posted
I still have trouble getting enthusiastic about the Marlins (aside from the fact that I'm not happy that the Yankees lost). I mean, the Marlins just haven't suffered enough; I'd have rather the Red Sox or the Cubs got it... oh well...
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incredible that anyone would try to run down the Marlins. It was not a fluke that they got into the World Series and won it in six games. They have had the best record in all of Major League Baseball since about May 23. They probably played over 100 games from June-September. It would be pretty hard to "fake it" for that many games, against all comers.
It will be interesting to see what becomes of the Marlins next year. Some of their players, and their manager (who deserves a "manager of the decade" award) only have one-year contracts. But also, they have a nucleus of players who are young. Cabrera in left field is only 20, and Beckett, who last night pitched the first complete game shutout in the World Series since Jack Morris did it in 1991, is only 23. He may win some Cy Young Awards before he is done.
If Jack McKeon comes back again as manager of the Marlins next year, then they are a lock to go all the way again, and might even lead it wire-to-wire.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Plaid, I just can't male myself believe sports is about who has suffered more. If that were the case we should all be cheering for the Bengals and Cardinals to go to the Super Bowl. But even if you did look at suffering you just can't imagine the incredible pain South Florida took when '97 team was dismantled. Still there are teams who have yet to win ever so they've probably suffered far more than the Cubs or Red Sox.
posted
Why would it matter what record they established since mid or late May? The seasons 162 games, until they decide to start in late may, the 30+ games you play before you start a streak like that count.
They deserve credit, they were dogs in the NLDS, NLCS, and World Series and they didn't care a whit, they played like favorites the whole way through though if not for a clump of moronic fans, and an inconceivable boot by the Cubs Shortstop, there'd be no conversation right now about the supposed greatness of the Marlins. I know about "if's", as the saying goes, yeah and "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle," but it still took a colossal blunder by a fan and by a shortstop to get you there.
I look at the team, and I see a great young pitcher in Beckett, then a bunch of average guys behind him. On the field, I see some talent here and there, this isn't a bad team, it's just not a great team, or even in my view a very good team (and word on the street was that scumbag Loria would hold a firesale with the free agents following the season so you probably need to sweat that). I'm not taking the piss on your team speed, my point is that the days of hit and run are over because of the way fields are designed. The quick turf in stadiums like the metrodome, and the astrodome, and Busch are by and large replaced by grass or more grass like synthetics that don't allow for the absurd bounces that were once famous at Busch, and in the Twins monstrosity. You can still take advantage of the speed in the field, but with so many teams stadiums shorter to left or right, it's more of a power league today, the advantages one once had in stealing simply aren't there anymore. That's why no one's come anywhere near Henderson's record, or to even Vince Coleman's stats when he was a Cardinal. Speed is an asset in that allows for more flexible strategy, particularly in the NL (it would be far worse if the Marlins played in the AL), but it's not the same asset it was 15+ years ago.
With the relative weakness of the other powers in the NL the Marlins could make another run if Loria doesn't hold a Huzienga like fire sale, but that's a big "IF". Beyond that, I just think the Marlins have more in common with the Padres of '98, the Mets of '00, the D-Backs of '01, and the Angels of last year. All teams that looked terrific and then quickly vanished. You see an empire here being built, or even a great team, I see a team that could easily go down as a flash in the pan, something not all that unlikely considering the list I just came up with. The one thing you've got going for the Marlins is that they're relatively young, not old like those Padres, Mets and D-Backs, but I don't see much difference beyond that. We'll see in 2004.
