Prediction for the game 8-4 Blue Jays win. Batista will give up 2 runs over 7 innings!

Anwyays why can't we move to the Central division!!

7-3 Jays. Just a guess.

Lineups from 'Yahoo!'

M. Lawton lf
O. Vizquel ss
T. Hafner dh
V. Martinez c
B. Broussard 1b
C. Blake 3b
J. Gerut rf
R. Belliard 2b
G. Sizemore cf

C. Gomez ss
E. Hinske 3b
A. Rios rf
C. Delgado 1b
V. Wells cf
F. Catalanotto dh
G. Zaun c
D. Berg lf
O. Hudson 2b

I said it last night and here it is again:
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why is Dave Berg starting in left field?

Johnson vs RH, 2004: .254/.304/.328
Berg vs RH, 2004: .237/.254/.305

Johnson's OF defense, 2004: Good
Berg's OF defense, 2004: Not Good

Somebody explain this to me.

Somebody explain this to me.

I call it the Alex Gonzalez factor. Reed is just better looking than Berg, hence more playing time.

There are lots of pitching prospects. It's just that most of them fail - hence the difference between the terms major league "pitcher" and major league "pitching prospect".

Frankly, I'm sick of TINSTAAPP - it's nothing more than a simplistic mantra for some people to repeat and convince themselves they know what they are talking about.

I call it the Alex Gonzalez factor. Reed is just better looking than Berg, hence more playing time.

I guess that could be why Johnson plays more. Cause, I gotta tell you -- "and I say this with an unblemished record of staunch heterosexuality" -- Reed's better looking than Bergie anyday:


But, Johnson is a better player. And as for comparing Sparky to A-Gone, well, come on.

In relation to TINSTAAPP, isn't it more that the odds of a guy wrecking his arm and/or requiring surgery are so high, that until he hits the majors, it's difficult to project pitchers, or say with the same confidence that you can with hitters that a guy will be something?

I'm relatively new to the exciting world of sabermetrics, and so I'm a little dumsquizzled by this. I thought TINSTAAPP made a certain degree of sense, so I'm surprised to learn that "it's nothing more than a simplistic mantra for some people to repeat and convince themselves they know what they are talking about."

I might have to argue on that one.

With that mischevious look on Bergie's face he looks like he just be a little more fun in bed. lol.

As far as their playing time, i just find it hard to believe Berg has a job. I would rather see a 4th outfielder or Utility job go to a guy who has potential to one day be something more. I remember Woodward was in that role a few years back. Thats how Sparky himself got started is it not. Get rid of Berg! I'd rather have even Simon Pond in his spot!

In terms of TINSTAAPP and BP I believe it's partly a joke. If they really believed it they wouldn't put pitchers as high in their prospect lists, or would praise trades like Zambrano for Kazmir.

Regarding Elarton, the Astros handled him very, very poorly.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/profile.asp?Name=JEA
Regarding Elarton, the Astros handled him very, very poorly..

Why is that? I'm not saying that they handled him right, I just don't really know of the proper way to handle a pitching prospect.

His minor league career arc seems normal enough:
Rookie/A, A, A+, AA/AAA, AAA/MLB debut at the age of 22, his fifth pro season.

Why was Houston to blame in his case?

(COMN for his page at The Baseball Cube.)

So Cat is totally incapable of playing the field? Because if there's any righty in the league I'd like to see Phelps starting against, it's Elarton...

Frankly, I'm sick of TINSTAAPP
TINSTAAPP has become in baseball what the panopticon has become in the academy- a useful idea, concept if you understand it well, but abused by a bunch of people who think they know what it means from reading someone else's explanation of it. Misuse of the panopticon bugs me way more...

I suspect Sparky must be nursing a minor injury or something. I can understand giving him one day off, but two? The fact he sat against a lefty yesterday kind of backs this up.

Generally speaking, Tosca's been pretty insistent on putting Reed in the lineup whenever he can.

In terms of TINSTAAPP and BP I believe it's partly a joke. If they really believed it they wouldn't put pitchers as high in their prospect lists, or would praise trades like Zambrano for Kazmir.

They do believe it, just not in a literal sense. Without hitting the bookshelf to check, I remember BP specifically downgrading pitchers on their prospect list in relation to hitters because of it. OTH, Ryan Anderson's injury is what really got them to start doing this (maybe even made TINSTAAP popular), after they made him their #1 prospect.

Ok, so as far as TINSTAAPP goes, and I don't want the opprobium that comes from using it incorrectly, am I correct in thinking that the essence of it is that when looking at minor league pitchers, one has to remember that 95% or whatever, will flame out? You still use the same guidelines in evaluating and minor league performance is indicative of future major league performance but one must be aware that the vast majority of them will have arms that crap out?

If that's the point of it, and I suspect it is, the snobbery here about it seems to be a little over the top.

opprobRium, opprobRium

Yes, it's true that the risk on injury means it's harder to determine who the good pitchers are going to be based on their performance at AA and AAA (it's easier for hitters). But the acronym is what bugs me. "Prospect" by its very definition implies potential reward and risk: in this sense, pitchers are the quintessential prospects (think uncertainty). Think of the Old West and the term "prospecting". What is prospecting? It is taking a chance that has a huge payoff (finding gold) but is a longshot (gold is very rare).

If you must have a catchy acronym, why not something like APPAS (All Pitching Prospects are Suspect)?

As for the Zambrano for Kazmir trade, assuming that Zambrano is in the Mets plans for the next X years, does this trade get a little closer? It's a risk/reward thing? It seems to me that this could be the perfect situation in which to reflect upon TINSTAAPP.

I think it's more than misuse. I think the term itself is the problem - it's a misnomer.

Robert, the whole thing started to temper fans' (and analysts'- the BP guys fell victim with Anderson, and I think they were referring to the tendancy to think that your favorites are the exceptions, much the same wway we probably felt about McGowan) expectations- so it was a mantra that eventually became an acronym. Pretty sure it didn't start out that way.

