Moneyball... Your opinions on it.

#26
#26
volfanbill said:
Miguel Tejada batting .308 with 34 jacks and 131 RBIs helped a lot too. So did Chavvy's 34 jacks and 100+ RBIs. You can't underestimate the offense and defense those two contributed. Chavvy had a .961 fielding percentage and Miggy was .975. Factor in how much ground each could cover (especially Chavvy making all those plays in the extra large foul territory down the 3rd base line) and you have a recipe for success. Get a handful of players good at getting on base and let the pitching staff handle the rest.
Click to expand...

Fielding % is probably the most meaningless stat in baseball. You said you read Moneyball, right?
 
#27
#27
volfanbill said:
Miguel Tejada batting .308 with 34 jacks and 131 RBIs helped a lot too. So did Chavvy's 34 jacks and 100+ RBIs. You can't underestimate the offense and defense those two contributed. Chavvy had a .961 fielding percentage and Miggy was .975. Factor in how much ground each could cover (especially Chavvy making all those plays in the extra large foul territory down the 3rd base line) and you have a recipe for success. Get a handful of players good at getting on base and let the pitching staff handle the rest.
Click to expand...

The pitching staff was the heart and soul of that team.
 
#29
#29
nbakerld said:
Fielding % is probably the most meaningless stat in baseball. You said you read Moneyball, right?
Click to expand...

you've proven you're lack of understanding for every sport, but baseball especially. At certain positions you are kind of right, but SS, 2B and 3B Fielding % is a pretty impressive stat when comped with the range the player has. I mentioned that, but I'm sure you didn't notice. You always miss the finer details.
 
#30
#30
nbakerld said:
Fielding % is probably the most meaningless stat in baseball. You said you read Moneyball, right?
Click to expand...

I also said the book was highly inaccurate. Again, just read man. Take away Chavvy and Tejada's defensive ablities and the liability of having Hatteberg at 1st is magnified immensely regardless of what he brings to the plate. Perfect throws from every angle made his job much easier.
 
Last edited:
#31
#31
volfanbill said:
Miguel Tejada batting .308 with 34 jacks and 131 RBIs helped a lot too. So did Chavvy's 34 jacks and 100+ RBIs. You can't underestimate the offense and defense those two contributed. Chavvy had a .961 fielding percentage and Miggy was .975. Factor in how much ground each could cover (especially Chavvy making all those plays in the extra large foul territory down the 3rd base line) and you have a recipe for success. Get a handful of players good at getting on base and let the pitching staff handle the rest.
Click to expand...

Nerd alert.




Just messin with ya. :)
 
#32
#32
OrangeEmpire said:
The pitching staff was the heart and soul of that team.
Click to expand...

wrong. Chavvy and Tejada were. Had Chavvy not been destroyed by his back, he would be one of the most revered Oakland A's of all time. Up there with Rickey, Eckersley, Vida Blue, Rollie Fingers and Catfish. Tejada was loved by all and the fans were more upset about losing him than Giambi, Damon or any of the big 3. Oakland still finished 4th in pitching in the AL in 2005 and 2006 without Hudson or Mulder. With the departure of Zito after '06, they were still 6th in the AL.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#34
#34
volfanbill said:
wrong. Chavvy and Tejada were. Had Chavvy not been destroyed by his back, he would be one of the most revered Oakland A's of all time. Up there with Rickey, Eckersley, Vida Blue, Rollie Fingers and Catfish. Tejada was loved by all and the fans were more upset about losing him than Giambi, Damon or any of the big 3. Oakland still finished 4th in the AL in 2005 and 2006 without Hudson or Mulder. With the departure of Zito after '06, they were still 6th in the AL.
Click to expand...

You are telling me you take away the big three and that team is successful?
 
#35
#35
OrangeEmpire said:
You are telling me you take away the big three and that team is successful?
Click to expand...

no. I'm telling you they weren't the heart and soul and they were rather easily replaced. Duke, Harden, Dan Haren, Barry Zito and Joe Blanton made a great rotation for the a's. The team completely jumped on the backs of Miggy and Chavez though, not the Big 3. Quit rearranging the argument. You sound like nbaker. The 'pen wasn't too shabby either.
 
Last edited:
#36
#36
volfanbill said:
no. I'm telling you they weren't the heart and soul. The team completely jumped on the backs of Miggy and Chavez though, not the Big 3. Quit rearranging the argument. You sound like nbaker.
Click to expand...

Negative ghostrider.............might want to look at the kettle.
 
#37
#37
volfanbill said:
you've proven you're lack of understanding for every sport, but baseball especially. At certain positions you are kind of right, but SS, 2B and 3B Fielding % is a pretty impressive stat when comped with the range the player has. I mentioned that, but I'm sure you didn't notice. You always miss the finer details.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you covered that. But if a player with the range to dive for balls others can't get to isn't penalized with errors when missing, then FLD % + range still doesn't accurately capture fielding prowess.

No need to be so insulting.

It's not about understanding baseball, it's about logic.

Player A (3B): .985 FLD %
Player B (3B): .950 FLD %

Player A adequately handles everything that is hit to him, but is he the better fielder? We have no idea, whatsoever, even if he has incredible range.

Example:

Say over a 3 year period 1500 balls are hit towards 3B, in the cases of both players. Player A has a much better glove, but is not nearly as good at predicting where the ball will be hit:

Player A: Has 1000 chances, and 985 putouts and assists.
Player B: Has 1200 chances, and 1140 putouts and assists.

You want Player B on your team.
 
#39
#39
nbakerld said:
Yeah, you covered that. But if a player with the range to dive for balls others can't get to isn't penalized with errors when missing, then FLD % + range still doesn't accurately capture fielding prowess.

