Lee the hitter

[JimR]

Wow, seems as though I missed classic stubbyc idiocy last night. I hope two weeks is only the beginning of his leaving. The little boy has an unhealthy obsession with me.

What I meant was Lee's approach to hitting. I agree that he is the best pure hitter since Alou. Their two strike approach is classic, and one almost never sees a slugger being willing to settle for a single to the opposite field when he has two strikes and a run to be driven in. Lee generally has plate discipline and appears to have a plan. To me, he is a sceientific hitter in the mold of Ted Willams. Not with the same results, of course, but he has the same approach.

In comparison, Lance just goes up there hacking. He has great plate discipline, too, and can drive the outside pitch to the off field from the left side. He's not much of a hitter from the right side. I do not think he has a two strike approach other than "I have one swing left." Lance has great numbers from his strength, power and good swing mechanics (LH). He does not have as good of an approach or as good pure hitting skills as Lee, imo.

My opinions are based on what I see and on my experience in watching and teaching others to play. I do not consider my opinions infallible, but I would not post something unless I believed it firmly. None of you has to agree with anything I say, and if you bandwagon what stubby says about me, and I imagine I'll survive. I may not be an expert on how baseball is played-you judge that. I may not have done much in baseball, but I have done something. Stubby, what have you done?

My comparison between Lee and Berkman was on a fairly sophisticated point. I am not surprised that stubby and others did not comprehend it. That many TZers do understand is what makes this site such a pleasure to be a part of.

We're off to MMPUS to say goodbye to Baggy. Carry on.

[Rebel Jew]

berkmans at-bat against isringhausen in game 6  of the 2004 nlcs to me validates your whole point.  bagwell drives in mo berg with a beautiful opposite field single.  isringhausen threw a lot of pitches that inning, clearly had poor control, and the astros had been hitting him hard all series.  so up comes berkman, with bagwell on second and beltran on third, the series begging to be won right then and there, and lance is hacking from the first pitch on and strikes out in 4 pitches.

[Noe]

I was surprised by the responses that came about from your very sublime statement.  Approach cannot be measure statistically and yes, it speaks to what you originally said.  Lee is a much more refined hitter because of his approach, the results are a entirely different matter. Nothing of which should have elicited the vitrol it did.  We've had this same conversation many a time in here, it's nothing new.  Approach is different from results.  Results are measured by stats, approach is not.  If a hitter has two strikes on him and smacks one to right because the pitcher is trying to hit the outside corner, I consider him to be a very refined hitter.  The result may be an out though, you cannot control what happens to the ball after you hit it, but suffice it to say putting the ball in play is very much the name of the game.  A hitter with less of an approach on the same ball thrown by a pitcher may roll over the same pitch trying to hack into left field (if he is the same right handed batter).  The result may be a dying quail flyball that lands for a hit.  So statistically speaking the second guy with no approach actually looks better in the results, but in reality is not using the right approach to hitting that pitch.

Berkman is not a bad hitter, no one said that.  The reaction of the statement made by Jim was one that normally is reserved for a stupid statement like that of "Berkman is a lousy hitter" and no one said that at all.  Berkman is an amazing hitter, but he lacks the best approach to hitting on this team.  Carlos Lee has the best approach and is thus the better "pure" hitter of the two.  Berkman is still the better of the two in the results and that is because when he does make contact, it's usually a hard hit baseball.  But you live with the flip side as well.  In 9 seasons, Lee has struck out about 100 times less than Berkman in about 1,000 more ABs than Lance.  He also walks less, so Lee is looking to make contact with his approach, put the ball in play, make things happen.  Lance is more patient and waiting for that one pitch he can drive.

Both good hitters, one more inclined to be a "pure" hitter, the other more inclined to look for his pitch and swing hard, which on occasion means a strikeout.  Hitting means making contact as the primary staple of what you do.  Mark Loretta, Moises Alou come to mind, as do Jeff Kent.  Guys like Bagwell and Berkman are more inclined to look to drive a pitch regardless.  Higher strikeouts, more walks because they're looking to do one thing with any pitch.  Hit it hard, not hit it where it's pitched.  You have to know the difference in the approach to know which one of those guys is more apt to "hit" a baseball (contact) than the other.

[Billy Zabka]

What I meant was Lee's approach to hitting. I agree that he is the best pure hitter since Alou. Their two strike approach is classic, and one almost never sees a slugger being willing to settle for a single to the opposite field when he has two strikes and a run to be driven in. Lee generally has plate discipline and appears to have a plan. To me, he is a sceientific hitter in the mold of Ted Willams. Not with the same results, of course, but he has the same approach.

Trade hitting for eating, and that pretty much sums up what I wrote about why I think Lee could take Berkman at the buffet table.

Except for the ranch in Boling - that still makes no sense whatsoever.

[JimR]

Fine. On my list, you're on the idiot side.

[Albino Rhino]

berkmans at-bat against isringhausen in game 6  of the 2004 nlcs to me validates your whole point.  bagwell drives in mo berg with a beautiful opposite field single.  isringhausen threw a lot of pitches that inning, clearly had poor control, and the astros had been hitting him hard all series.  so up comes berkman, with bagwell on second and beltran on third, the series begging to be won right then and there, and lance is hacking from the first pitch on and strikes out in 4 pitches.

You do realize that one AB is a little bit of a small sample from which to draw conclusions?  Why was hacking on the first pitch necessarily a bad idea? 

JimR, when you say that "Berkman is not even close to as good a hitter as Lee is," why is the metric approach-oriented, rather than results?  I ask this from a position of overwhelming ignorance, but ultimately, isn't baseball a results-oriented game--all that matters is that the runners cross the plate, not how--and therefore, isn't whether a hitter is good or bad determined by his numbers?  And furthermore, aren't results a reflection of approach? 

Again, I'm asking, not telling.  Just here for the erudition. 

[pravata]

Baseball is entirely situational.

[JimR]

Metric? Are you serious? I have no idea what that means.I said that my opinion is based on watching and experience. If you're looking for a number, fine.I do not.

[juliogotay]

berkmans at-bat against isringhausen in game 6  of the 2004 nlcs to me validates your whole point.  bagwell drives in mo berg with a beautiful opposite field single.  isringhausen threw a lot of pitches that inning, clearly had poor control, and the astros had been hitting him hard all series.  so up comes berkman, with bagwell on second and beltran on third, the series begging to be won right then and there, and lance is hacking from the first pitch on and strikes out in 4 pitches.

Lest us not forget that Berkman had almost as good a playoff run in '04 as Beltran. Sometimes the pitcher wins.

[Craig]

Metric? Are you serious? I have no idea what that means.I said that my opinion is based on watching and experience. If you're looking for a number, fine.I do not.

When JimR growls and straightens out a Clark -- live from Minute Maid Park on Jeff Bagwell Retirement Day -- then we have truly entered a new era. In fact, I'm going to nominate this for a Blue Star just for the historical value. If Jim had told him to fuck off it would have been Post of the Year.

[Noe]

You do realize that one AB is a little bit of a small sample from which to draw conclusions?  Why was hacking on the first pitch necessarily a bad idea? 

JimR, when you say that "Berkman is not even close to as good a hitter as Lee is," why is the metric approach-oriented, rather than results?  I ask this from a position of overwhelming ignorance, but ultimately, isn't baseball a results-oriented game--all that matters is that the runners cross the plate, not how--and therefore, isn't whether a hitter is good or bad determined by his numbers?  And furthermore, aren't results a reflection of approach? 

Again, I'm asking, not telling.  Just here for the erudition. 

Crap, I should just stop posting.  Damn!

[StargateSG1]

What I meant was Lee's approach to hitting. I agree that he is the best pure hitter since Alou. Their two strike approach is classic, and one almost never sees a slugger being willing to settle for a single to the opposite field when he has two strikes and a run to be driven in. Lee generally has plate discipline and appears to have a plan. To me, he is a sceientific hitter in the mold of Ted Willams. Not with the same results, of course, but he has the same approach.

In comparison, Lance just goes up there hacking. He has great plate discipline, too, and can drive the outside pitch to the off field from the left side. He's not much of a hitter from the right side. I do not think he has a two strike approach other than "I have one swing left." Lance has great numbers from his strength, power and good swing mechanics (LH). He does not have as good of an approach or as good pure hitting skills as Lee, imo.

Thank you sir for taking the time to explain.  Posts like this are why I love this site.  You didn't have to explain yourself. You could have posted "Fuck off" and moved on.   You are an excellent resource for baseball information and I enjoy reading and learning from your posts (when you take the time to teach and don't play Mr. Asshole).

I hope Stubby returns after he gets you out from under his skin.   

[JimR]

Thank you sir for taking the time to explain.  Posts like this are why I love this site.  You didn't have to explain yourself. You could have posted "Fuck off" and moved on.   You are an excellent resource for baseball information and I enjoy reading and learning from your posts (when you take the time to teach and don't play Mr. Asshole).

I hope Stubby returns after he gets you out from under his skin.   

fuck stubby. i hope he's gone for good, but i doubt he can stay away from me long.

thanks for your reply.

[otterjb]

Lance just goes up there hacking. He has great plate discipline, too

Do you mean that he mostly only hacks at strikes?

I can see your point about approach to hitting, the fact that the results between the two hitters has been so similiar is probably what was confusing.

[Taras Bulba]

Jim's assessment is correct.

What irks me about Berkman is that he is possesses imense talent, but is at the end of the day too lazy to make himself better.  He's not stupid and has had nearly a full season to observe Lee's approach first hand and from a fairly short distance, but doesn't care enough or doesn't want to put in the effort to change his approach.  He'll still be one of the best hitters in the game, but if he had the drive of Craig Biggio, he would be a monster.

[Jacksonian]

Jim's assessment is correct.

What irks me about Berkman is that he is possesses imense talent, but is at the end of the day too lazy to make himself better.  He's not stupid and has had nearly a full season to observe Lee's approach first hand and from a fairly short distance, but doesn't care enough or doesn't want to put in the effort to change his approach.  He'll still be one of the best hitters in the game, but if he had the drive of Craig Biggio, he would be a monster.

They need to shove a giant "5" up his ass.

[homer]

Jim's assessment is correct.

What irks me about Berkman is that he is possesses imense talent, but is at the end of the day too lazy to make himself better.  He's not stupid and has had nearly a full season to observe Lee's approach first hand and from a fairly short distance, but doesn't care enough or doesn't want to put in the effort to change his approach.  He'll still be one of the best hitters in the game, but if he had the drive of Craig Biggio, he would be a monster.

This is bullshit. Just because Lance hasn't changed his approach (to your satisfaction) to match Lee or Alou doesn't make him "lazy" or show that he "doesn't care" or "doesn't want" to be better. If he were hitting .300 with 40 HRs at this point, which he is more than capable of, you wouldn't have made this assinine comment.

[JimR]

This is bullshit. Just because Lance hasn't changed his approach (to your satisfaction) to match Lee or Alou doesn't make him "lazy" or show that he "doesn't care" or "doesn't want" to be better. If he were hitting .300 with 40 HRs at this point, which he is more than capable of, you wouldn't have made this assinine comment.

you obviously do not watch any games. he could be batting 1.000, and he'd still be lazy.

[MusicMan]

They need to shove a giant "5" up his ass.