Why was Houston to blame in his case?

This is going completely off of memory......

Elarton had some arm problems at some point early on. After coming back from the injury he had a lot of very high pitch games late in the season which was relatively pointless since the Astros were well out of contention at the time.

Pulling out BP01:

From 8/1 to 9/17 Scott Elarton threw 110 or more pitches in 10 straight starts, clearing 125 pitches 4 times in that span. I dare anyone to defend this usage pattern for a 24-year-old pitcher coming off of rotator cuff surgery on a team going nowhere

Can I just say that I love a place where people use words like "opprobrium" and "panopticon" while discussing pitching prospects? I had to Google both of them.

And I like APPAS. Makes more sense, and I never really believed in TINSTAAPP anyway. Sure there is. What do you call Scott Kazmir or Joe Blanton?

I think it's more than misuse. I think the term itself is the problem - it's a misnomer.

Which wouldn't be a problem if you bothered to look at their explanation of it, which people don't. It was never meant to be taken literally.

If I may interject, I first heard/saw the acronym as TANSTAAFL: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. My guess is that TINSTAAPP is simply the baseball equivalent.

Tom Cheek on the Fan today was pretty sure DelGado would be back next year. If anybody would have any insight you would think he does.

I never really believed in TINSTAAPP anyway. Sure there is. What do you call Scott Kazmir or Joe Blanton?

Are you reading the acronym or the explanation behind it? I think you and Robert are both arguing with the term rather than the theory- the two are not the same. The term has little meaning without the theory. The same thing is on with DIPS all the time.

I remember someone here once saying "TINSTAACMPP" - "can't miss" inserted into the acronym made much more sense.

Are you reading the acronym or the explanation behind it?

I was taking the term literally, as most people I've come across do. (I can't speak for my namesake, Mr. Dudek, of course.) Many people just repeat it as their new baseball law and discount any young pitcher yet to pitch above AA.

Well, the people I meet, at least. I need new baseball friends. :)

27 comments in a game thread before the game starts. Impressive.

Now, let's hope for Elarton to be Elarton-like. 9-2 Blue Jays is my prediction.

I know the English language, so when someone says "There is no such thing as a pitching prospect", I expect them to mean what it in fact does mean. Unfortunately, their statement was not merely an exaggeration, it's the furthest thing from the truth.

It's not a question of not taking it literally. Suppose we said, oh what they mean is that there are some pitching prospects, but they are rare. Is that reality? No, it is not (see above about the meaning of the word "prospect"). The reality is that there are many many pitching prospects with a relatively low overall rate of return.

"Which wouldn't be a problem if you bothered to look at their explanation of it, which people don't. It was never meant to be taken literally."

My point exactly dp. It seems to me to be a worthwhile acronym, within the scope of what I believe they are trying to communicate though.

While we're at it with Baseball Prospectus, I've been picking up some of their old stuff off of eBay, just to get an idea of where they've come from, and I have to admit I have a bit of a problem with them. On the back of the 2004 edition, they claim to have predicted a breakout season for V-Dub in 2003, despite actually predicting lower eqba, eqslg, and eqobp. This strikes me as absurd, and I don't really understand why people with a ton of interesting stuff to say-see the catching article at the back of BP04 would need to embelish like that.

Put me on the list of people that are tired seeing Josh Phelps on the bench. The guy is leading the team in RBI's and as we all know , has tremendous power. let the guy play the rest of the season. I don't care if you put him at 1st, Dh or in friggin right field, we can't drop any lower than last place in the east.

I know Its a managers job to try and win games, even if a playoff berth is out of reach. So maybe it's the GM's job to tell his manager to give phelps some consistent at bats. righties and lefties. Or is that too much of stepping on Tosca's toes? what do you think. Or does JP like to see Berg getting time while Phelps rots?

Alex Rios with a double.

I know this joke is getting old, but I'm in love with this guy...

Can we clone Rios? A couple clones would fill next years holes in LF,1B and DH ;)

Man it will be nice when we get a clean up hitter , that does a little cleaning up! Strike Out King!

I might as well shill a bit for BP Premium. I found this gem from a 1997 interview by Keith Law of Frank Catalanotto.

FC: You know, I've never understood the hype around Bordick. I've seen his numbers, and he just doesn't look that good.

Wonder how they got along last year.

I wonder how long we defend Delgado as "getting his swing back" before we expect him to hit?
Perhaps we could order 8 Rios clones?

You know what would be nice? If Batista could start just *one game* without Sportsnet having to mention how good he is when he throws a first pitch strike. It's a nice stat, and I appreciate them informing us of it, but surely there are other stats out there somewhere.

Ichiro had 5 hits today to push his average (not including the game going on right now) to .354

I remember not too long ago he was actually under the .290 mark.

Damm Ichiro must have hit over .450 in July.

I know the English language, so when someone says "There is no such thing as a pitching prospect", I expect them to mean what it in fact does mean. Unfortunately, their statement was not merely an exaggeration, it's the furthest thing from the truth.

Which goes to my point- you're taking it literally. The point of the statement is to address the hype around prospects and to acknowledge the high chance of failure in a given prospect- and again, it came out of a specific set of discussions that the acronym came to represent. I'm not sure why you insist on taking it totally out of context. The BP guys have answered this precise criticism over and over again in their chats.

It's kinda like a McLuhanism...meant to be the start of a conversation, not the end...

http://bigleaguers.yahoo.com/mlbpa/players/6615/splits
Very close Ron. Ichiro hit .432 in July (51/118)

dp,

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation.

What I've learned is that completely misusing a word is not a way to foster enlightenment. I'm sorry you don't share that view.

Robert,

I've gotta say, I don't quite understand the depth of your distaste
here. Am I safe in assuming that you don't use metaphors as well?

