MLB Chatter Thread

[T-RO]

A strikeout is not 'just an out'. It has no possibility of advancing a runner. A flyout or groundout can. They can even produce a run.

And I wouldn't put the % that high on walk/hit. A walk will only advance a runner if there is somebody on the base ahead of them. A hit will advance any runner.

I hear what you are saying but pop ups don't advance a runner. Line outs and many grounders don't. My point is there is an emotional reaction to strike-outs that isn't rational. (Perhaps an aesthetic reaction as well, which I can somewhat understand)

And I said walks are 90% as good as a hit because of the occasional extra advancement or runners.

 

[Rev]

When you have to come up with all of those formulas to justify the guy then perhaps he isnt worth the trouble.

Let him be someone else's magic bean.

 

[T-RO]

When you have to come up with all of those formulas to justify the guy then perhaps he isnt worth the trouble.

Let him be someone else's magic bean.

Formulas?

It's those who fall in love with--and can't see past-- the batting average "formula" that aren't seeing the run production. Batting average is a primitive and lame stat (or formula).

In the past five years what Ranger has scored more runs and driven in more runs than Joey? I'll wait for a name.

 

[Rev]

Formulas?

It's those who fall in love with--and can't see past-- the batting average "formula" that aren't seeing the run production. Batting average is a primitive and lame stat (or formula).

In the past five years what Ranger has scored more runs and driven in more runs than Joey? I'll wait for a name.

Well they have been crap for most of those years so that isnt saying much. I mean someone has to do it, right? I will take the Trouts and you can have the Gallos

 

[T-RO]

Well they have been crap for most of those years so that isnt saying much. I mean someone has to do it, right? I will take the Trouts and you can have the Gallos

You won't be taking Trouts because there is only one and he plays for the Angels.

And you are admitting Joey's been the best (most productive) Ranger. So the disdain seems again to be emotionally based (you don't like seeing the batting average and/or have undue revulsion towards strike-outs)

 

[T-RO]

Gallo got on base 38% of his at-bats in 2021.

For comparison:
Solak? IKF? 31% of their at-bats.
Adolis? 29% of his at-bats.

Gallo also had best slugging percentage...by far.

 

[Rev]

You won't be taking Trouts because there is only one and he plays for the Angels.

And you are admitting Joey's been the best (most productive) Ranger. So the disdain seems again to be emotionally based (you don't like seeing the batting average and/or have undue revulsion towards strike-outs)

Im saying that he was the shiny turd.

Im also saying the Trouts as in players that hit. Name any of the top hitters. I will take them. You can scrounge up some more formulas.

 

[T-RO]

Im saying that he was the shiny turd.

Im also saying the Trouts as in players that hit. Name any of the top hitters. I will take them. You can scrounge up some more formulas.

You are the one stuck on formulas. Old useless batting-average formulas that aren't very relevant.

I like runs.

 

[Rev]

You are the one stuck on formulas. Old useless batting-average formulas that aren't very relevant.

I like runs.

And my guys produce more.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Formulas?

It's those who fall in love with--and can't see past-- the batting average "formula" that aren't seeing the run production. Batting average is a primitive and lame stat (or formula).

In the past five years what Ranger has scored more runs and driven in more runs than Joey? I'll wait for a name.

Correct.

This is how I see hitting.

The most important thing a hitter can do is not "drive in a run", or "score a run" or even "get a hit", it's to not make an out.

Because the only thing that can end your inning (ie. your chance at scoring runs) is outs. The name of the game as a hitter is avoid outs at all costs (just like, conversely, the name of the game for pitchers is to get outs).

That's measured by OBP, not batting average.

It's not any formula or jumping through hoops any more so than batting average, it's just that OBP measures the right things, and batting average does not.

Batting average is among the most useless statistics in sports.

That's not to say just getting on base means that's "the best thing a hitter can do", that's a different thing.

Obviously the best thing a hitter can do is hit a home run. Second is hitting a triple, then double, then single, then walk. These are all good outcomes though. And the point is that includes walks.

Fortunately there's a stat that measures how well you maximize your at bat, and it's called slugging percentage, which is another important stat.

The best hitters are high in both OBP and slugging percentage. In other words, they are good at avoiding outs and also good at maximizing their at bats.

And when you add how well a hitter avoids outs with how well he maximizes his at bats, you get OPS.

For my money, OPS is probably the single best, most precise and accurate measure of how good a hitter is. It's not everything because nothing is, but it takes you a long way to understanding how good a hitter is.

I like OPS+ because it gives you better context and is easier to understand what's good and what's not.

This is all simple logic, it's not hocus pocus or anything else. People get caught up in the archaic notions they grew up with though.

 

[Rev]

Correct.

This is how I see hitting.

The most important thing a hitter can do is not "drive in a run", or "score a run" or even "get a hit", it's to not make an out.

Because the only thing that can end your inning (ie. your chance at scoring runs) is outs. The name of the game as a hitter is avoid outs at all costs (just like, conversely, the name of the game for pitchers is to get outs).

That's measured by OBP, not batting average.

It's not any formula or jumping through hoops any more so than batting average, it's just that OBP measures the right things, and batting average does not.

Batting average is among the most useless statistics in sports.

That's not to say just getting on base means that's "the best thing a hitter can do", that's a different thing.

Obviously the best thing a hitter can do is hit a home run. Second is hitting a triple, then double, then single, then walk. These are all good outcomes though. And the point is that includes walks.

Fortunately there's a stat that measures how well you maximize your at bat, and it's called slugging percentage, which is another important stat.

The best hitters are high in both OBP and slugging percentage. In other words, they are good at avoiding outs and also good at maximizing their at bats.

And when you add how well a hitter avoids outs with how well he maximizes his at bats, you get OPS.

For my money, OPS is probably the single best, most precise and accurate measure of how good a hitter is. It's not everything because nothing is, but it takes you a long way to understanding how good a hitter is.

I like OPS+ because it gives you better context and is easier to understand what's good and what's not.

This is all simple logic, it's not hocus pocus or anything else. People get caught up in the archaic notions they grew up with though.

Thats a lot of words to admit that you are wrong.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Genghis Khan]

Trout is fantastic obviously.

Notice that his OBP and SLG are through the roof.

He doesn't exactly disprove the point.

And it doesn't mean Gallo sucks because he doesn't measure up to an all timer.

 

[Rev]

Trout is fantastic obviously.

Notice that his OBP and SLG are through the roof.

He doesn't exactly disprove the point.

And it doesn't mean Gallo sucks because he doesn't measure up to an all timer.

Again Im not talking about Trout only. Talking about the hitters that I prefer and that takes into account a whole lot more than Gallo.

You also have to remember I have backed Gallo for a very long time on this board and I understand what you are saying. Probably the biggest Gallo supporter here for many seasons. Its just run its course for me and Im glad that he is elsewhere.

 

[Cotton]

 

[bbgun]

Still a 72-win team. They'll be looking to unload both those guys within three years.

 

[Rev]

Still a 72-win team. They'll be looking to unload both those guys within three years.

Well when you take your payroll down to 22 then you have money to burn. With a new stadium they need to field a winning team soon or its going to be empty.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

What has gotten in to the Rangers? Haven't kept up with them in years. Why did they suddenly decide to spend all this money?

 

[NoDak]

What has gotten in to the Rangers? Haven't kept up with them in years. Why did they suddenly decide to spend all this money?

New stadium?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

New stadium?

Maybe so... It was open last year, but maybe the virus kept some away. (I think it was more the terrible baseball, though.)

I just assumed they were on the Astros tank plan. Maybe the owners got nervous and thought they'd better attract some people back.