I just don't think this a team that will remind anyone of the Yankees of '95-'03, and the almost dynasties of Cleveland ('95-'01), San Francisco ('97-'03, Atlanta ('91-'03) and Oakland ('00-'03), all those teams had a combination of solid to great pitching, and/or very good or great hitting. I see average pitching and average hitting in Florida. They had a run, no doubt about it, but a lot of teams have had one great run. There have been far fewer that have sustained it, and I don't see the personel for the Marlins to contend for the World Series for the forseeable future though problems in Atlanta, and San Francisco could open a door.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Their record since May 15 matters since that was when they actually had their current team. Actually, at that point they still didn't have Cabrera and he didn't start playing until near August. Its easy to underrate the Marlins when you don't take into account the fact that those first games were not played by the same team that won the World Series.
Again, to deny the power of speed is to deny the Marlins won the World Series and to a lesser extent the Angels did last year. Of course, before Lowell got injured he was second in homeruns in the NL and at one point first in the entire MLB. He still finished 30/100 and Derek Lee also have 30 HRs. Miguel Cabrera had a ridiculous amount considering how long he played, and Pudge never lacked power.
Word on the street? Are we talking about gangs or sports? If Loria really did want to have a firesale then he wouldn't have acquired Pudge at $10 million, Urbina, Conine, and refused to trade Lowell. Even if Loria did not resign any free agents who would we lose? Three players. Castillo, Pudge, and Urbina. Granted Castillo's defense of important, his batting average was great, and he did get on the all-star team, he wasn't that great. Rodriguez now wants to stay on the team and is likely willing to accept less pay than the $10 million for just one season. Urbina was a help but never a vital component. Who knows, maybe with Burnett back Pavano will move to a relief role where he found tons of success against the Giants and Cubbies.
You keep on insisting Beckett is the only good player. However, he didn't even have a winning record during the regular season. If he plays in the regular season like he did in the playoffs then he will win a Cy Young. It was Redman and Brad Penny racking up wins in the regular season, not Beckett.
The Marlins pitching throughout the year was easily solid and possibly great, their hitting might have been the most successful at putting runs up in the NL except for St. Louis. The team is incredibly young. I see no reason why this team shouldn't develop into a "dynasty".
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Their record since May 15 matters since that was when they actually had their current team. Actually, at that point they still didn't have Cabrera and he didn't start playing until near August. Its easy to underrate the Marlins when you don't take into account the fact that those first games were not played by the same team that won the World Series."
The final record is what matters. Not 3/4's of the season, or 1/3, the totality. It certainly helps to be hot going into the offseason but sometimes it doesn't matter a lick (the Indians stunk it up down the stretch and then came within gas can Mesa rightly not being brought in in the 9th (stick with Jackson Moron Hargrove!!!) of winning the World series despite playing bad ball during the season and especially down the stretch or the Giants this year looking great down the stretch and then collapsing in a field of errors in the NLDS, if Jose Cruz doesn't play like a moron the Giants advance, not you guys).
"Again, to deny the power of speed is to deny the Marlins won the World Series and to a lesser extent the Angels did last year."
What in the world are you talking about? You won because Redmen, Pavano, and Penny inexplicably shut down the Yankee bats. Point, set and match. Sure you needed a run or two, but the key was that your pitchers came up huge in five of six games. That's why you won and the Angels speed? Are you nuts? They play power baseball, they have barely anyone who can run a lick on that team. The Giants lost that World series when their relievers imploded and Dusty made some truly idiotic decisions in big games as he always does (refusing to pinch hit for gardner, pitching Livan in game seven instead of Rueter, and handing the game ball to Ortiz with more than six outs left in game six). Speed had nada to do with it.
"Of course, before Lowell got injured he was second in homeruns in the NL and at one point first in the entire MLB. He still finished 30/100 and Derek Lee also have 30 HRs. Miguel Cabrera had a ridiculous amount considering how long he played, and Pudge never lacked power."
That's why you came with an inch of trading him at the break, right? He had a very good year, but there's no way he's the best third basemen in baseball, not even close. Lee's a very nice hitter, a good prospect when he came up, and a good player. You're good players are Pudge, Lowell, and Lee, with Conine and Pierre being nice when there on. Cabrera is an unknown commodity who came up huge after being called up. He should be good, but he wouldn't be the first prospect to fail after shining brightly early.
