Use of Burke

[jbm]

Sorry if this has been discussed already, but what the hay: the simple question is "can we make a better use of Burke to improve our team?"  

My basic philosphy is that I am generally willing to sacrifice a good bit of defense, for a larger improvement in offense.  I am not well versed in the metrics, but we have some anemic offensive players, and I am going to assume Burke could post an OPS of 800.  I actually feel a higher value is much more likely than a lower.

At any rate, based on that assumption, I always look to some of my usual suspects for replacement.  First is Everett.  I will assume (graciously at this point in the season) that his year end OPS will be 660.  I have read that the organization does not consider Burke a shortstop, and I will grant that he can't field the position like Everett, but given Burke's athleticism and experience with the position in the past, I doubt he is a stiff out there.  Therefore, it seems logical to me to give Burke a lot of playing time at short.  Thoughts?

My second candidate for replacement might be heresy to many Astro fans, but it is Taveras.  I realize one could easily argue for Wilson, or even Lane, but I can project Wilson and Lane with OPSs of 750 (to much higher), but I just don't ever project Willy to have an OPS much over 700, certainly not this year.  In fact, I read one of the sports writers this morning talk about not trading Willy and I thought "If there is just one other team that projects this guy as valuable, let's make a deal now."  At any rate, one could move Burke to left, and Wilson to center.  

At any rate, without a trade, or trying some minor leaguers, I see Burke as our best unused offensive talent, and would like to get him in the everyday lineup.

Disclaimer.  I'm sort of new to a lot of the new offensive metrics, and used OPS as my measure.  There may be better measures, but I doubt they would make Adam's or Willy's offensive production look much better.

[pravata]

Burke, once his shoulder isn't barking at him, will probably see significant time, likely in right or center.  Garner seems to have a "feeling" about Wilson.  Everett playing shortstop for the Astros has nothing to do with his OPS.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Have you discussed this with Garner? What difference does it make how I think anyone should be used? I've tried to send mental messages to Purpura, Garner, and McLane. We're obviously not on the same frequency... or channel... or bandwidth... or wavelength... or anything.

[JimR]

whoo boy. with the arrogance in your first post one day after registration, i cannot wait to see what comes next.

glad to know you are right on top of things, and i look forward to "your" changes.

oh, yeah. fuck OPS. if you use that to get rid of Taveras, it ain't worth much.

ps Burke CANNOT play SS. are you new to this planet?

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
Sorry if this has been discussed already, but what the hay: the simple question is "can we make a better use of Burke to improve our team?"  

My basic philosphy is that I am generally willing to sacrifice a good bit of defense, for a larger improvement in offense.  I am not well versed in the metrics, but we have some anemic offensive players, and I am going to assume Burke could post an OPS of 800.  I actually feel a higher value is much more likely than a lower.

At any rate, based on that assumption, I always look to some of my usual suspects for replacement.  First is Everett.  I will assume (graciously at this point in the season) that his year end OPS will be 660.  I have read that the organization does not consider Burke a shortstop, and I will grant that he can't field the position like Everett, but given Burke's athleticism and experience with the position in the past, I doubt he is a stiff out there.  Therefore, it seems logical to me to give Burke a lot of playing time at short.  Thoughts?

My second candidate for replacement might be heresy to many Astro fans, but it is Taveras.  I realize one could easily argue for Wilson, or even Lane, but I can project Wilson and Lane with OPSs of 750 (to much higher), but I just don't ever project Willy to have an OPS much over 700, certainly not this year.  In fact, I read one of the sports writers this morning talk about not trading Willy and I thought "If there is just one other team that projects this guy as valuable, let's make a deal now."  At any rate, one could move Burke to left, and Wilson to center.  

At any rate, without a trade, or trying some minor leaguers, I see Burke as our best unused offensive talent, and would like to get him in the everyday lineup.

Disclaimer.  I'm sort of new to a lot of the new offensive metrics, and used OPS as my measure.  There may be better measures, but I doubt they would make Adam's or Willy's offensive production look much better.

1) All of this crap has been discussed far too often, IMO, on this site.  The conclusion: your ideas are stupid as they aren't based in reality (Burke at short) and rely on 1 fucking statistic to determine the value of players, and the Astros have a different value on their players than just OPS.

2) Read a lot more, post a lot less.

3) Your lack of understanding of statistical measure unlines the stupidity of your arguement.

4) I request that you be investigated as a new incarnation of the recent troll parade.  If you're not a troll, read a lot more and post a lot less.

[jbm]

 

Quote:
Everett playing shortstop for the Astros has nothing to do with his OPS.  

Does he have pictures of Drayton?

I guess I just don't share the Astro's philosophy that fielding is so critical it trumps all offensive production.  Nothing against the guy, but he is a major offensive liability.  If we had no options at all, I'd have to stomach it, but I see Burke as a real option.

[BudGirl]

Quote:

Quote:
Everett playing shortstop for the Astros has nothing to do with his OPS.  

Does he have pictures of Drayton?

I guess I just don't share the Astro's philosophy that fielding is so critical it trumps all offensive production.  Nothing against the guy, but he is a major offensive liability.  If we had no options at all, I'd have to stomach it, but I see Burke as a real option.

He has a gold glove and knows how to use it.  Even I realize how easy Everett makes it look.  And he's not the black hole that Lane is right now.  He's batting 8th for a reason.

 compare

[JimR]

you are fucking stupid. definitely one of our recent trolls under a new name.

[jbm]

Arrogance?  It was just an idea.  

I'll grant whoever said one statistic may not be the best measure, but like I said, I not sure what metric, or combination of metrics, makes Everett or Taveras look productive.  As for Taveras, I guess mocking my evaluation is justified, but if there was a hypothetical market on Taveras, I would gladly short the stock.

At any rate, one post and I got the tone.  I must be troll if I am critical of Everett's or Taveras' production.  

btw, I realize I am not the GM or manager of the Astros and all is well on the Astros front.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Everett playing shortstop for the Astros has nothing to do with his OPS.  

Does he have pictures of Drayton?

I guess I just don't share the Astro's philosophy that fielding is so critical it trumps all offensive production.  Nothing against the guy, but he is a major offensive liability.  If we had no options at all, I'd have to stomach it, but I see Burke as a real option.

Have to stomach it?  What are you watching?  Burke has a subpar arm and lousy mechanics.  Any length of time at short and the pitchers would be at the barracades.  From Purpura on down, the Astros say that Everett's RBI are in his glove.  It's more than a valid way to think about shortstop.  If this is something that makes you queasy, you're going to have a bad time with the current Astro philosophy.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:
Everett playing shortstop for the Astros has nothing to do with his OPS.  

Does he have pictures of Drayton?

I guess I just don't share the Astro's philosophy that fielding is so critical it trumps all offensive production.  Nothing against the guy, but he is a major offensive liability.  If we had no options at all, I'd have to stomach it, but I see Burke as a real option.

Ok genious, don't you think that if Burke were at least an adequate shortstop the Astros would have considered him there?  Burke was removed from that position in AA because he's a bad shortstop.  You've gone way up in the troll meter.

[pravata]

Quote:
Arrogance?  It was just an idea.  

I'll grant whoever said one statistic may not be the best measure, but like I said, I not sure what metric, or combination of metrics, makes Everett or Taveras look productive.  As for Taveras, I guess mocking my evaluation is justified, but if there was a hypothetical market on Taveras, I would gladly short the stock.

At any rate, one post and I got the tone.  I must be troll if I am critical of Everett's or Taveras' production.  

btw, I realize I am not the GM or manager of the Astros and all is well on the Astros front.

Yes, we disagree with you.  It's a conspiracy.  What's your "evaluation"?  Displaying a number?  Everett has pictures?  Start over, the Astros, a multmillion dollar corporation, plays Adam Everett at short, why?

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
Arrogance?  It was just an idea.  

I'll grant whoever said one statistic may not be the best measure, but like I said, I not sure what metric, or combination of metrics, makes Everett or Taveras look productive.  As for Taveras, I guess mocking my evaluation is justified, but if there was a hypothetical market on Taveras, I would gladly short the stock.

At any rate, one post and I got the tone.  I must be troll if I am critical of Everett's or Taveras' production.  

btw, I realize I am not the GM or manager of the Astros and all is well on the Astros front.

You have the appearance of a troll because it looks as if you haven't read anything on this site, and you break out a well worn and ignorant argument that does nothing more than piss people off.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:

I guess I just don't share the Astro's philosophy that fielding is so critical it trumps all offensive production.

So you  must have spoken with Garner and company, being as you know the "philosophy" and all. Is it a binding one, without contingencies? Tell us more about this "philosophy" and what we can expect. Or start with a valid premise.

[homer]

Quote:
Arrogance?  It was just an idea.  

I'll grant whoever said one statistic may not be the best measure, but like I said, I not sure what metric, or combination of metrics, makes Everett or Taveras look productive.  As for Taveras, I guess mocking my evaluation is justified, but if there was a hypothetical market on Taveras, I would gladly short the stock.

At any rate, one post and I got the tone.  I must be troll if I am critical of Everett's or Taveras' production.  

btw, I realize I am not the GM or manager of the Astros and all is well on the Astros front.

I think you got lost on your way to  AstrosDaily. Your friends are there waiting for you, and the  meltdown is already in progress.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Arrogance?  It was just an idea.  

I'll grant whoever said one statistic may not be the best measure, but like I said, I not sure what metric, or combination of metrics, makes Everett or Taveras look productive.  As for Taveras, I guess mocking my evaluation is justified, but if there was a hypothetical market on Taveras, I would gladly short the stock.

At any rate, one post and I got the tone.  I must be troll if I am critical of Everett's or Taveras' production.  

btw, I realize I am not the GM or manager of the Astros and all is well on the Astros front.

You have the appearance of a troll because it looks as if you haven't read anything on this site, and you break out a well worn and ignorant argument that does nothing more than piss people off.

Yeah, trollish, with a pinata argument.  I think the "heresy" line is a good touch.  Nontheless, I do expect to see more of Burke.  JD said his shoulder was still sore after playing, so that needs to get better first.

[MusicMan]

"Give Burke a chance" is just a way station on the track to "Bring up Pence!!!".  Some trains will have a stop at "Scott to LF, Burke to CF, Jimerson to RF!!!"

[pravata]

Quote:
"Give Burke a chance" is just a way station on the track to "Bring up Pence!!!".  Some trains will have a stop at "Scott to LF, Burke to CF, Jimerson to RF!!!"

Alright, do you have Richard Justice in that burlap sack?  Quit wacking it to make it talk.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Arrogance?  It was just an idea.  