Holy Cow! Give the Pitching prospect thing a rest. The common sense most people have lets them know that the acronym is not meant literally, cause of course there are pitching prospects.

The minor league is full of pitching prospects...everyone knows that you can not disagree with that.

The acronym is merely calling attention to the fact that pitching prospects are very unpredictable due to the high risk of injury and other factors that make them so unpredictable.

http://www.mathesond.mindsay.com
But if we stopped talking about TINSTAAPP, we'd have to pay attention to the game

hmmmmm. what team was that again??

Tyler,

Of course metaphors are fine. If I see a bear and call it a "fish" is that a metaphor? No, that's simply a misuse of the term "fish". Similarly, I criticize BP for completely misusing the word "prospect". Furthermore, I charge that that misuse has inevitably led to distortion on the part of those not aware of the misuse.

I don't wish to say anything more on the subject at this time.

Robert, I guess we're just aiming at different things- you wouldn't hear the term "capitalism" and think you culd extroplate it's meaning in isolation. Prospectus does the Bill James thing- they say outlandish, counterintuitive and unconventional things to get your attention, then have a discussion to explain what they mean. I like it, personally. I mean, for us, this is baseball, not economics...no one starves if I misinterpret what BP meant...

Well, I have to jump in with at least one more retort ...

The acronym is merely calling attention to the fact that pitching prospects are very unpredictable due to the high risk of injury and other factors that make them so unpredictable.

Then why not just say, "pitching prospects are very unpredictable due to the high risk of injury and other factors that make them so unpredictable""? Why make up an acronym that means the OPPOSITE of that?

Here are the ideas:

1) Pitching prospects are risky (REALITY)
2) Pitching prospects do not exist (literal interpretation of TINSTAAP)
3) Pitching prospects are rare (non-literal interpretation of TINSTAAP)

#2 and #1 are contradictory and #3 is false.

Going, going, Zaun.

"Prospectus does the Bill James thing- they say outlandish, counterintuitive and unconventional things to get your attention, then have a discussion to explain what they mean."

The difference is that James chooses his words carefully; in this case (at least) Prospectus does not.

Ok What can anyone tell me about the Glenn Williams down in syracuse. When and how did we get him and is there any potential there.

Ok What can anyone tell me about the Glenn Williams down in syracuse. When and how did we get him and is there any potential there.

No offense Jdog but that sounds like the 4 year old who just wants to see his parents stop fighting ;-)...Unfortunately I don't have anything of substance to answer the question.

No offence taken A

I have just learned not to argue with people who are so un real.

I mean come on who doesn't know that the acronym is not supposed to be taken literally. Its just a clever way of getting a point across. In English class they may call it a hyperbole!

Great at bat Dave Berg.

Glenn Williams has been with the organization for a number of years. He's now 27, and is heading off to join the Australian Olympic team. He's hitting .259/.318/.499, so bearing in mind his age, his potential to contribute at the major league level is low. But, youneverknow.

Jdog,

Hyperbole is exaggeration. For example if the reality were that prospects were rare, then saying "There's no such thing as a prospect" is hyperbole. But if the reality is that there is a sheer abundance of prospects then saying "There's no such thing as a prospect" is either a lie or a sign of ignorance.

I suggest more English classes.

Excuse me ..Dude Robert!

you got something right...a hyperbole is an exageration..proves you have some knowledge ,, common sense must have just passed you by!

If there is an abundance of prospects and you state that there are none....that is an exaggeration, whether it is truth or not!

Here is Webster's definition of the word exaggeration

1 : to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth : OVERSTATE
2 : to enlarge or increase especially beyond the normal

so to enlarge beyond the truth is an exageration...thus a hyperbole

You lose again ..thanks for coming out!

Jdog,

You truly are stupid. Overstate does not mean to claim the opposite of the truth. That's what a lie is. If I eat 5 hamburgers and state that I ate 10, that's an overstatement.

Anyway, I wish you good luck in life - you'll need it.

Talking rhetorical devices in a baseball forum.

My english lit classes would have been so much more entertaining if they had gone like this.

Who needs Donne and Pope when you've got TINSTAAPP.

Other examples of hyperbole according to jdog ...

There is no such thing as water.
Baseball doesn't exist.
I've never eaten any food in my entire life.

Duder!

I did not say a thing about overstating. that was part of the definition i copied from websters.

I just made a clear point that an exaggeration can contradict truth....with the defintion there.

someone read our last few posts and tell Dudek that he needs to admit he is an idiot!

When someone uses the term LOOGY, do people really say "No, he can't possibly be a LOOGY, because last time out he got two batters out!"?

At the risk of being hypocritical: give it up. I've certainly pounded the heck out of a few non-baseball issues but you're all about to be charged with the genocide of grammer by the International Court of Justice (so no worries about jail time :p).

jdog,

You've just won a fabulous Batter's Box unvitation. Take care, and stay in school - it might do you some good some day.

Duder!

Baseball doesn't exist , could be a hyperbole..Cause obviously it does exist , just as pitching prospects do. SO if someone states that they are probably exaggerating.

Perhaps some old man is saying baseball doesn't exist to prove the fact that the game today is so different (with DH"S and mega homers) that it can't be baseball. He obviously knows it exists, but is just trying to prove a point through the use of exaggeration.

Anyone agree with that. Just tell me you see the light and you are saved from stupidity Dudek....im just trying to help your poor soul

A,

I think the International Court of Justice wants a word with you about your spelling ;-)

(I'm only doing this because I'm painting the freaking ceiling in my loft, and it is proving to be a stupid idea)

The acronym is an exaggeration (hyperbolic)- it says that pitching prospects never turn out, therefore there are none. To go back to your "prospecting" example- if you went out looking for gold in the mountains, and there was none, in any of the mountains anywhere, there would actually be no prospect of finding gold. Instead of saying "prospects never pan out" (the gold thing again), Prospectus is saying "they never pan out, therefore you can't say there is any such thing as a 'prospect'". It is an exageration, just not the way JDog was explaining it.