I forget whether it was during the ceremony itself, or during post-game, that Baggy was described as possessing better baseball instincts than anyone they had every seen.

Berkman is the opposite of this.

[ybbodeus]

I forget whether it was during the ceremony itself, or during post-game, that Baggy was described as possessing better baseball instincts than anyone they had every seen.

Berkman is the opposite of this.

Is that you, Coach Graham?

[Burzmali]

You might not be able to determine approach from statistics, but who cares? Approach, your definition at least, is irrelevant when building a roster. Berkman has been one of the most productive offensive players in baseball over the course of his career, and much more productive than Lee.

[Taras Bulba]

This is bullshit. Just because Lance hasn't changed his approach (to your satisfaction) to match Lee or Alou doesn't make him "lazy" or show that he "doesn't care" or "doesn't want" to be better. If he were hitting .300 with 40 HRs at this point, which he is more than capable of, you wouldn't have made this assinine comment.

If he were "hitting .300 with 40 HRs at this point" and still refusing to recognize that adjusting his approach with two strikes would make him and his team better, I'd still call him lazy because he is clearly not stupid.  Call me "assinine" but that's just me.

[JimR]

You might not be able to determine approach from statistics, but who cares? Approach, your definition at least, is irrelevant when building a roster. Berkman has been one of the most productive offensive players in baseball over the course of his career, and much more productive than Lee.

fuck off.

how many rosters have you built and where? your fantasy teams do not count.

[Rammer33]

It’s a little bit of a definition point for me - more than anything …

I don’t necessarily disagree that Lee’s approach is better but I view approach as one of a few factors that affect the overall hitter (full offensive package) … the player with the best approach isn’t, in my opinion, necessarily the best hitter, because of the other factors that contribute to a players offensive make up …

For instance Alou’s approach was great but he wasn’t the offensive player Bagwell was … now his approach might make him better situated for certain in game situations but overall his performance was inferior and in the end the measure of an offensive player is his performance … this is not to downplay or overly compartmentalize approach, only that it is one of a few factors - at least in my view - of hitting … Now I generally like players with an approach like alou’s because I think they tend maintain high levels of more consistent performances over longer periods in not relying as heavily on physical attributes (making them less apt to fall as hard when the physical ability begins to dry up … or minor injury’s occur )

But when measuring an overall hitter at the end of the day it’s a game of results because you put all these factors together and see what you have … so to that end I think its pretty hard to say Bagwell and Berkman aren’t the top 2 hitters in the last 10-15 years … As far as Berkamn and Lee I think Lee is a very good hitter and I think the Alou comparisons are valid (which is why I think he’d be a good 5 hitter) but both Lee and Alou were overall second on their respective teams to better overall offensive players (another reason each didn’t hit 3) … while I might like his approach in certain situations better – in general I’d rather have Berkman at the plate because despite his tendancy to ‘just rip it’ - his eye and power make up (in my opinion) for any deficiency in approach (although at Berkmans level I wouldn’t call it a deficiency in general - just by comparison to a couple of other elite hitters) …

A player can approach an at bat like Ted Williams but if he’s not able to execute as well as players with different, perhaps inferior, approaches then it doesn’t mean much … Lee is a very good hitter but I think he overall falls short of Berkman … However as highly as I think of berkman as a hitter it is his approach (to me) more than anything that keeps him from being as good with a bat as say someone like Pujols …

But that’s my 4 cents – sorry for the length - reasonable minds can differ …

[Arky Vaughan]

Approach is different from results.  Results are measured by stats, approach is not.  If a hitter has two strikes on him and smacks one to right because the pitcher is trying to hit the outside corner, I consider him to be a very refined hitter.  The result may be an out though, you cannot control what happens to the ball after you hit it, but suffice it to say putting the ball in play is very much the name of the game.  A hitter with less of an approach on the same ball thrown by a pitcher may roll over the same pitch trying to hack into left field (if he is the same right handed batter).  The result may be a dying quail flyball that lands for a hit.  So statistically speaking the second guy with no approach actually looks better in the results, but in reality is not using the right approach to hitting that pitch.

While approach is different from results, ultimately approach should manifest itself in results in terms of a team scoring runs when it needs them and, consequently, winning games. Approach for its own sake, without producing results, is without value.

[Phil_in_CS]

I know Lee was hired to drive in runs, but to see him at the top of the league, all year long, with the people in front of him hitting as poorly as they have, is amazing.

I'm no expert, I haven't watched near the number of games some have, but its like he's several different hitters depending on the situation. If he's missed a pitch and is behind in the count, he's looking to pop it over the infield and advance the runners. If he's ahead, he's looking to drive it. If he needs to get on himself, he's looking for pitches and taking what's offered.

I'm no expert, but that's obvious to me even watching on TV.

[ybbodeus]

Alou was also a great hitter because he could adjust to a fastball in the middle of thinking a friggin' curveball was comin'...and vice versa...and hit either out of the park.

[Rammer33]

I know Lee was hired to drive in runs, but to see him at the top of the league, all year long, with the people in front of him hitting as poorly as they have, is amazing.

well he does have berkman in front of him and for a large part of the season PENCE! ... I wouldn't call that nothing in fact thats pretty darn good ... not to down play his good perfomance but he's had folks on base ...

Much more impressive would be Berkman last season with such poor production out of the leadoff spot and the 2 hitter ...

[MikeyBoy]

Alou was also a great hitter because he could adjust to a fastball in the middle of thinking a friggin' curveball was comin'...and vice versa...and hit either out of the park.

You could read his mind? Alou was/is an amazing hitter, but if any hitter is sitting on an off-speed pitch, he won't be able to do much with a fastball.

[JimR]

While approach is different from results, ultimately approach should manifest itself in results in terms of a team scoring runs when it needs them and, consequently, winning games. Approach for its own sake, without producing results, is without value.

oh, please. how long did you work on this one? set that straw man up, baby, and blast his ass.

[Arky Vaughan]

oh, please. how long did you work on this one? set that straw man up, baby, and blast his ass.

What straw man? I quoted Noe verbatim. If successful, approach should translate into results. They're not mutually exclusive. Address that on the merits if you disagree, counselor, rather than collaterally attacking it as a straw-man argument.

[Astroholic]

What straw man? I quoted Noe verbatim. If successful, approach should translate into results. They're not mutually exclusive. Address that on the merits if you disagree, counselor, rather than collaterally attacking it as a straw-man argument.

Damn that Noe is one smart dude.

[JimR]

What straw man? I quoted Noe verbatim. If successful, approach should translate into results. They're not mutually exclusive. Address that on the merits if you disagree, counselor, rather than collaterally attacking it as a straw-man argument.

your straw man: "Approach for its own sake, without producing results, is without value."

Noe certainly did not advocate or argue for the converse.

[Limey]

What straw man? I quoted Noe verbatim. If successful, approach should translate into results. They're not mutually exclusive. Address that on the merits if you disagree, counselor, rather than collaterally attacking it as a straw-man argument.

Look at Lee's splits "by situation" for this year.  When he needs a single, his average is way up.  When he needs to get something started, his average way down.  That's his approach being reflected in results.

[BUWebguy]

You could read his mind? Alou was/is an amazing hitter, but if any hitter is sitting on an off-speed pitch, he won't be able to do much with a fastball.

Wasn't that Hank Aaron's approach? Sit on breaking ball, but quick enough wrists to hit the fastball.

[BUWebguy]

well he does have berkman in front of him and for a large part of the season PENCE! ... I wouldn't call that nothing in fact thats pretty darn good ... not to down play his good perfomance but he's had folks on base ...

Much more impressive would be Berkman last season with such poor production out of the leadoff spot and the 2 hitter ...

I know somewhere out there you can find the number of ABs guys have with men in scoring position. Anyone know where? Just curious how '06 Berkman might compare to '07 Lee in that category.

[Limey]

I know somewhere out there you can find the number of ABs guys have with men in scoring position. Anyone know where? Just curious how '06 Berkman might compare to '07 Lee in that category.

'07 Lee has 127 ABs w/RISPS (plus 27 walks), a .362 BA and 74 ribs.

'06 Berkman had 131 ABs w/RISPS (plus 48 walks), a .382 BA and 90 ribs.

[BUWebguy]

Thanks Limey. Where did you find that (for my future reference)?

[Arky Vaughan]

I know somewhere out there you can find the number of ABs guys have with men in scoring position. Anyone know where? Just curious how '06 Berkman might compare to '07 Lee in that category.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?league=mlb

Pick a year, pick situation ("Scoring Position"), set a minimum number of at-bats (100), and see what you get.

[Limey]

Thanks Limey. Where did you find that (for my future reference)?

At your friendly, neighbourhood, ESPN website.  They have a "Splits" tab on the player pages.

[BUWebguy]

Gracias. I looked there, but missed the filter options.

[JimR]

tell me how many RBI were with two strikes.

[NeilT]

tell me how many RBI were with two strikes.

Why would allowing 2 strikes with RISP be an indication of a better approach?

[JimR]

Why would allowing 2 strikes with RISP be an indication of a better approach?

can't understand it for you, Neil. if you're asking this question, you're pretty far behind or you disagree that approach means anything. either way, fine and dandy.

[Arky Vaughan]

Thanks Limey. Where did you find that (for my future reference)?

In 2006, Berkman came to bat with 426 runners on base. He drove in 91 of them (21.4%).

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=berkmla01&year=2006

In 2007, Lee has come to bat with 402 runners on base. He has driven in 76 of them (18.9%).

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=leeca01&year=2007

Go to "Bases Occupied" and count the number of plate appearances with runners on 1st, 2nd or 3rd times one, with runners on 1st and 2nd, 1st and 3rd and 2nd and 3rd times two, and with the bases loaded times three.

[Arky Vaughan]

your straw man: "Approach for its own sake, without producing results, is without value."

Noe certainly did not advocate or argue for the converse.

No, he did not. Nor did I accuse him of doing so. But it was worth mentioning, in response to his post, that while approach and results are different, they are, or should be, related.

[Limey]

tell me how many RBI were with two strikes.

If I'm reading it right:

'07 Lee has 22 RBIs in at-bats where the count went to 2 strikes, off a .273 BA.

'06 Berkman had 48 RBIs off a .213 BA in the same situation.

[NeilT]

can't understand it for you, Neil. if you're asking this question, you're pretty far behind or you disagree that approach means anything. either way, fine and dandy.

So with RISP, the batter should allow 2 strikes and then go for the opposite field, so's to prove the quality of his approach?  I guess I'm getting it, but it seems like a lot of trouble.  You baseball guys really understand the subtleties.

[JimR]

No, he did not. Nor did I accuse him of doing so. But it was worth mentioning, in response to his post, that while approach and results are different, they are, or should be, related.

not necessarily, but this is something i guess is impossible for some to understand.

let's just end this thread, and go on about our respective businesses. the horse is dead.

[Rammer33]

Look at Lee's splits "by situation" for this year.  When he needs a single, his average is way up.  When he needs to get something started, his average way down.  That's his approach being reflected in results.

while lee has been impressive this year in situations (such as scoring position 2 outs) ... the three years prior 04-06 He was terrible in many of those same situations  ... where as Berkman has consistantly been among the best in baseball in situations with runners on / RISP / RISP 2 outs ...

[Noe]

You might not be able to determine approach from statistics, but who cares? Approach, your definition at least, is irrelevant when building a roster. Berkman has been one of the most productive offensive players in baseball over the course of his career, and much more productive than Lee.