I'll grant whoever said one statistic may not be the best measure, but like I said, I not sure what metric, or combination of metrics, makes Everett or Taveras look productive.  As for Taveras, I guess mocking my evaluation is justified, but if there was a hypothetical market on Taveras, I would gladly short the stock.

At any rate, one post and I got the tone.  I must be troll if I am critical of Everett's or Taveras' production.  

btw, I realize I am not the GM or manager of the Astros and all is well on the Astros front.

You have the appearance of a troll because it looks as if you haven't read anything on this site, and you break out a well worn and ignorant argument that does nothing more than piss people off.

Yeah, trollish, with a pinata argument.  I think the "heresy" line is a good touch.  Nontheless, I do expect to see more of Burke.  JD said his shoulder was still sore after playing, so that needs to get better first.

It was the heresy line I tried to address.  That line also makes it appear jbm is a troll.

Garner talked about getting Burke as many at-bats as he could even before the season started.  That though has no bearing on the stupidity of jbm's assertions.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Arrogance?  It was just an idea.  

I'll grant whoever said one statistic may not be the best measure, but like I said, I not sure what metric, or combination of metrics, makes Everett or Taveras look productive.  As for Taveras, I guess mocking my evaluation is justified, but if there was a hypothetical market on Taveras, I would gladly short the stock.

At any rate, one post and I got the tone.  I must be troll if I am critical of Everett's or Taveras' production.  

btw, I realize I am not the GM or manager of the Astros and all is well on the Astros front.

You have the appearance of a troll because it looks as if you haven't read anything on this site, and you break out a well worn and ignorant argument that does nothing more than piss people off.

Yeah, trollish, with a pinata argument.  I think the "heresy" line is a good touch.  Nontheless, I do expect to see more of Burke.  JD said his shoulder was still sore after playing, so that needs to get better first.

It was the heresy line I tried to address.  That line also makes it appear jbm is a troll.

Garner talked about getting Burke as many at-bats as he could even before the season started.  That though has no bearing on the stupidity of jbm's assertions.

Correct.  Lends a sweaty "no duh" quality to his post.

[MusicMan]

Quote:

Quote:
"Give Burke a chance" is just a way station on the track to "Bring up Pence!!!".  Some trains will have a stop at "Scott to LF, Burke to CF, Jimerson to RF!!!"

Alright, do you have Richard Justice in that burlap sack?  Quit wacking it to make it talk.

Yes, but I'm wacking the sack because it's fun, not to make it talk, and certainly not to make it type.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
"Give Burke a chance" is just a way station on the track to "Bring up Pence!!!".  Some trains will have a stop at "Scott to LF, Burke to CF, Jimerson to RF!!!"

Alright, do you have Richard Justice in that burlap sack?  Quit wacking it to make it talk.

Yes, but I'm wacking the sack because it's fun, not to make it talk, and certainly not to make it type.

Carry on.

[jbm]

It really isn't that hard to discern a philosophy or Garner or the organization with regard to the value of defense over offense.  One might argue it is a primary cause of our offensive woes.

As to the "rebuttal" that obviously Burke cannot play short because they moved him in AA, it is hardly on point.  It simply means the organization has slotted him at second, due to his fielding skills.  It hardly is a rebuttal to my apparently heritical idea that the difference between Burke/Everett defense might be more than offset by the difference in their offensive production.  If Burke is truly a stiff at short, then my premise is obviously flawed, but I doubt that he is the stiff y'all are implying.

Sorry, I was not a troll, nor did I realize that Burke/Everett comparison would incite such a hostile and amusing reaction.  It was my first time here, and just as a can gather the Astro's philosophy from their actions, I can gather the philosophy of this board.

Just to satisfy my curiosity, (if y'all will deign yourself to my level), could someone put forth a statistical argument (whatever the "true" metrics that y'all experts use) that the runs created by Burke's poor glove would obviously be way more than the runs created by his superior offense.  If you consider the whole exercise of statistically evaluating this premise to be bunk, then you are a far bigger fool than I.

[pravata]

Statistical argument?  You mean like, Everett made this many plays that stopped this many runs, whereas, theoretically, Burke would have this many... what OPSs(?) that would have produced this many runs?  Like that?  How many variables are you willing to ignore?  The effect that good defense has on pitch selection, the effect that defensive "stopper" plays have on reducing the number of pitches.  That a good shortstop makes a better 1B, 3B, 2B and leftfielder?  That a good shortstop knows where to position himself as the cutoff man (which Burke does not) and reduces the number of bases runners advance?  Quantify that? Or is theoretical good enough?

[homer]

 

Quote:
but I doubt that he is the stiff y'all are implying.

Do you watch the games? Did you see the games where Burke played SS this year? Have you searched the thread(s)  about his poor play in those games?

[jbm]

Yes, y'all seem to be in step in mocking thoughts of change.

Again, from y'alls tone, the status quo is A-OK, and presumably on the way to a division championship, or a WC berth.  Obviously, I don't buy that and suggested a change. It seems to really rile y'all up.

[pravata]

Quote:
Yes, y'all seem to be in step in mocking thoughts of change.

Again, from y'alls tone, the status quo is A-OK, and presumably on the way to a division championship, or a WC berth.  Obviously, I don't buy that and suggested a change. It seems to really rile y'all up.

We're not selling it.  Explain why the Astros, who have won all those things you mention and more recently, are content with Everett as short.

[homer]

Quote:
Yes, y'all seem to be in step in mocking thoughts of change.

Again, from y'alls tone, the status quo is A-OK, and presumably on the way to a division championship, or a WC berth.  Obviously, I don't buy that and suggested a change. It seems to really rile y'all up.

The suggestion of change does not lead to this kind of response. The suggestion of a dumbass change leads to the response.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
If Burke is truly a stiff at short, then my premise is obviously flawed, but I doubt that he is the stiff y'all are implying.

IF?!!!  Good God man (I assume you're a man), if Burke could really play shortstop effectively he'd be there right now!  The fact is, he can't.  The Astros recognized this more 3 years ago.  That so many people can't grasp that is beyond me.

[jbm]

 

Quote:
How many variables are you willing to ignore? The effect that good defense has on pitch selection, the effect that defensive "stopper" plays have on reducing the number of pitches. That a good shortstop makes a better 1B, 3B, 2B and leftfielder? That a good shortstop knows where to position himself as the cutoff man (which Burke does not) and reduces the number of bases runners advance? Quantify that? Or is theoretical good enough?  

I am open to all variables that get to the core question, but like I said, I doubt Burke is a total stiff, and I know that Everett is no Ozzie Smith.  By the way, the argument on "burke can't position himself for the cutoff man" and to imply it will become an everyday phenomenon is weak.  Burke has never struck me as stupid, or unable to pick up on things like that.

As to the other poster who asked about the other threads on Burke's lousy fielding, or did I see his lousy fielding in person, obviously not.  Do you think anyone desires to hear the replies I have received.  

At any rate, the fact that they tried it in some games lends less credence to the thought that it is a moronic proposition.

At any rate, y'all had way more of me than you desire, and y'all had offered nothing insightful in return, just condescending, off point replies, so to your pleasure, I bid you goodbye.  

Go Astros.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
If Burke is truly a stiff at short, then my premise is obviously flawed, but I doubt that he is the stiff y'all are implying.

IF?!!!  Good God man (I assume you're a man), if Burke could really play shortstop effectively he'd be there right now!  The fact is, he can't.  The Astros recognized this more 3 years ago.  That so many people can't grasp that is beyond me.

It really is amusing that this keeps coming up as a new idea.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
At any rate, y'all had way more of me than you desire, and y'all had offered nothing insightful in return, just condescending, off point replies, so to your pleasure, I bid you goodbye.

Yep.  Troll.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
How many variables are you willing to ignore? The effect that good defense has on pitch selection, the effect that defensive "stopper" plays have on reducing the number of pitches. That a good shortstop makes a better 1B, 3B, 2B and leftfielder? That a good shortstop knows where to position himself as the cutoff man (which Burke does not) and reduces the number of bases runners advance? Quantify that? Or is theoretical good enough?  

I am open to all variables that get to the core question, but like I said, I doubt Burke is a total stiff, and I know that Everett is no Ozzie Smith.  By the way, the argument on "burke can't position himself for the cutoff man" and to imply it will become an everyday phenomenon is weak.  Burke has never struck me as stupid, or unable to pick up on things like that.

As to the other poster who asked about the other threads on Burke's lousy fielding, or did I see his lousy fielding in person, obviously not.  Do you think anyone desires to hear the replies I have received.  

At any rate, the fact that they tried it in some games lends less credence to the thought that it is a moronic proposition.

At any rate, y'all had way more of me than you desire, and y'all had offered nothing insightful in return, just condescending, off point replies, so to your pleasure, I bid you goodbye.  

Go Astros.

He's played a lot of shortstop in college.  Positioning yourself for the cutoff is not brain surgery.  If he hasnt picked it up so far there's likely another reason than he's not smart enough.  Sorry, next time you troll we'll reply in binary.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:
Yes, y'all seem to be in step in mocking thoughts of change.

Again, from y'alls tone, the status quo is A-OK, and presumably on the way to a division championship, or a WC berth.  Obviously, I don't buy that and suggested a change. It seems to really rile y'all up.

FYI..in case you hadn't noticed, your argument is more relevant to fantasy baseball than actual baseball.  The assessment of Everett's value need not be justified to fans with statistics, arbitrary as they are, just to please the masses.  Everett's value is self evident, if you watch the games.  In comparison, while Everett was out of the lineup, Burke did play SS.  Burke may not have been awful but he definitely wasn't good and nowhere near "Everett" good.  If you haven't noticed Everett's position, ability to make plays that others would not have come near, timing of runners, and just overall defensive instinct, you aren't paying attention.  Statistics cannot explain, quanitfy, or help you understand.  You have to watch.  

Offensively, this team is struggling.  In respect to the lineup, they need better production from spots 5&6.  If you think Burke is going to give them better production in those spots, you need to seek medical help because you've suffered a head trauma.  

Pitching wise, the starters have been fairly solid with a rough outing here and there.  Pettitte is the exception, he keeps getting dinged but by all accounts, he's throwing the ball well.  The bullpen issues are well documented.  It's either an issue of stuff trusting or pitch tipping (or is it tip pitching?)... either way, shit happens, they'll either figure it out or they won't.  Crazy statements like scrap Taveras and Everett won't go very far here.

[homer]

 

Quote:
Do you think anyone desires to hear the replies I have received.

Yes, I do. I think it make you feel important.