No need to be so insulting.

It's not about understanding baseball, it's about logic.

Player A (3B): .985 FLD %
Player B (3B): .950 FLD %

Player A adequately handles everything that is hit to him, but is he the better fielder? We have no idea, whatsoever, even if he has incredible range.

Example:

Say over a 3 year period 1500 balls are hit towards 3B, in the cases of both players. Player A has a much better glove, but is not nearly as good at predicting where the ball will be hit:

Player A: Has 1000 chances, and 985 putouts and assists.
Player B: Has 1200 chances, and 1140 putouts and assists.

You want Player B on your team.
Click to expand...

which is why I clearly covered that both Chavez and Miggy had great range. Especially Chavez. Without the ability to know where the ball is going, your range is greatly diminished. It is about knowing baseball, not logic. Using logic is why Beane's sabermetric system hasn't worked since he had 2-3 pure power hitters in the lineup to go with his always solid pitching. Again, thanks for playing for no reason. Now crawl back to making bad arguments in the NBA thread.
 
Last edited:
#41
#41
OrangeEmpire said:
Teams obviously trade for fielding % at the trade dead line.
Click to expand...

No one puts defensive liabilities up the middle of the field with success no matter what they do at the plate. Having a great defensive third baseman that hits for power is a huge bonus for most teams.
 
#44
#44
OrangeEmpire said:
Absolutely, who needs pitching
Click to expand...

OE I really wish you could read. I've never said that the Big Three weren't an important part. In fact, them being an important part was one of the first things I mentioned when I posted in this thread. But they weren't bigger than the impact that Chavvy and Tejada brought to the offense and defense. The team rolled through Chavez and Tejada, not the big 3. As I said, the big three have been replaced at least 3 times now by solid young pitchers that are very, very good. Beane has never been able to replace the offensive production he lost when he couldn't afford power hitters or find them via the draft like Alderson did with Giambi, Chavez and Tejada.

But since you have no real data or input to bring to the discussion, continue on as if I said good pitching was worthless. It suits you.
 
#45
#45
volfanbill said:
which is why I clearly covered that both Chavez and Miggy had great range. Especially Chavez. Without the ability to know where the ball is going, your range is greatly diminished. It is about knowing baseball, not logic. Using logic is why Beane's sabermetric system hasn't worked since he had 2-3 pure power hitters in the lineup to go with his always solid pitching. Again, thanks for playing for no reason. Now crawl back to making bad arguments in the NBA thread.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't mean anything. I CLEARLY acknowledged that you mentioned range. What aren't you understanding? You can't know how good a fielder is until you can account for their ability to predict where the ball is going to be hit.

And the deflection* indicates you know your case is weak. I don't know why in the **** you are bringing up power hitters, sabermetrics, or anything else. We are talking about FLD %.

*as well as the insults
 
#46
#46
nbakerld said:
But that doesn't mean anything. I CLEARLY acknowledged that you mentioned range. What aren't you understanding? You can't know how good a fielder is until you can account for their ability to predict where the ball is going to be hit.

And the deflection* indicates you know your case is weak. I don't know why in the **** you are bringing up power hitters, sabermetrics, or anything else. We are talking about FLD %.

*as well as the insults
Click to expand...

umm, no, we're talking about what made the Oakland A's good in the late 90s til about 2006. Maybe you missed that, as you've missed everything else. Being able to predict where a ball is going is all part of range. I already stated that, but again, you didn't read. You find two key words from one post and go off the handle with no clue what you're talking about or arguing against.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#47
#47
volfanbill said:
OE I really wish you could read. I've never said that the Big Three weren't an important part. In fact, them being an important part was one of the first things I mentioned when I posted in this thread. But they weren't bigger than the impact that Chavvy and Tejada brought to the offense and defense. The team rolled through Chavez and Tejada, not the big 3. As I said, the big three have been replaced at least 3 times now by solid young pitchers that are very, very good. Beane has never been able to replace the offensive production he lost when he couldn't afford power hitters or find them via the draft like Alderson did with Giambi, Chavez and Tejada.

But since you have no real data or input to bring to the discussion, continue on as if I said good pitching was worthless. It suits you.
Click to expand...

You are right, it does suit me.
 
#48
#48
nbakerld said:
But that doesn't mean anything. I CLEARLY acknowledged that you mentioned range. What aren't you understanding? You can't know how good a fielder is until you can account for their ability to predict where the ball is going to be hit.

And the deflection* indicates you know your case is weak. I don't know why in the **** you are bringing up power hitters, sabermetrics, or anything else. We are talking about FLD %.

*as well as the insults
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
#49
#49
volfanbill said:
umm, no, we're talking about what made the Oakland A's good in the late 90s til about 2006. Maybe you missed that, as you've missed everything else. Being able to predict where a ball is going is all part of range. I already stated that, but again, you didn't read. You find two key words from one post and go off the handle with no clue what you're talking about or arguing against.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. So when you say a player has good range, you are saying he is good at predicting where the ball will be hit based on the pitch thrown and the tendencies of the batter? That's what you mean by range?

You and I are talking about FLD %. Feel free to talk about power hitters with whomever you were talking about power hitters with.
 
#50
#50
volfanbill said:
umm, no, we're talking about what made the Oakland A's good in the late 90s til about 2006. Maybe you missed that, as you've missed everything else. Being able to predict where a ball is going is all part of range. I already stated that, but again, you didn't read. You find two key words from one post and go off the handle with no clue what you're talking about or arguing against.
Click to expand...

That has to be it..........cant be wrong
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top