How can you folks continue to extrapolate a simple comment within the context of approach into something else just to satisfy yourself that somehow the statement, again within context, is incorrect?

Can you accept a statement within it's context on face value and leave it at that?  No one said Berkman was a lousy hitter and you're acting as if they did.

[Noe]

I don’t necessarily disagree that Lee’s approach is better...

That is *all* anyone said (context being everything).  So that should end the discussion, no?

[Noe]

What straw man? I quoted Noe verbatim. If successful, approach should translate into results. They're not mutually exclusive. Address that on the merits if you disagree, counselor, rather than collaterally attacking it as a straw-man argument.

When did I say this?

[JimR]

That is *all* anyone said (context being everything).  So that should end the discussion, no?

damn, i sure hope so.

[NeilT]

How can you folks continue to extrapolate a simple comment within the context of approach into something else just to satisfy yourself that somehow the statement, again within context, is incorrect?

Can you accept a statement within it's context on face value and leave it at that?  No one said Berkman was a lousy hitter and you're acting as if they did.

No, someone did say that Berkman is not nearly the hitter that Lee is.  Seems like an exaggeration, but it seems to boil down to Lee being a better 2 strike hitter than Berkman, production be damned.  

[Noe]

your straw man: "Approach for its own sake, without producing results, is without value."

Noe certainly did not advocate or argue for the converse.

He... errrr... I don't remember even remotely saying that.  I must have had my evil twin posting that day!  Damn him!

[Rammer33]

That is *all* anyone said (context being everything).  So that should end the discussion, no?

well I disagree Lee is a better hitter ... but specific to approach not necessarily

[JimR]

well I disagree Lee is a better hitter ... but specific to approach not necessarily

well, fucky bully for you. now stop.

[Limey]

No, someone did say that Berkman is not nearly the hitter that Lee is.  Seems like an exaggeration, but it seems to boil down to Lee being a better 2 strike hitter than Berkman, production be damned. 

Production is mostly a function of teammates, unless you're going to look a 2-strike dingers.  2-strike hits and walks determines how good a 2-strike hitter a person is; and even then it ignores 2-strike sac flies and 2-strike grounders that bring in a run or move a runner over.

I can't even imagine how you would go about figuring out all those variables, without watching every game and keeping vast records.

[Noe]

not necessarily, but this is something i guess is impossible for some to understand.

let's just end this thread, and go on about our respective businesses. the horse is dead.

Agreed!  We've had this discussion before and ended in stalemate because I cannot or will not be able to quantify "approach" to anyone's satisfaction.  So the discussion is not going to happen unless we're talking about something else.  Why are we back here again?  Because Jim said something and only that reason?  If so, that is not a good enough reason.

It is actually a very bad reason.  Because it's not about having a viable conversation, it's about Jim and only Jim and that is not what this place is about.

[pravata]

Production is mostly a function of teammates, unless you're going to look a 2-strike dingers.  2-strike hits and walks determines how good a 2-strike hitter a person is; and even then it ignores 2-strike sac flies and 2-strike grounders that bring in a run or move a runner over.

I can't even imagine how you would go about figuring out all those variables, without watching every game and keeping vast records.

Watch every single pitch.

[Astroholic]

Production is mostly a function of teammates, unless you're going to look a 2-strike dingers.  2-strike hits and walks determines how good a 2-strike hitter a person is; and even then it ignores 2-strike sac flies and 2-strike grounders that bring in a run or move a runner over.

I can't even imagine how you would go about figuring out all those variables, without watching every game and keeping vast records.

Two words....Fantasy Baseball.

[Arky Vaughan]

When did I say this?

You didn't. That wasn't a quote from you.

[Arky Vaughan]

He... errrr... I don't remember even remotely saying that.  I must have had my evil twin posting that day!  Damn him!

Nor did anyone accuse you of saying that.

[Astroholic]

Two words....Fantasy Baseball.

Damn, even Bill Worell could get the concept of a great hitter.  "That hit...That hit right there."

[Rammer33]

well, fucky bully for you. now stop.

jesus christ if this shit bugs you so much stop fucking reading ...  

[Limey]

Watch every single pitch.

...after the count gets to x & 2.

[Arky Vaughan]

Two words....Fantasy Baseball.

?

[Astroholic]

?

Has stats on everything..right.  Point is you have to watch the product on the field and get your head out of a stats book.

[Noe]

while lee has been impressive this year in situations (such as scoring position 2 outs) ... the three years prior 04-06 He was terrible in many of those same situations  ... where as Berkman has consistantly been among the best in baseball in situations with runners on / RISP / RISP 2 outs ...

R33,

We are talking about what we *see*, not about stats.  Jim quantified that already, damn this is getting old!  Same converstation over and over and all the time we're led back to stats as if we're blind or something and stats will show us the way.  What we see from watching Lee's approach, he is different than Berkman in that he's about making contact.  Contact is hitting.  Without contact, you cannot *hit* a baseball.  Berkman is about swinging... hard... the situation does not dictate his swing, he uses the same approach regardless.  And he's damn good at it.  In fact, he's elite about it.  But he is what he is.  When you read guys talk about hitting... again, *hitting*, it's about what they must do to make contact with a baseball and put it in play.  The outcome of the contact is out of their hands (hence results isn't the issue, it's approach to making contact).  Barry Bonds talks about his approach to hitting and it's fascinating to listen to him too.  Bonds talks about "catching" the ball with his bat.

Approach is something you either understand or you don't.  At this point, you cannot confuse it with stats to prove it otherwise.

[Noe]

damn, i sure hope so.

Me too.  I am having a very hard time understanding this discussion when one side is clearly speaking Russian and the other side is speaking Chinese and then the argument is that one side said the wrong thing in Chinese.

[NeilT]

Agreed!  We've had this discussion before and ended in stalemate because I cannot or will not be able to quantify "approach" to anyone's satisfaction.  So the discussion is not going to happen unless we're talking about something else.  Why are we back here again?  Because Jim said something and only that reason?  If so, that is not a good enough reason.

It is actually a very bad reason.  Because it's not about having a viable conversation, it's about Jim and only Jim and that is not what this place is about.

Noe, I disagree, though Jim is often a catalyst because he has strong opinions and isn't shy, I think you could pretty safely say this has been the most interesting discussion in baseball over the last 10 years--What drives a good baseball decision?  Why shouldn't it appear here?  Jim can rightly claim that he has a strong understanding of what makes a good hitter, but the argument on the other side is that that understanding (not Jim's necessarily, but he kind of served up this argument) is flawed and untrustworthy.  I'd say you can't judge approach without judging the metric, and here the metrics don't really hold up, at least until you get to batters with 2 strikes.  Then Lee is apparently a far better hitter.  But he's also probably a far better hitter than lots of great hitters.  2 strike batting is no place for a batter to want to be.

[Noe]

well I disagree Lee is a better hitter ... but specific to approach not necessarily

Damn!  This is getting really old.

[Astroholic]

R33,

We are talking about what we *see*, not about stats.  Jim quantified that already, damn this is getting old!  Same converstation over and over and all the time we're led back to stats as if we're blind or something and stats will show us the way.  What we see from watching Lee's approach, he is different than Berkman in that he's about making contact.  Contact is hitting.  Without contact, you cannot *hit* a baseball.  Berkman is about swinging... hard... the situation does not dictate his swing, he uses the same approach regardless.  And he's damn good at it.  In fact, he's elite about it.  But he is what he is.  When you read guys talk about hitting... again, *hitting*, it's about what they must do to make contact with a baseball and put it in play.  The outcome of the contact is out of their hands (hence results isn't the issue, it's approach to making contact).  Barry Bonds talks about his approach to hitting and it's fascinating to listen to him too.  Bonds talks about "catching" the ball with his bat.

Approach is something you either understand or you don't.  At this point, you cannot confuse it with stats to prove it otherwise.

Go back and watch T. Gwynn's approach to hitting. P.Rose...these were 'great' hitters.

[Noe]

No, someone did say that Berkman is not nearly the hitter that Lee is.  Seems like an exaggeration, but it seems to boil down to Lee being a better 2 strike hitter than Berkman, production be damned. 

Neil,

Seriously... are you doing this because of Jim or because you are honestly confused about what was said?

[Rammer33]

Because Jim said something and only that reason?  If so, that is not a good enough reason.

It is actually a very bad reason.  Because it's not about having a viable conversation, it's about Jim and only Jim and that is not what this place is about.

I intended to address the topic and I guess I must have missed the prior discussions  ... my visits have lessened in the last couple of years ... but I wasn't trying to get on Jim - well until that last bit of BS he posted but if this has been hashed and rehashed I can understand  ...

[JimR]

 I'd say you can't judge approach without judging the metric

and this is fucking wrong

[Limey]

2 strike batting is no place for a batter to want to be.

It all depends how he gets there.  If he's there because he's Ensberg and he's watched two cripple fastballs down the pipe, then his approach sucks.  If he's there because he's Lance Berkman and he's taken two huge rips at hittable fastballs, but hit 'em both foul, he's doing exactly what he's supposed to do.  In between those two is an ocean of nuance.

[Limey]

Go back and watch T. Gwynn's approach to hitting. P.Rose...these were 'great' hitters.

Wade Boggs.

[Noe]

Noe, I disagree, though Jim is often a catalyst because he has strong opinions and isn't shy, I think you could pretty safely say this has been the most interesting discussion in baseball over the last 10 years--What drives a good baseball decision?  Why shouldn't it appear here?  Jim can rightly claim that he has a strong understanding of what makes a good hitter, but the argument on the other side is that that understanding (not Jim's necessarily, but he kind of served up this argument) is flawed and untrustworthy.  I'd say you can't judge approach without judging the metric, and here the metrics don't really hold up, at least until you get to batters with 2 strikes.  Then Lee is apparently a far better hitter.  But he's also probably a far better hitter than lots of great hitters.  2 strike batting is no place for a batter to want to be.

But Neil, why are you honestly not understanding a very simple and concise opinion based on observation?  THAT is the issue moreso than anything else.  Is it because you honestly don't understand the context or choose to ignore understanding at minimum the context and wish to engage in verbal sparring over a useless conversation based on stats that is not even going to come into the mix?

I seriously think this issue is about Jim myself unless someone can just step up and say, for the record, that they are a dumbass and cannot fandom what "observation" and "approach" means in baseball.

[Noe]

Watch every single pitch.

Simple, yet very true.  And yet somehow confusing the hell out of a lot very smart people for some damn reason.  I suspect I know why.

[Noe]

You didn't. That wasn't a quote from you.

Thanks, then I'll thank you to leave my name out it.

[Rammer33]

R33,

We are talking about what we *see*, not about stats.  Jim quantified that already, damn this is getting old!  Same converstation over and over and all the time we're led back to stats as if we're blind or something and stats will show us the way.  What we see from watching Lee's approach, he is different than Berkman in that he's about making contact.  Contact is hitting.  Without contact, you cannot *hit* a baseball.  Berkman is about swinging... hard... the situation does not dictate his swing, he uses the same approach regardless.  And he's damn good at it.  In fact, he's elite about it.  But he is what he is.  When you read guys talk about hitting... again, *hitting*, it's about what they must do to make contact with a baseball and put it in play.  The outcome of the contact is out of their hands (hence results isn't the issue, it's approach to making contact).  Barry Bonds talks about his approach to hitting and it's fascinating to listen to him too.  Bonds talks about "catching" the ball with his bat.