 

Quote:
y'all had offered nothing insightful in return, just condescending, off point replies

No, what happened was we didn't agree with you and pointed out your stupidity.  If pravata's post re: other variables isn't insightful to you, then go fuck yourself. You are a troll.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
If Burke is truly a stiff at short, then my premise is obviously flawed, but I doubt that he is the stiff y'all are implying.

IF?!!!  Good God man (I assume you're a man), if Burke could really play shortstop effectively he'd be there right now!  The fact is, he can't.  The Astros recognized this more 3 years ago.  That so many people can't grasp that is beyond me.

It really is amusing that this keeps coming up as a new idea.

It's moving past amusing.  The Burke at short debacle was part of the reason Lakey was let go.  Yet the geniuses continue to batter that equine.

[Tralfaz]

Quote:

At any rate, y'all had way more of me than you desire, and y'all had offered nothing insightful in return, just condescending, off point replies, so to your pleasure, I bid you goodbye.  

Hey y'all!  I'm no troll y'all.  Just look how I use "y'all" y'all.  Y'all are mean y'all.  I wish I could quit y'all!

[Astroholic]

Someone posted the definition of a troll last month and it went something like this.
1. Log in for the first time and post something really stupid.
Check
2. Get run
Check
3. Come back and defend your original stupid post and ask someone else to supply a stats matrix to support stupid comment
Check
4. Get run
Check
5. Come back once more and try to find common ground
Check
6. Get run
Check
7. Come back and say you will never post again
Check
8. Get run
Check
9. Make one more attempt to recover from stupid post
Still waiting

[shortstop]

jbm,

Agree with your basic point of getting Burke in the lineup but not at SS. Gotta keep Everett there.

Anyway, you probably realize by now how useless it is to engage these fools in a discussion about baseball. They (specifcally the 3-4 that responded to you) operate from one brain and are so territorial about that one thought that they cannot imagine anything else. You know "we have won with this lineup the last few years, we will win with it forever".

The best use for this site is to check in every once in a while and get a chuckle at the "know it alls" and their resposne to anything that the one mind has not come up with. It's kind of like going to the zoo and watching the monkeys smear shit all over thenselves after someone rattles the cage.

[JackAstro]

Quote:
I bid you goodbye.

Thank God. I truly hope you're not bullshitting, Scooter. Best of luck stomaching the team from here on.

[Astroholic]

10. I forgot, a former clark that had his shit run before comes to the rescue of the floundering clark.
Check

[chuck]

Perhaps I misunderestimate the depth of foolishness readily available to the average person with internet access, but I really doubt this person simply stumbled in here and peeled off the first thing that came to mind. Instead this reads like a carefully constructed post designed to tweak harmoniously the OWA regulars.

[MusicMan]

Quote:
jbm,

Agree with your basic point of getting Burke in the lineup but not at SS. Gotta keep Everett there.

Anyway, you probably realize by now how useless it is to engage these fools in a discussion about baseball. They (specifcally the 3-4 that responded to you) operate from one brain and are so territorial about that one thought that they cannot imagine anything else. You know "we have won with this lineup the last few years, we will win with it forever".

Obviously reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.  Several posts have pointed out that Burke will see increased playing time.  This hardly fits in with your last comment - and in fact, is exactly in keeping with your first point.

Quote:
The best use for this site is to check in every once in a while and get a chuckle at the "know it alls" and their resposne to anything that the one mind has not come up with. It's kind of like going to the zoo and watching the monkeys smear shit all over thenselves after someone rattles the cage.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.  The site does not exist to boost anyone's self-esteem.

[Astroholic]

BTW, there is nothing funnier to me than monkeys smearing shit all over themselves.

[MusicMan]

Quote:
BTW, there is nothing funnier to me than monkeys smearing shit all over themselves.

A video loop of Michael Barrett getting kicked in the nuts would qualify.

[JackAstro]

Quote:
The best use for this site is to check in every once in a while and get a chuckle at the "know it alls" and their resposne to anything that the one mind has not come up with. It's kind of like going to the zoo and watching the monkeys smear shit all over thenselves after someone rattles the cage.

And here I thought the best use for this site was to come and crack a few jokes, talk some baseball, have a good time. But you're right - it's much better to come in and drop some purposefully asinine idea on the gibbering monkey house collective, so as to make yourself appear to be a complete dipshit and argue an entirely indefensible point. Great use of a Friday afternoon. Thanks for clearing that up.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
It hardly is a rebuttal to my apparently heritical idea that the difference between Burke/Everett defense might be more than offset by the difference in their offensive production.  

How many times must we go over and over and over this?  Offense CANNOT "make up" for defense, or vice versa.  They are INDEPENDENT of each other.  Two totally SEPARATE phases of the game.  You can be good at one and lousy at the other.

[pravata]

Quote:
jbm,

Agree with your basic point of getting Burke in the lineup but not at SS. Gotta keep Everett there.

Anyway, you probably realize by now how useless it is to engage these fools in a discussion about baseball. They (specifcally the 3-4 that responded to you) operate from one brain and are so territorial about that one thought that they cannot imagine anything else. You know "we have won with this lineup the last few years, we will win with it forever".

The best use for this site is to check in every once in a while and get a chuckle at the "know it alls" and their resposne to anything that the one mind has not come up with. It's kind of like going to the zoo and watching the monkeys smear shit all over thenselves after someone rattles the cage.

Hey skippy, how is it that what you posted is exactly the point I was making?  You've been absorded into the "one brain".

[JimR]

ah, the predictable above it all post from shortstop. what a moron you are.

[Astroholic]

Comparing players from different era's is also a bad idea.  Oz played on turf with a predictable hop.  He was a great defensive shortstop just as Adam is a great d. shortstop.  I dare you to find a "matrix" to compare them.

Complete utter bullshit!

[pravata]

Quote:
Comparing players from different era's is also a bad idea.  Oz played on turf with a predictable hop.  He was a great defensive shortstop just as Adam is a great d. shortstop.  I dare you to find a "matrix" to compare them.

Complete utter bullshit!

Well no, isnt there a way to correct for era?  Like can't we tweak the numbers to find out how many homeruns Ruth would hit in 2006 if he had access to modern weight training, multi-racial pitchers, larger (than 195' down the rf line) ballparks, current regulations on rat parts per million allowable in hot dogs and air transportation?  Isn't there an algorithm to definitively compare Ruth to Bonds?

[JimR]

just one more in the list of imposters Spack has tracked, run and banned.

[Astroholic]

I just wonder how many homers babe would have hit with weight training, good eating, etc.  Instead he made it on hotdogs and beer.  My kind of guy.

[Rebel Jew]

Quote:
I just wonder how many homers babe would have hit with weight training, good eating, etc.  Instead he made it on hotdogs and beer.  My kind of guy.

ruth did not "make it on hot dogs and beer."  he was an amazing athlete, probably the best of his generation.

[Astroholic]

I personally did not know Ruth, I am just going by rumors.  I know he was a great athlete.. You would have to be to hit 714 on hotdogs and beer.

[NeilT]

Ruth ate, drank, gambled and stayed out all night to excess through 1925, when he had his worst season (at least in his prime).  He was 31.  That winter he hired a personal trainer and for the remainder of his career cut way back on everything (part of that because of an iron-handed new wife), though he didn't cut anything out.  He also began to train hard through the off-season. 1927 was probably his best year, and he was 33.   He played pretty well through 1932.  He never lived hard after 1925, though, but he apparently trained pretty hard.

[Adama]

Quote:

Quote:
It hardly is a rebuttal to my apparently heritical idea that the difference between Burke/Everett defense might be more than offset by the difference in their offensive production.  

How many times must we go over and over and over this?  Offense CANNOT "make up" for defense, or vice versa.  They are INDEPENDENT of each other.  Two totally SEPARATE phases of the game.  You can be good at one and lousy at the other.

I think there are ways to calculate with pretty good accuracy what effect defense has.

He wasn't saying that defense and offense are dependent on each other, obviously players can be good at one and poor at the other. He was just saying that he'd be willing to sacrifice defense at shortstop for offensive production.

Of course Everett is probably the best defensive shortstop in the majors, and his defensive value outweighs the added production Burke would bring at SS.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

He wasn't saying that defense and offense are dependent on each other, obviously players can be good at one and poor at the other. He was just saying that he'd be willing to sacrifice defense at shortstop for offensive production.

No, what he said was that Burke's offense would make up for his inferior defense.  That's impossible.  And this is not a new theme around here.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Sorry if this has been discussed already, but what the hay: the simple question is "can we make a better use of Burke to improve our team?"  

My basic philosphy is that I am generally willing to sacrifice a good bit of defense, for a larger improvement in offense.  I am not well versed in the metrics, but we have some anemic offensive players, and I am going to assume Burke could post an OPS of 800.  I actually feel a higher value is much more likely than a lower.

At any rate, based on that assumption, I always look to some of my usual suspects for replacement.  First is Everett.  I will assume (graciously at this point in the season) that his year end OPS will be 660.  I have read that the organization does not consider Burke a shortstop, and I will grant that he can't field the position like Everett, but given Burke's athleticism and experience with the position in the past, I doubt he is a stiff out there.  Therefore, it seems logical to me to give Burke a lot of playing time at short.  Thoughts?

My second candidate for replacement might be heresy to many Astro fans, but it is Taveras.  I realize one could easily argue for Wilson, or even Lane, but I can project Wilson and Lane with OPSs of 750 (to much higher), but I just don't ever project Willy to have an OPS much over 700, certainly not this year.  In fact, I read one of the sports writers this morning talk about not trading Willy and I thought "If there is just one other team that projects this guy as valuable, let's make a deal now."  At any rate, one could move Burke to left, and Wilson to center.  

At any rate, without a trade, or trying some minor leaguers, I see Burke as our best unused offensive talent, and would like to get him in the everyday lineup.

Disclaimer.  I'm sort of new to a lot of the new offensive metrics, and used OPS as my measure.  There may be better measures, but I doubt they would make Adam's or Willy's offensive production look much better.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the offensive metric you're proposing (1) tells the whole story offensively, (2) enables you to make projections, (3) overrides any defensive considerations, and (4) pretending that this argument isn't older than the Lincoln-Douglas debates or the schism over transubstantiation ...

... what makes you think Burke will produce an OPS of 800?

And, again, that's giving your argument the entire benefit of the doubt when it comes to replacing the two best defensive players on the team (with apologies to Brad Ausmus) at up-the-middle positions. Adam Everett may be the best defensive shortstop in the major leagues. That doesn't mean he should be out there ahead of any other shortstop, and the Astros were reportedly willing to trade him for Miguel Tejada, which would've been a major offensive upgrade at the position.