And I stick by my original point- BP never meant it to be taken literally, only used to make a point. Again, context- discussing the term as if it has no origin is kinda pointless.

Not really as complicated as we've managed to make it- I understand your frustration, but it should be with people who don't bother to read the source material before throwing out the term, not with BP trying to be provacative.

dp

What was wrong with my explanation?

Don't look now but Berg is 3 for 3. He must have read my Berg bashing before the game! Trade Hudson...Berg starts at 2nd!

Besides, isn't it more important to get announcers to say "RBI" instead of "RBIs", as well as "run and hit" instead of "hit and run"?

Leadoff runner to 2nd base none out ....Hudson the strugling wonder up to bat..........try a BUNT! I know most of you don't like it but in a two run game i sure do!

I know most of you don't like it

Souinds like a bit of hyperbole on your part, Jdog

Normally, after a lengthy at-bat like that I would be the first to say Great AB by Hudson right there or something like that. But that AB just chronicles Hudson's struggles. Howry left 2 or 3 fat pitches out over the middle of the plate and Hudson couldn't straighten anything out. He's really off-balance and just not picking up the ball well. I wouldn't bunt him in that spot, you just have to hope the guy can hit through his struggles because we've all seen how good a hitter Hudson can be.

mathesond,

i think your trying to be funny....and i indeed think you are!!

I just ahd to mention it cause a few games ago i wanted a bunt from hudson and he smacked a double...so everyone gave me the gears...

Besides, isn't it more important to get announcers to say "RBI" instead of "RBIs", as well as "run and hit" instead of "hit and run"?

I always thought there was a "run and hit play" where the runner tries to steal, and the batter swings if he gets a good pitch but isn't forces to try and make contact on anything. Not that announcers will ever tell you the difference. But they had it in Earl Weaver Baseball, so it must be real...

Good catch by VW.

He scares me when he leaps or dives when he doesn't really have to. That's one of the things Boston fans HATE about him!

ANd Why do Boston Fans hate that about him...I don't get it ?

dp,

I respect your view point (as I've said above). If you want to call it hyperbolic you're free too.

My opinion is that if someone says "prospects never pan out, therefore there are none" in a serious context, they are guilty of a serious misuse of language. Delving deeper into the discussion, where the nuances of their position are put forward, would obviously give the reader a different picture than sticking with and repeating the mantra of TINSTAAPP.

But it does not excuse the stupidity (yes, that's my value judgment) of knowingly making a completely false statement. It undermines credibility when serious writers do that (and I presume Prospectus is serious, not simply refugees from Comedy Central). Hyperbole is the enemy of understanding.

There's lots of ways to introduce this kind of idea in an interesting manner. But creating a complete falsehood that then gets transmitted (without the nuance attached) is not a service to the readership.

Hyperbole and deliberate misstatements may be entertaining, but I was under the impression that Prospectus aims to do more than merely entertain. I understand that one of their aims is to help people learn more about baseball. Am I wrong about that?

Going full circle, I stated at the outset that I am sick of TINSTAAPP. I am sick of Range Factor, OPS and a bunch of other things that are either obsolete or are inherently deceptive. The fact that those things continue to come up in discussions at this site irks me to no end. I wish I could somehow kill those things, but I don't know how.

JDog, I guess they think he's a showboat.

Da king! The K/HR king!

HOLY COW! Just talking on the phone with a friend, and I called the Delgado homer before the 3-1 pitch.

Awesome!

I honestly can't believe you Dudek!

everyone knows that there is baseball pitching prospects.....

how can a simple exaggertaion get you so crazy!

I have noticed that Vernon changes his batting stance the most out of any Blue Jay. Sometimes, he's waggling the bat (like now) and usually when he's doing that it means he's going well. Then there will be times where Vern doesn't waggle the bat and his stance is much lower and compact. THE WAGGLE IS BACK!

All right Carlos!!

Man, that pitch was so bad that I knew it was a HR before Carlos even swung at it.

Also another thing I've noticed about VW that amazes me. Anyone else notice that he literally spikes his heel into the ground to get his power surge. I find that incredible and I've been looking at other players stances and I've noticed that no one else does it. I think it's incredible.

A bunt? Interesting...

BUNT

A pick-off attempt at second and Cerruti/Faulds didn't call it 'the daylight play'??!! I think that's a first.

Okay, I just don't get this. Why not bunt? Is a "big inning" really that important when all you need is 1 run to take the lead? A bunt not only moves the go ahead run to 3rd with less than 2 outs, but it also puts a much needed insurance run into scoring position as well.

They are now risking a DP.

Tie game, bottom of the eighth, runners on 1st and 2nd, nobody out is one situation where a successful bunt is a good outcome. Being able to execute it is another matter altogether.

However, a wild pitch is a far superior strategy to the sac bunt!

i guess no faith in berg or hudson... hudson has been struggling, but berg is swinging a hot stick today although i doubt that makes a difference with a new pitcher

LOL, nevermind. Rafael Betancourt executes the sac bunt for the Jays with a wild pitch.

Tosca knew it all along.

Who needs a Bunt when you got the Indians Bullpen at work!

Oh no, the dreaded third base nobody out situation.

Looks like Chris Woodward is now the Jays DPR (Designated Pinch Runner)

Can Berg be the man?

He might require a nickname after this one :)

Holy Crap man on 2nd and 3rd no outs, and the count is 2-2 for Greg Zaun and then the skipper decides to give the free pass?

WTF?????

Rick White... pitcher by day, 00 agent by night...

Has Dave Berg ever had a 4 hit night? Now would be a cool time.

How bout a homer which gives him a 4 for 4 night with 5 RBI.

Wow, no faith in Hudson. A righty on the mound and Tosca goes with Menechino. Personally, I like this move.