Approach is something you either understand or you don't.  At this point, you cannot confuse it with stats to prove it otherwise.

hold on ... I wasn't confusing it with stats my point was in response to the assertion that the results from that approach is reflected in stats and that while it may be reflected in certain situations this year it was not reflected in those same situation over the previous seasons ... having watched Carlos Lee for a few years I haven't seen a great shift in his approach between this season and the previous few ... its not a point on his approach its a point on SOME but not all of the results from said approach (as it was brought up by someone else) ... I was just pointing it out ...

[Noe]

Go back and watch T. Gwynn's approach to hitting. P.Rose...these were 'great' hitters.

Gwynn even speaks eloquently about his approach to anyone who dared to listen.  What happened later in his career was that Ted Williams tried to convince him that a slight alteration to his approach would garner him more power and homeruns.  Gwynn allowed the ball to get deep into the strikezone for his own sake of identifying what the pitch was and where the location was going to be.  It was a science for Gwynn.  Williams wanted Gwynn to turn on more inside pitches if he identified them early enough.

In the end, Gwynn didn't change and was one of the best "hitters" in the game.

[NeilT]

Neil,

Seriously... are you doing this because of Jim or because you are honestly confused about what was said?

Because of Jim?  No.  Jim said what he said, that Lee's a far better batter than Berkman.  I can perfectly understand both of your explanations about approach, and I think you're saying that Lee in certain situations is a better hitter than Berkman because he changes his approach--he's opportunistic and Berkman is not.   The change is a thing of beauty, but it doesn't mean, end of the day, that Berkman at his best isn't a better hitter than Lee. You can only prove that year-in year out by production.  And if Berkman's getting better numbers than Lee, I'd just as soon you leave his approach alone.  Least that's my opinion.

[Astroholic]

Gwynn even speaks eloquently about his approach to anyone who dared to listen.  What happened later in his career was that Ted Williams tried to convince him that a slight alteration to his approach would garner him more power and homeruns.  Gwynn allowed the ball to get deep into the strikezone for his own sake of identifying what the pitch was and where the location was going to be.  It was a science for Gwynn.  Williams wanted Gwynn to turn on more inside pitches if he identified them early enough.

In the end, Gwynn didn't change and was one of the best "hitters" in the game.

Which is interesting because Biggio has to take that 'Ted' approach.  Biggio is also nowhere near the hitter he was earlier in his career.

[Noe]

I intended to address the topic and I guess I must have missed the prior discussions  ... my visits have lessened in the last couple of years ... but I wasn't trying to get on Jim - well until that last bit of BS he posted but if this has been hashed and rehashed I can understand  ...

We've had this conversation ad nausea and hence why I cannot stand to have it again.  The same people on the same points arguing the same damn thing... again.  And I'm one of them, so I'm disgusted with me more than anyone else.  We know what the end result of this conversation will be, no one will convince anyone of anything only that we can come up with clever ways to insult each other in the end.

Let it die.  It's not worth it nor is the point made originally wrong in any way if you understand the context of the statement.  It made be wrong in another context but that was not the foundation used so the argument is a wrong one to make.

[JimR]

hold on ... I wasn't confusing it with stats my point was in response to the assertion that the results from that approach is reflected in stats and that while it may be reflected in certain situations this year it was not reflected in those same situation over the previous seasons ... having watched Carlos Lee for a few years I haven't seen a great shift in his approach between this season and the previous few ... its not a point on his approach its a point on SOME but not all of the results from said approach (as it was brought up by someone else) ... I was just pointing it out ...

look, do you agree that a hitter can do everything exactly right and still make an out? do you also agree that another hitter can do everything exactly wrong and hit one out? that precisely is why approach and results do not necessarily match up. raw, natural talent also enters in sometimes.

[pravata]

Gwynn even speaks eloquently about his approach to anyone who dared to listen.  What happened later in his career was that Ted Williams tried to convince him that a slight alteration to his approach would garner him more power and homeruns.  Gwynn allowed the ball to get deep into the strikezone for his own sake of identifying what the pitch was and where the location was going to be.  It was a science for Gwynn.  Williams wanted Gwynn to turn on more inside pitches if he identified them early enough.

In the end, Gwynn didn't change and was one of the best "hitters" in the game.

Berkman has tried the "swing later" approach a couple times lately. 

[Noe]

hold on ... I wasn't confusing it with stats my point was in response to the assertion that the results from that approach is reflected in stats and that while it may be reflected in certain situations this year it was not reflected in those same situation over the previous seasons ... having watched Carlos Lee for a few years I haven't seen a great shift in his approach between this season and the previous few ... its not a point on his approach its a point on SOME but not all of the results from said approach (as it was brought up by someone else) ... I was just pointing it out ...

Leave "results" out and you'll be fine with anything the Coach said.  Simple as that.

[Limey]

Which is interesting because Biggio has to take that 'Ted' approach.  Biggio is also nowhere near the hitter he was earlier in his career.

I don't think Bidge is choosing to turn on inside pitches, he's cheating on some so that he can knock them into the CBs.

[JimR]

Because of Jim?  No.  Jim said what he said, that Lee's a far better batter than Berkman.  I can perfectly understand both of your explanations about approach, and I think you're saying that Lee in certain situations is a better hitter than Berkman because he changes his approach--he's opportunistic and Berkman is not.   The change is a thing of beauty, but it doesn't mean, end of the day, that Berkman at his best isn't a better hitter than Lee. You can only prove that year-in year out by production.  And if Berkman's getting better numbers than Lee, I'd just as soon you leave his approach alone.  Least that's my opinion.

"better batter?" no, i did not.

you will never understand, Neil, but i do not expect you to.

[Noe]

Because of Jim?  No.  Jim said what he said, that Lee's a far better batter than Berkman.  I can perfectly understand both of your explanations about approach, and I think you're saying that Lee in certain situations is a better hitter than Berkman because he changes his approach--he's opportunistic and Berkman is not.   The change is a thing of beauty, but it doesn't mean, end of the day, that Berkman at his best isn't a better hitter than Lee. You can only prove that year-in year out by production.  And if Berkman's getting better numbers than Lee, I'd just as soon you leave his approach alone.  Least that's my opinion.

Nobody remotely said Berkman is a bad hitter, yet everyone seems to react to the statement as if that is eggszactly what was said.  In fact, I'll say that Mark Loretta is a better hitter than Hunter Pence and I'm saying the same thing the Coach is saying within the approach context.

Does that mean Hunter Pence sucks?  No.

Does that mean Hunter Pence should change his aggressive free swinging nature?  IMHO, no.  Said so already.

So why, again, the extrapolation of what was said.  It was an informed and well thought out opinion that I personally thought was dead spot on by simply watching these men work this year (and also how Lance works for his career).  Does that mean Lance should change?  Hell fucking no!  But then again, who said that?

[Noe]

look, do you agree that a hitter can do everything exactly right and still make an out? do you also agree that another hitter can do everything thing exactly wrong and hit one out? that precisely is why approach and results do not necessarily match up. raw, natural talent also enters in sometimes.

Eggszactly (and what I said too, Arky!)

[NeilT]

"better batter?" no, i did not.

you will never understand, Neil, but i do not expect you to.

Did I get it wrong?  Apologies.  Like I said, the subtleties of you baseball guys are just beyond me.  It all seems so simple: you hit the ball or you don't.

[Noe]

Berkman has tried the "swing later" approach a couple times lately. 

He has actually mastered the approach left handed.  Because of his power, he can land one in the CBs if he has to and he learned that from watching Todd Helton do it early in the life of the MMPUS (as I understand it).  Jim Edmonds was also adept at hitting that way at the MMPUS too.

But when Lance hits right handed, it's grip it and rip it... primarily.  Jeff Bagwell called it the ugliest swing he's ever seen right handed too.  And opposing managers will still choose to turn Lance around even though he actually generates more power hitting right handed.  Why?  Because of Lance's approach, that's why.  He's more adept at a solid approach to outside pitches hitting left handed than he is right handed.  But if Lance ever catches one right handed that is middle in, that ball is going to travel a very long way.

Did anyone ever see the Homerun contest at the MMPUS when Lance chose to hit "right handed"?  He has more power right handed, but he has less of an approach that way too.

[Rammer33]

look, do you agree that a hitter can do everything exactly right and still make an out? do you also agree that another hitter can do everything thing exactly wrong and hit one out? that precisely is why approach and results do not necessarily match up. raw, natural talent also enters in sometimes.

I guess I am confused as to how we could have ended, seemingly, on the opposite sides of the fence on this thread ... I guess I misunderstood you on that point ... thats what I was trying to convey when I (poorly worded) said this:

I don’t necessarily disagree that Lee’s approach is better but I view approach as one of a few factors that affect the overall hitter (full offensive package) …  

… this is not to downplay or overly compartmentalize approach, only that it is one of a few factors - at least in my view - of hitting …

[Arky Vaughan]

I seriously think this issue is about Jim myself unless someone can just step up and say, for the record, that they are a dumbass and cannot fandom what "observation" and "approach" means in baseball.

For me, this conversation if about neither Jim nor you. I mean, I like you guys and all. NTTAWWT.

[Noe]

Did I get it wrong?

Yes, you did.

[Arky Vaughan]

Thanks, then I'll thank you to leave my name out it.

Did you read the basis for the post?

[Noe]

For me, this conversation if about neither Jim nor you. I mean, I like you guys and all. NTTAWWT.

I like you too Arky.  I do not like this conversation though because no one seems to listen to one another mainly because we're talking two very different things here.

[JimR]

I guess I am confused as to how we could have ended, seemingly, on the opposite sides of the fence on this thread ... I guess I misunderstood you ... thats what I was trying to convey when I (poorly worded) said this:

i think that the best "pure hitters" use a sound approach in each AB. they do not just go up hacking and let talent drive results. they may have great numbers and be considered "great hitters" in the larger sense, but my point was that great numbers do not necessarily mean that the guy is a great pure hitter. he may just be incredibly fucking talented. my initial post--that has stopped traffic for three days--was that Lee is a better hitter than Berkman. i meant in his approach to each AB, to each pitch, to each situation. Lance is just trying to hit every ball hard and does not deviate much, if ever. that does not mean that Lee necessarily will have better numbers.

that does not also mean that Lance should change, although i wish he'd learn from Lee about two strike hitting. he's successful so good for him.

an example from my past to illustrate (i hope): i had a black kid at Brenham named Larry McDonald. he looked absolutely horrible at the plate...that is, until the pitcher threw the ball. then, he lined the ball into the OF for a hit. he was a terrible pure hitter, but his results were great. i told my assistant coach: "nobody coaches McDonald." i had many better hitters than he was, but his BA was better than some of theirs.

if "good hitter" means high numbers, fine. that is not what i meant, though.

[NeilT]

Yes, you did.

Then here it is exactly:

"Berkman is not even close to as good a hitter as Lee is."

It seems exaggerated.  Lee's a great hitter, but I don't think given their careers to date most teams would choose Lee over Berkman, if they had to choose.  

And I'm still trying to figure out the question about the 2 strikes.

[Noe]

Did you read the basis for the post?

