View Poll Results: Hunter or Jones?
- 37. You may not vote on this poll
December 6th, 2007, 08:31 PM #41
Holy ****, you're backpedaling worse than Juan Pierre misjudging a ball in the lights.
Originally Posted by OrangePuck
The "makes players around him better" argument. I'm looking at the last paragraph there when you're talking about MAGIC JOHNSON and TEEMU SELANNE and FILL IN REALLY GOOD SPORTS PLAYER HERE. Are you talking about Guerrero here, or are you talking about Torii Hunter? Because if you're talking about Torii Hunter (or even David Eckstein), then you're using an analogy that compares them to other players who are some of the best in the sport. Which is RIDICULOUS because you're not referring to Hunter or Eckstein's talent (I hope), you're referring to their "character."
Also, a baseball player's "making others around him better" isn't nearly as much of an impact as it is in football, basketball, or hockey. Baseball (of all the "team" sports) is inherently a much more dependent on the individual's performance (offensively). One on one. Pitcher vs. batter. It's pretty damn basic, and this is why baseball "people" have such a huge dependence on a laundry list of statistical categories (i.e. the saber crowd). So your whole analogy is pretty baseless.
And let me also say that protecting your big hitter with those around him is nowhere near as important as the "team play" that exists in the other three sports. It's just a bad comparison.
And the whole character/gritty/smilesalot/toughguy/goodguyness factor is so much less important than a player's actual talent. Do you really think Casey Kotchman is going to slug .550 because Torii Hunter smiles a lot?
I think Casey Kotchman is going to get Casey Kotchman numbers whether Casey Kotchman gets along with everyone or not. Casey Kotchman doesn't have to catch passes from Tom Brady or be open on the wing because Magic Johnson is drawing a double team...he just needs to step up to the plate and get on base. At the end of the day, it's pitcher vs. batter with very little help from the guy on first base or the guy behind you on deck. TALENT is what matters.
That is just how baseball works.
But I think you and Joe Morgan and a large handful of the old timey baseball analysts (like, Tim McCarver!) would get along great. So, you have that going for you.
Oh, one more thing. Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz have great numbers because they're GREAT HITTERS. Not because they're "protecting" each other. Barry Bonds has OPS'd over 1.000 this year with what was probably the worst "protection" in the league. At like, sixty five years old, too.
You severely overrate "protection." And it's not like your Torii Hunter didn't have any "protection" in Minnesota, either.
P.S. I don't know how you can say Justin hasn't "proven ****" when he is the only one out of you and him who has given ACTUAL STATISTICAL, FACTUAL EVIDENCE that you can point to and say, "yes, those things which you just said are true and irrefutable because they are facts." Really, it's basic argumentation, and you've yet to really establish the "support" side of your argument other than "agree to disagree" and "magic johnson made his teammates better" and "the Yankees won the World Series because they got Reggie Jackson" [???]...all of which are either a) not facts or b) pretty gosh darned unrelated.
Last edited by TBrown33; December 6th, 2007 at 08:44 PM.
December 6th, 2007, 08:45 PM #42
Lineup protection is overrated. It doesn't really have that significant of an impact. The only protection that you can really see having an impact is weak protection (eg, a pitcher won't pitch around the #3 hitter if the cleanup man is also a dangerous hitter). Hitters in the major league as a whole do not do significantly better when being protected versus not being protected.
December 6th, 2007, 08:57 PM #43
More facts! I'm going to pick one of your really hard to refute "protection really matters" arguments with...oh! The Reggie Jackson example! Whoopee!
Reggie Jackson's first year as a Yankee, 1977:
GREAT NUMBERS! What fantastic protection he must have provided! Let's look at Munson and Chambliss the same year.
Holy OPS, Batman! Decent Andre Ethier-like numbers (actually, not even as good an OBP as Ethier, but comparable)...he must have sucked without that protection! Let's look at the numbers in '76, before The Incredible Hulky Protector, I mean, Reggie Jackson, was there.
My God! Those are virtually the same numbers! Well, surely Thurman Munson paid huge dividends from Reggie "God" Jackson!
Ah ha! Six points better in batting average! 14 in the OBP!! Surely, this is all because of Reggie Jackson and not because of a slight yet predictably on par deviation in numbers from season to season.
(Just for the hell of it, Chambliss' and Munson's OPS+ both went down slightly from 76 to 77. Just sayin' is all.)
In conclusion, the Yankees won the World Series because Reggie Jackson hit the **** out of the ball, not because he was some groundbreaking force in the rest of the lineup. They basically did the same as they did before. Thus, Reggie Jackson's "protection" either had a) a very minor impact on those hitting around him or b) a negligible one.
As the mother****ing numbers show.
Last edited by TBrown33; December 6th, 2007 at 09:03 PM.