WOW! WOW! Is the mouse ever patient!

Wow that was a perfect pitch.

That looked like a strike to me...

I think that was a strike. Oh well, I don't mind...

Not watching the game on tv, but was Victor Martinez taking out for bad defense or bad framing? Just wondering

I think that was a strike. Oh well, I don't mind...

Me neither, but I usually like my team to win without so much controversy. :)

Nice to see the Jays catch a break for once.

This is when Hinske would benefit from being able to settle down or as they say not get too high or too low.. after his reaction to his liner to Gerut which any amateur lip reader could devise, he came into the at bat with his frustrations carrying over. Don't get me wrong the emotion is great and you need certain guys who wear their heart on their sleevs, and I never expect him to be something he's not but if he could better channel that emotion in a more productive way he'd be all the more better for it.

Cornwall: Bad words. He said a few things to the home plate ump and was quickly tossed.

duh, makes perfect sense now :) stupid me

RhyZa, this is nothing compared to last season.

I remember that after EVERY called strike 3, and I mean EVERY Eric would start to argue with the home plate umpire. I used to find it hilarious but it looks like they might have talked to Eric and told him to take it easy on the umps.

Eric is naturally a fiery competitor and while I agree with you that he should channel his anger differently or "better" the odds of that happening are highly unlikely.

oh dear..........

Just looked at the AL East standings. Guess which team has the fewest runs allowed this season?

Nice, Jason!

exact same pitch...

Anything other than the Jays, and you wouldn't be asking that question. ; )

But on a somewhat related note I know in years past sometimes I'd catch myself thinking that we 'wasted' certain aspects of the season, which as nonsensical as it is (especially considering some teams like say the Red Sox, M's, A's or Cubs have wasted a lot more) is kind of hard not to do when you're a lower budget team... but this year I don't really have that feeling for some reason, hopefully we can put it all together sometime in the future.

exact same pitch...
Pretty nearly, I'd say.
I have a feeling the Indians are going to be bellyaching about this one for a while.

Oh come on. Go after Crisp, who cares if first base is open!

Now Jason has to face the dangerous Travis Hafner.

Going full circle, I stated at the outset that I am sick of TINSTAAPP. I am sick of Range Factor, OPS and a bunch of other things that are either obsolete or are inherently deceptive. The fact that those things continue to come up in discussions at this site irks me to no end. I wish I could somehow kill those things, but I don't know how.

Let me suggest writing some FAQ entries. Once written, they are easily referenced, so you don't need to repeat your basic points. Over time the readership at large will hopefully pick up the habit of referring readers to the FAQ when appropriate.

By the way, what do you prefer over OPS? (GPA? Win shares?)

And everyone went........Phew!

Hyperbole and deliberate misstatements may be entertaining, but I was under the impression that Prospectus aims to do more than merely entertain. I understand that one of their aims is to help people learn more about baseball. Am I wrong about that?

Very well-said, and if we're talking about something serious (and if we're people in a position to influence it), then I'd agree there's an imperative to be as clear and concise as possible. And if BP was more dogmatic than I see them, I'd also say we have a problem. But this is baseball, and my views don't make or break deserving players' careers. BP as I see it mixes entertainment with insight- in the case of TINSTAAp, from my viewpoint, they start with something untenable to get your attention, then take the discussion further.

Again, I'll go back to McLuhan, because there's a bunch of Canadians here so you know who I'm talking about :> A lot of people who do media studies will give you "the medium is the message" as if it's a conclusion, the end of a discussion. But it isn't. It's a springboard. Makes you question assumptions you had, doesn't tell you what to think but just where to start asking more questions. It assumes a dialogue. (of course I'm giving BP more credit than they're probably entitled to with the MM comp)

I'm guilty at times of leaning on "easy" stats- have never trusted RF tho, except for a very dark time in my life during the nineties. I'll leave the dirtier stat work to those who enjoy it and who're better at (like yourself) and try to find people I trust to provide accuracy. The point at which I stop having fun is usually the cut-off for talking about numbers, and that point tends to vary...

I'm pretty sure BP was being hyperbolic. Of course, this makes an assumption about author intent, but they've been pretty transparent so I'm comfortable with that assumption. I'm not good with numbers, but am pretty well-versed in hyperebole.

My advice would be to let it go...A few months ago, I stopped screaming every time I saw an "ATM Machine" sign or heard someone say "PIN Number" and even though I feel like I've lost part of myself, I'm a little happier :>

JAYS WIN!! JAYS WIN!!

And by the skin of their teeth too!

Frasor cuts it close, but a great come from behind victory!

Walk Hafner to get to Tim Laker? I know it's risky to put the potentially winning run on second, but this is a situation where it's worth at least considering.

I meant...pitch to Hafner. I'm confident he won't get a hit. Perhaps a fly out. To left.

Frasors recent outings are giving me a heart attack!!!

Even though the Tribe got jobbed on a strike that was called a ball and it cashed in a run, the victory still feels really good.

I think Frasor was just teasing us with that pitch to Hafner:)

RhyZa: yes I agree. I don't think the Jays were meant to contend in 2004. But I hope the respectable pitching from Batista, Lilly, Frasor et al. can carry forward into next year. The team does need to improve its overall performance a lot, though. Better OPS, for one thing. Somehow.

Yes, GPA [(1.8*OBP + SLG)/4] makes OPS obsolete. It weighs the on-base component much more accurately than OPS.

What's the significance of 1.8? (Is it DePodesta's number derrived from his equation that predicts a team's Runs Scored?)

Tangotiger figured it all out before he left Baseball Primer for parts unknown. Here is part 1 and part 2. And this is a key quotation I've plucked from part 1:

If you really wanted to find the best-fit among actual players, you'll have to repeat what I did (inserting each player into a team of 8 typical players), but for a much larger sample. I would expect the best-fit equation to fall somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0.

http://me.woot.net
Aaron Gleeman chose 1.8; it's entirely arbitrary.