Arky said:

"What straw man? I quoted Noe verbatim. If successful, approach should translate into results. They're not mutually exclusive. Address that on the merits if you disagree, counselor, rather than collaterally attacking it as a straw-man argument."

What I said and you quoted:

"Approach is different from results.  Results are measured by stats, approach is not.  If a hitter has two strikes on him and smacks one to right because the pitcher is trying to hit the outside corner, I consider him to be a very refined hitter.  The result may be an out though, you cannot control what happens to the ball after you hit it, but suffice it to say putting the ball in play is very much the name of the game.  A hitter with less of an approach on the same ball thrown by a pitcher may roll over the same pitch trying to hack into left field (if he is the same right handed batter).  The result may be a dying quail flyball that lands for a hit.  So statistically speaking the second guy with no approach actually looks better in the results, but in reality is not using the right approach to hitting that pitch."

I think you and I don't understand each other or your trying to be very cute.  I applaud you for the effort, but honestly Arky, you're not *really* quoting me verbatim.  I'm sorry that I see it that way, but I just don't see where you got what I said to mean what you're saying.

And it may very well be because I'm a dumbass or your trying to play very loose with what I said as some sort validation (as if I can provide validation for anything... I'M AN IDIOT DAMNIT!).  Really, I've asked this of folks before but it bares repeating... if you use me as some sort of expert on anything, you're doing yourself a big disfavor.

I'd just as soon be left off those type of post because I'm a nobody that know squat about baseball.

[JimR]

Then here it is exactly:

"Berkman is not even close to as good a hitter as Lee is."

It seems exaggerated.  Lee's a great hitter, but I don't think given their careers to date most teams would choose Lee over Berkman, if they had to choose.  

And I'm still trying to figure out the question about the 2 strikes.

you do not understand any of it. let's just stop.

[Limey]

look, do you agree that a hitter can do everything exactly right and still make an out?

See Eusebio, Tony.

do you also agree that another hitter can do everything exactly wrong and hit one out?

See Bell, Derek.

[Noe]

Then here it is exactly:

"Berkman is not even close to as good a hitter as Lee is."

It seems exaggerated.  Lee's a great hitter, but I don't think given their careers to date most teams would choose Lee over Berkman, if they had to choose. 

And I'm still trying to figure out the question about the 2 strikes.

FUCK IT!  I give up when folks keep running back to these sort of counters to a very simple observation about approach.  Like I said, you either understand it or you don't or worse yet, you don't want to understand.  If it's purposely done though, it's not a good thing.

[Noe]

you do not understand any of it. let's just stop.

I agree.  There is a huge lack of understanding this very simple concept.  It doesn't help to try and explain it either... apparently.

[Arky Vaughan]

Noe, I think I understand you just fine. Approach and results aren't the same thing, and the player with the better approach (or any approach at all) may wind up with less successful results than the player with the worse approach (or no approach at all).

[Arky Vaughan]

Arky said:

"What straw man? I quoted Noe verbatim. If successful, approach should translate into results. They're not mutually exclusive. Address that on the merits if you disagree, counselor, rather than collaterally attacking it as a straw-man argument."

What I said and you quoted:

"Approach is different from results.  Results are measured by stats, approach is not.  If a hitter has two strikes on him and smacks one to right because the pitcher is trying to hit the outside corner, I consider him to be a very refined hitter.  The result may be an out though, you cannot control what happens to the ball after you hit it, but suffice it to say putting the ball in play is very much the name of the game.  A hitter with less of an approach on the same ball thrown by a pitcher may roll over the same pitch trying to hack into left field (if he is the same right handed batter).  The result may be a dying quail flyball that lands for a hit.  So statistically speaking the second guy with no approach actually looks better in the results, but in reality is not using the right approach to hitting that pitch."

I think you and I don't understand each other or your trying to be very cute.  I applaud you for the effort, but honestly Arky, you're not *really* quoting me verbatim.  I'm sorry that I see it that way, but I just don't see where you got what I said to mean what you're saying.

And it may very well be because I'm a dumbass or your trying to play very loose with what I said as some sort validation (as if I can provide validation for anything... I'M AN IDIOT DAMNIT!).  Really, I've asked this of folks before but it bares repeating... if you use me as some sort of expert on anything, you're doing yourself a big disfavor.

I'd just as soon be left off those type of post because I'm a nobody that know squat about baseball.

The "If successful, approach should translate into results. They're not mutually exclusive" was my response to what you wrote, not my attempt to quote you verbatim or to paraphrase what you wrote. If you were reading that part as me quoting you verbatim, then that was a misunderstanding.

[Astroholic]

The "If successful, approach should translate into results. They're not mutually exclusive" was my response to what you wrote, not my attempt to quote you verbatim or to paraphrase what you wrote. If you were reading that part as me quoting you verbatim, then that was a misunderstanding.

For clarification, that is how I read it as well.

[Arky Vaughan]

For clarification, that is how I read it as well.

Then the misunderstanding was mine and, Noe, I apologize for making you think that I was misstating what you wrote. Those words -- "If successful, approach should translate into results. They're not mutually exclusive" -- were mine, not an attempt to restate yours.

[NeilT]

FUCK IT!  I give up when folks keep running back to these sort of counters to a very simple observation about approach.  Like I said, you either understand it or you don't or worse yet, you don't want to understand.  If it's purposely done though, it's not a good thing.

I understand it Noe.  The explanations were excellent.  Maybe not persuasive, but excellent.  A simple explanation is you hit the ball or you don't.  You and Jim's explanations are anything but simple.  Statistics are a simple explanation, anything beyond that's closer to art.

[Dobro]

I agree.  There is a huge lack of understanding this very simple concept.  It doesn't help to try and explain it either... apparently.

Noe, why do you always take the position that you and Jim are the only two around here that understand baseball concepts?

[JimR]

Noe, why do you always take the position that you and Jim are the only two around here that understand baseball concepts?

he's ignoring you. better write him a letter.

[Phil_in_CS]

this is the sort of topic I think of when Clarks say the popes here all march in lockstep

[Astroholic]

Noe, why do you always take the position that you and Jim are the only two around here that understand baseball concepts?

I don't think they take that position at all.  They are sharing what they do know as many of the other posters do.  I don't always agree with what they say, but I do believe that this board has enhanced my knowledge of the game. Don't sweat the small stuff.

[Arky Vaughan]

I understand it Noe.  The explanations were excellent.  Maybe not persuasive, but excellent.  A simple explanation is you hit the ball or you don't.  You and Jim's explanations are anything but simple.  Statistics are a simple explanation, anything beyond that's closer to art.

But, ultimately and over a long enough time, if it has value at the plate and on the basepaths, it should manifest itself in terms of runs. If one batter has a great approach but his actions aren't resulting in more runs than the actions of another batter whose approach is awful, then the value of approach isn't bearing itself out.

[Astroholic]

But, ultimately and over a long enough time, if it has value at the plate and on the basepaths, it should manifest itself in terms of runs. If one batter has a great approach but that isn't resulting in more runs than the actions of another batter whose approach is awful, then the value of approach isn't bearing itself out.

You don't stop do you?

[NeilT]

You don't stop do you?

Often.

[Dobro]

I don't think they take that position at all.  They are sharing what they do know as many of the other posters do.  I don't always agree with what they say, but I do believe that this board has enhanced my knowledge of the game. Don't sweat the small stuff.

What are you, Noe's Official Spokesperson?

[Arky Vaughan]

You don't stop do you?

I was discussing something with Neil. Is there a problem with that?

[JimR]

But, ultimately and over a long enough time, if it has value at the plate and on the basepaths, it should manifest itself in terms of runs. If one batter has a great approach but his actions aren't resulting in more runs than the actions of another batter whose approach is awful, then the value of approach isn't bearing itself out.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Taras Bulba]

Noe, what is a "metric."  Is it lighter than air?

[Arky Vaughan]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Hey, Jim, there are other threads on here if you're done with this one.

[Astroholic]

What are you, Noe's Official Spokesperson?

Yes I am.  MFer.

[JimR]

Hey, Jim, there are other threads on here if you're done with this one.

you're done, and just do not know it.

[NeilT]

But, ultimately and over a long enough time, if it has value at the plate and on the basepaths, it should manifest itself in terms of runs. If one batter has a great approach but his actions aren't resulting in more runs than the actions of another batter whose approach is awful, then the value of approach isn't bearing itself out.

Well, like Jim said, you can be a great athlete with a lousy approach, but that may be the best approach for you.  

Maybe not runs though.  That's pretty dependent on the teams around you.  Lee may well have had lower RBI totals because of the fine teams he's played for to date.

[JimR]

Yes I am.  MFer.

he's desperately trying to get Noe to talk to him.

[Noe]

Noe, I think I understand you just fine. Approach and results aren't the same thing, and the player with the better approach (or any approach at all) may wind up with less successful results than the player with the worse approach (or no approach at all).

The problem is that it is not an exact science.  That is what clouds statistical evidence sometimes, the variable of it all and the unknown outcomes.  That is also why baseball is fun to me, you never know what is going to happen.  Baseball is about making contact, putting the ball in play and taking your chances.  It's about making the play to get the guy out.  Many of that cannot be quantified, so when a statement is made along those realms, it make absolutely no sense to me to have a discussion about it outside of that context.

It baffles me how it always seems to crop up when intelligent folks here *know* eggszactly what is being said and why.  Especially when a person takes time to even *explain* it.  It is beyond baffling now, it is downright annoying.

[NeilT]

Noe, what is a "metric."  Is it lighter than air?

I'm not Noe, but I think that's a souffle.

[Noe]

Then the misunderstanding was mine and, Noe, I apologize for making you think that I was misstating what you wrote. Those words -- "If successful, approach should translate into results. They're not mutually exclusive" -- were mine, not an attempt to restate yours.

Thanks.

[Limey]

Noe, what is a "metric."  Is it lighter than air?

It's good stuff.

[Noe]

I understand it Noe.  The explanations were excellent.  Maybe not persuasive, but excellent.  A simple explanation is you hit the ball or you don't.  You and Jim's explanations are anything but simple.  Statistics are a simple explanation, anything beyond that's closer to art.

I don't agree that it is not simple.  But that is okay to disagree that you can simply watch and see the different approach Lance and Carlos take and then make the type of statement the Coach did.  If he and I were on a coaching staff, I'd have no problem if he turned to me and said that while watching Lance and Carlos hit in a game.  I would not run to stats to see if what Coach said held water.

Maybe you're right though, Coach and I are two screwed up idiots who see dead people... errrr... approaches. 

[Noe]

I was discussing something with Neil. Is there a problem with that?

Arky, come the fuck on now!  Has it not been said over and over and over again that Lance Berkman is not a bad hitter or sucks!  Has it not been said over and over and over again that Lance Berkman uses natural talent to his benefit.  Has it not been said that he is elite.

Where in all that is "approach" right or wrong?  Nowhere, that's where.  See you keep trying to force fit "approach" into something quantifiable and it just ain't gonna happen.  You fail to understand unless it is on a stat sheet somewhere and you keep asking us to put it there for you.

Stop it already, it's not going to happen!  Let. It. Go.  (for the millionth time we've had this fucking conversation!)

