Juan Pierre

[Katuluu]

So wait, is he a second half player or a warm-weather player? Because I really have no idea what you are talking about.

[RyDogg66]

Well, it appears from those splits that in the 2nd half Pierre does tend to warm up from Terrible to just below average. That's gotta be worth something!

 

Oh wait, Pierre had a good World Series vs the Yankees, what am I talking about...

[aracko]

2nd half of the season is played in the summer months - hence - warm weather player?

 

I dont think its rocket science.

[Team Canada]

Look at rluz's table. Why is he so bad in June if it's a weather thing? Pre/Post All-Star is not the same as cold/warm weather.

 

Heck, it's always warm in Florida anyway.

[Katuluu]

Heck, his best month was September, which isn't a warm month at all.

[Gone]

I remember most of the board being against Pierre last year and it seems like the majority is still this year, but I have to disagree with the majority and say I'd love to add him.

 

Stats are nice and all, but this is a "team" sport correct? I agree the OBP could be higher and his arm could be stronger, but here's my argument of why he would actually help the "team".

 

Pierre IMO is one of the top base runners in all of baseball. Anyone that knows anything about baseball will tell you that when you have a guy who's as big of a threat as Pierre is on base that will cause the pitcher to commonly do 2 things; Throw more fast balls and pay more attention to Pierre at 1st causing a higher chance of a walk/missed location (bad pitch). This is something no statistic can account for though.

 

To me, it's more than individual stats for Pierre, it's the entire "team". Adding Pierre would result in Prince, Weeks, Hall seeing more fastballs and more "hitter friendly counts" resulting in increased production from the guys that we need increased production from.

[endaround]

Actually they can. Adn tehy show it harms the batter more than helps him.

 

And baseball is more an indiviudal sport than almost any team sport save cricket.

[sbrylski]

Anyone that knows anything about baseball will tell you that when you have a guy who's as big of a threat as Pierre is on base that will cause the pitcher to commonly do 2 things; Throw more fast balls and pay more attention to Pierre at 1st causing a higher chance of a walk/missed location (bad pitch). This is something no statistic can account for though.

 

Actually, statistics have shown that a basestealing threat on 1B hurts the batter more than the pitcher.

 

Also, statistics have shown that speed and stolden bases tend to be overrated.

[geothite]

The best thing about Pierre which I haven't seen in any of the comments about him is that he actually can field the position he plays. Something you can't accuse many Brewers of.

[Katuluu]

I'm pretty undecided on Pierre. I don't think he's as bad as many seem to think he is, and he's certainly better then at least a few of the options lobbied about to play CF for the Brewers next year, Anthony Gwynn Jr for example. But he is over paid for the skills he does have, and he most certainly has holes in his game. I guess I'd prefer if the team went after more complete players then try and overcompensate for some perceived team weakness.

[Gone]

Actually, statistics have shown that a basestealing threat on 1B hurts the batter more than the pitcher.

 

I love how the nerds (no offense) on here always tend to want to point out the "stats". My god, ask any baseball player if they'd rather hit with a Pierre on base or not and I'd bet atleast 80% would want to bat with the "threat on base".

[endaround]

And don't forget their lucky socks!

[mothershipconnection]

My god, ask any baseball player if they'd rather hit with a Pierre on base or not and I'd bet atleast 80% would want to bat with the "threat on base".

Most people would also tell you they'd rather not walk under a ladder or see the bride on the day of the wedding, it doesn't mean it makes them worse off though.

[sbrylski]

I love how the nerds (no offense) on here always tend to want to point out the "stats". My god, ask any baseball player if they'd rather hit with a Pierre on base or not and I'd bet atleast 80% would want to bat with the "threat on base".

 

I don't care what they want, its what the stats show. And who have you asked?

 

Upon further lookup of a study, it concluded that having a basestealing threat in you lineup results in a grand total of 1.3 runs per year. Basically, the fact that he is "distracting" the pitcher results in a insignificant net gain.

 

LINK

[laserbomb]

Most people would also tell you they'd rather not walk under a ladder or see the bride on the day of the wedding, it doesn't mean it makes them worse off though.

 

My fiancee wants to take me dress-shopping, cause she says I got style! Hope we're not doomed.