"Word on the street? Are we talking about gangs or sports?"
It's a figure of speech meaning, that the rumors around baseball were that playoffs or not Loria planned to cut payroll in the offseason, and that the only reason Lowell stuck around was that the Marlins were just close enough to contending in late July to make it worthwhile to force Loria to eat his salary. Loria was a cheap, gutless scumbag in Montreal, and he'll sell your Marlins out in a second if he thinks he can make money out of it.
"If Loria really did want to have a firesale then he wouldn't have acquired Pudge at $10 million, Urbina, Conine, and refused to trade Lowell. Even if Loria did not resign any free agents who would we lose? Three players. Castillo, Pudge, and Urbina. Granted Castillo's defense of important, his batting average was great, and he did get on the all-star team, he wasn't that great. Rodriguez now wants to stay on the team and is likely willing to accept less pay than the $10 million for just one season. Urbina was a help but never a vital component. Who knows, maybe with Burnett back Pavano will move to a relief role where he found tons of success against the Giants and Cubbies.
Owners don't mind adding payroll for a season, but long term deals are something they don't like unless they have steady cash flow from reliable attendance and a nice tv deal. Florida has neither. I'm not inventing this out of thin air, newfoundlogic. It was all over the media sources throughout the summer and fall. He might not rip the team up. And if Burnett can come back from injury, you'd still have a nice #1 and #2, and you've got a competant #3 and #4 so that always helps. The problem is if none of those guys come back you won't be able to generate run support. Pudge should stay, he's got a chance to catch a potential Cy Young winner in Beckett and the market just isn't that great anymore, and his situation in Florida is probably better than any other he could get into. But still if most of those guys depart you could be in a load of trouble. I'm gonna check out baseballamerica to see if I can get more of a grasp on the health of your farm system. Maybe you'll be relatively okay if you can hang onto one of those two guys. As for Urbina, interesting guy. He has great stuff, but he's always been inconsistent. For whatever reason he can't seem to put it all together, but if he does, he's a top flight closer. The problem is the consistency, like with many relievers. He's worth investing in if you can get him for a good price.
"You keep on insisting Beckett is the only good player. However, he didn't even have a winning record during the regular season. If he plays in the regular season like he did in the playoffs then he will win a Cy Young. It was Redman and Brad Penny racking up wins in the regular season, not Beckett."
No I'm not, I'm insisting that Beckett is the only GREAT player. Beckett has great stuff. Doesn't mean he has it consistently. As great as the stuff young guys like Sabathia, Colon, Zito supposedly were, they all had problems with consistency as youngsters. Beckett will have some hard times but he has the stuff to be great. Redmen and Penny do not. One of them might turn out good, but right now they look like solid inning eaters who can give you .500 records, maybe a bit better record than that. I also think Pudge is a great player, and Pierre, Lowell and Lee are good, with Conine being good on occasion. Cabrera could be good, he's played well, but I want to see more AB's before I call him genuinely good as a Major Leaguer.
The Marlins pitching throughout the year was easily solid and possibly great, their hitting might have been the most successful at putting runs up in the NL except for St. Louis. The team is incredibly young. I see no reason why this team shouldn't develop into a "dynasty".
No where near enough power in the lineup. Not enough reliable high percentage hitters with great OPS numbers, and questions with the overall talent of the staff. You don't have questions about where you're gonna find the pitchers to eat innings, but whether or not you can get consistent quality starts is open to question.