But Burke ain't Tejada, with the glove or at the plate.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I personally did not know Ruth, I am just going by rumors.  I know he was a great athlete.. You would have to be to hit 714 on hotdogs and beer.

Have you ever seen pictures of what Ruth looked like in his 20s, in his final years  with the Red Sox and his early years with the Yankees? He obviously had enormous upper body strength. You don't have to go by rumors. There are some people who have written books about him, you know.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Anyway, you probably realize by now how useless it is to engage these fools in a discussion about baseball. They (specifcally the 3-4 that responded to you) operate from one brain and are so territorial about that one thought that they cannot imagine anything else. You know "we have won with this lineup the last few years, we will win with it forever".

This isn't the position I've taken. And I'm pretty sure I'm not some anti-statistical luddite. But the proposition being proposed here isn't well supported. Rather than criticize everyone on the site, how about arguing the merits?

[Adama]

Quote:

Quote:

He wasn't saying that defense and offense are dependent on each other, obviously players can be good at one and poor at the other. He was just saying that he'd be willing to sacrifice defense at shortstop for offensive production.

No, what he said was that Burke's offense would make up for his inferior defense.  That's impossible.  And this is not a new theme around here.

Impossible in the specific case of Burke? Agree totally.

Impossible in a general theoretical sense? I think there are ways to measure defensive impact in a numerical, "runs allowed" type of way. So if Burke could achieve a certain level of offensive production you could say that his offensive upgrade could make up for the defensive downgrade.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Impossible in the specific case of Burke? Agree totally.

Impossible in a general theoretical sense? I think there are ways to measure defensive impact in a numerical, "runs allowed" type of way. So if Burke could achieve a certain level of offensive production you could say that his offensive upgrade could make up for the defensive downgrade.

I'd advise you to please leave this argument alone. It has been debated ad infinitum here, well before you came along, and the only outcome is to produce a long thread of angst -- and I'm afraid Spack won't tolerate it for long.

[rifraft]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

He wasn't saying that defense and offense are dependent on each other, obviously players can be good at one and poor at the other. He was just saying that he'd be willing to sacrifice defense at shortstop for offensive production.

No, what he said was that Burke's offense would make up for his inferior defense.  That's impossible.  And this is not a new theme around here.

Impossible in the specific case of Burke? Agree totally.

Impossible in a general theoretical sense? I think there are ways to measure defensive impact in a numerical, "runs allowed" type of way. So if Burke could achieve a certain level of offensive production you could say that his offensive upgrade could make up for the defensive downgrade.

This discussion needs to die already.  If Burke starts hitting .400 again then and only then should it come back to life.  But for now, die dammit(read dag nabbit for those sensitive folk), DIE!

[Adama]

Quote:

Quote:
Impossible in the specific case of Burke? Agree totally.

Impossible in a general theoretical sense? I think there are ways to measure defensive impact in a numerical, "runs allowed" type of way. So if Burke could achieve a certain level of offensive production you could say that his offensive upgrade could make up for the defensive downgrade.

I'd advise you to please leave this argument alone. It has been debated ad infinitum here, well before you came along, and the only outcome is to produce a long thread of angst -- and I'm afraid Spack won't tolerate it for long.

Absolutely. I am totally against Burke starting at SS, I think Everett's defense in invaluable.

I'm just saying theoretically...

[pravata]

Quote:
Absolutely. I am totally against Burke starting at SS, I think Everett's defense in invaluable.

And, it only took you 5 days to get there from here,

"Therefore, it seems logical to me to give Burke a lot of playing time at short..."

Astros could maybe trade him to the Theoreticals, where do they play?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the offensive metric you're proposing (1) tells the whole story offensively, (2) enables you to make projections, (3) overrides any defensive considerations, and (4) pretending that this argument isn't older than the Lincoln-Douglas debates or the schism over transubstantiation ...

... what makes you think Burke will produce an OPS of 800?

And, again, that's giving your argument the entire benefit of the doubt when it comes to replacing the two best defensive players on the team (with apologies to Brad Ausmus) at up-the-middle positions. Adam Everett may be the best defensive shortstop in the major leagues. That doesn't mean he should be out there ahead of any other shortstop, and the Astros were reportedly willing to trade him for Miguel Tejada, which would've been a major offensive upgrade at the position.

But Burke ain't Tejada, with the glove or at the plate.

Golf clap for you good sir!  Well done!

[Adama]

Quote:

Quote:
Absolutely. I am totally against Burke starting at SS, I think Everett's defense in invaluable.

And, it only took you 5 days to get there from here,

"Therefore, it seems logical to me to give Burke a lot of playing time at short..."

Astros could maybe trade him to the Theoreticals, where do they play?

I was never in favor of starting Burke at SS over Everett.

I wasn't referring to Burke when saying that I theoretically believe that offense can make up for defense at SS. If a player with Burke's deficiencies at shortstop could hit eighty home runs a season, theoretically the offensive advantage would outweigh the defensive downgrade.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I think there are ways to measure defensive impact in a numerical, "runs allowed" type of way.

Okay, I'll give you a scenario:

Chris Burke is at shortstop.  Roy Oswalt is pitching a gem of a game, has a three run lead, is in the 8th inning.  So far, he's allowe no runs.  Two outs.  No men on base.  Bottom of the lineup for the opposition.

#8 hitter hits a ground ball deep in the hole between short and third.  Burke gets to it, plants the wrong foot, throw a week two hopper to first, runner is safe by two steps.  The official scorer rules a basehit because it was deep in the hole and *MOST* average shortstops do not make the play either.

But Oswalt puts the next runner on via a walk, Garner pullls him for a reliever, say Chad Qualls.  Qualls serves up a homerun ball, game tied, Oswalt loses his gem.  Not only that, but Qualls walks the next batter and the next batter hits a double off the wall, giving up the lead.  The closer on the other team comes in at the top of the next inning (the Astros are on the road).

Chris Burke is the leadoff hitters and grounds out weakly to second base, thus ending his night as an 0-4 night.  The Astros go down two more times for a final score of 4-3 in a loss.  Oswalt does not take the loss, but does not get the win either.

In that sceanario, how do you exactly measure defense on Burke's part, if at all?  You say there is nothing to measure defensively?  Think hard if that is your position.  And how exactly did the Astros gain anything offensively in the above scenario?  I'm with HH on this one... the attempt to measure offense *against* defense is head scratching.  But I do know that the Astros chances of closing out the 8th inning with Everett at short go up really high than they do with Burke.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
I think there are ways to measure defensive impact in a numerical, "runs allowed" type of way.

Okay, I'll give you a scenario:

Chris Burke is at shortstop.  Roy Oswalt is pitching a gem of a game, has a three run lead, is in the 8th inning.  So far, he's allowe no runs.  Two outs.  No men on base.  Bottom of the lineup for the opposition.

#8 hitter hits a ground ball deep in the hole between short and third.  Burke gets to it, plants the wrong foot, throw a week two hopper to first, runner is safe by two steps.  The official scorer rules a basehit because it was deep in the hole and *MOST* average shortstops do not make the play either.

But Oswalt puts the next runner on via a walk, Garner pullls him for a reliever, say Chad Qualls.  Qualls serves up a homerun ball, game tied, Oswalt loses his gem.  Not only that, but Qualls walks the next batter and the next batter hits a double off the wall, giving up the lead.  The closer on the other team comes in at the top of the next inning (the Astros are on the road).

Chris Burke is the leadoff hitters and grounds out weakly to second base, thus ending his night as an 0-4 night.  The Astros go down two more times for a final score of 4-3 in a loss.  Oswalt does not take the loss, but does not get the win either.

In that sceanario, how do you exactly measure defense on Burke's part, if at all?  You say there is nothing to measure defensively?  Think hard if that is your position.  And how exactly did the Astros gain anything offensively in the above scenario?  I'm with HH on this one... the attempt to measure offense *against* defense is head scratching.  But I do know that the Astros chances of closing out the 8th inning with Everett at short go up really high than they do with Burke.

Here's another, it's the 3rd,  1 out, runners 1st and 3rd.  Pettitte looks over his defense, Burke at short... Groundball would come in handy but Pettitte peering over his glove shakes off the cutter, he's looking for a strike out pitch here.  Maybe the high fastball works.  Then there's the 4th, where he gets 2 more Ks, and another K in the 5th and he's up around 95 pitches.  The team had a 14 inning game yesterday and the 4th starter is scheduled for tomorrow, Garner starts to fidget.

[Adama]

Quote:

Quote:
I think there are ways to measure defensive impact in a numerical, "runs allowed" type of way.

Okay, I'll give you a scenario:

Chris Burke is at shortstop.  Roy Oswalt is pitching a gem of a game, has a three run lead, is in the 8th inning.  So far, he's allowe no runs.  Two outs.  No men on base.  Bottom of the lineup for the opposition.

#8 hitter hits a ground ball deep in the hole between short and third.  Burke gets to it, plants the wrong foot, throw a week two hopper to first, runner is safe by two steps.  The official scorer rules a basehit because it was deep in the hole and *MOST* average shortstops do not make the play either.

But Oswalt puts the next runner on via a walk, Garner pullls him for a reliever, say Chad Qualls.  Qualls serves up a homerun ball, game tied, Oswalt loses his gem.  Not only that, but Qualls walks the next batter and the next batter hits a double off the wall, giving up the lead.  The closer on the other team comes in at the top of the next inning (the Astros are on the road).

Chris Burke is the leadoff hitters and grounds out weakly to second base, thus ending his night as an 0-4 night.  The Astros go down two more times for a final score of 4-3 in a loss.  Oswalt does not take the loss, but does not get the win either.

In that sceanario, how do you exactly measure defense on Burke's part, if at all?  You say there is nothing to measure defensively?  Think hard if that is your position.  And how exactly did the Astros gain anything offensively in the above scenario?  I'm with HH on this one... the attempt to measure offense *against* defense is head scratching.  But I do know that the Astros chances of closing out the 8th inning with Everett at short go up really high than they do with Burke.

There are defensive stats out there which measure exactly what you're talking about. Something that measures similar contributions is Zone Rating.

It's not about measuring defense against offense in any particular single situation. It's over the course of a season. Everett's defense saves runs, his offense produces runs.

Of course I gotta say I find your post flawed... you're outlining a hypothetical which is designed to support your argument and then asking me how my opinion fits it.

I could just as easily say "imagine a game, runner on second, strikeout pitcher on the mound, 1 out, Burke grounds into an error which advances the runner who eventually scores on a sac fly. He also makes no errors and  makes all the routine plays. How is his offensive contribution measured and how can his defensive shortcomings be measured there?" Which would also be ridiculous.