 

But as for Pierre, a lot of my favorite plays involve gunning guys out on the basepaths. I would hate knowing we've got a wounded-duck cannon out there when pitchers get in trouble and sac flies can do some damage. That's a painful way to lose, especially when guys like Turnbow and even Cordero pretty regularly put guys on before turning it on and getting out of it.

 

Even if he were on the team I'd rather keep another player like Hart or Weeks in the leadoff role. Not that they're stereotypical 1-slot guys and they'd probably fit better elsewhere, but at least there's a possibility somebody like that could grow into the role and get on base more than a third of the time.

 

Maybe Pierre could hit 8th, and then our poor-hitting pitchers might have a fighting chance to bunt him over more than half the time.

 

Is there any way to compare the net loss from his weenie arm to the gain from getting to fly balls most others couldn't?

[pogokat]

I didn't play in the majors, or minors, so my game experience "doesn't count"

 

but when i was in high school i hated when they ran while i was batting..it was similar to calling for a take...except you were half allowed to swing...i was actually chastised for hitting a home run one time because the coach had a straight steal on...

 

ridiculous...i hate stolen bases...

[rluzinski]

I love how the nerds (no offense) on here always tend to want to point out the "stats".

 

Wouldn't want to look at a record of actual baseball ABs, to see if theories are correct, would we? Naaa.

 

If having base stealers at 1B helped batters, they would perform better in those situations. For the most part, it appears they get very little extra advantage.* Much of the evidence supports the exact opposite conclusion. Ignoring that fact makes you ignorant in this regard (no offense).

 

It's an advantage to have any runner at 1st for a batter, especially a LH, because of defense positioning.

[colbyjack]

I'm pretty undecided on Pierre. I don't think he's as bad as many seem to think he is, and he's certainly better then at least a few of the options lobbied about to play CF for the Brewers next year, Anthony Gwynn Jr for example. But he is over paid for the skills he does have, and he most certainly has holes in his game. I guess I'd prefer if the team went after more complete players then try and overcompensate for some perceived team weakness.

 

This is the best, most well-stated post in the thread.

 

I want to make it clear that I'm not a huge fan of Pierre, but I do think he would fit the Brewers given some of the statements Doug Melvin has made this offseason, regardless of how serious you think he was when he stated those points.

 

I also agree that despite the stats that point to how batters fare when base-stealers are on base, it does change the way opposing teams face hitters, such as defensive positioning or the propensity for more fastballs, which in theory should help the batter at the plate. The fact that it doesn't points to an intangible part of the game involving the psyche and the approach of the batter.

 

Kevin Youkilis is a fat slow guy, and he hit leadoff, and scored more runs (100 to 87) than Juan Pierre. Because he gets on base (91 BB to 32).

 

I'm not sure if that is the best comparison, since Youkilis hit atop one of the more prolific run-scoring teams in all of baseball while Pierre hit atop one of the worst run-scoring teams in baseball (and for the most part has hit atop lineups that are average at best given his time in Florida). I'm not trying to go out of my way to make excuses for Pierre, who does make too many outs and should score more runs than what he is perceived to do, but 13 more runs than Pierre given the significantly higher OBP in a significantly more high-powered offense says either something not right with Youkillis batting leadoff or Pierre actually does do something to maximize his time while he is on base. Was Youkilis erased by an abnormally high number of double plays or something? I'm not saying he doesn't fit hitting leadoff, as you can't argue with his OBP, but since the difference in walks was so great, why wasn't the difference in runs scored? I don't expect it to be relative, but again, 13 runs isn't that huge of a difference, and I would expect Pierre to come close to 100 runs had he hit atop the Red Sox' lineup.

 

For comparison sake, Johnny Damon scored 117 runs in 2005 with a .366 OBP, although the Red Sox boasted the highest scoring offense in all of 2005.

 

Back to Pierre, I just want to close by saying his career OBP is .350. Not great, but not absolutely horrendous either. As for leading off, while I agree a leadoff hitter doesn't leadoff every inning, hasn't it been proven that the leadoff hitter leads off more innings than any other batter in any other spot in the order?

 

I still wouldn't sign Pierre for the money he likely will be looking for, but don't be surprised if Melvin does.

[rluzinski]

As for leading off, while I agree a leadoff hitter doesn't leadoff every inning, hasn't it been proven that the leadoff hitter leads off more innings than any other batter in any other spot in the order?