There isn't a dynasty here. But they may be able to take advantage of the dearth of great teams right now. There's nothing like the talent that was around in the late nineties (great Giants, Astros, Cardinals, and Braves teams in the NL, great Indians, Red Sox, and yanks teams in the AL with the Mariners and A's coming on strong), so who knows. But I just don't see the talent for this team to be a dynasty. Maybe a team that can make the playoffs on and off, particularly if Beckett returns better than ever, but dynasty, no way.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Graywolf, I think you are underestimating Cabrera. When you look at the good stats he put up, and the way he stood up to pressure in the World Series, remember that he is only 20 years old. Every time he came to the plate and the camera zoomed in on his face, I thought he looked like he was barely out of high school. Yet he stood up to Roger Clemens, he stood up to the Yankees in Yankee Stadium, and he did not collapse or implode in dismay. He did a competent job in the field and at the plate. He's definitely going to make it as a star player from now on. He's passed his test!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Graywolfe, you are seriously ignorant about the Marlins. Hey, I'm ignorant of the Mets but I don't profess to really know about them either.
Their whole record matters in determining who goes to the playoffs but when you want to know how good a team is then you look at certain other factors, primary among those being a managerial change. Clearly the Marlins are a different team with McKeon.
It was actually Beckett, Pavano, and Penny, Redman was awful during the postseason while Beckett was awful, at least statistically, during the regular season.
Look at all the close games at the plate and you can see how speed helped the Marlins. The first game was all singles and stolen bases for the Fish.
The Marlins never actually came close to trading Lowell. The only reason why it was even condsidered by the media is because at the time the Marlins weren't making a playoff run.
Cabrera came up huge for along time during the regular season, not just during the playoffs.
Are you from Montreal or something? If Loria wanted to sell out this team he wouldn't have made the acquisitions that he did. The Marlins actually had decent attendance during the regular season of 1997 its just been so low because of the '97 breakup. Television ratings were skyrocketing during the regular season especially when Willis was pitching. Also if you noticed there were a lot more games on ESPN and Fox toward the later edge of the season.
Pierre, Pudge, and Castillo were all over .500 with Pierre being the hardest player to strikeout and over 200 hits. With over sixty stolen bases many of those singles effectively turn into doubles. Followed by a true cleanup man in Mike Lowell, then a heavy hitter in Cabrera, maybe Conine's bat, Lee, Encarnacion, and maybe even an effective Gonzalez. In reality Gonzalez is the only weak link in that lineup and he wasn't that bad in the World Series. The Marlins have one of the better overall rotations, relieved by a decent and improving bullpen.
A definitely see the potential for a dynasty, especially if the current players get long term deals. For me the issue is increasing cost, not a lack of talent. This team was not a fluke.
posted
Graywolfe, since I am a Marlins fan, it's amazing that I even deign to talk to you at the moment, you and whatever freakin' second-rate team YOU think should be here instead.
I dunno what to do for such a sorry case...I guess I'd have to advise that you watch a few games.
Get used to some ugly October baseball, dude.
By the way, I'm going on a limb and saying we do this again next year. Just my limbs predicted both the Angels' and Marlins' championships. So, I don't care what YOU'RE doing "on a limb", so to speak. My limbs crush your limbs like twigs!
Beckett and Cabrera, if they aren't already, will be the best pitcher and hitter in the game very soon. Deal with it.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Congrats, Marlins fans. At first, the Marlins were overachieving and winning on their never-say-die attitude. But by the end, it was clear they discovered something about themselves, and they were overpowering those last two games.
This won't be like '97, because much of this team was developed, not bought. Doesn't mean Loria didn't acquire some key free agents when they began to make their run, but this isn't an overpriced team that he can't afford to keep.
I think Miami and professional baseball may finally have the seeds of a healthy relationship. I hope so.
(Now, if they can only get a decent baseball stadium. )
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speed is an interesting question in the sucess of a team.
Like, there is contention that the speed of the marlins helped them defeat the yankees. But the only game speed played any sort of factor was game one. The other games were about hitting, or pitching... on both sides. In fact, the fastest players on the marlins HURT the team after the first game, because they couldn't get on base.