For the record, I think the idea of Burke starting over Everett is inane.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I think there are ways to measure defensive impact in a numerical, "runs allowed" type of way.

Okay, I'll give you a scenario:

Chris Burke is at shortstop.  Roy Oswalt is pitching a gem of a game, has a three run lead, is in the 8th inning.  So far, he's allowe no runs.  Two outs.  No men on base.  Bottom of the lineup for the opposition.

#8 hitter hits a ground ball deep in the hole between short and third.  Burke gets to it, plants the wrong foot, throw a week two hopper to first, runner is safe by two steps.  The official scorer rules a basehit because it was deep in the hole and *MOST* average shortstops do not make the play either.

But Oswalt puts the next runner on via a walk, Garner pullls him for a reliever, say Chad Qualls.  Qualls serves up a homerun ball, game tied, Oswalt loses his gem.  Not only that, but Qualls walks the next batter and the next batter hits a double off the wall, giving up the lead.  The closer on the other team comes in at the top of the next inning (the Astros are on the road).

Chris Burke is the leadoff hitters and grounds out weakly to second base, thus ending his night as an 0-4 night.  The Astros go down two more times for a final score of 4-3 in a loss.  Oswalt does not take the loss, but does not get the win either.

In that sceanario, how do you exactly measure defense on Burke's part, if at all?  You say there is nothing to measure defensively?  Think hard if that is your position.  And how exactly did the Astros gain anything offensively in the above scenario?  I'm with HH on this one... the attempt to measure offense *against* defense is head scratching.  But I do know that the Astros chances of closing out the 8th inning with Everett at short go up really high than they do with Burke.

There are defensive stats out there which measure exactly what you're talking about. Something that measures similar contributions is Zone Rating.

It's not about measuring defense against offense in any particular single situation. It's over the course of a season. Everett's defense saves runs, his offense produces runs.

Of course I gotta say I find your post flawed... you're outlining a hypothetical which is designed to support your argument and then asking me how my opinion fits it.

I could just as easily say "imagine a game, runner on second, strikeout pitcher on the mound, 1 out, Burke grounds into an error which advances the runner who eventually scores on a sac fly. He also makes no errors and  makes all the routine plays. How is his offensive contribution measured and how can his defensive shortcomings be measured there?" Which would also be ridiculous.

For the record, I think the idea of Burke starting over Everett is inane.

Most of us do too, which is why we were dismissive of the post which started this thread.  But I'm with you, I prefer the theoretical where the shortstop hits 80 homeruns.

[shortstop]

Quote:

Quote:
I think there are ways to measure defensive impact in a numerical, "runs allowed" type of way.

Okay, I'll give you a scenario:

Chris Burke is at shortstop.  Roy Oswalt is pitching a gem of a game, has a three run lead, is in the 8th inning.  So far, he's allowe no runs.  Two outs.  No men on base.  Bottom of the lineup for the opposition.

#8 hitter hits a ground ball deep in the hole between short and third.  Burke gets to it, plants the wrong foot, throw a week two hopper to first, runner is safe by two steps.  The official scorer rules a basehit because it was deep in the hole and *MOST* average shortstops do not make the play either.

But Oswalt puts the next runner on via a walk, Garner pullls him for a reliever, say Chad Qualls.  Qualls serves up a homerun ball, game tied, Oswalt loses his gem.  Not only that, but Qualls walks the next batter and the next batter hits a double off the wall, giving up the lead.  The closer on the other team comes in at the top of the next inning (the Astros are on the road).

Chris Burke is the leadoff hitters and grounds out weakly to second base, thus ending his night as an 0-4 night.  The Astros go down two more times for a final score of 4-3 in a loss.  Oswalt does not take the loss, but does not get the win either.

In that sceanario, how do you exactly measure defense on Burke's part, if at all?  You say there is nothing to measure defensively?  Think hard if that is your position.  And how exactly did the Astros gain anything offensively in the above scenario?  I'm with HH on this one... the attempt to measure offense *against* defense is head scratching.  But I do know that the Astros chances of closing out the 8th inning with Everett at short go up really high than they do with Burke.

Or another scenario ... what if it was Burke (or another hypothetical SS that is an offensive threat but is not as good defensively as Everett) that was responsible for the 3 run lead by hitting a double with men on 1st and 2nd his first at bat and hit a solo HR his second AB. And the SS was the second batter the next inning and hit a 2 run HR after the leadoff batter walked. The offensive production from the SS made up for the defensive lapse and led to a win.

It's ridiculous to say that offense cannot "make up" or compensate for weak defense or vise versa in baseball. This isn't football where the players only play one way. Piazza was horrible defensively behind the plate, but LA and the Mets decided his offensive production was worth the defensive setback. Managers make this evaluation every day when making out a lineup.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I think there are ways to measure defensive impact in a numerical, "runs allowed" type of way.

Okay, I'll give you a scenario:

Chris Burke is at shortstop.  Roy Oswalt is pitching a gem of a game, has a three run lead, is in the 8th inning.  So far, he's allowe no runs.  Two outs.  No men on base.  Bottom of the lineup for the opposition.

#8 hitter hits a ground ball deep in the hole between short and third.  Burke gets to it, plants the wrong foot, throw a week two hopper to first, runner is safe by two steps.  The official scorer rules a basehit because it was deep in the hole and *MOST* average shortstops do not make the play either.

But Oswalt puts the next runner on via a walk, Garner pullls him for a reliever, say Chad Qualls.  Qualls serves up a homerun ball, game tied, Oswalt loses his gem.  Not only that, but Qualls walks the next batter and the next batter hits a double off the wall, giving up the lead.  The closer on the other team comes in at the top of the next inning (the Astros are on the road).

Chris Burke is the leadoff hitters and grounds out weakly to second base, thus ending his night as an 0-4 night.  The Astros go down two more times for a final score of 4-3 in a loss.  Oswalt does not take the loss, but does not get the win either.

In that sceanario, how do you exactly measure defense on Burke's part, if at all?  You say there is nothing to measure defensively?  Think hard if that is your position.  And how exactly did the Astros gain anything offensively in the above scenario?  I'm with HH on this one... the attempt to measure offense *against* defense is head scratching.  But I do know that the Astros chances of closing out the 8th inning with Everett at short go up really high than they do with Burke.

Or another scenario ... what if it was Burke (or another hypothetical SS that is an offensive threat but is not as good defensively as Everett) that was responsible for the 3 run lead by hitting a double with men on 1st and 2nd his first at bat and hit a solo HR his second AB. And the SS was the second batter the next inning and hit a 2 run HR after the leadoff batter walked. The offensive production from the SS made up for the defensive lapse and led to a win.

It's ridiculous to say that offense cannot "make up" or compensate for weak defense or vise versa in baseball. This isn't football where the players only play one way. Piazza was horrible defensively behind the plate, but LA and the Mets decided his offensive production was worth the defensive setback. Managers make this evaluation every day when making out a lineup.

GMs mostly make this evaluation. Each for their own situation based on the dynamics of the team. The A's made a big deal of choosing players for a limited number of skills in order to stay within a budget. But the Piazza argument is an easy one to point to. There's probably a shortstop you could cite to as well. However, LA eventually decided he wasnt worth it and so did the Mets.

[pravata]

Too slow.  The shortstop, in the Astros case, was Julio Lugo.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Or another scenario ... what if it was Burke (or another hypothetical SS that is an offensive threat but is not as good defensively as Everett) that was responsible for the 3 run lead by hitting a double with men on 1st and 2nd his first at bat and hit a solo HR his second AB.

That would be hard to do if you go 0-4.  But let's take your wishful scenario and think about it for a second.  What in Burke's career tells you he's going to do this sort of thing on a consistent basis?  What in Burke's careers tells you he's going to make weak throws from the hole between short and third?  See the point now?  You're *hoping* for the 2-4, 3 rbi night consistently from Burke against wishing he'd never have to make the throw from the hole to help the pitcher.  Both wishes are just that... wishes.

Quote:
It's ridiculous to say that offense cannot "make up" or compensate for weak defense or vise versa in baseball.

Is it Mike Piazza-ish in scope that tells you that it is okay to turn the blind eye to the defense because the offense is ungodly?  Is that the standard for which this is acceptable?  If so, Chris Burke, as Arky already pointed out, is no Piazza on offense and no Tejada on defense either.  Burke is becoming the poster child for those who like to fantasize about baseball more than watch and learn about it.

Quote:
This isn't football where the players only play one way. Piazza was horrible defensively behind the plate, but LA and the Mets decided his offensive production was worth the defensive setback. Managers make this evaluation every day when making out a lineup.

Ah... there it is, the Piazza argument.  I knew it would crop up eventually.  Chris Burke's career, minors and majors in no way shape or form tells you that he is Piazza in waiting.  All he needs is a chance.  Have you ever watched Burke for an entire season have around 450 - 500 ABs?  He's really not that good, nor that bad.  But this idea that he's Clark Kent waiting to get to a phone booth by most fans is funny to me.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
There are defensive stats out there which measure exactly what you're talking about. Something that measures similar contributions is Zone Rating.

You said in terms of "runs allowed".  If the official scorer said the ball hit in the hole was a basehit, Burke doesn't get discredited for making a bad play nor measured as a bad shortstop.  In fact, he gets measured as an average shortstop.  There would be *no* measurement, not in the true sense, of the above scenario, to tell you if you're supporting your pitching with excellent defense.  Observation would tell you so, but not zone rating nor any other measurement.  In this case, it would be prudent to assess the need for the overall success of the team via your own ability to process what you're seeing and making the judgement call thereafter.  That is what GMs, managers and baseball scouts do for a living.  They make these sort of decisions with keen observation and a sampling of metrics in mind.  They try not to entertain flawed conceptual baseball theories less they have to do as Theo Epstein had to do and make trades to strengthen his team's *defense* in order to keep it competitive.  That meant getting rid of the offensive enabled Garciaparra at short and putting in the defensive enabled Cabrerra in his place.

Quote:
It's not about measuring defense against offense in any particular single situation. It's over the course of a season. Everett's defense saves runs, his offense produces runs.

In a team game, taking individual based stats and throwing it into a stew and saying it's a five course meal is flawed.  Situation as described above are team oriented.  What I was doing was telling you how a play not made effects the gamut of the team play.  Oswalt, Qualls especially.  See pitchers like to make thier pitches, meaning they throw their particular style of game, whether it is a sinker ball game or a fly ball pitchers game or even a power, challenge them sort of game.  So in a situation as above where a pitcher (the most prized commodity on your team) wants to get an out and thinks he's made the pitch he wants, he then loses control of the play after the batter puts the stick on the ball.  It is now up to the defense to make the play or not.

