Rotation battle

[local hero]

First, CC's .350 OB isnt't the problem...it's his lack of a suitable total of RBIs and RUNs when you reach base that often.

 

The blame for that falls on the hitters behind and ahead of CC. He has little control over hitting RBI's if nobody is on base and little control if nobody behind his is hitting.

Yeah, right...for the better part of 14 seasons. He has < 300 Xbase hits over FIVE THOUSAND PA's ...I'd bet that has to be near a ML record and largely the reason for a horrendous RBI total, REGARDLESS of where he is in the line-up.

 

He's never been a run producer, save for one or two years when he dang near had 6-700 PA's.

 

PA for PA he is underproductive.

 

James

 

 

[logan82]

It seems like you have made up your mind and continue to use stats mostly out of the players control to make your argument. If you had a more open mind this might be an interesting discussion.

[kramnoj]

Yeah, right...for the better part of 14 seasons.

 

So you truly believe that RBI shows the inherent value of a batter, and it doesn't matter how many opportunities they have? When Vinny Castilla knocked in 102 RBI and he had an OPS+ of 83, do you think he was a good hitter, or he was in an environment that led to run production and he had plenty of men on base in front of him?

[local hero]

^ ridiculous statement. If runs and rbi's are "out of a players control", they sure have turned a TON of players into warrantless MVP's, lol. What about his career .255 batting average, is that out of his control too?

 

James

[local hero]

of course they (RBI's) are conditional...virtually every statistic is to one degree or another. That doesn't render them wholly impertinent.

 

Homers are dictated to a point by what park a player plays in 81 times a year...even the division.

You'll score more runs on a team loaded with great hitters.

 

duh.

 

What I'm basing this on is a DECADE plus of play.

 

When you garner ONE extra base hit per 18 PA's, you prolly won't drive anyone in. Check.

When you don't hit homeruns, doubles, triples (god bless his 8 last year though), or steal bases, you probably won't score a lot either.

 

These are MAJOR players in RBI and RUN totals.

I'll give CC this: he can be at times a great late-game situational hitter and he's a patient hitter who can get on base. Both useful in their limited place. You can have the rest.

 

James

[kramnoj]

If runs and rbi's are "out of a players" control, they sure have turned a TON of players into warrantless MVP's, lol.

 

That's not a response. The idea that RBI is based on opportunity isn't that difficult a concept, but clearly some sportswriters don't grasp it (and there may be people in baseball who don't truly grasp it either, as seen by a recent interview with the Twins assistant GM).

 

What about his career .255 batting average, is that out of his control too?

 

Nobody said this, and there isn't much value in making up things that people don't say. No one said that Counsell is a good hitter. But he does have a good eye, and gets on base. He has extended rallies by taking a walk and letting the next guy be the hero. He usually bats lower in the order and doesn't get driven in like he would if he spent a whole season leading off or batting number 2 on a good offensive team.

[local hero]

^ "that's not a response"

 

NO, that WAS a response. Specifically, to your assertion that I'm making a "case" based upon stats that are "out of a players control".

 

That is a ludicrous statement. Again, the opportunities can be limited, but there are a CONSDERABLE number of other variables at play, INCLUDING: a players ability to hit home runs, doubles, and hit with RISP.

 

Me: "What about his career .255 batting average, is that out of his control too?"

 

You: "Nobody said this"

 

No, I said this. If your're going to absurdly assert that rbis and runs are out of a players control, why not just pile on? I mean, hitting in a poor line-up or largely unprotected SURELY inhibits the frequency of hittable ptiches, thus effectively lowering a players average?

 

Where does it end? You must, at some point, make some reasonable determinations based upon wheelbarrows of history/statistics.

 

In the case of Craig Counsell: he has been an unproductive offensive player for the majority of career by virtually any reasonable standard.

 

James

[local hero]

Last, let's talk rbi "opportunities".

 

What has Counsell hit in 14 years with RISP?

 

.265

 

Talk about making the most of your "opportunities".

 

James

[gobrew23]

When you garner ONE extra base hit per 18 PA's, you prolly won't drive anyone in. Check.

If the bases were loaded everytime he hit a single, then yes, he would drive in a lot of runs... as everyone else is trying to say, RBI is a stat that is somewhat driven by opportunity.

 

If someone bats .300 for a season, but the people ahead of him were rarely on base and that person only has 30 RBI on the season, does that make them a bad player?

 

EDIT: sorry for continuing this completely off-topic tangent.

 

EDIT 2: Mark Reynolds batted .208 w/ RISP last season, yet managed 102 RBI. So, on one hand he is good because he had 102 RBI, but bad because he batted .208 w/ RISP?

 

 

[sheethead]

This is where you misunderstand their motive. They both want to win. That is much more important to them than getting any value out of money that has already been spent.