There's an organization called SABR, who have devoted millions of man hours to the study of baseball. They analyze box scores from all of baseball history, and have come up with some pretty astounding ways of measuring sucess, and predicting future success, both for individual players, and teams.
And it turns out, that the most important aspect of hitting is getting on base.
Here's an article from baseballprospectus on stealing bases.
"Think of stealing bases as a bit like one of those commercials for breakfast cereal. You know, the ones where they say it takes 14 bowls of Cereal X to equal what you get from one bowl of Cereal Y. In this case, it takes three stolen bases to equal one walk of shame back to the dugout. If you're stealing at less than a 75% success rate, you're better off never going at all.
A runner on first with no one out is worth .9116 runs. A successful steal of second base with no one out would bump that to 1.1811 runs, a gain of .2695 expected runs. If that runner is caught, however, the expectation--now with one out and no one on base--drops to .2783, a loss of .6333 expected runs. That loss is about 2.3 times the gain.
Not all steals come with a runner on first and no one out, of course, and there's a lot of math that goes into the 75% conclusion. Michael Wolverton covers the concept in this excellent piece. The main point is that in considering stealing bases, you have to consider both the benefit and the cost. In all but the most specific situations, outs are more valuable than bases, which is why the break-even point for successful base-stealing is so high.
Much of the frustration "statheads" have with base-stealing isn't that it's happening, but with how teams misuse the tactic. You want to steal bases when: The value of one run is of great importance. In general, one-run strategies--steals, bunts, hit-and-run--are overused early in games. Especially in today's game, teams aren't willing enough to give themselves a chance at a big inning, and cut off a rally with a caught stealing where no attempt would have been the best choice.
The batter at the plate is a double-play threat. Stealing makes more sense with a right-handed batter up than a left-handed one, and with a groundball hitter up rather than a strikeout or flyball hitter.
The batter at the plate is much more likely to score the runner from second than he is from first. Teams will often use their best base stealers at the top of the lineup, even players with low on-base percentages, in front of their most powerful batters. In fact, they should be using those players lower in the lineup, in front of their least powerful hitters. Risking an out to advance from first base to second base is much more important when the guy at the plate can't get the runner home from first base.
The vaunted secondary effects of stealing bases--distracting the pitcher, putting pressure on the defense--do not appear to exist. In fact, most secondary effects argue in favor of keeping the runner of first base. A runner on first is more disruptive to a defense, with the first baseman holding and the second baseman cheating towards second for a double play, than a runner on second. Additionally, studies show that stolen-base attempts negatively impact the performance of the batter at the plate, presumably due to hitters getting themselves into negative counts by taking pitches or swinging at bad balls to protect the runner.
While you can use stealing bases to assist in run scoring, you can't run your way into a good offense. The core elements of offense are getting on base and advancing runners on hits. Teams--more often managers--that announce plans to create more runs by stealing bases are usually saying, "we can't hit, and we hope that if we move around a lot, no one will notice." It won't work. Here are the top basestealing teams since the 1993 expansion:
There looks to be a little more of a relationship here, which can be attributed to good offenses having more runners on base, and therefore more opportunities to steal. Certainly, though, a number of these teams eschewed the stolen base and yet still ranked among the best offenses of the period.
One last note that deserves mention: For all the attention the running teams of Whitey Herzog got--teams that were successful more because of their high OBPs than their stealing--the unheralded master of the running game is Lou Piniella. In his career as a manager, Piniella's teams have almost always been among the league leaders in stolen-base percentage:
*Piniella managed the Yankees for their first 93 games. Stats listed are for the full season.
Piniella identifies the guys who can steal bases at a high rate of success and lets them run, while not wasting outs with the other guys. That's how you use the stolen base as a weapon."
And another one on offense-
"efore delving into those harrowing inhabitants of the Baseball Prospectus statistics page like VORP, RARP, EqA or any other acronym that sounds like a debutante sneezing or something uttered on Castle Wolfenstein circa 1986, it's worth asking: What's wrong with those comfy traditional offensive measures like RBI, batting average and runs scored?