If the player does not make the play, sometimes the fans jump on the pitcher as being unable to secure outs.  Example, Jay Powell, extreme ground ball pitcher, unable to get outs because he had a gimpy Biggio and an inconsistent Lugo playing behind him.  What happens, the fans jump all over Powell as an ineffective, less than paletable reliever.  Powell was doing his job in the team game concept, his infield tried, but they could only do what they were capable of doing to help, which was less than good, it was average at best.  The same Oswalt complained bitterly about Biggio in center a few years later.  When a pitcher turns around and expects a gap fly ball to be run down only to see it fall as a single or a double, it is disheartening.  All of a sudden, pitchers feel they have to challenge hitters more in order to get outs by themselves.  It is a big risk to decide to lessen the defense behind your prized commodity of pitching.

You cannot measure that effect on a team to see a play not made.  You can, however, see it.  And as a GM, you make decisions sometimes based on that.  To be a fan and come up with these schemes as if it is easy to be a GM and I'll prove it is easy too.  But it's not anything worthy of taking seriously.  Not if baseball scenarios are discounted for stats only.

Quote:
Of course I gotta say I find your post flawed... you're outlining a hypothetical which is designed to support your argument and then asking me how my opinion fits it.

No, I'm asking how in heavens name could defense be measured against offense in a runs scored proposition given that scenario.  It can't.

Quote:
I could just as easily say "imagine a game, runner on second, strikeout pitcher on the mound, 1 out, Burke grounds into an error which advances the runner who eventually scores on a sac fly. He also makes no errors and  makes all the routine plays. How is his offensive contribution measured and how can his defensive shortcomings be measured there?" Which would also be ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous.  It's baseball.

Quote:
For the record, I think the idea of Burke starting over Everett is inane.

I don't care.  We were talking about measuring, not baseball.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Here's another, it's the 3rd,  1 out, runners 1st and 3rd.  Pettitte looks over his defense, Burke at short... Groundball would come in handy but Pettitte peering over his glove shakes off the cutter, he's looking for a strike out pitch here.  Maybe the high fastball works.  Then there's the 4th, where he gets 2 more Ks, and another K in the 5th and he's up around 95 pitches.  The team had a 14 inning game yesterday and the 4th starter is scheduled for tomorrow, Garner starts to fidget.

Eggszellent!

[Astroholic]

One other slight point I might add to Noe's excellent post.  Say a ground ball pitcher does his job and the batter hits a hot shot to shortstop.  
The first shortstop (who is a sub-average fielder and decent hitter) kicks the ball.  Pitcher thinks to himself, I have to strike this next guy out, because that guy is not going to make the next play either.
The second shortstop (great fielder (best in league) and sub-par hitter) kicks the ball.  Pitcher thinks to himself Oh well, he will make that play next time so I will continue to try and get ground balls.

Personally, I take the second shortstop every time.  I want defense up the middle, even if it means I sacrifice a little offense.

[jbm]

I'm glad to see the discussion regarding possible attempts to measure defensive contribution to a team.  It is obviously a difficult measure.  However, I think some of these "psychological factors" are being overplayed.  I'm sure most pitchers prefer the best defense behind them, but other than a catcher that is unlikely to handle a certain pitch, I doubt pitchers change their approach all that much.

btw, I am the only one who postulated the idea about Burke for Everett, I haven't read anyone that buys into it, but thankfully some realize that these type of analyses can be made, even if they feel the ultimate conclusion is obvious.  For the record, I have since read some of the long thread that gives me a bit of background on the subject.  Until I see Burke's much discussed ineptitude with my own eyes, it is hard for me to make any mental comparisons on how much the Astros would lose by his defense.

[pravata]

How is pitch selection "psychological"?  Are the only relevant factors those that can be measured easily?

[JimR]

you are either crazy or never played any level of baseball.

the third choice is a troll, which i favor.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

Impossible in the specific case of Burke? Agree totally.

Impossible in any case.  

Quote:

Impossible in a general theoretical sense? I think there are ways to measure defensive impact in a numerical, "runs allowed" type of way.

There are ways to measure defense, but none of those "make up" for offense.  Offense and defense are separate and independent of each other.  They are two different aspects of the game.

Quote:

 So if Burke could achieve a certain level of offensive production you could say that his offensive upgrade could make up for the defensive downgrade.

No you can't.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

It's ridiculous to say that offense cannot "make up" or compensate for weak defense or vise versa in baseball.

What's ridiculous is your assertion that being a good hitter will make you a better defensive player.  It's one thing to say you're willing to sacrifice defense to get offense (or vice versa), it's another thing entirely to say "his offense makes up for his defense".  By your logic, Everett is an adequate hitter because he's a great fielder.  Whacked.

[jbm]

Pitch selection isn't psychological, but the scenarios where the pitcher is modifying his approach, or limiting it rather, because he is expecting someone to boot it, is a psychological factor.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I doubt most pitchers that have made it to the MLB level have that in their mind.

Jim R, you are amusing in a way described previously on this thread.  I'm not sure what in that last post set you off, but I have no desire to try to rebut your nonsense or discuss my bonifides regarding baseball.  You obviously have a set opinion of me, just as I have of you.

[Astroholic]

Bullshit.

[JimR]

remember these words of yours, troll:

"At any rate, y'all had way more of me than you desire, and y'all had offered nothing insightful in return, just condescending, off point replies, so to your pleasure, I bid you goodbye."


you now have moved to the next stage of trollism, which is to keep reading to see how you are being treated and then to pop back in to continue your arguments.

fuck off. you have no "bona fides."

[pravata]

Quote:
Pitch selection isn't psychological, but the scenarios where the pitcher is modifying his approach, or limiting it rather, because he is expecting someone to boot it, is a psychological factor.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I doubt most pitchers that have made it to the MLB level have that in their mind.

Jim R, you are amusing in a way described previously on this thread.  I'm not sure what in that last post set you off, but I have no desire to try to rebut your nonsense or discuss my bonifides regarding baseball.  You obviously have a set opinion of me, just as I have of you.

I think you're wrong about pitchers and catchers taking into consideration the makeup of their fielders when choosing how to pitch to a batter.  Next time Burke is at short pay special attention to how many pitches are thrown per batter.  They're trying for the strikeout.  As for your comment about Jim, does teaching a major league pitcher how to pitch count for knowing anything about pitching?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I'm glad to see the discussion regarding possible attempts to measure defensive contribution to a team.

Really?  Okay, as long as you're glad about it!

Quote:
It is obviously a difficult measure.  However, I think some of these "psychological factors" are being overplayed.

Whenever I see a "however" or a "but", it is usually to disqualify what one said earlier.  It's like saying "I didn't really mean what I said, this is what I meant to say!".  And whoever is talking about psychology is probably doing so in a more profound way than I.

I'm talking baseball.

Quote:
I'm sure most pitchers prefer the best defense behind them, but other than a catcher that is unlikely to handle a certain pitch, I doubt pitchers change their approach all that much.

Have you ever pitched?  At any level?  I ask not to be snide nor to discount but to ask how you can come to such a conclusion.  I'm interested to hear how this is become a doubt in your mind.

Quote:
btw, I am the only one who postulated the idea about Burke for Everett, I haven't read anyone that buys into it, but thankfully some realize that these type of analyses can be made, even if they feel the ultimate conclusion is obvious.

So far, all I've read is a whack view of Piazza, some mumbo-jumbo about measuring defense against offense that is similarily whack and then somehow, someway this applies to Chris Burke.  You're thankfull about that?  You must be a praising fool then.

Quote:
For the record, I have since read some of the long thread that gives me a bit of background on the subject.  Until I see Burke's much discussed ineptitude with my own eyes, it is hard for me to make any mental comparisons on how much the Astros would lose by his defense.

But of course, until then, the Astros are losing out on his Piazza-like offense that will most certainly "makeup" for his defense regardless.  We are talking superman here! See, it really boils down to Chris Burke in the end.  It is always better to accent his positives to stupid proportions and deflect his negatives to non-existent to make assertions that one knows more than even the major league club that employs the lad.  It is how one would make ones argument last beyond five to six replies of "bullshit!" of course.

But (see, I use it too!) in the end, it's just more typical crap and a bit boring to be honest.  And nothing to do with intellectual nor stimulating.

[Astroholic]

And for your amusement boy I will take it one further.

It is not just to pitcher that a bad fielder has an effect on, it is every player on the field.

Bad shortstop
Third baseman is thinking maybe I need to edge a little closer to the hole and make the next one for him.
Second baseman is thinking move closer to second and cover on the throw down because that fucker just booted the ball, so I know he can't catch the throw down.
First baseman is thinking wonder where I put my sunflower seeds, oh yeah here they are in my back pocket.

Now hurry along before you are late to algebra class.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
There are defensive stats out there which measure exactly what you're talking about. Something that measures similar contributions is Zone Rating.

It's not about measuring defense against offense in any particular single situation. It's over the course of a season. Everett's defense saves runs, his offense produces runs.

None of the defensive statistics out there come up with consistent conclusions the way the offensive statistics do. The various species of offensive measurements all tend to point toward the same players as being the standouts. The defensive measurements are all over the board. More consistency may be achieved someday, but that is not the case today.

[jbm]

My "argument" was never an argument, but a proposition.  There is nothing about my second to last post that tried to "continue that argument."  I simply stated that I was glad people were discussing the topic of measuring defensive output, so it can be compared aginst offensive output.  Their discussion had gone beyond the specifics of Burke/Everett.  I am not, nor did not, attempt to restart that argument.

[BizidyDizidy]

Quote:
My "argument" was never an argument, but a proposition.  There is nothing about my second to last post that tried to "continue that argument."  I simply stated that I was glad people were discussing the topic of measuring defensive output, so it can be compared aginst offensive output.  Their discussion had gone beyond the specifics of Burke/Everett.  I am not, nor did not, attempt to restart that argument.

The way I understand it, the difference between an "argument" and a "proposition" is whether or not you offer any support for your wild ass claim. So, yeah, sounds about right.

[Astroholic]

Once again, we are not discussing defensive measurements, we are discussing how much of an idiot you are.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
It is not just to pitcher that a bad fielder has an effect on, it is every player on the field.

BINGO!  When I said "team" effect, I meant, well... "team"!  I mentioned pitchers as an example of how it effects one particular area.  I thought the ability to grasp that nuance was there.  I apparently gave way to much credence to the ability to grasp, eh?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Once again, we are not discussing defensive measurements, we are discussing how much of an idiot you are.

