Anyone ever make a team based solely on speed?

[rockze25]

Originally posted by jameyhammock
What exactly are you trying to prove with this?

If you hit a home run 6% of the time and get on base 26% of the time when you don't hit a home run (given that you may score half of the time when you get on base), you will score 19% of the time.

If you hit a home run 1% of the time and get on base 39% o fthe time when you don't hit a home run (given that you may score half of the time when you get on base), you will score 20% of the time.

How much clearer do you want it?

[Modern Relic]

man please stop it i am just getting tried of this.

[rockze25]

Originally posted by Modern Relic
man please stop it i am just getting tried of this.

LOL, oh you get tired of it when I'm right.

Judging by the lack of a logical response to my evidence, this is your way of trying to back out of the discussion without saying I'm right. Instead of continuing the discussion like mature adults, you would rather insult me when I say something that makes sense.

The way you all are responding tells me that what I'm saying is actually making sense to you. Becasue when it didn't make sense to you, you let me know and shot my ideas down with proof.

It's ok though, this is all very flattering.

[Modern Relic]

Never Mind you do not get the picture yet and soon you will.

[Modern Relic]

i am laughing myself off on this.

[Modern Relic]

why you ruining this board for a lots of peoples. By posting stuffs that make no sense what so ever. Go back to your buggy high heat game and leave this board to wes.

[crackpott]

Originally posted by rockze25
If you hit a home run 6% of the time and get on base 26% of the time when you don't hit a home run (given that you may score half of the time when you get on base), you will score 19% of the time.

If you hit a home run 1% of the time and get on base 39% o fthe time when you don't hit a home run (given that you may score half of the time when you get on base), you will score 20% of the time.

How much clearer do you want it?

For what it's worth Rockze, as long as you refrain from saying I'm "stupid for my view" or whatever, I'll have a civil argument.

As for your numbers... no one is arguing against them. That's why everyone is confused by you "proving your point" Allow me to elaborate.

Allow us to assume that this is over 600 PA. Your High OBP/Low SLG guy will be player one. The other guy player 2. Problem is we have to assume a walk rate for these calculations. Lets assume each player draws 50 walks, and has 30 other situations which contribute to a plate appearance, but not an at bat.

Player one gets on base 234 times, and hits 6 homeruns. Player two gets on 156 times and hits 36 homeruns. Assuming that all other aspects are the same since these were the only stats you mentioned (ie. doubles)...

this is roughly what it translates to. Player one has an impressive .390 OBP. Player two has a weak .260 OBP. 36 homers or not, that guy won't be in the majors. But anyway...
there would be roughly 520 AB. Now, using the numbers given by you, player one has 234-50=184 hits. Player two has 156-50 = 106 hits. That is a difference of 78. assuming extra base hits to be equal (you only provided homeruns) the 30 extra homeruns player two will get translates to 30*3 (extra bases) = 90. Therefore, the SLG of player 2 will be roughly 12 points greater than player one.

Thus, your comparison failed. Player one would have an OPS of a whopping .118 more than player 2... and that's not even using OBP adjusted OPS, which would make the difference even greater. So in summary... I'm not quite sure what it is you were proving.

[jameyhammock]

Originally posted by rockze25
If you hit a home run 6% of the time and get on base 26% of the time when you don't hit a home run (given that you may score half of the time when you get on base), you will score 19% of the time.

If you hit a home run 1% of the time and get on base 39% o fthe time when you don't hit a home run (given that you may score half of the time when you get on base), you will score 20% of the time.

How much clearer do you want it?

I mean, what's you point. If all of the above is true, so what? Everyone's been saying this whole thread that getting on base is the important part. What point are you trying to prove with amazing display of mathematical skill above?

And what happened to your whole point about speed being the most important part of baseball? I'm just trying to figure out exactly what it is you're trying to say, because you keep jumping around from here to there with seemingly no real point...

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by jameyhammock
because you keep jumping around from here to there with seemingly no real point...

Other than attention, there is no point. Much like his failed league, lies about his baseball career, racist comments and endless idiotic arguments, attention getting is the only point of any of rockhead's posts.

[sixto]

Originally posted by rockze25
It's amazing how I can give you all the statistical evidence in the World and you still fail to see the truth simply because it's coming from me.

What evidence? Can you quote your own msg where you provided evidence? You posted some numbers that you made up and supported them with bluster. You might want to look up the definition of both evidence and bluster. Dictionary.com

We don't deride your worthless posts because you're posting them, although we do look for giant logical air pockets in yours more quickly than others. It's just that you post inane nonsense, refer to it as genius, and insult us because you're wrong.

When 2 people dispute a point, as adults, they tend to argue the point by supporting it with provable/disprovable facts. They don't state a "fact," then when it's proven wrong, say it's just an "opinion and you need to get a life." Adults say, "I was wrong. Point taken." Don't they?

Maybe I'm wrong.

[lynchjm24]

Rock - I tried to be civil with you, but you are an idiot.

Your 2 examples seem to be Ichiro and Soriano.

Equivilent Runs Created - 2002
Soriano - 126.6
Suzuki - 113.5

Those are park adjusted numbers. Meaning that in a park neutral context Soriano 'created' 13.1 more runs then Ichiro.

Both of these players are 'fast', and that speed is reflected in:
Batting average, stolen bases and caught stealings.