[NeilT]

I don't agree that it is not simple.  But that is okay to disagree that you can simply watch and see the different approach Lance and Carlos take and then make the type of statement the Coach did.  If he and I were on a coaching staff, I'd have no problem if he turned to me and said that while watching Lance and Carlos hit in a game.  I would not run to stats to see if what Coach said held water.

Maybe you're right though, Coach and I are two screwed up idiots who see dead people... errrr... approaches. 

I understand it's frustrating to you and Jim, but if it's any consolation I'll at least watch those two batters with a far different eye every time they come to the plate.  And read their stats with a closer eye, too.  

[Arky Vaughan]

Well, like Jim said, you can be a great athlete with a lousy approach, but that may be the best approach for you.  

Maybe not runs though.  That's pretty dependent on the teams around you.  Lee may well have had lower RBI totals because of the fine teams he's played for to date.

True, but a player whose approach leads to productive outs might drive in a higher proportion of his RBI opportunities than a player whose approach does not.

[Astroholic]

True, but a player whose approach leads to productive outs might drive in a higher proportion of his RBI opportunities than a player whose approach does not.

See Bell, Derek.

[Arky Vaughan]

Arky, come the fuck on now!  Has it not been said over and over and over again that Lance Berkman is not a bad hitter or sucks!  Has it not been said over and over and over again that Lance Berkman uses natural talent to his benefit.  Has it not been said that he is elite.

Where in all that is "approach" right or wrong?  Nowhere, that's where.  See you keep trying to force fit "approach" into something quantifiable and it just ain't gonna happen.  You fail to understand unless it is on a stat sheet somewhere and you keep asking us to put it there for you.

Stop it already, it's not going to happen!  Let. It. Go.  (for the millionth time we've had this fucking conversation!)

I posted a response to something Neil wrote. I don't understand why you're responding to it, and particularly with such anger. If you and Jim are done with the conversation, then why do you care what Neil and I discuss?

[S.P. Rodriguez]

I don't agree that it is not simple.  But that is okay to disagree that you can simply watch and see the different approach Lance and Carlos take and then make the type of statement the Coach did.  If he and I were on a coaching staff, I'd have no problem if he turned to me and said that while watching Lance and Carlos hit in a game.  I would not run to stats to see if what Coach said held water.

Maybe you're right though, Coach and I are two screwed up idiots who see dead people... errrr... approaches. 

Ehh... you aren't alone.  And if I can add my two cents on Berkman, his results are down this year, obviously.  While he's never had the two strike approach that makes Lee so damn effective, he's had better approaches in previous years and I think that's a factor this year.  This year, he seems entirely too aggressive.  That's the only way I can describe it.  He used to wait for his pitch.   My only guess is he's pressing or suffering some un-reported injury (or maybe the hand is worse than they let on).  I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.  I realize Jim and Noe both stated he's always been aggressive, which I agree with.  I just didn't see it to this degree in previous years.

I really like Lee at the plate.  It's amazing watching what he does in an at bat once he's in a 2 strike count.  He still k's here and there but he's no easy out.  My only knock on Lee is my perception of a lack of hustle on his part.  He does not get cheated when he's batting.

[Noe]

I understand it's frustrating to you and Jim, but if it's any consolation I'll at least watch those two batters with a far different eye every time they come to the plate.  And read their stats with a closer eye, too. 

Look, me and Jim is not the issue here.  Far from it.  Approach in baseball is not something Jim nor I created to have some sort of exclusive club that only the two of us can join.   It's baseball to Jim.  It's baseball to me.  It's baseball to a hell of a lot more people than the two of us.  Quit trying to make it just me and Jim (and that is what bothers me here more than anything else).  It's not.  It's about a very simple concept that is used in baseball by many people and when Jim said what he did, it fits that context.  Had it been said by Andyzipp or anyone else, it would still fucking apply.

That is why I'm asking you very honestly and up front here Neil.   Is this about approach... or not?  If not, then it's about Jim.  Which is it?

[Noe]

I posted a response to something Neil wrote. I don't understand why you're responding to it, and particularly with such anger. If you and Jim are done with the conversation, then why do you care what Neil and I discuss?

Because you don't have a fucking clue about approach?

[NeilT]

I posted a response to something Neil wrote. I don't understand why you're responding to it, and particularly with such anger. If you and Jim are done with the conversation, then why do you care what Neil and I discuss?

Yeah.  We may want to talk about OPS.  Or pit bulls.

[Arky Vaughan]

Because you don't have a fucking clue about approach?

You might want to back off a little bit there, Noe. Push the ignore button if you don't want to read anymore, but don't get nasty.

[Arky Vaughan]

Yeah.  We may want to talk about OPS.  Or pit bulls.

I'm sure Limey could engage us on many topics.

[Noe]

Ehh... you aren't alone.  And if I can add my two cents on Berkman, his results are down this year, obviously.  While he's never had the two strike approach that makes Lee so damn effective, he's had better approaches in previous years and I think that's a factor this year.  This year, he seems entirely too aggressive.  That's the only way I can describe it.  He used to wait for his pitch.   My only guess is he's pressing or suffering some un-reported injury (or maybe the hand is worse than they let on).  I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.  I realize Jim and Noe both stated he's always been aggressive, which I agree with.  I just didn't see it to this degree in previous years.

I really like Lee at the plate.  It's amazing watching what he does in an at bat once he's in a 2 strike count.  He still k's here and there but he's no easy out.  My only knock on Lee is my perception of a lack of hustle on his part.  He does not get cheated when he's batting.

Eggszactly.  Lance this year has been overly aggressive.  However, since he's a switch hitter, when he hits right handed, his approach is worse.  It's grip it and rip it.  Lee is a much better hitter than Lance, so is Loretta a much better hitter than Pence.  I want all four on my team though, just like Coach wanted that McDonald kid on his team. 

[Noe]

You might want to back off a little bit there, Noe. Push the ignore button if you don't want to read anymore, but don't get nasty.

I've said my peace and if you don't like it, I can't change that.  But you've been playing close to the line to try and prove something.  I'm not sure what, but it borders on trying to discredit something or someone.  I'm asking you and Neil to be honest and come out front and say what you will if you have to, but realize that your conversation about stats have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what has been said to date by either Jim or I.  At this point you're having a conversation that is entirely different.

It's about stats and stats alone and is not about what was said.  So knock yourselves out.  It is not about the topic at hand though because again, the context is approach.  You cannot see it but want to quantify it.   You are no longer talking apples to my oranges so don't fool yourself into thinking you are talking oranges at all.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Eggszactly.  Lance this year has been overly aggressive.  However, since he's a switch hitter, when he hits right handed, his approach is worse.  It's grip it and rip it.  Lee is a much better hitter than Lance, so is Loretta a much better hitter than Pence.  I want all four on my team though, just like Coach wanted that McDonald kid on his team. 

Well yeah.  Different roles, different approaches.  It's the same reason I played until I was a freshmen in highschool even though I couldn't hit worth a damn.  I may have not hit but you sure as hell wouldn't strike me out.

Anyway, the r-h approach is dead on.  I think he's had one season where he used some semblance of an approach from the right and put up solid results.  I hope he figures it out because he is a critical piece of this team. 

[Noe]

Well yeah.  Different roles, different approaches.  It's the same reason I played until I was a freshmen in highschool even though I couldn't hit worth a damn.  I may have not hit but you sure as hell wouldn't strike me out.

Anyway, the r-h approach is dead on.  I think he's had one season where he used some semblance of an approach from the right and put up solid results.  I hope he figures it out because he is a critical piece of this team. 

Charlie Pallilo has been ragging on Lance Berkman to hit exclusively from the left side now for over three months.  Statistics told him to do so... go figure.

[NeilT]

Look, me and Jim is not the issue here.  Far from it.  Approach in baseball is not something Jim nor I created to have some sort of exclusive club that only the two of us can join.   It's baseball to Jim.  It's baseball to me.  It's baseball to a hell of a lot more people than the two of us.  Quit trying to make it just me and Jim (and that is what bothers me here more than anything else).  It's not.  It's about a very simple concept that is used in baseball by many people and when Jim said what he did, it fits that context.  Had it been said by Andyzipp or anyone else, it would still fucking apply.

That is why I'm asking you very honestly and up front here Neil.   Is this about approach... or not?  If not, then it's about Jim.  Which is it?

Damn.  I thought I was trying to be nice--I mean right now the discussion is you, me, Arky & Jim.  And some guy with a funny hat.  I was trying to close down the discussion with a peaceful way out for all.  So be it.

It's not about approach, it's about the inadequacy of approach qua approach.   Bottom line, at least in my mind, the better hitter is the guy who hits better, not the guy with the better idea about hitting.  If you're sitting on the bench, and you and Jim--and I'm using you and Jim because that's your illustration, not because I'm particularly interested in you and Jim one way or the other--are sitting on the bench, and Jim says "that Lee, he's a far better hitter than Berkman," and you immediately understand it, it doesn't mean that you haven't missed something.  I'd say you've missed something pretty obvious.  He's not, approach be damned. Why is that so hard?

That is the last 10 year's discussion.  Nothing new.  Nothing new under the sun.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Damn.  I thought I was trying to be nice--I mean right now the discussion is you, me, Arky & Jim.  And some guy with a funny hat. 

Are you trying to taunt me?  Do you want a piece of Slowpoke Rodriguez?  You don't know pain like Slowpoke pain! 

seriously, I had to modify it to make it non-copyrighted, to my understanding.  So that's his normal hat with the Astros star and colors.   It's piss poor, admittedly.  But I'm unix admin, not a friggin Mac user. 

[Limey]

Charlie Pallilo has been ragging on Lance Berkman to hit exclusively from the left side now for over three months.  Statistics told him to do so... go figure.

I've been looking for Lance's batting average when hitting lefty against left-handed pitchers.  Can't find anything.  Any ideas?  Links?  I'll hang up and go scream into a pillow.  Thanks

[Limey]

I'm sure Limey could engage us on many topics.

Many, many topics.  All about which I know very little.

[Noe]

Bottom line, at least in my mind, the better hitter is the guy who hits better, not the guy with the better idea about hitting. 

But that's just it Neil, Coach never said that in Neil's mind, Carlos Lee is the better hitter than Lance Berkman and here is why.  He said that in his mind and he said the reason why was "approach".  Why the continued conversations about stats and all?  To discredit "approach"?  Discredit coach?  Discredit observation?  That is the part I really don't understand and why when we have this conversation over and over and over again in here is all leads to the same damn thing.

Nothing.

[Arky Vaughan]

Many, many topics.  All about which I know very little.

Then we'd be in good company.

[JimR]

Damn.  I thought I was trying to be nice--I mean right now the discussion is you, me, Arky & Jim.  And some guy with a funny hat.  I was trying to close down the discussion with a peaceful way out for all.  So be it.

It's not about approach, it's about the inadequacy of approach qua approach.   Bottom line, at least in my mind, the better hitter is the guy who hits better, not the guy with the better idea about hitting.  If you're sitting on the bench, and you and Jim--and I'm using you and Jim because that's your illustration, not because I'm particularly interested in you and Jim one way or the other--are sitting on the bench, and Jim says "that Lee, he's a far better hitter than Berkman," and you immediately understand it, it doesn't mean that you haven't missed something.  I'd say you've missed something pretty obvious.  He's not, approach be damned. Why is that so hard?