 

Its a business, so its obvious the true motive is to make money. Winning is the best way to make money, so obviously they both want to win.

 

Not to hijack the thread from CC discussion, but since I am entrenched in this personal bias against Suppan I would like to know: who honestly believes Suppan can help the Brewers win games in 2010? Once you find about 10-15% of people may actually think he can, then answer honestly, where are Mevlin and Attanasio's motives when his is in the rotation to begin the season? Can you honestly say their motives are to win games when they throw a pitcher out there that clearly is being out-pitched by others?

[local hero]

When you garner ONE extra base hit per 18 PA's, you prolly won't drive anyone in. Check.

If the bases were loaded everytime he hit a single, then yes, he would drive in a lot of runs... as everyone else is trying to say, RBI is a stat that is somewhat driven by opportunity.

 

If someone bats .300 for a season, but the people ahead of him were rarely on base and that person only has 30 RBI on the season, does that make them a bad player?

 

EDIT: sorry for continuing this completely off-topic tangent.

 

he's a below-average offensive player, regardless of where he hits/has hit in the line-up. BTW: see the post above for what he's done with his "opportunities"...all 1200 of em'.

 

To get this back on track sheethead, I for one have no "bias" against Suppan other than he's been a proven method to help this team lose more games than win them.

 

With that "bias" in mind, I do not wish to see him throwing anything but peanuts for the Crew in 2010.

 

That said, I do not know what brass' motives are. At this point I can't see it much beyond one final chance to, attempt to prive this guys's worth (bizarre), or, two, give them an absolute air-tight case to unload him (nevermind the 3 last three seasons and this ST, I guess). If you're like me and believe he's pretty much already in the SR, then you're not left with much else. I hope to be proven dead wrong.

 

James

 

 

[TooLiveBrew]

There's quite a few things one can see that Macha lacks before irresponsibly suggesting he lacks intelligence.

 

Sorry, should have said "not that intelligent when it comes to baseball", which I believe is certainly a reasonable thing to wonder.

[zzzmanwitz]

In the case of Craig Counsell: he has been an unproductive offensive player for the majority of career by virtually any reasonable standard.

 

I don't think anyone will argue with you on that. But its because of statistics he can control, not because of RBIs and Runs. His career OPS+ is 81. That is definitely below average.

[kramnoj]

Last, let's talk rbi "opportunities".

 

What has Counsell hit in 14 years with RISP?

 

.265

 

Talk about making the most of your "opportunities".

 

James

Considering that Counsell is a career .258 hitter, he seems to do better with men on base. Of course, I think most people hit better with men on base, so the further question would be how does Counsell compare to other hitters while hitting with men on base versus without.

And of course, nobody is trying to argue that Counsell is particularly good at driving in RBI. He doesn't have power, so it would be hard for him to do so.

 

*******

who honestly believes Suppan can help the Brewers win games in 2010?

As has previously been stated, I don't think anybody here wants Suppan to start. But a few of us would rather keep him around on the assumption that he is about the 7th or 8th best SP the Brewers have, and there's a good chance that the Brewers will need one of those this season. There isn't a reason to discard him when it is likely he will be the best option at a later time.

hen answer honestly, where are Mevlin and Attanasio's motives when his is in the rotation to begin the season? Can you honestly say their motives are to win games when they throw a pitcher out there that clearly is being out-pitched by others?

You are using the word "is", when the word should be "if". He is not explicitly in the rotation. He is fighting for a spot. There are 3 people that are locked in the rotation right now and Suppan isn't one of them. If he was already a lock in the rotation, it would be easy for management to say so and that ST starts don't matter to a veteran starter. There would still be a battle for the final spot between Bush, Parra and Narveson. Instead, we have the current situation where Suppan is competing for a spot.

[Funketown]

No, I said this. If your're going to absurdly assert that rbis and runs are out of a players control, why not just pile on? I mean, hitting in a poor line-up or largely unprotected SURELY inhibits the frequency of hittable ptiches, thus effectively lowering a players average?

 

Where does it end? You must, at some point, make some reasonable determinations based upon wheelbarrows of history/statistics.

There are wheelbarrows of information that seem to suggest that the notion of "protection" is almost entirely non-existent.

[TooLiveBrew]

Can you honestly say their motives are to win games when they throw a pitcher out there that clearly is being out-pitched by others?

 

Clearly their intention is to assemble the worst roster they can, without arousing serious suspicions. They're basically on the Cardinals' payroll.

[local hero]

In the case of Craig Counsell: he has been an unproductive offensive player for the majority of career by virtually any reasonable standard.

 

I don't think anyone will argue with you on that. But its because of statistics he can control, not because of RBIs and Runs. His career OPS+ is 81. That is definitely below average.

 

I'm trying to leave this alone, but a few are not making it easy on me.

