me on message boards. The game hasn't caught up to that notion and won't. It's the same as art. Everyone thinks that today's world exist as one with free art that is without exception. Except everyone is judged by the same criteria as the Formalists did 65 years ago...and because it makes the most sense as a basis for understanding everything else. How many college players are drafted because they had a ridiculous OBP? Is that what scouts look for? No. They look at his athleticism, his fielding potential and his ability to hit. His swing mechanics. His bat speed. His pitch selectivity. His ability to go to multiple fields. His ability to lay off unhittable pitches. His ability to gauge the strike zone. His ability to make contact. His ability to DRAW walks. I'll repeat it...DRAW WALKS. For some reason you believe that there is a game of baseball that exists where the pitcher doesn't throw the ball over the plate, and everyone is a dummy for taking their bat off their shoulder. Yes, OBP equates to runs. That isn't fucking rocket science. You can't hit a double and drive someone in if no one is on base. You always preach the importance of OBP but have said one time that I can remember anything about one's ability to hit "of COURSE hits are more important than walks." But you never bring up ones ability to hit pitches that are hittable and lay off pitches that aren't even if they are strikes. And guess what...people can hit pitches that are balls! Isn't that a crazy notion? That a pitcher tries to hit the corner (which most do despite their success at doing so) and a guy, god forbid, swings at a pitch around the black. That a player understands that that guy on 2nd base right now isn't coming home if I don't swing and chance a walk (the umpires aren't robots yet.) BLAH! I honestly believe that you would ok with a team what consists of only players that look like this: .230/.390/.390. A team that will score the least amount of runs in the league because they only stand on 1st, 2nd and maybe 3rd,

Ace · 07-21-2010, 08:18 AM

I'll take a team that goes .100 / .400 / .500 over a team that goes .350 / .350 / .350. And I'll win.

***jstraw*** · 07-21-2010, 08:23 AM

QUOTE (bz @ Jul 21 2010, 04:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Baseball will FOREVER live and die by the hit. At every stage of the game players are trained to hit the ball. Players in little league try to hit the ball as far as possible just like in MLB. It's really that simple. The idea that WAR, OBP, Vorp, etc. means anything to baseball exists only in the minds of sports writers and people like you all and me on message boards. The game hasn't caught up to that notion and won't. It's the same as art. Everyone thinks that today's world exist as one with free art that is without exception. Except everyone is judged by the same criteria as the Formalists did 65 years ago...and because it makes the most sense as a basis for understanding everything else. How many college players are drafted because they had a ridiculous OBP? Is that what scouts look for? No. They look at his athleticism, his fielding potential and his ability to hit. His swing mechanics. His bat speed. His pitch selectivity. His ability to go to multiple fields. His ability to lay off unhittable pitches. His ability to gauge the strike zone. His ability to make contact. His ability to DRAW walks. I'll repeat it...DRAW WALKS. For some reason you believe that there is a game of baseball that exists where the pitcher doesn't throw the ball over the plate, and everyone is a dummy for taking their bat off their shoulder. Yes, OBP equates to runs. That isn't fucking rocket science. You can't hit a double and drive someone in if no one is on base. You always preach the importance of OBP but have said one time that I can remember anything about one's ability to hit "of COURSE hits are more important than walks." But you never bring up ones ability to hit pitches that are hittable and lay off pitches that aren't even if they are strikes. And guess what...people can hit pitches that are balls! Isn't that a crazy notion? That a pitcher tries to hit the corner (which most do despite their success at doing so) and a guy, god forbid, swings at a pitch around the black. That a player understands that that guy on 2nd base right now isn't coming home if I don't swing and chance a walk (the umpires aren't robots yet.) BLAH! I honestly believe that you would ok with a team what consists of only players that look like this: .230/.390/.390. A team that will score the least amount of runs in the league because they only stand on 1st, 2nd and maybe 3rd,
No one thinks advanced stats represent a road map for how to play baseball. They're a means for evaluating results in a more meaningful way than are traditional, back of the card stats. Player's shouldn't play to them, coaches should use them to a point and scouts most certainly should use them to evaluate talent.

When you see a lead off man go a month without a walk, it shouldn't be news to you when told about it. And it doesn't mean he should stand there and take pitches for a week but it does tell you something's not right.

Why wouldn't a ridiculous OBP raise someone's stock in the draft?

veryzer · 07-21-2010, 09:01 AM

QUOTE (Ace @ Jul 21 2010, 07:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'll take a team that goes .100 / .400 / .500 over a team that goes .350 / .350 / .350. And I'll win.

And I'll take a team that goes .300 / .400 / .500 over a team that goes .200 / .400 / .500. And I'll win.

**Andy** · 07-21-2010, 09:21 AM

I know the .100/.400/.500 and .350/.350/.350 were all hypothetical.... but yikes.

Right now, the highest team OBP is .353. The highest SLG is .461 (lowest .343).

So the first option would be a ridiculous offensive team. They would have to do nothing but walk and hit homeruns. The 2nd would have to hit nothing but singles nearly every at bat.

So to make the argument more palatable, try these two:

A. .255/.345/.425
B. .285/.330/.395
C. .275/.345/.425 -- The Tommy best of both worlds team.

Now which team is better offensively?

***rok*** · 07-21-2010, 09:34 AM

That line Ace mentioned is completely unrealistic and would be a fluke. Who would draft such players? Now, .200/.400/.500 maybe, but does anyone honestly believe that a team with a .100 / --- / ---- anything line would even be given much of an opportunity to prove itself worthy of winning any amount of games? Never. It would be blown up almost immediately.

BT · 07-21-2010, 10:12 AM

QUOTE (Andy @ Jul 21 2010, 08:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I know the .100/.400/.500 and .350/.350/.350 were all hypothetical.... but yikes.

Right now, the highest team OBP is .353. The highest SLG is .461 (lowest .343).

So the first option would be a ridiculous offensive team. They would have to do nothing but walk and hit homeruns. The 2nd would have to hit nothing but singles nearly every at bat.

So to make the argument more palatable, try these two:

A. .255/.345/.425
B. .285/.330/.395
C. .275/.345/.425 -- The Tommy best of both worlds team.

Now which team is better offensively?

I'll take my chances with c.

veryzer · 07-21-2010, 11:26 AM

If you have two teams with the same obp, but one of those teams walks but doesn't hit, and the other hits but doesn't walk, I'm taking the hitting team every time.

I know I'm old fashioned, but to me, a hit is better than a walk.

Brock · 07-21-2010, 11:34 AM

Aramis has raised his OPS almost 200 points in the last 12 games. That's pretty ridiculous.

***Butcher*** · 07-21-2010, 11:38 AM

QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 21 2010, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If you have two teams with the same obp, but one of those teams walks but doesn't hit, and the other hits but doesn't walk, I'm taking the hitting team every time.

I know I'm old fashioned, but to me, a hit is better than a walk.
A walk is sometimes better than a single -- only because it makes the pitcher throw extra pitches. If a runner is in scoring position, a single is always better than a walk (I guess you could make an argument for a bases-loaded walk, but a single could score two runs in that situation).

An extra base hit is always better than a walk.

But I think it's obvious to say that .300/.350/.450 is better than .200/.350/.450. Why would anyone argue against that?

But is .300/.350/.450 better than .275/.375/.450? Nope.

kbwsb · 07-21-2010, 03:52 PM

All-time leaders in OBP
Ted Williams
Babe Ruth
Lou Gehrig
Barry Bonds
Pujols is in the top ten.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me