That is the last 10 year's discussion.  Nothing new.  Nothing new under the sun.

i know you're not stupid. you work at a big law firm on many important business deals.

this post, however, shakes my faith, but it is on a subject about which you know little. same as if i expressed my opinion about municipal bonds.

[Arky Vaughan]

It's not about approach, it's about the inadequacy of approach qua approach.

I don't think it even rises to the level of a question of inadequacy of approach, just a discussion of whether approach translates into results, whether results are measured statistically or not.

[Noe]

I don't think it even rises to the level of a question of inadequacy of approach, just a discussion of whether approach translates into results, whether results are measured statistically or not.

Results are measured statistically.   Some very talented individuals like the McDonald kid that Coach mentioned have a high success rate in the results.  The stats are there to prove it.

[Arky Vaughan]

Results are measured statistically.   Some very talented individuals like the McDonald kid that Coach mentioned have a high success rate in the results.  The stats are their to prove it.

Stats are a measure of results. Results can be observation too. You can observe the approach, and you can observe whether it succeeds in the objective. The place where stats come in is adding those up. But most commonly available stats are too rudimentary to do that addition.

[Noe]

Stats are a measure of results. Results can be observation too. You can observe the approach, and you can observe whether it succeeds in the objective. The place where stats come in is adding those up. But most commonly available stats are too rudimentary to do that addition.

You can have a successful approach that results in nothing successful.  If you don't know what you're looking at, you won't see it.  Don't try to measure it, look at it for it's inherent value.  I'm sure that is very difficult for you and that's okay.  But don't try to change it to make it more viable for you or anyone else.  It is what it is.

[Lurch]

Results, and thus stats, are heavily impacted by outside variables and there's not a sample size big enough to negate them.  Approach is purely internal to the hitter, so if you want to talk about the HITTER and not batter #3 in the 7th inning on July 7th with the wind blowing in and a scuffed ball, you have to use observations not equations.

It's the first day of school for a lot of us today.

[NeilT]

But that's just it Neil, Coach never said that in Neil's mind, Carlos Lee is the better hitter than Lance Berkman and here is why.  He said that in his mind and he said the reason why was "approach".  Why the continued conversations about stats and all?  To discredit "approach"?  Discredit coach?  Discredit observation?  That is the part I really don't understand and why when we have this conversation over and over and over again in here is all leads to the same damn thing.

Nothing.

Noe, why in the world would anything I've said discredit Jim, or you, or approach, or observation?  I hate to belabor the obvious, but this is a discussion board, right?  If I  disagree, so what, even if the same topic is discussed 10,000 times?  If people are bored, they'll quit reading.  I often do.  And trust me, if anyone's reputation suffers, it's probably not Jim's.  

[DVauthrin]

When have you ever seen lance berkman take a defensive swing when behind in the count?  Lee will throw his hands at a pitch just to get another pitch.    Also compare the number of sac flies between lee and berkman.  Lee has more because he goes up to bat with the runner in scoring position and less than 2 outs thinking, no matter what, that runner at 3rd has to score this plate appearance.   Berkman doesn't have said mentality.

[Noe]

Noe, why in the world would anything I've said discredit Jim, or you, or approach, or observation?  I hate to belabor the obvious, but this is a discussion board, right?  If I  disagree, so what, even if the same topic is discussed 10,000 times?  If people are bored, they'll quit reading.  I often do.  And trust me, if anyone's reputation suffers, it's probably not Jim's. 

All true but does it make sense to you to discuss observation with a counter of.... stats?  It doesn't to me.  If you have a counter observation of Lee and Berkman's approach, then that is fine.  Discuss with Jim or me or anyone else this to death.  I'm not sure what that counter observation would be though.

So do you see the frustration with this thread and the million others that preceeded it?  It makes no sense to have this discussion... UNLESS... it's about something else.  Understood now Neil?  Do you get my frustration with this yet again?  You most certainly disagree, but why within the context of stats or career numbers when that was never the issue being discussed?  What's worse to me is that you are a very intelligent man.  I've always thought that of you, so what in heavens name are you doing muddying the waters like this.  Is it not clear what is being said?  Hence why I am a bit confused and annoyed at this thread yet again cropping up.

How many times does this have to happen again?

[Arky Vaughan]

You can have a successful approach that results in nothing successful.  If you don't know what you're looking at, you won't see it.  Don't try to measure it, look at it for it's inherent value.  I'm sure that is very difficult for you and that's okay.  But don't try to change it to make it more viable for you or anyone else.  It is what it is.

If a batter's approach is successful, it should improve his team's chances of winning. Presumably a batter like Carlos Lee who adjusts his approach to fit the situation is improving his team's chances of winning.

[Noe]

If a batter's approach is successful, it should improve his team's chances of winning. Presumably a batter like Carlos Lee who adjusts his approach to fit the situation is improving his team's chances of winning.

Is there another team on the field while this is happening?  What are they, cardboard cutouts?  Arky, can we stop already?  If you want me to say something to make you feel that you're right, I'm wrong, tell me and I'll say it.

This is really annoying.

[Arky Vaughan]

Is there another team on the field while this is happening?  What are they, cardboard cutouts?  Arky, can we stop already?  If you want me to say something to make you feel that you're right, I'm wrong, tell me and I'll say it.

This is really annoying.

Sure, there's another team, which in part determines whether the batter is successful. But over time, if a batter adjusting his approach is a successful tactic, then that should improve his team's chances of winning. If there's a statistical way to measure that, I'm not sure what it is, although I have some ideas. I certainly don't think it doesn't exist just because there's no easy statistical way to measure it.

Feel free to lock the thread whenever you wish. I don't really mind whether it continues or not, and I'm not asking you to say uncle. You're not annoying me by arguing your position.

[Dobro]

Arky, being someone well-versed in the subject of Critical Thinking, as usual, you are arguing your point at a completely different level than some others in this thread.  The level is so utterly incomprehensible to some, that they have no real intelligent response to it.

[Astroholic]

Arky, being someone well-versed in the subject of Critical Thinking, as usual, you are arguing your point at a completely different level than some others in this thread.  The level is so utterly incomprehensible to some, that they have no real intelligent response to it.

Now that’s a damn fine complement there Arky.  You should feel very proud.

[Noe]

Sure, there's another team, which in part determines whether the batter is successful. But over time, if a batter adjusting his approach is a successful tactic, then that should improve his team's chances of winning. If there's a statistical way to measure that, I'm not sure what it is, although I have some ideas. I certainly don't think it doesn't exist just because there's no easy statistical way to measure it.

Feel free to lock the thread whenever you wish. I don't really mind whether it continues or not, and I'm not asking you to say uncle. You're not annoying me by arguing your position.

I. Don't. Want. To. Argue. Any. Position.

I'm an idiot.  A moron.  I'm stupid when it comes to baseball.  I don't know what you want so I can't possibly give it to you.  If you want me to say something to stop you from continuing this, then tell me and I'll say it, do it, or whatev.  Statistical evidence does exist to measure "approach"... cool, you're right, go for it, I was wrong, how dare I!  What in the hell was I thinking when I used *only* observation when it came to approach.  And if we measure it, we'll find out just how wrong the whole "Carlos Lee is a much better hitter than Lance Berkman" really was too!  Woo-hoo!  Doesn't matter that the context used to make that statement and defend it was in no way being quantified by stats but by observation!  Man, who a doofus I am for being very simple about this all.  Arky, you're a GOD!

You're an admin too, lock away!  Thanks in advance.

(*sigh*)

[Dobro]

Now that’s a damn fine complement there Arky.  You should feel very proud.

You are much better at carrying the nutsacks of OWA Elite than you are at humor and sarcasm.  Stick to what you know.

[Astroholic]

You are much better at carrying the nutsacks of OWA Elite than you are at humor and sarcasm.  Stick to what you know.

Hello pot..this is kettle.  I am done with you too now.  Arent you happy?

[Burzmali]

Just out of curiosity, would the approach fanatics here prefer Lee on this team over Berkman?

[Lurch]

Just out of curiosity, would the approach fanatics here prefer Lee on this team over Berkman?

Relevance? Wouldn't you prefer Berkman looking to mimic the approach and apply it along with his significant talent to produce an even more effective hitter?

[Noe]

Just out of curiosity, would the approach fanatics here prefer Lee on this team over Berkman?

Can the bunny trails away from what was actually said please stop now?   Damn, how can intelligent people be so damn stupid!

[Burzmali]

Relevance? Wouldn't you prefer Berkman looking to mimic the approach and apply it along with his significant talent to produce an even more effective hitter?

 

Why can't the question be answered?

Relevance is... people are using approach as criteria in determining who is the better hitter.

I'm not trying to be sneaky or anything, i'm honestly curious.

I would prefer Berkman do what works for him. He has had a slump of a season, but in previous seasons his supposedly sub-optimal approach has yielded incredible results.

[Navin R Johnson]

Wandy is a better pitcher than Lance, but that doesnt mean anyone prefers Wandy on the team over Lance.

[Noe]

Why can't the question be answered?

It has nothing to do with the point that was made?

Relevance is... people are using approach as criteria in determining who is the better hitter.

And you want both guys on your team and no one said otherwise.

I'm not trying to be sneaky or anything, i'm honestly curious.

Okay, here is your answer.  What the fuck?  Who said anything about choosing one over the other?  Damn!

I would prefer Berkman do what works for him. He has had a slump of a season, but in previous seasons his supposedly sub-optimal approach has yielded incredible results.

If it has to be said again and again and again about how good Berkman is with his ungodly talent to make you guys fucking read and understand one more time, I'm going to explode!!!!

[S.P. Rodriguez]

You are much better at carrying the nutsacks of OWA Elite than you are at humor and sarcasm.  Stick to what you know.

Wow...  I just keep growing the ignore list.  Later asshole...

[Noe]

Wandy is a better pitcher than Lance, but that doesnt mean anyone prefers Wandy on the team over Lance.

Correct.  However it would be close if we're talking Wandy versus Jason Lane!

[Burzmali]

Wandy is a better pitcher than Lance, but that doesnt mean anyone prefers Wandy on the team over Lance.

We're talking about evaluating hitters. Would you rather have Lee's bat in the lineup or Lance's, if you could only have one of the two.

If we're talking about pitching, then I would hope you would rather have Wandy in the rotation over Lance.

[Noe]

Wow...  I just keep growing the ignore list.  Later asshole...

Some assholes are not going to make it through the night.  Just saying.

[Noe]

We're talking about evaluating hitters. Would you rather have Lee's bat in the lineup or Lance's, if you could only have one of the two.

If we're talking about pitching, then I would hope you would rather have Wandy in the rotation over Lance.

You're trying to twist the opinion and it's context well out of scope.  It's not appreciated.  At. All.

No one has said that Lance Berkman sucks or Lee deserves to be on this team and not Berkman.  You want both!  Berkman on sheer talent alone is going to be a great player, perhaps an elite player when all is said and done.  No fucking one is saying that is *NOT* true.  The context of Lee versus Berkman in terms of approach is succinct and if you cannot *or will not* understand, then back away from it.  Slowly or rapidly, doesn't matter to me because it's no longer the same argument you're making.

[JimR]

Arky has hit the big time. Dobro is on his side. he just wants Noe back.

[Burzmali]

It has nothing to do with the point that was made?

And you want both guys on your team and no one said otherwise.

Okay, here is your answer.  What the fuck?  Who said anything about choosing one over the other?  Damn!