 

Well, of course, since he's guaranteed to lead off at least once a game. It's about 20% of the time. Considering random chance would put it at 11%, that's not a whole heck of a lot different. SLG isn't as important at leadoff but it's by no means irrelevant.

 

it does change the way opposing teams face hitters, such as defensive positioning or the propensity for more fastballs, which in theory should help the batter at the plate.

 

It's a very logical, straight forward theory. It just doesn't appear to hold up to any kind of scrutiny. At the very least, it's clear that any benefit is VERY subtle. I think some fans and even coaches think a speedy guy at 1B is a substantial advantage to a batter. It simply isn't.

[endaround]

It would be one thing if Pierre was very good defensively, but everything looks like he isn't much better than average. BP has him at 1 FRAA after being an average of -9 the prveious three seasons.

[splitterpfj]

I'm open to the possibility of Pierre because I would like more speed than the team currently has, and because I'm not particularly sold on any of the current CF options the team has.

 

When I say that, it's not so much about stolen bases as it is the ability to take an extra base, I like having more guys you can send home on a ball hit in the gap, etc.

 

The two downsides to me are, I'm sure Pierre will be overpaid for what he brings to the table, and I don't like the weak throwing arm. I'm interested, but not highly so.

[colbyjack]

rluzinski, I undestand all of your points, I'm just pointing out a few others on the other side of the fence without resorting to saying "don't you watch the games, clearly a leadoff hitter puts pressure on the opposing defense." There are factors, strategies and gameplanning at play on the field when you have a player such as Juan Pierre on base, even if the statistics point to the batters not succeeding as well. While I understand your position, these are points that can't be overlooked or ignored.

 

It's actually amazing how few players fit the mold of the prototypical leadoff hitter. While Rickey Henderson was the greatest of all time, Kenny Lofton in his prime was probably the last one that seemed to visibly make a difference each time he was on base because he was a threat in so many different ways. Of course hitting atop the Indians lineup during that era didn't hurt.

 

Johnny Damon is up there, but he's not a lethal base-stealing threat. Jose Reyes seems poised to be the next great one, and Carl Crawford could be up there as well, which is what makes him so incredibly appealing.

 

Oh yeah, and Craig Biggio, one of the most underrated hitters of all-time.

[colbyjack]

When I say that, it's not so much about stolen bases as it is the ability to take an extra base, I like having more guys you can send home on a ball hit in the gap, etc.

 

Another good point. This is also huge to me, as I'm not as overly concerned about a player stealing bases as I am about that player being able to progress effectively on the basepaths. Watching the playoffs, it's amazing to me how few runners are able to move from first to third on a single.

[pogokat]

Quote:

---

Watching the playoffs, it's amazing to me how few runners are able to move from first to third on a single.

---

 

This is why people love neifi perez...he understands that the best way not to "clog" a base is to have never been on base to start with

[Gone]

espn.go.com/mlb/columns/m...69981.html

 

While I realize some will continue to point to the statistics, here's a Hall of Famer who tends to agree with my points of the value of speed and a threat like Pierre. Here are a couple of Joe's thoughts --

 

Speed is No. 1 because it puts pressure on the defense.

 

The hitter knows he will get fastballs early in the count

 

On-base percentages are overrated for a leadoff hitter.

 

In Oakland, though, Jeremy Giambi is not a good leadoff man, even with a better than .400 on-base percentage

 

The A's lineup has to change if they want to win a championship. They can get away with a lineup built around high on-base percentages during the regular season, when they can generate big offensive numbers against mediocre pitching. But they will not win in the postseason without an ability to manufacture runs at the top of the order. When the A's faced the Yankees' excellent pitching in the last season's American League Division Series, they walked 11 times and scored only 12 runs in the five-game series

- this article is obviosly a few years old

 

Small ball" comes into play more against teams with the best pitching. And it all starts at the top. No one has the next Rickey, but having a leadoff man with a few more tools than on-base percentage will get a team closer to its ultimate goal

 

I'll agree to disagree with those that support the Billy Bean OBP% theories, but how many World Series have they won? Going up again this year vs. a very solid Detroit pitching staff their offense failed to produce and they lacked the guy who can produce a run when the offense is struggling. That part is something the Brewers IMO need to add.