This Baseball Prospectus Basics column is going to address that question and, ideally, demonstrate why the traditional cabal of offensive baseball statistics tell only a piece of the story. Later, someone smarter (but shockingly less handsome) than I will take you on a tour of the more advanced and instructive metrics like the aforementioned VORP, RARP and EqA. For now, though, we'll keep our focus on why we need those things in the first place.
Many of the stats you encounter in mainstream baseball circles are what we call "counting stats." That is, they count things: 23 homers, 107 RBI, six triples, etc. This may sound painfully obvious, but the more a hitter plays in a given season, the higher his counting stats are likely to be. Some counting stats, like RBI and runs scored, are highly team and batting-order dependent. A cleanup hitter logging 600 plate appearances in a potent lineup must work very hard not to rack up at least 100 RBI. Whereas a leadoff hitter on an otherwise weak offensive team won't crack the 100-RBI mark no matter how effective he is. If a superior player is surrounded by weak hitters, it's entirely possible that he'll cash in on a much greater percentage of his RBI opportunities and still have a lower RBI total than a lesser player in a stronger lineup.
The thing to understand about counting stats is that, absent supporting information, they're really only useful at the margins. That's to say, it's hard to rack up 140 RBI and somehow stink. Conversely, it's difficult to log a season's worth of plate appearances, total 40 RBI and somehow be any good.
The flip side of this is that it's entirely possible, especially in eras conducive to run scoring, to break the vaunted 100-RBI barrier and still be an ineffective player. It's debatable what the worst 100-RBI season is, but Ruben Sierra in 1993 may be hard to beat. More later on why he was a lousy player that season.
So, highly context-dependent counting stats like RBI and runs scored can be inflated or deflated by a panoply of factors that have nothing to do with that hitter's true abilities. One of the prevailing missions of sabermetrics is to evaluate the player in a vacuum: What's he doing independently of his teammates and environment? Using only RBI or runs scored to judge a player or to frame an argument at the tavern is a fool's errand.
Home runs, since they have almost nothing to do with a hitter's teammates, are more reliable than RBI, but they're still not an ideal metric. It's fully possible for a player with fewer home runs than another to be a far superior player. How's that? Again, it's context. Home runs (and singles, doubles, triples, etc.) aren't lineup- and teammate-dependent like RBI and runs scored, but, like any other unadjusted statistic, they are dependent upon the ballpark and, when comparing players across history, the era (more on park and league effects later in this series).
Another factor to consider when comparing hitters is the notion of positional scarcity. This is the idea that it's easier to find good hitters at the less demanding defensive positions than it is at those positions that require a great deal of skill with the glove. The less demanding positions are the corner slots: left field, right field, third base and first base. The more exacting positions are those up the middle: catcher, shortstop, second base and center field. Up-the-middle defenders handle more balls and cover more ground than corner players, or, in the case of the catcher, they have defensive duties distinct from those who man other positions.
So if a first baseman and a shortstop have identical offensive statistics and equal defensive abilities relative to their positions, who's the better player? The shortstop, because the offensive-productivity bar for shortstops is notably lower than it is for first baseman, since it's far easier to find a good-hitting first baseman than it is a good-hitting shortstop. Generally, from highest level of positional scarcity to least, the positions go shortstop, catcher, second baseman, center fielder, third baseman, right fielder, left fielder and first baseman. Those can vary from year to year, but most seasons up-the-middle defenders who can hit will always be rarer beasts than corner players who can hit. This is why Alex Rodriguez is such a special player: He hits like an All-Star first baseman, yet he plays the most challenging defensive position on the diamond, and does it well to boot. Again, many stats you'll find on this site are already adjusted to reflect the demands of the position.