Tangotiger figured it all out before he left Baseball Primer for parts unknown

Wow, I missed that.

Did some team hire him? I always though there were teams that could benefit greatly from him.

I read Moneyball last summer so I could be wrong about this but wasn't 1.8 the multiplier that A's management used for their internal OPS metric? Obviously, Tangotiger has done a lot of work on this as well. Which is why I dislike using the Gleeman Production Average as a stat. Gleeman has incredibly little to do to it. The analogy that fits is having some lesser explorer use the charts and maps of those who came before him to land on an island. The island has been discovered for some time but this new explorer realizes that no one has named it. He then sails home and names the island in his name.

I read Moneyball recently and had the same memory, Christian, though couldn't recall for sure.

Warning: massive tangent, rant-like thing ahead. People who have known me for more than 10 minutes know you don't mention a certain person's name without engaging "lecture mode." So ...

Ah, dp, you raise the spectre of Wired magazine's Patron Saint, the venerable Dr. Marshall McLuhan. You're wrong about him, but then, everyone (including me) is wrong about him.

To quote a famous old political line in the U.S. -- son, I know Marshall McLuhan; in fact, Marshall McLuhan is a friend of mine (hyperbolically speaking) ... and you, son ... well, you know the rest.

Without getting into the way-too-complex hot/cool media melange McLuhanites continue to (usually incorrectly) cite, which has been turned on its head by interactive multimedia -- like, say, blogging -- let's just remember that the heart of McLuhanacy is that, as he said many times, invention is adjustment.

As I've written elsewhere long ago (several careers back), McLuhan's favorite vehicle for information was the aphorism, which various dictionaries define as something like "a brief saying embodying a moral, a concise statement
of a principle or precept given in pointed words."

That's too technical a definition for what MM did. Basically, he liked playing with words. Which is how "the medium is the message" (which he would turn into "we are living in the 'the media is a mess' age") became his book title, "The Medium is the Massage," which was about messing with (massaging) words and images -- and of course, by the late 1960's and ubiquitous television, "The Medium is the Mass Age."

The aphorism, used effectively, is an extraordinarily cool -- in both McLuhan's and Arthur Fonzarelli's sense -- textual medium, as are the pun and the neologism. They require the audience to actively engage the term and look for meaning, figure it out. To take it literally AND not literally.

McLuhan also once wrote that games are an extension of man's (sic) ability to exist as a social being, so I think that an interactive blog about baseball might have tickled him to no end. But he didn't live in that time, and in his words, all he ever cared about was trying to "predict the present."

Or as McLuhan (is supposed to have) said: You think my fallacy is wrong? You don't like these ideas? I got others."

That is all.

I think that argument was possibly dumber than my argument about how loud it was in SkyDome. ;)

Hey, TV viewers -- did Martinez have a point? Was the pitch strike three? We couldn't tell in 518.

wasn't 1.8 the multiplier that A's management used for their internal OPS metric

I don't recall a specific ratio being given. On this topic, a larger point was made either in the book or by Lewis in subsequent interviews that while the exact weighting between OBP and SLG can be debated, the important thing is that there is some rational analysis going on. I guess this goes without saying around here.

Tangotiger has done a lot of work on this as well. Which is why I dislike using the Gleeman Production Average as a stat.

I think Robert made this point a while back as well. This is another reason for making a FAQ out of it (i.e. to link to the original work).

It is now called Gross Production Average. You may now use the stat without disliking it.

In Moneyball, Lewis relays that DePodesta weighs OBP 3 times more than slugging percentage. But Lewis, being a complete novice as regards sabrmetrics, goes into no detail as to what exactly that means. There was much discussion on Primer about this at the time, with a lot of commentary trying to divine what "high priest" DePodesta really meant.

The most likely conclusions (in my mind):

1) DePo was talking about the cost of each productive element in the marketplace for ballplayers. In a market where high OBP guys were undervalued, they might produce 3 times more offensive value per unit cost.

2) Lewis somehow grossly misrepresented what DePo said.

3) DePo was not looking at dollar figures and doing straight offensive analysis. If so (and if Lewis is to be believed) his results do not square with Tango's. Since his methods are unavailable for public scutiny, the most likely explanation would be that his methodology was flawed.

#2 and #3 and unlikely, which leaves #1 as the most plausible explanation.

Or as McLuhan (is supposed to have) said: You think my fallacy is wrong? You don't like these ideas? I got others."

You know nothing of my work.

(Yes, that is my sole contribution to this discussion. I'm sorry.)

"Hey, TV viewers -- did Martinez have a point? Was the pitch strike three? We couldn't tell in 518."

and how!

I think that argument was possibly dumber than my argument about how loud it was in SkyDome. ;)

Hey, only those who participate in an argument can pass judgment on how dumb it is ;-)

Hey, TV viewers -- did Martinez have a point? Was the pitch strike three? We couldn't tell in 518.

It was curving downwards and was caught lower than the strike zone, but on replay it was pretty clear (or anyway I thought so and I think Faulds and Cerutti did as well) that it entered the strike zone at the level of approximately the tops of Menechino's knees. So yeah, I think Martinez was probably right. The ump looked upset afterwards, in part because of the confrontation but also probably in part because he knew he might have blown it.

Hey, TV viewers -- did Martinez have a point? Was the pitch strike three? We couldn't tell in 518.

Yup. They showed the replay from the overhead cam and it was definitely outside. Jays got lucky for once.

Whoops I was thinking of a different out, in the 9th. Sorry bout that.

The curve that struck out Grady Sizemore for the first out of the 9th was outside according to the overhead camera. But we KNOW that 90% of umpires give a couple of inches on the outside corner (because they set up on the inside corner and so have an imperfect view of the outside). Maybe they should have two homeplate umpires - one for the inside corner and one for the outside corner (I'm only half-joking).