If it has to be said again and again and again about how good Berkman is with his ungodly talent to make you guys fucking read and understand one more time, I'm going to explode!!!!

Arg!! I feel as frustrated as you I think. I'm just throwing out a hypothetical situation that I think would enrich the discussion. Forgive me if you don't agree. I never said anybody said anything about choosing between the two. Of course you want both on your team. If you couldn't though, which would you pick? What I'm getting it, is that you say that Lee is a better hitter than Lance. So does it follow that you would rather have him in your lineup?

[Navin R Johnson]

We're talking about evaluating hitters. Would you rather have Lee's bat in the lineup or Lance's, if you could only have one of the two.

If we're talking about pitching, then I would hope you would rather have Wandy in the rotation over Lance.

This year, Lee's without question.

[Noe]

So does it follow that you would rather have him in your lineup?

No, both is fine and in fact, very much welcomed and very much what the team has now and for the extended future.  Everyone, I mean every freaking one is happy about that too!  Now let it die because you obviously do not understand what was said.  It's okay, you don't have to understand it either.

[Noe]

This year, Lee's without question.

Hey Navin, you are in for a surprise on the next Stubing announcement.  Congrats.  Now stop playing with the guest and let this die.

[JimR]

Arg!! I feel as frustrated as you I think. I'm just throwing out a hypothetical situation that I think would enrich the discussion. Forgive me if you don't agree. I never said anybody said anything about choosing between the two. Of course you want both on your team. If you couldn't though, which would you pick? What I'm getting it, is that you say that Lee is a better hitter than Lance. So does it follow that you would rather have him in your lineup?

you're not enriching anything. stop.

[Noe]

you're not enriching anything. stop.

Confusing?  Distorting?  Derailing?  Yes.  Enriching?  Nope.

[Burzmali]

No.  Now let it die because you obviously do not understand it.  It's okay, you don't have to understand it either.

Really? I think I do understand. You think that Lee's approach to hitting is better than Lance's. You think Lance is a hacker and could improve his situational hitting. This improvement, coupled with his massive talent would result in an even more productive Lance.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of this. I just don't value approach at all. I think the only thing that matters when evaluating a hitter is offensive production. I understand that you are saying that production will improve along with approach, but I don't see how you can make approach a significant part of evaluation when there are productive hitters with "bad" approaches, and unproductive hitters with "good" approaches.

[Burzmali]

This year, Lee's without question.

Agreed. But it's closer than you might think.

[Noe]

I just don't value approach at all.

Cool.  We'll mark you down for that and now, stop trying to confuse things or even change the opinion of those who do value "approach".  We've done this a million times in here and I will say it yet again for the what 20 or 30 time in this thread... we'll end up at the same point every fucking time.

Nowhere.

[Nate in IA]

If you're sitting on the bench, and you and Jim--and I'm using you and Jim because that's your illustration, not because I'm particularly interested in you and Jim one way or the other--are sitting on the bench, and Jim says "that Lee, he's a far better hitter than Berkman," and you immediately understand it, it doesn't mean that you haven't missed something.  I'd say you've missed something pretty obvious.  He's not, approach be damned. Why is that so hard?

The whole problem is the adjective 'better'.   Is it better to approach the at-bat in a certain way or is it better to "produce" (whatever that means)?   Where the grey area seems to be is that a certain approach will generally get better "production".  This fact leads to the presumption that you can go backwards and ascertain that a given approach "works" better because of what you see in terms of "production".   

Given the above, we can see that when one person declares "Lee is a 'better' hitter than Berkman", one person views the term "better" from the front end, and the other person views the term "better" from the back end, and hence the clash.

My personal opinion (and we all know what opinions are worth) is that it would be good to have a certain hitting approach known to produce decent results taught to the minor leaguers.  By the time they make it to the show, however, it is probably too late to teach a whole lot and hence you can only look at the production to determine if a given player is a good fit on your team.

[Noe]

I understand that you are saying that production will improve along with approach, but I don't see how you can make approach a significant part of evaluation when there are productive hitters with "bad" approaches, and unproductive hitters with "good" approaches.

You don't understand the point at all if this is what you've gotten out of this 10 page thread.  Not one iota of understanding.  Now move along.

[JimR]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of this. I just don't value approach at all. I think the only thing that matters when evaluating a hitter is offensive production.

you know, this is just crazy. have you ever coached your son or anyone? have you ever been coached what to do on the first pitch or 2-0 or 3-1 or down in the count with 2 strikes?

[Burzmali]

Cool.  We'll mark you down for that and now, stop trying to confuse things or even change the opinion of those who do value "approach".  We've done this a million times in here and I will say it yet again for the what 20 or 30 time in this thread... we'll end up at the same point every fucking time.

Nowhere.

Fair enough.

Do you at least think that I understand what you're saying now?

[Burzmali]

you know, this is just crazy. have you ever coached your son or anyone? have you ever been coached what to do on the first pitch or 2-0 or 3-1 or down in the count with 2 strikes?

I'm talking about from an evaluation perspective.

From a coaching perspective, approach is everything, because it's what you can influence.

[Burzmali]

You don't understand the point at all if this is what you've gotten out of this 10 page thread.  Not one iota of understanding.  Now move along.

Wait a second. What you quoted is my opinion.

I think I do understand what you're saying, i just don't agree with it.

You honestly don't think I understand what you're point is? (The part above what you quoted.)

[Noe]

Given the above, we can see that when one person declares "Lee is a 'better' hitter than Berkman", one person views the term "better" from the front end, and the other person views the term "better" from the back end, and hence the clash.

The person asked to clarify his point did so with the criteria (front end?) in place.  What has continued on and on and on in here is a continued attack of the opinion and criteria with a desire to change it to a back end.  Why?  I dunno know exactly, maybe because it will make the *other* person feel better or makes one feel one is so right and the other is so wrong.  Like I said, I dunno.  But we do this a lot around here on the very same subject.  Replace the player, be it Chris Burke or Lance Berkman, doesn't matter.  One will speak of the approach, the other about the results and then before you know it, you have ten freaking pages of nothing and a whole bunch of intelligent people asking and saying stupid things to each other.

[JimR]

I'm talking about from an evaluation perspective.

From a coaching perspective, approach is everything, because it's what you can influence.

you know, don't you, that scouts do not care one iota about a prospects numbers? they look at how he does things and how he approaches the game. they project that forward into MLB. they do not care one whit about his production in Bum Fuck Egypt.

approach is everything. without a solid approach, mixed in with talent, there will not be much chance at production.

[Burzmali]

you know, don't you, that scouts do not care one iota about a prospects numbers? they look at how he does things and how he approaches the game. they project that forward into MLB. they do not care one whit about his production in Bum Fuck Egypt.

approach is everything. without a solid approach, mixed in with talent, there will not be much chance at production.

You are absolutely right.

But I think that's more because projecting minor league numbers is very complicated, and often very innacurate. So in that situation, approach and scouting is the better criteria to evaluate.

[Noe]

Fair enough.

Do you at least think that I understand what you're saying now?

Nope.  Sorry.  You do, however, understand perfectly what you're saying.  And that is fine.  No one is attacking your opinion as invalid per se.  It's your criteria and that is fine if you want to use that to evaluate simple terms as "best hitter".  If I were coaching a little league team, my own criteria would never lean towards performance stats and results to make that evaluation.

My own criteria is different.  And hence, again, when Coach says what he did, I had no problem either understanding or agreeing with it.  It makes perfect sense to me and to many others too.  But we're not arguing the same thing, not even the same ballpark and that is what is annoying about this thread cropping up again. 

[Noe]

I'm talking about from an evaluation perspective.

From a coaching perspective, approach is everything, because it's what you can influence.

Thank you, now stop distorting it again.

[Noe]

Wait a second. What you quoted is my opinion.

I think I do understand what you're saying, i just don't agree with it.

You honestly don't think I understand what you're point is? (The part above what you quoted.)

I honestly don't think a person who is arguing oranges to an apple statement understand that it is apple's that is the criteria for the discussion.  This was never a discussion about fruit, it was squarely about apples.  So what if you think oranges are better.  Either you don't understand apples or refuse to acknowledge that apples is the point all along.

[JackAstro]

I'm throwing in my thoughts, because it don't cost nothing. I'm sure someone will let me know if they disagree.

I love watching Carlos Lee go about his business at the plate. I love watching his swing change when he's leading off vs. men on with 2 down. I enjoy his recognition that right field exists, particularly when everything is away. I love his brutal efficiency with a runner on third and less than 2 outs - I've never seen a hitter who is as automatic with a sac fly as he is. And yes, I think his 2 strike approach is a thing of beauty. No, I don't think it's great to have 2 strikes on you, but you know, it does happen. Trying to knock a single straight back through the middle is a pretty good way to deal with it. Of course, none of these things would be too endearing if he hit around the Mendoza and couldn't plate runs, but he does, and I'm consistently impressed by how he does it.

I love watching Lance Berkman hit a baseball. I don't think he puts much effort into figuring out what he's doing up there, but every identical swing holds enormous potential. I love his at-bats. I don't expect any nuance in them, and I don't get any. And that's fine. He could easily snag an MVP before he's done, and I don't think he needs to change a thing at the plate. It's not exactly a pitch-by-pitch mini game with him up there, though.

Both players get great results. They couldn't be much more different at the plate. I believe that Lee is the more skilled hitter, and I think Berkman makes up for it with pure talent. I don't think there's anything in this that's too earth-shattering. Tell me why I'm wrong if you'd like.

[Noe]

I'm throwing in my thoughts, because it don't cost nothing. I'm sure someone will let me know if they disagree.

I love watching Carlos Lee go about his business at the plate. I love watching his swing change when he's leading off vs. men on with 2 down. I enjoy his recognition that right field exists, particularly when everything is away. I love his brutal efficiency with a runner on third and less than 2 outs - I've never seen a hitter who is as automatic with a sac fly as he is. And yes, I think his 2 strike approach is a thing of beauty. No, I don't think it's great to have 2 strikes on you, but you know, it does happen. Trying to knock a single straight back through the middle is a pretty good way to deal with it. Of course, none of these things would be too endearing if he hit around the Mendoza and couldn't plate runs, but he does, and I'm consistently impressed by how he does it.

I love watching Lance Berkman hit a baseball. I don't think he puts much effort into figuring out what he's doing up there, but every identical swing holds enormous potential. I love his at-bats. I don't expect any nuance in them, and I don't get any. And that's fine. He could easily snag an MVP before he's done, and I don't think he needs to change a thing at the plate. It's not exactly a pitch-by-pitch mini game with him up there, though.

Both players get great results. They couldn't be much more different at the plate. I believe that Lee is the more skilled hitter, and I think Berkman makes up for it with pure talent. I don't think there's anything in this that's too earth-shattering. Tell me why I'm wrong if you'd like.

Absolutely true.  Well done.

[MikeyBoy]

Both players get great results. They couldn't be much more different at the plate. I believe that Lee is the more skilled hitter, and I think Berkman makes up for it with pure talent. I don't think there's anything in this that's too earth-shattering. Tell me why I'm wrong if you'd like.

I agree and this brings us full circle back to Jim's first post on this thread.

[Noe]

And now we can safely lock this up before some one fucks this thread up with another stupid distortion or question.  Namely me!