And what of batting average? Well, it's a percentage stat and not a counting stat, so it has a somewhat different set of concerns and caveats. First, it's subject to sample-size errors. To provide an extreme example, a hitter who goes one for three on Opening Day and one who plays the entire season going 200 for 600 will both be hitting .333 when you check the box scores; however, it's the latter hitter whose .333 average is more legit. Why? Because it's been borne out over time, whereas the former hitter may be a banjo-hitting fringe player who had a lucky day. (As an aside, counting stats are also prone to a different kind of sample-size error. It's the dread "on pace to" statistical distraction. When some unlikely player is, say, leading the league in RBI after the first two weeks of the season, we'll hear how he's "on pace" to put up 380 RBI on the season or some such nonsense.) Basically, if a hitter is doing something that's completely out of step with the rest of his career, you should be skeptical and demand a larger sample before you buy into those reports that his stroke has been tweaked or how he's seeing the ball better since he started drinking liver smoothies. Sample size is a major principle to grasp, and you'll never look foolish by being roundly unmoved by what a player does in the first few weeks of the season.
That's not all that's wrong with batting average. As much as the .300 hitter is a lionized, what does that really tell us about a player? It tells us he got a hit of some kind in 30% of his at-bats. We have no idea what kinds of hits he got, and we have no idea how he fared in terms of reaching base by other means. We don't even know how many times he came to the plate.
When dealing with percentage statistics, having at least a rough idea of the number of plate appearances is essential. And as far as batting average goes, you can tell much more about a player if his average (AVG) is presented along with his on-base percentage (OBP) and slugging percentage (SLG).
OBP is how often a player reached base via hit, walk or hit by pitch; among traditional offensive statistics, it's the most important. The higher a player?s OBP, the less often he?s costing his team an out at the plate. Viewed another way, 1-OBP = out %. In other words, OBP subtracted from the number 1 will yield the percentage of how often a hitter comes up to bat and uses up one of his team?s 27 outs for that game. A player can play all season, rack up impressive counting stats and still be using up far too many outs.
SLG measures a player's power, albeit not perfectly. It places more value on extra-base hits than it does on singles, and what you're looking at when you see a hitter's SLG is the total bases he averages per at-bat. For example, a player with a .500 SLG averages one-half total base per at-bat.
You'll often see AVG, OBP and SLG presented in the following format: .300/.400/.500, where .300 is the player's AVG, .400 is the player's OBP and .500 is the player's SLG. Another statistic you can glean from this "holy trinity" is Isolated SLG, which is the player's SLG minus his AVG. This expresses how much "raw" power he's producing by focusing solely on his extra-base hits. So of the trinity, AVG, which by far the most popular and heavily relied upon, really provides you with the least important information. It's good info in the presence of OBP and SLG, but by itself it's almost as useless as RBI.
What's a good OBP and SLG? Well, as we've already mentioned, offensive statistical standards depend greatly upon a player's era, home ballpark and defensive position. Generally speaking, if a player today puts up a .360 OBP and .500 SLG, he's doing his job. If he's a shortstop in Dodger Stadium with these numbers (and with an ample number of plate appearances, of course), he's an MVP candidate; if he's a first baseman in Denver with these numbers, he's nothing special. Again, context is where the rubber hits the road. (We discuss OPS, the stat that adds OBP + SLG, later in this series.)
Remember our pal Ruben Sierra and his 101 RBI from 1993? Let's go back and look at him, knowing what we know now. Yeah, there's his 101 RBI. But that season his trinity numbers were .233/.288/.390. Those are ugly, and they get even uglier when you recall that he split his time between DH and the outfield corners. That means he had little defensive value, and, hence, his offensive standard was higher than that of most players. A .288 OBP and .390 SLG are patently unacceptable for a corner defender, no matter how many RBI he racks up.
So, in summary:
Counting stats (RBI, HR, runs scored) aren't very informative because they're highly context dependent and don't account for how many outs a player is using up.