Ball 4 to Menechino should have been called a strike.

"Hey, TV viewers -- did Martinez have a point? Was the pitch strike three? We couldn't tell in 518."

and how!

I said earlier in the thread that I thought it was a perfect pitch. I will add that we didnt get to see the overhead camera, but from the other angles it looked like it was on the corner, right at the knees.

IMO he couldnt have made a better pitch.

It's Gross Production Average now? Consider me back on the GPA train.

You know nothing of my work.

Well, that quote came from a graduate student of McLuhan's. So even though it wasn't ever in a published work, I'm inclined to give it some (note the parenthetical qualifier) credence.

But on a somewhat related note I know in years past sometimes I'd catch myself thinking that we 'wasted' certain aspects of the season

Wow, I thought I was the only one who felt that way. I totally understand what you mean. Like David Newhan right now, hitting the daylights out of the ball over 150+ at bats, seems like a wasted effort. It's extremely likely this is the best stretch of his entire career, and yet it's wasted on an awful Orioles team. 4 years from now, if Baltimore is contending, and they call up some shmuch who hits .150 over 150+ at bats, David Newhan may have been the difference for them. I know it really is nonsensical, but I think about it all the time.

goes into no detail as to what exactly that means

And DePodesta has managed to go a couple years without having to answer this question? Wow.

Yeah, well, that's what you get when get three balls on a hitter late in the game. Serves him right. It's about time we get some calls our way. It seems we've been getting hosed by umps for two years. Since the All-Star break it seems we've been getting luckier.

Menechino knew too. Did you see that look on his face as he did the bat-flip sales pitch, peering at the ump through the corner of his eye?

Tosca dodges another bullet. If the Indians tied it in the 9th, we're wondering why Frasor tired himself out yesterday, while revealing all his pitches (both of them!) to the Cleveland bench.

Justin Miller for closer! Doesn't it make sense? I don't think Frasor has what it takes. He can't do 2-3 innings when called upon. He can't be effective two days in a row. And he doesn't have the repertoire of a closer. Remember when Henke was really sick he'd go underhand at the hitter. They had no idea. Though, I hear Frasor's working on a curve. So that means he has a fastball, a changeup, a curveball. Frasor's a good set-up man.

Yeah, well, that's what you get when get three balls on a hitter late in the game. Serves him right. It's about time we get some calls our way. It seems we've been getting hosed by umps for two years. Since the All-Star break it seems we've been getting luckier.

Menechino knew too. Did you see that look on his face as he did the bat-flip sales pitch, peering at the ump through the corner of his eye?

Tosca dodges another bullet. If the Indians tied it in the 9th, we're wondering why Frasor tired himself out yesterday, while revealing all his pitches (both of them!) to the Cleveland bench.

Justin Miller for closer! Doesn't it make sense? I don't think Frasor has what it takes. He can't do 2-3 innings when called upon. He can't be effective two days in a row. And he doesn't have the repertoire of a closer. Remember when Henke was really sick he'd go underhand at the hitter. They had no idea. Though, I hear Frasor's working on a curve. So that means he has a fastball, a changeup, a curveball. Frasor's a good set-up man.

Mick
McLuhan also once wrote that games are an extension of man's (sic) ability to exist as a social being, so I think that an interactive blog about baseball might have tickled him to no end. But he didn't live in that time, and in his words, all he ever cared about was trying to "predict the present."

MM is the most influential thinker I've encountered; after reading all his work a couple of times, writing a Master's essay on it, I thought I had a handle on it. Reread everything recently and realized I was wrong about a bunch. He's just that kind of guy. Weird- the 3 big "aphorism" writers- Wittgenstein, McLuhan and Neitzsche all use it in a different way.

BTW- I teach in a media studies dept, and I refuse to discuss hot/cool media. I don't think anyone understands it, but they feel compelled to talk authoritatively about it anyway. There's so many more valuable contributions in his work...

Going full circle, I stated at the outset that I am sick of TINSTAAPP. I am sick of Range Factor, OPS and a bunch of other things that are either obsolete or are inherently deceptive. The fact that those things continue to come up in discussions at this site irks me to no end. I wish I could somehow kill those things, but I don't know how.

For starters, find replacements for them. GPA seems to be a simple, intuitive (and from what I've read) more accurate version of OPS, so I don't mind making the switch.

Give me a replacement for RF and ZR, and I'll gladly stop using them. Just stop trying to ram subjective opinions on defense down people's throats without backing them up with some evidence.

Justin Miller for closer! Doesn't it make sense? I don't think Frasor has what it takes. He can't do 2-3 innings when called upon. He can't be effective two days in a row. And he doesn't have the repertoire of a closer. Remember when Henke was really sick he'd go underhand at the hitter. They had no idea. Though, I hear Frasor's working on a curve. So that means he has a fastball, a changeup, a curveball. Frasor's a good set-up man.

I think you heard wrong -- as far as I know, Frasor is working on a changeup. He's strictly fastball/curve right now.

He gets into trouble when he can't get the curve over for strikes, and batters start sitting on the fastball (which at 93-94 MPH is not good enough to simply blow past MLB hitters).

The most unhittable guy in the Jays bullpen right now is Kevin Frederick. In 4 IP he's given up 1 hit and K'ed 4. This is after posting an aggregate AA/AAA line of:

1.11 ERA, 48.2 IP, 33 H, 14 BB, 52 K

He may need to make some adjustments on his second time through the league, but he looks great so far.

Score another nifty pickup of "free" talent for JP...

So what does the Jays bullpen look like next year anyway?

Frasor, Chulk, Frederick - seem like good bets to return
Peterson - will he get the callup next yr?
Ligtenberg - he's signed. Will JP dump him? Will he be able to?
Speier - arbitration eligible I think. Will the Jays let him go?
File, Lopez, Kershner, etc. - all had flashes of greatness, any chance of it returning?
Miller - I think the Jays are set on making him a starter, but it's possible I guess.