Well, I was discussing defensive measurements, but I don't think there's much point to having either a conversation about defensive measurements or about idiocy at this point.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I simply stated that I was glad people were discussing the topic of measuring defensive output, so it can be compared aginst offensive output.

You don't read to comprehend so well, do you?

[Astroholic]

got it Noe, just thought I would give some examples and 'maybe' he might.. oh nevermind.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Well, I was discussing defensive measurements, but I don't think there's much point to having either a conversation about defensive measurements or about idiocy at this point.

I tend to agree.  Playing ping-pong on a troll (if this indeed is the case) can only last so long.  Seeing the commitment to flawed ideals though can be fun.  It brings out the proverbial grasping at straws like "Well, it worked for Piazza!" that always provide the chuckle.

If Burke was adept at offense as Piazza, then we'd all be calling for him to be the starting leftfielder, centerfielder, 1st baseman, 2nd baseman, third baseman, hell maybe even catcher or shortstop for that matter!  The old adage in baseball of "when he hits like that, you find a place in the lineup for him".  I think it's called the Luzinski's Occums Razor!

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
got it Noe, just thought I would give some examples and 'maybe' he might.. oh nevermind.

*sigh*, yeah.. I know.

[shortstop]

Quote:

Quote:

It's ridiculous to say that offense cannot "make up" or compensate for weak defense or vise versa in baseball.

What's ridiculous is your assertion that being a good hitter will make you a better defensive player.  It's one thing to say you're willing to sacrifice defense to get offense (or vice versa), it's another thing entirely to say "his offense makes up for his defense".  By your logic, Everett is an adequate hitter because he's a great fielder.  Whacked.

Where did I ever say that being a good hitter makes you a better defensive player? That is ridiculous! By saying offensive production "makes up for" or "compensates" weak defense, I am saying the same thing as "you're willing to sacrifice defense to get offense (or vice versa)". A manager is willing to sacrifice D because he hopes to be able to "make up" for it with offensive production. I really don't know how anyone could interpret anything I've said as implying that good hitting "improves" or makes anyone a better defensive player.

In response to the other guys ...

I used Burke as the SS in my scenario because he was the one you used. Notice I wrote (or another hypothetical SS that is an offensive threat ...) I agree he's not an option at SS - both because he is not the offensive threat that people make him out to be and because of his reported defensive weaknesses. Anyone that would think I am am saying Burke is capable of being anything like Piazza offensively is being purposely intellectually dishonest or just not reading.

My issue was with the general statement that  

Quote:
Offense CANNOT "make up" for defense, or vice versa.

While I favor defense over offense up the middle, and agree that Everett is an elite defensive SS, there is a point at which I would sacrifice some of that D for a guy that could produce more runs and may not be as good defensively. I think Everett hitting .208 is getting awfully close to that point. Before doing that, I think it would be better to try to get more offense from RF or LF.

[strosrays]

Quote:
Ruth ate, drank, gambled and stayed out all night to excess through 1925, when he had his worst season (at least in his prime).  He was 31.  That winter he hired a personal trainer and for the remainder of his career cut way back on everything (part of that because of an iron-handed new wife), though he didn't cut anything out.  He also began to train hard through the off-season. 1927 was probably his best year, and he was 33.   He played pretty well through 1932.  He never lived hard after 1925, though, but he apparently trained pretty hard.

There always was alot of hyperbole surrounding Ruth, including his nightlife and diet.  Some of it was encouraged by himself, the rest came from the press.  And back then "serious" reporting was akin to what is called tabloid journalism today.  Those guys felt quite free to greatly exaggerate things or even make stuff up, with few repercussions.

Ruth's home runs stand out, of course, but sometimes people forget he was a terrific all-around player, who hit for average, drew walks, had speed, etc.  He could've hit 10 HRs a year and still got into the HOF, easily.

The guy I like to think about is circa 1930's Puppy from Chicago OF Hack Wilson.  He was about 5' 6", but something like The Toy Cannon, in that he packed alot of power for his size.  Serious alcoholic.  Drove in 190 runs one season, and was reportedly severly hungover every day of it.  Wow.

I mean, I got through college like that, but driving in 190 runs?  Even from a high scoring era like Wilson's was, that is very impressive to me.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

My issue was with the general statement that  

Quote:
Offense CANNOT "make up" for defense, or vice versa.

While I favor defense over offense up the middle, and agree that Everett is an elite defensive SS, there is a point at which I would sacrifice some of that D for a guy that could produce more runs and may not be as good defensively. I think Everett hitting .208 is getting awfully close to that point. Before doing that, I think it would be better to try to get more offense from RF or LF.

Sacrificing defense to get more offense is not "making up for defense".  It's exactly what it implies, sacrificing one for the other.  They are separate and independent.  One cannot "make up" the other's deficiencies.

[shortstop]

Quote:

Quote:

My issue was with the general statement that  

Quote:
Offense CANNOT "make up" for defense, or vice versa.

While I favor defense over offense up the middle, and agree that Everett is an elite defensive SS, there is a point at which I would sacrifice some of that D for a guy that could produce more runs and may not be as good defensively. I think Everett hitting .208 is getting awfully close to that point. Before doing that, I think it would be better to try to get more offense from RF or LF.

Sacrificing defense to get more offense is not "making up for defense".  It's exactly what it implies, sacrificing one for the other.  They are separate and independent.  One cannot "make up" the other's deficiencies.

It's the same thing! You are sacrificing defense for offense ... accepting less defense in the hope offensive production will "make up" or "compensate" for it in terms of overall runs. Of course, the ability to hit extra base hits consistently will not make you a better fielder or strengthen your arm or increase your range. But, but it might make up for or compensate for the E you made the last inning that caused a run, by driving in two more with the bat.

I think we are debating meaningless semantic distinctions. If there is more to it, I'm open minded, but it really sounds like different teminology for the same exact thing to me.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I used Burke as the SS in my scenario because he was the one you used.

Because we were talking about Burke.  It is the issue at hand.

Quote:
Notice I wrote (or another hypothetical SS that is an offensive threat ...)

Notice I only answered in terms of Burke?  The *or* in your statement did not take him out, it just hid him away.

Quote:
I agree he's not an option at SS - both because he is not the offensive threat that people make him out to be and because of his reported defensive weaknesses.

Then why argue for him at short in that scenario.  I think you mentioned his exploit being a double, a homerun and three runs batted in.  That is while playing short as an addendum to my scenario.  I saw how you mentioned another yet unknown shortstop that you think is residing on the Houston Astros somewhere (or are you advocating trading for A-Rod or something?).  But we were and still are, talking about Burke because he is the issue at hand in terms of leveraging defense for offense... as if some sort of leverage magically exist.

Quote:
Anyone that would think I am am saying Burke is capable of being anything like Piazza offensively is being purposely intellectually dishonest or just not reading.

Perhaps you can stay away from using Burke's name and pronouncing a 2-4 night with three rbi's next time... you know... to avoid having your honesty being questioned as you describe?  Maybe?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
It's the same thing! You are sacrificing defense for offense ... accepting less defense in the hope offensive production will "make up" or "compensate" for it in terms of overall runs.

It's an illogical statement.  You can only contribute to *winning* (or success) via defense or offense.  Both are contributions you make, if you make less of a contribution in one area but you make more than a fair share in the other, it is towards *winning* that you've compensate, not towards each of the independent items.  Offense does not effect defense and vice versa.  But both do effect the team chance towards winning.

It is towards the latter that compensation or better said a tolerance levels applies.  Weakness on defense is still weakness on defense regardless.  The only thing that effects that is to get better on defense.  Period.

[pravata]

Quote:
...  I saw how you mentioned another yet unknown shortstop that you think is residing on the Houston Astros somewhere (or are you advocating trading for A-Rod or something?).  But we were and still are, talking about Burke because he is the issue at hand in terms of leveraging defense for offense... as if some sort of leverage magically exist.

Name out of a hat, Miguel Tejada maybe?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
...  I saw how you mentioned another yet unknown shortstop that you think is residing on the Houston Astros somewhere (or are you advocating trading for A-Rod or something?).  But we were and still are, talking about Burke because he is the issue at hand in terms of leveraging defense for offense... as if some sort of leverage magically exist.

Name out of a hat, Miguel Tejada maybe?

Sure, send Baltimore Roy Oswalt and we're ready baby.  You *compensate the lack of pitching* with more offense you know!  Make Trever Miller a starter in Oswalt's stead... you know, since you've made up the lack of pitching with more offense any way!

[shortstop]

Quote:

Quote:
It's the same thing! You are sacrificing defense for offense ... accepting less defense in the hope offensive production will "make up" or "compensate" for it in terms of overall runs.

It's an illogical statement.  You can only contribute to *winning* (or success) via defense or offense.  Both are contributions you make, if you make less of a contribution in one area but you make more than a fair share in the other, it is towards *winning* that you've compensate, not towards each of the independent items.  Offense does not effect defense and vice versa.  But both do effect the team chance towards winning.

It is towards the latter that compensation or tolerance levels apply.  Weakness on defense is still weakness on defense regardless.  The only thing that effects that is to get better on defense.  Period.

Mumbo jumbo ...

And in regard to your interpretation of whai I wrote regarding Burke's offensive ability or viability as a SS --- you should read more and post less.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Mumbo jumbo ...

No.  Baseball.

Quote:
And in regard to your interpretation of whai I wrote regarding Burke's offensive ability or viability as a SS --- you should read more and post less.

You should try not to hurt yourself backpeddling.

[pravata]

Quote:
Mumbo jumbo ...

"Mumbo jumbo"= not expressed in a statistical format that I understand.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Mumbo jumbo ...

No.  Baseball.

Quote:
And in regard to your interpretation of whai I wrote regarding Burke's offensive ability or viability as a SS --- you should read more and post less.

You should try not to hurt yourself backpeddling.

Sideways crabbing (crayfishing?) is much safer.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
Mumbo jumbo ...

"Mumbo jumbo"= not expressed in a statistical format that I understand.

Or what my 3 year old niece calls Dikembe!  But enough of that, I think we're on to something here... trade all the top line pitchers for superior offense!  Compensation, ya know!  And thus we become the 2006 version of the late 90s Texas Rangers!

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
[
It's the same thing!

No it's not!!!!

No matter what a player does on offense, it has zero, zilch, nada effect on his defense.  One CANNOT make up for deficiencies in the other.  They are INDEPENDENT of each other.  

Quote:

 You are sacrificing defense for offense ... accepting less defense in the hope offensive production will "make up" or "compensate" for it in terms of overall runs.