 

Garnering extra base hits garners you more RBIS and RUNs. Counsell hasn't done this for virtually his entire career.

Stealing bases increase your chances of scoring runs...he hasn't ever really done this, save for a couple of years.

Hitting for a high average with RISP garners you more RBIs. He has hit .265 with RSIP over a 14 year career.

 

Runs and RBIs are anything but out of your control. Some items work against you, but, when you do not do any of the above well, you are digging your own hole.

 

Let's put this in perspective: no one in their right mind expects (ed) him to drive in or score 75-100 runs a year, given his scenario. That's not mine or any sane man's argument. My argument is directly linked to where he HAS hit and platyed throughout his career- and he underproduced for his role.

 

Even if he's a local.

 

James

[local hero]

No, I said this. If your're going to absurdly assert that rbis and runs are out of a players control, why not just pile on? I mean, hitting in a poor line-up or largely unprotected SURELY inhibits the frequency of hittable ptiches, thus effectively lowering a players average?

 

Where does it end? You must, at some point, make some reasonable determinations based upon wheelbarrows of history/statistics.

There are wheelbarrows of information that seem to suggest that the notion of "protection" is almost entirely non-existent.

 

would absolutely love to see them.

 

James

[TooLiveBrew]

I'm trying to leave this alone, but a few are not making it easy on me.

 

It's because the ability to hit for extra bases doesn't help much with your teammates getting on base ahead of you or driving you in.

[local hero]

"Considering that Counsell is a career .258 hitter, he seems to do better with men on base. Of course, I think most people hit better with men on base, so the further question would be how does Counsell compare to other hitters while hitting with men on base versus without.

And of course, nobody is trying to argue that Counsell is particularly good at driving in RBI. He doesn't have power, so it would be hard for him to do so."

 

he also is a below averag run-scorer for an infielder and games played.

 

So, he doesn't drive in runs with any proficiency, he doesn't score with any proficency, he doesn't hit with any proficiency, he doesnt hit with power with proficiency, he doesn't hit for extra bases with proficiency, he doesn't hit with RISP with proficiency, and he doesnt steal bases with proficiency.

 

talk about your 5 tool player.

 

James

[local hero]

I'm trying to leave this alone, but a few are not making it easy on me.

 

It's because the ability to hit for extra bases doesn't help much with your teammates getting on base ahead of you or driving you in.

Good grief. Of COURSE it does. Homeruns, triples, and doubles drive in guys from first and second base (with less than two outs). Ditto for placing yourself FURTHER up the basepaths....you are MUCH more likely to score. I'm not going to do the leg-work for you...just watch ESPN for one game, they'll supply you with all of the scoring tendencies everytime someone reaches base.

 

Further, so the World Champion Marlin teams, the Diamondbacks and Brewer teams he played on were/are offensively offensive?

 

LMAO!

 

James

 

 

[Funketown]

No, I said this. If your're going to absurdly assert that rbis and runs are out of a players control, why not just pile on? I mean, hitting in a poor line-up or largely unprotected SURELY inhibits the frequency of hittable ptiches, thus effectively lowering a players average?

 

Where does it end? You must, at some point, make some reasonable determinations based upon wheelbarrows of history/statistics.

There are wheelbarrows of information that seem to suggest that the notion of "protection" is almost entirely non-existent.

 

would absolutely love to see them.

 

James

Here are a couple of links that may be helpful:

 

http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine/protstudy.txt

 

http://www.sabernomics.co...rnality-it-doesnt-exist/

[zzzmanwitz]

So more or less James, you are saying that CC doesn't hit extra base hits, which is reflected in his SLG which is something he controls.

[kramnoj]

he also is a below averag run-scorer for an infielder and games played.

 

Since you've stated this as fact, back it up. How many times has he been on base, compared to how many runs he has scored. Given all the times that he has been on base and hasn't scored, what did the hitters behind him do? How many times was he stranded because the hitters behind him didn't help him out by advancing him? It shouldn't be hard for you to do this, since you clearly know it to be true.

[local hero]

There are wheelbarrows of information that seem to suggest that the notion of "protection" is almost entirely non-existent.

 

would absolutely love to see them.

 

James

Here are a couple of links that may be helpful:

 

http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine/protstudy.txt

 

http://www.sabernomics.co...rnality-it-doesnt-exist/

A read large sample of it and have many misgivings with the site's contention, as well as the links themselves. including: small sample sizes, the ever-omnious "mixed-results" (not usually terribly indicative of a scientific study) and the link I was most interested (as a student of statistics) didn't work at all (the link to the actual study).

 

Most improtantly though, my largest hurdle was with his contention of looking at "protection" up and down the line-up which I am NOT a subscriber too (I believe it DOES exist, but usually to a much lesser degree).

 

I appreciate the links, I will look them over in more depth later.

 

James