I think JP is really learning well on the job. First couple years we had scrap pieces for the bullpen, totally understandable considering our long-term goals and budget. He saw how weak our bullpen was and bought quality/proven guys. Clearly it hasn's worked but you can't blame him for the troubles these guys have had. I am sure atleast 2 of Kerry, Adams, Speire will return to form next year, if not all.

Teams need to target guys with a plus plus pitch, who have potential to develop something else. Its too expensive to get a guy with an array of plus pitches, and the former get overlooked. Frederick I think developed his cutter here, Im not sure, but if we can get some more guys like that, it be great. The problem is, it usually takes MLB hitters a year to adjust to new pitching. Frasor and Chulk may have some problems with teams having studied their pitches and tendencies. Atleast they have the makeup to spend the offseason changing those tendencies :)

I too must express my fears of the dynamic duo of Chulk and Frasor. As much as like these guys, and as much as I wish their continued success, to me it seems like the MLB getting used to their pitches is more probable than not. I hope I'm wrong though.

Re: Moneyball. I'm bored so I dug it out. "In his [DePodesta's] model an extra point of on-base percentage was worth three times an extra point of slugging percentage" (page 128, emphasis added). Presumably he's talking about marginal OBP and SLG above some particlar base line for each, as opposed to a simple linear weighting (1.0, 1.8, etc) of the entire OBP or SLG number.

Oh man, some serious fun up in 518 as I begin to get my voice back.

The funny thing was that Aaron's incredibly loud voice projected across the stadium and echoed. That's how quiet it was.

The good thing is that skydome fans are getting MUCH better at cheering on cue (good catches, strikes, hits, homers, etc.), and unlike stupid Yankee fans they don't act like anything that isn't a ground ball is a probable home run.

With regards to the weighting, let's just compare a little.

Take a typical .275/.330/.400 line, say. Is this guy better or worse than a
.275/.363/.300 hitter?
.275/.300/.490 hitter?
(Above uses 3x factor)
.275/.386/.300 hitter?
.275/.300/.454 hitter?

Though, I hear Frasor's working on a curve. So that means he has a fastball, a changeup, a curveball.

Keith, sorry to say but you are so out of tune on this one.

Frasor has a fastball, curve (a really good one) and a change as his third pitch (which is in development stages). He brought the power curve with him from LA (i.e he already had it). He's working on a cut-fastball, and I think I've seen a few this year (it's tough to tell from the usual camera angle on TV). I'll ask him about it when I get a chance.

There are many closers who were basically two-pitch pitchers. If Frasor could develop a quality cut-fatsball he would have more than enough of an arsenal to be a closer.

As an example, Keith Foulke has a great change-up and an 88-90 MPH fastball - that's it.

gid,

Please read the two essays by Tangotiger. His approach boils down to a marginal approach to; i.e. it considers the effect of adding one player to a lineup.

Andrew S,

Just use the GPA formula above (ignore batting average) and you'll be able to answer your own question.

Smack,

Adams is already gone and he's NOT coming back.

Robert

I developed those stats using the mystical 3x value out of moneyball and the ratio choosen for GPA. Earlier it was suggest the error bars on the 1.8 value in GPA are exceedingly large, I just thought it might be instructive to see some actual numbers, rather than just the abstract figures. The bottom two figures rate the same as the top one with GPA, but unless you're entirely sold on it, it doesn't make them equal players.

There's so many more valuable contributions in his work ...

dp, on that we agree fully. It's worse in a non-academic setting; when I bring up MM, which is almost never any more, I usually can't get past someone else starting with "as we all know, the medium IS the message, and Shockwave is the perfect example of that" or on hearing his name, saying "Ooh, the old guy from Annie Hall?"

So what does the Jays bullpen look like next year anyway?

Frasor, Chulk, Frederick - seem like good bets to return
Peterson - will he get the callup next yr?
Ligtenberg - he's signed. Will JP dump him? Will he be able to?
Speier - arbitration eligible I think. Will the Jays let him go?
File, Lopez, Kershner, etc. - all had flashes of greatness, any chance of it returning?
Miller - I think the Jays are set on making him a starter, but it's possible I guess.

Nakamura... Towers.. .

What I'm afraid of is that this is EXACTLY what the bull pen will look like next year...

Yesterday I convinced myself they needed to sign one big relief arm... If he's a solid closere then he makes everyone else better...
but even if he's a Mike Timlin type, it still helps a lot.

The problem is, 1B, RP, and an LF or DH, that's a lot to get for 5 or 6 Million...

I'm scared that the guy we'll get is another Terry Adams? or Jeff Tam, or Doug Davis, or or or ...

Robert: this thread is basically over but thanks for the links. I did ready Tangotiger's study; his use of marginal players is unrelated to the marginal value of an OBP point over the marginal value of a SLG point.

It's important to note that he only used a few hypothetical offensive lines -- many more could be used. It might be the case that in practice better than average players -- e.g. pick a group whose BaseRuns is in the 90th percentile of league average -- have a different ratio between OBP and SLG. It might be interesting to do a study like what he did using actual team/player records; run them all through BaseRuns (if you have data for this that I can use, please let me know). Make a graph with OBP on one axis and SLG on the other. For each team (or player), plot a point at the appropriate location. Then, for sets of teams (players) with some given value for BaseRuns (or whose BaseRuns value is within some reasonable small range), find the line that fits the points. Here is a graph for the first 6 hypothetical teams in his study:

(hope this shows up)



In any case the line is reasonably straight.

Aaron Gleeman chose 1.8; it's entirely arbitrary.

Not quite true. I think originally Aaron chose 1.7, but Tangotiger told him that using 1.8 (and dividing by 4) would bring a typical league average in the most recent era to .260 (a sort of typical league average batting average). It was done with readability in mind.