December 6th, 2007, 09:00 PM #44
I disagree with you guys wholeheartedly. If a speedy runner is on first the guy at the plate is more likely to see a fast ball, a pitch that every major leaguer can handle, versus a slow breaking pitch. Same goes to a #3 hitting being protected by a #4 hitter with runners on base. You see it in San Francisco all the time. 2 outs, runners on second and third, Barry Bonds at the plate will almost always get a free pass because he's got some scrub batting behind him. Teams would rather face a scrub with bases loaded instead of Barry Bonds with runners on 2nd and 3rd. If he had Miguel Cabrera batting behind him then Cabrera benefits from a bases loaded situation or they pitch to Bonds. It goes hand in hand.
Game situations and yes, the guy on deck affects the pitches called at the plate. They always have. It's an intangible of the sport and the reason why actually watching the game is far better then just reading the box score or reading stat reports from nerd fantasy baseball leagues.
I played baseball competitively and while I won't say that that means I'm an expert I will say that I have experienced just about every possible scenario first hand and have seen how it changes the very nature of the game.
Make fun of Joe Morgan, Tim McCarver and the "old timers" all you like. It's the fantasy baseball playing geeks, many of whom have never stepped foot on a baseball diamon beyond little league, who don't know **** about the game.
December 6th, 2007, 09:05 PM #45
Sorry, I don't play fantasy baseball.
But I did play real baseball for, oh, about fourteen years.
(My lifetime OBP kicked severe ass)
Last edited by TBrown33; December 6th, 2007 at 09:07 PM.
December 6th, 2007, 09:12 PM #46
The end my fat hairy ass. Everybody knows that Billy Martin jerked Jackson around for 2/3 of the year in 77. He batted him in every spot of the lineup from 2 down to 7 during that time and the Yankees floundered all year long. It wasn't until Martin finally slotted Jackson 4th in August of that year and the Yankees went from about 7 games out of a playoff spot to first place in the East and the eventual World Series Championship. The Yankees went on a ****ing tear as soon as Jackson was used properly.
Originally Posted by TBrown33
The only way you can win this argument on statistics alone is to find out what the production numbers of the players were once Jackson was slotted in the 4th spot and stayed in that spot until the end of the season. Also, for you to belittle a line like .286/.375/.550 because it doesn't stack up to the steroid era just shows how little you know about baseball in general and how unrealistic your argument is. You also aren't even taking into account that there were far fewer teams back in 1977 and thus the pitching talent wasn't as diluted as it is today. Another thing you aren't taking into account is the tumultuous enviroment that the Yankee players had to deal with in New York that season.
Again, relying on statistics alone is not how you evaluate player impact. If it was all about statistics and statistics alone why do Dodger fans get such a big hard on when they think about Kirk Gibson in 88? All he did was hit a homer in his only at bat in GAME freaking 1 of the 88 Series. It won the game but it did wonders for the Dodgers and spring boarded them to the Series win. But stat geeks such as yourselves would explain it away as just a single at bat. It's ludicrous.
A players value and impact is determined by performance, chemistry, character, heart, perseverence, etc. Only one of those shows up on your lame ass fantasy stat sheets.
December 6th, 2007, 09:14 PM #47
You got me by 2 years. My batting average was through the ****ing roof and there wasn't a ground ball within reach that got by me at third base.
Originally Posted by TBrown33
December 6th, 2007, 09:20 PM #48
For the last time, I don't have a lame ass fantasy stat sheet because i don't have a lame ass fantasy baseball team.
Originally Posted by OrangePuck
And talk about the pot calling the kettle black with the whole "out of context" thing. I never belittled Jackson's numbers. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said "he hit the ****ing **** out of the ball." I may or may not have said "****ing," so I may be (slightly) misquoting myself here.
I'm actually belittling you, and the fact that you think that the Yankees won the World Series because of Jackson's "protection" and not because of HIS performance itself (like when he jumped in front of the ball on the basepaths against the Dodgers. That talented a-hole).
I'm not even a stat geek. You just like to call Justin or me that because it probably makes you feel jock-y (even though I've probably played more competitive sports than you have), and we like to use FAAAAAACTS and EEEVIIIDEEEENCE and our BRAAAAAAAAINS and LOOOGIIIIIC.
I'm a baseball fan. I haven't even read moneyball. I just know what makes a good player good and a bad or mediocre player not so good.
And I played baseball long enough to know that "protection" plays a small role in how well you do.
Oh my God! I'm so geeky! Numbers!
December 7th, 2007, 12:45 AM #49
Considering your love for David Eckstein my guess would be you played left bench but took credit for being on good teams due to your leadership* in clubhouse**.
Originally Posted by OrangePuck
*Leadership in this sentence refers to one who passes out orange slices after the games.
**Clubhouse is defined here as under the shady oak tree at the local junior high.
December 7th, 2007, 12:49 AM #50
Originally Posted by lath19
um...yeah, keep thinking that