I'm not quite sure what the break even point is for OBP vs. SLG - but Soriano's combination of power and low on base % was more valuable in 2002 then Ichiro's high on base % and low power.

However, if you asked me who I would rather have at the top of my lineup, I'd probably pick Ichiro for 2003, just because Soriano's 2002 might very well be a career year that he never duplicates. If he doesn't improve his OBP then he's going to have to hit an awful lot of homers to be more valuable then Suzuki.

[crackpott]

...i'm still waiting for an answer to my point.

[rockze25]

Originally posted by crackpott
For what it's worth Rockze, as long as you refrain from saying I'm "stupid for my view" or whatever, I'll have a civil argument.

As for your numbers... no one is arguing against them. That's why everyone is confused by you "proving your point" Allow me to elaborate.

Allow us to assume that this is over 600 PA. Your High OBP/Low SLG guy will be player one. The other guy player 2. Problem is we have to assume a walk rate for these calculations. Lets assume each player draws 50 walks, and has 30 other situations which contribute to a plate appearance, but not an at bat.

Player one gets on base 234 times, and hits 6 homeruns. Player two gets on 156 times and hits 36 homeruns. Assuming that all other aspects are the same since these were the only stats you mentioned (ie. doubles)...

this is roughly what it translates to. Player one has an impressive .390 OBP. Player two has a weak .260 OBP. 36 homers or not, that guy won't be in the majors. But anyway...
there would be roughly 520 AB. Now, using the numbers given by you, player one has 234-50=184 hits. Player two has 156-50 = 106 hits. That is a difference of 78. assuming extra base hits to be equal (you only provided homeruns) the 30 extra homeruns player two will get translates to 30*3 (extra bases) = 90. Therefore, the SLG of player 2 will be roughly 12 points greater than player one.

Thus, your comparison failed. Player one would have an OPS of a whopping .118 more than player 2... and that's not even using OBP adjusted OPS, which would make the difference even greater. So in summary... I'm not quite sure what it is you were proving.

The two examples I gave aren't just made up players. The one that hit a home run 6% o fthe time was Alfonso Soriano and the second that hit one 1% of the time was Ichiro. Their OPSs were .880 and .813 respectively. So no, whatever calcluations you just performed didn't make any sense. My calculations did not fail.

I am trying to prove that hitting home runs and having a high OPS is not essential at the top of the order. Players have roles. Leadoff hitters do not necessarily have to have an OPS near .900 to be good. Having an OBP around .400 and a SLG around .350 makes for a great leadoff hitter. Even better so than a guy with a .320 OBP and a .500 SLG.

Why do you think managers stack their lineups the way they do. There are 30 other people (. . .maybe more. . .) that think the way I do. I don't think it's just a coincidence.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by crackpott
...i'm still waiting for an answer to my point.

Player 2 hits .204 - it would be awfully hard to be valuable when you hit 204.

[rockze25]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
Rock - I tried to be civil with you, but you are an idiot.

Your 2 examples seem to be Ichiro and Soriano.

Equivilent Runs Created - 2002
Soriano - 126.6
Suzuki - 113.5

Those are park adjusted numbers. Meaning that in a park neutral context Soriano 'created' 13.1 more runs then Ichiro.

Both of these players are 'fast', and that speed is reflected in:
Batting average, stolen bases and caught stealings.

I'm not quite sure what the break even point is for OBP vs. SLG - but Soriano's combination of power and low on base % was more valuable in 2002 then Ichiro's high on base % and low power.

However, if you asked me who I would rather have at the top of my lineup, I'd probably pick Ichiro for 2003, just because Soriano's 2002 might very well be a career year that he never duplicates. If he doesn't improve his OBP then he's going to have to hit an awful lot of homers to be more valuable then Suzuki.

Thanks for refraining from being a child about this.

Runs created also reflects your team and the lineup around you. If players knock you in more, you're going to score more runs and create more runs by the players that are ahead of you.

Oh yeah and not to mention that Soriano had more at batd than Ichiro also.

[Modern Relic]

sign off and delete. you have no brain

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by rockze25

Runs created also reflects your team and the lineup around you. If players knock you in more, you're going to score more runs and create more runs by the players that are ahead of you.

Oh yeah and not to mention that Soriano had more at batd than Ichiro also.

Runs created are only based on what the player does, the context of teammates does NOT matter.

It would be based on PA not AB.
Soriano 739 PA
Ichiro 728 PA

Added those in my head - but close.

EQA would take that difference into account anyway, Soriano .304, Ichiro .302


Rock, I believed a lot of things about baseball for a long time that I've now learned are wrong. Things like the existance of 'clutch hitting' or 'protection'. I understand that a lot of things that the stats tell you about baseball are not instinctive and that even guys like Whitey Herzog will go on and on about how 'clutch' Yogi Berra was - so I'm not really trying to fight with you, just pointing out there is a lot of interesting research that can help make the game a lot more interesting.

[rockze25]

I'm completely done with this entire message board. I have no further need to argue with people who have no baseball knowledge whatsoever. Not to mention the childish bull**** you come up with when I try and say you're wrong.

This is the last time you'll hear from me, guartanteed. Everyone can breathe easier now.

[Modern Relic]

Good riddance

My work here is done.

[AccardoOutfit29]

Originally posted by rockze25
This is the last time you'll hear from me, guartanteed. Everyone can breathe easier now.

This is the first time I have ever heard this.