Not to mention .286 /.375/ .551 in the post season. Boy this guy can't hit at all:rolleyes:
Printable View
Not to mention .286 /.375/ .551 in the post season. Boy this guy can't hit at all:rolleyes:
Thats not sucking, that's not blackhole that's not no offense or anyother hyperbole you've thrown around.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It's poor offense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frijolito
Yeah, he had a great postseason, I'll give him that, but if you think that means he's actually a good hitter, you're fooling yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frijolito
See post season SLG%. Looks like had some power when it mattered. I forgot leadoff hitters are supposed to hit 30 hr's a year:rolleyes:Quote:
Also, don't forget to mention that he had ZERO power whatsoever
Fun with small sample sizes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frijolito
:rolleyes:
If you think he sucked in 2005 your fooling yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
He was pretty sucky, offensively, especially considering that he was a LEFT FIELDER, and a .290/.351/.349 line from a left fielder is horrid. Take defense into account, and he was a solid-average overall player (Baseball Prospectus' Fielding Runs Above Average pegs him at +17, the only season of his career where he was above average, and John Dewan's Plus/Minus pegs him at +20 enhanced plays in 2005).Quote:
Originally Posted by Frijolito
Add his outstanding post season and his intangables and he was a vital part of the Sox championship run.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I'd say he was an inconsequential part of their championship run during the season, unless his intangibles somehow made the entire pitching staff post career years, which I somehow doubt. Yeah, in the playoffs, he was very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frijolito
I don't think anyone in Milwaukee feels like we really got one over on the Sox in that deal. Had Lee stuck around for awhile longer maybe but he didn't and the guys we got for him didn't stick around either. I don't think anyone here thinks it was bad trade but it won't make anyones list of great trades either. It's been fun though, but I have to get to bed before my wife wakes up and finds out i'm still on the computer:p. One of these days you'll have to explain to me what those fielding stats mean because i really have no idea:)
They're pretty simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frijolito
Fielding Runs Above Average is an estimate of the number of runs the player saved defensively over that of an average defender at his position. The exact formula isn't public, but it's based off the "traditional" fielding stats - putouts, assists, errors, and te like.
Plus/Minus is a number of plays above or below average that a player makes defensively. In the simplest form, it's assessed by video experts that watch every play and if a player makes a play that another fielder hasn't made, he gets a +1, and if he doesn't make a play that another fielder has made, he gets a -1. It's explained in detail in The Fielding Bible.
A more detailed description from fieldingbible.com:
You can also go to fieldingbible.com and view the leaders for the past couple years (not this season yet though).Quote:
My book, The Fielding Bible, goes into great length (ad nauseum to some) describing the new fielding system we developed at Baseball Info Solutions, the Plus/Minus System. Video Scouts at BIS review video of every play of every major league game and record detailed information on each play, such as the location of each batted ball, the speed, the type of hit, etc. Using this in-depth data, we’re able to figure out how each player compares to his peers at his position. How often does Derek Jeter field that softly batted ball located 20 feet to the right of the normal shortstop position, for example, compared to all other major league shortstops?
A player gets credit (a "plus" number) if he makes a play that at least one other player at his position missed during the season, and he loses credit (a "minus" number) if he misses a play that at least one player made. The size of the credit is directly related to how often players make the play. Each play is looked at individually, and a score is given for each play. Sum up all the plays for each player at his position and you get his total plus/minus for the season. A total plus/minus score near zero means the player is average. A score above zero is above average and a negative score is below average. Adam Everett turned in the highest score we’ve had in four years of using the system with a +43 at shortstop in 2006. That means he made 43 more plays than the average MLB shortstop would make.
Belial rented a room for you guys at the Motel 6 :)
Don't try to fight with HoustonGM. It'll only end in tears.
How true, how true !
Guys, don't make something out of nothing. It was a fine, civil discussion. There's no need to chime in with potentially argumentative comments every time I debate something with anybody.
But you never lose. It kind of sucks to debate with you because you're too good...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
lol. :rolleyes: I don't always "win" either.
For example, the above debate.
Debates don't need to have winners and losers. They can just be back-and-forth discussions.
What do ya know... Phillips doesn't think that the Yankees make a good trade getting Pudge.
Every other guy on the Baseball Tonight panel said that the Yankees get yet another A+ with the Pudge trade. But guess what? Steve Phillips rolls his eyes while that is being said by the other members and then he says that Pudge doesn't have very much time to learn these pitchers and it could cost the Yankees.
Can this idiot EVER give the Yankees credit. I hope that once the Manny trade is complete, that Phillips says that the Red Sox will make the playoffs, win the WS, and Bay will be amazing... cause usually what he says is wrong... actually about 99% of what he says is wrong.
Well, he already talked about Ramirez. He said if Ramirez is traded, the Red Sox WON'T make the playoffs.
Steve Phillips seems pretty informed, I don't know what everyone is talking about...
Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
I actually prefer Morgan to Phillips, but I don't like either.
I'm just glad Sutcliffe is back.
I saw him on Sportscenter discussing trades for 10 minutes or so. He didn't make any mistakes, knew every player he discussed (including John Grabow) and how they affected their teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by knicks0929
Are you people watching the same Steve Phillips as me?
Sample size ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
The same person who trashes the Yankees and Mets EVERY chance he gets? The same person that loves the Red Sox. Yeah, we're watching the same Steve Phillips.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
While he sometimes DOES make sense, metsguy, I think the problem most people have with Phillips 'expert' commentary is that, as a HORRIBLE failure as a GM, what sort of 'expert' IS Phillips? Why should I care what a guy with his awful pedigree thinks of a trade or signing, for example?Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
If someone starts a topic about Barry BondsQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
and i turn it into a 2 person discussion about ,
i dunno, rust-o-leum ..
then i am
thread jacking.
at least, that how i understand it.
Threads go different directions all the time.
Please, let's not make something out of nothing.