Offense CANNOT MAKE UP FOR DEFENSE!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

I think we are debating meaningless semantic distinctions. If there is more to it, I'm open minded, but it really sounds like different teminology for the same exact thing to me.

They are not semantic distinctions.  They are two totally separate concepts.

[shortstop]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Mumbo jumbo ...

"Mumbo jumbo"= not expressed in a statistical format that I understand.

Or what my 3 year old niece calls Dikembe!  But enough of that, I think we're on to something here... trade all the top line pitchers for superior offense!  Compensation, ya know!  And thus we become the 2006 version of the late 90s Texas Rangers!

You guys are truly amazing, and of course, know everything about baseball already. You win.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
You guys are truly amazing,

That's so eerie... I had the same reaction to you!

Quote:
and of course, know everything about baseball already.

WOW! Again... my same reaction towards you... but with a slight variation... "You *think* you know everything about baseball".  But close enough, eh?

Quote:
You win.

Wait, you thought this was about winning or losing a discussion?  Whoa!

[jbm]

 

Quote:
It's an illogical statement. You can only contribute to *winning* (or success) via defense or offense. Both are contributions you make, if you make less of a contribution in one area but you make more than a fair share in the other, it is towards *winning* that you've compensate, not towards each of the independent items. Offense does not effect defense and vice versa. But both do effect the team chance towards winning.
 

This statement adds nothing to

"accepting less defense in the hope offensive production will "make up" or "compensate" for it in terms of overall runs"

It's about assessing the value of tradeoffs.  It's not a deep concept.  It certainly shouldn't be controversial. It's done all the time in all walks of life.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
You guys are truly amazing,

That's so eerie... I had the same reaction to you!

Quote:
and of course, know everything about baseball already.

WOW! Again... my same reaction towards you... but with a slight variation... "You *think* you know everything about baseball".  But close enough, eh?

Quote:
You win.

Wait, you thought this was about winning or losing a discussion?  Whoa!

Yeah, we agree with shortstop, suddenly the Astros switch who they play... at shortstop?....hey, wait a minute!

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
It's an illogical statement. You can only contribute to *winning* (or success) via defense or offense. Both are contributions you make, if you make less of a contribution in one area but you make more than a fair share in the other, it is towards *winning* that you've compensate, not towards each of the independent items. Offense does not effect defense and vice versa. But both do effect the team chance towards winning.
 

This statement adds nothing to

"accepting less defense in the hope offensive production will "make up" or "compensate" for it in terms of overall runs"

It's about assessing the value of tradeoffs.  It's not a deep concept.  It certainly shouldn't be controversial. It's done all the time in all walks of life.

Right, but the real world equivalent of the the tradeoff of defense for offense in baseball would be that I'll not put a roof on my house so I can have a 54 inch TV.

[shortstop]

Quote:
You win.

Wait, you thought this was about winning or losing a discussion?  Whoa!



Not at all, but when someone like you tortures what others post in reinterpretation to suit your own position, it's obvious what it's is about to you.

Leaving it at "You win." is another way to say: "I don't want or have time to carry on this meaningless discussion with you.

[JimR]

ah, the troll's above-it-all dramatic exit. inevitable.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
This statement adds nothing to

"accepting less defense in the hope offensive production will "make up" or "compensate" for it in terms of overall runs"

It's about assessing the value of tradeoffs.  It's not a deep concept.  It certainly shouldn't be controversial. It's done all the time in all walks of life.

How do you measure it?  What is the ratio of acceptable?  2 runs allowed for every run scored?  How do quantify a run scored?  Is it just what can be attributed directly to you, in other words if a run scores because you made an error, then that goes into the measurement?  What about runs that are scored when no error occured?  How does this all translate into the team concept of winning/losing games?  If you tradeoff one (defense) for the other (offense), what is the ultimate point... more runs... or more wins?

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

Right, but the real world equivalent of the the tradeoff of defense for offense in baseball would be that I'll not put a roof on my house so I can have a 54 inch TV.

Saying offense makes up for defense is like saying that new roof you needed makes up not being able to fix your car.  You may have to make a choice as to which you need more, or which enhances your life, but I promise you that new roof will not make you walk to work any shorter.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Not at all

Good, I was sincerely worried there for a minute...

Quote:
but when someone like you tortures what others post in reinterpretation to suit your own position, it's obvious what it's is about to you.

No, it's about Chris Burke... *sigh*....

Quote:
Leaving it at "You win." is another way to say: "I don't want or have time to carry on this meaningless discussion with you.

I can deal with that... oh wait... maybe I should say "we" can deal with that so it's not about just me! I will say though, it is rather boring to read the same crap posted over and over again as intellectual and ground-breaking.  It doesn't register as such the 1,000th time as it did the first time.  It's still crap.

[jbm]

How do you measure it?  In whatever way you want.  In your head, with a calculator.  Whatever suits you.

I assume most of us who aren't using a statistical defensive metric, are simply processing the information in our head.  Lacking any deep understanding of defensive metrics, I use the rough calculations that reside in my brain.

The ultimate goal is wins of course.  To get to that level, I would assume the metrics of runs created by the difference in expected offensive production would be "traded off" against the number of runs given up due to difference in fielding ability.  One run of offense created would be traded off with one run resulting from poorer defense.  If the analysis tipped heavily one way or another, the decision seems obvious.

Someone said that there is no accepted metric for defense, or that he didn't believe the metric that existed.  If you go on that assumption, then it seems reasonable to compare runs created to your best guess of "how many runs will his glove cost us."  Every manager or gm does this on one level or another, just as every fan does.

[JimR]

WHAT?? you are back?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
How do you measure it?  In whatever way you want.  In your head, with a calculator.  Whatever suits you.

Then it's subjective and not an objective proposition.  It means nothing then to just throw out such a proposition.  It is cliche to say the least.  May as well say "I'll hang up and listen..." right after you throw it out there.  I thought you were pretending to be smart here... what gives?  This is weak.

Quote:
I assume most of us who aren't using a statistical defensive metric, are simply processing the information in our head.  Lacking any deep understanding of defensive metrics, I use the rough calculations that reside in my brain.

Maybe they should stay there.  You know, for safe keeping.  Try to keep from sharing, mkay?

Quote:
The ultimate goal is wins of course.

Good.  How do they win then?

Quote:
To get to that level, I would assume the metrics of runs created by the difference in expected offensive production would be "traded off" against the number of runs given up due to difference in fielding ability.

You mean the pythogrean theory?

Quote:
One run of offense created would be traded off with one run resulting from poorer defense.  If the analysis tipped heavily one way or another, the decision seems obvious.

It is not reality though.  Sometime ago, the pythogorean analysis of the Houston Astros said they were supposed to be 10 games over .500 and at the time they were 8 games below.  Had Alan Ashby scratching his head a lot that season because he mentioned it as many times as he could.  And you can get skewed numbers this way too.  For instance, you can have a 10 game stretch where you have two blowout games and then a bunch of one run games.  Say you went 5-5 during that stretch, but your runs scored/runs allowed is skewed because of the blowouts.  The theory is you should've won at a clip of 6-4 in that stretch or even 7-3.  But if you look at that 10 game stretch and say to yourself... "hmmm, we play a little better defense in those five one run loses, we go 6-4 or 7-3", aren't you doing a little more *reality* based analysis?  And it wasn't about scoring more runs either... your defense was the problem (refer back to my scenario of Oswalt losing a gem of a game in the 8th inning for an example of how skewed numbers can become).

Quote:
Someone said that there is no accepted metric for defense, or that he didn't believe the metric that existed.

Do you know of one?

Quote:
If you go on that assumption, then it seems reasonable to compare runs created to your best guess of "how many runs will his glove cost us."  Every manager or gm does this on one level or another, just as every fan does.

How many GMs have told you this or even a manager?  Fans?  Sure, of this there is no doubt.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
WHAT?? you are back?

Schools out for summer.  Go figure.  It is the intellectual pretenting in this one that is fun to read though.  He/She/It is doing it's best at channeling George Will for sure!

 

[Astroholic]

please stop!

[pravata]

Quote:
How do you measure it?  In whatever way you want.  In your head, with a calculator.  Whatever suits you.

I assume most of us who aren't using a statistical defensive metric, are simply processing the information in our head.  Lacking any deep understanding of defensive metrics, I use the rough calculations that reside in my brain.

The ultimate goal is wins of course.  To get to that level, I would assume the metrics of runs created by the difference in expected offensive production would be "traded off" against the number of runs given up due to difference in fielding ability.  One run of offense created would be traded off with one run resulting from poorer defense.  If the analysis tipped heavily one way or another, the decision seems obvious.

Someone said that there is no accepted metric for defense, or that he didn't believe the metric that existed.  If you go on that assumption, then it seems reasonable to compare runs created to your best guess of "how many runs will his glove cost us."  Every manager or gm does this on one level or another, just as every fan does.

That a metric for defense does or does not exist is irrelevant.  Any calculation must include some and exclude other data.  The amount of data that you must exclude to come up with a defensive number to compare to the more direct (seeming) offensive number makes the comparison useless.

[Arky Vaughan]

Why is this still going on?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
That a metric for defense does or does not exist is irrelevant.  Any calculation must include some and exclude other data.  The amount of data that you must exclude to come up with a defensive number to compare to the more direct (seeming) offensive number makes the comparison useless.

And if you look at numbers like RS/RSA without qualifying it, you'll get a skewed viewpoint.  God forbid you run out and do something about it thinking you've fixed a supposed problem that stats presented.  You better have the well-rounded viewpoint of observation and stats to tell you what exactly the problem may be.

That is why most people say put Chris Burke at short.  They've never seen him play there for an extended period of time.  Instead, Adam Everett's offensive stats have convinced them that this is a good idea.  See the problem with these quasi-GMs out there?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Why is this still going on?

Because I don't know any better.  Should I call Spack to do his thang?

[Astroholic]

hell yes.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
Why is this still going on?

Because I don't know any better.  Should I call Spack to do his thang?

The only reason I haven't used the Ouija board to channel him is I figured you guys weren't done talking yet.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Why is this still going on?

Because I don't know any better.  Should I call Spack to do his thang?

The only reason I haven't used the Ouija board to channel him is I figured you guys weren't done talking yet.

According to the responses I've gotten, I was done a long time ago!  I'm just typing to hear myself type!!!  

Calling Mr. Spack!  Ooooohhhh, evil ooone!

[VirtualBob]

Quote:
WHAT?? you are back?

Jim ... Please ... You canNOT be surprised by this.  Right?  That was sarcasm, right???