Percentage stats are far better than counting stats, but only in the presence of a sizeable data sample (i.e., plate appearances).
Percentage stats are only negligibly influenced by teammates and lineup slotting, but, like all traditional statistics, they are influenced by ballpark and historical era.
Players at the corner positions generally produce better offensive numbers than those players at the more vital up-the-middle positions.
AVG isn't really useful unless viewed in tandem with OBP, SLG and plate appearances.
And the greatest of these is OBP because it can also tell you how often a player creates outs at the plate.
And that's that. Like I said, there's a whole other world of statistics out there besides the ones that have been foisted upon you since you bought your first set of Topps. Now that you know what's wrong with traditional offensive statistics, you're ready to arm yourselves with the tools of state-of-the-art baseball analysis."
Sorry for foisting this on everyone. At the heart of all of this, comes the fact that to score runs you need to not make outs. Runs roughly corresponds to 1.4(OBP)+SLG, on a teamwide basis.
You can delve through baseballprospectus.com for some REALLY good stuff. Non math geeks won't like it, but the simple fact of the matter is that these guys have done some serious work into understanding how the numbers of baseball correspond to successful teams and players. They've done it by ignoring anecdotal evidence, and working with the raw statistics.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
A girl in my grade from AP psycology recently told me that clinical insanity is "expecting different results from the same recurring event". If that is the case, ninety percent of the prognosticating world should be institutionalized. No, the Marlins have not forgotten how to play baseball after a few months off. They're still the best team in the game, just as they had been for about 3 months when I last posted in October.
It's the Marlins all the way. Again. And again. And again. I cannot fathom how people could say otherwise, having seen or at least heard about game six of the NLCS.
P.S. Have I mentioned that I predicted a Heat playoff berth, and possible Finals berth, in preseason, right after Riley quit?
Yeah, we'll be fine.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as the Yanks, Dodgers and Braves fail, all will be right with this world. I've got no axe to grind w/Florida, never did (I loathed the Yanks and was cheering the Marlins on even though I dislike them as well), but I do believe the Marlins are unlikely to make a serious run this year at anything beyond an NLDS bet, however it's a good year to be a contender in the NL because there are no thoroughly dominant teams as there once were in the NL. The Braves are begining their descent, the Giants are as well (though the west is so poor they might win it again), and the Cubs look the strongest of the lot but Houston and St. Louis might surprise. The East is just as bizarre, after Boston and New York, who do you have? Oakland, Seattle and Anaheim should contend, but they're unlikely to be a threat to Boston or New York although a major surprise could happen.
I'm interested to see how my beloved Indians do this year, young, raw, but hugely talented at the farm level, this team might have contended this year, if not for two Tommy John surgeries that had to be done on two of their rookies from last year. They won't contend for anything this year although they might have a slight shot at the Central if the other squads fail miserably.
Anyway good luck to everyone's teams (save the Yanks, Braves, and Dodgers, can't wish any of them good luck).
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Actually, the AL East has a good chance of being the toughest, top-to-bottom division in MLB. The O's and Jays improved, and, well, the Rays have more experience
posted
Vegas is most certainly NOT on the Florida band wagon. Of course they can and have been wrong in the past, but I don't see the Marlins sniffing another World Series Title this year. The East is ripe for the taking with Atlanta continuing it's slow trek back down the mountain and Philly questionable and the NL as a whole has lots of weaknesses, but I don't see Florida making it back.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I made no prediction on here last year as to who would win the Championship. I wasn't posting much here last spring on anything besides 24.
Do you seriously think Florida is going to repeat, or are you just goofing on the "Homer" stereotype?
I think they can contend, but w/the free agent losses, and w/the team as a whole, i think they won't be there in the Series again. Playoffs is possible, but the World Series? I seriously doubt it. My teams will be on the outside looking in, so outside of fantasy ball, I'll be focusing on soccer, the Stanley Cup, and Training Camp/Preseason in the NFL.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
