ashbury

Yeah, I don't know what the multiplier should be. As I stated, the 4X difference in maximums is obviously too high to use. While 1X is too low. "Twice as valuable" is getting closer, but is still probably too high. I think I've seen values around 1.6, which would be in the ballpark of my very simplistic example with Trout. There have been careful studies, probably the some of the ones mentioned in this thread, that give a useful answer - I don't have one at hand to recommend at the moment, and I'm just cautioning against being careless when comparing two very different kinds of number.

Not to weigh in particularly on either side, but a confounding factor in discussing OBP versus SLG is that they aren't on the same scale. By definition, the maximum OBP is 1.000 while for SLG it's 4.000. While batters routinely reach a larger fraction of the maximum of OBP than for SLG, it's still the case that the league leader in OBP will be ahead of the league average by fewer points than the leader of SLG is. This year Mike Trout leads the majors in OBP with .152 more than MLB average, while for SLG it's Trout (again) by .282 more than the average. You can't just compare the two stats directly. It's a bit like comparing Celsius and Fahrenheit, except that those two scales are measuring the same actual thing. For me it means that .010 of additional OBP is more valuable than .010 more SLG. If someone's regression study doesn't attempt to correct for scale, then the conclusion will be that getting on base is more important than hitting for power. And I'm not sure that it's answering the actual question, done that way. This difference of scale has always been one of the prime criticisms of OPS. You're adding a pound of apples to a dozen oranges. As an aside, by sheer coincidence, yesterday I ran across a reference to a precursor to OPS, in which OBP plus SLG plus BA were added together. The guy called it ''combined triple average." I kind of like it. It over-weights batting average, but that means the criticism of OPS that it gives too much weight to walks is mitigated, likewise the outsize effect of a few extra wallops over the fence. If it overweights base hits, well, that's IMO the single most valuable skill in the sport, so it's not a major sin - but like OPS the combined triple average is better than BA alone. http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/06/23/his_numbers_are_in_the_ballpark/

It's one of those rare cases where the recipient requests that half the assets be frozen.

Gotta play one game at a time. I'm just happy to be here, hope I can help the ball club. There's no 'I' in RBI.

Nah, all the other guys than Ehire just run twice as fast as I expect.

Your prescription worked, Doctor!

Fiction is stranger than truth.

Good grief.

Under the current collective bargaining agreement, he gets $2000 worth of pizza and $2000 worth of ice cream for every game.

In little league there's no guarantee that will put a stop to the running.

Angular momentum is a hell of a drug.

I watched that video again in light of that perception, and I'm genuinely not sure Lynn can waddle any faster than he showed on that play. He got on his way with reasonable urgency, it just didn't work out any faster than that. And he did beat the batter to the bag, so it should have been enough.

While you were replying, I was modifying. One of my bad habits. I agree with the E-3 ruling, since the flip was not a good one. I just took issue with the snowcone-at-best characterization. Lynn mistimed his snag of the throw by just enough to ruin his otherwise workmanlike effort beating the runner to the bag.

I don't think one frame will tell the story on this one. That ball looks catchable to me, in motion. Lynn closed the glove too soon or something. A video of the play is already up: https://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/mp4/2018/06/21/2177992083/1529541860924/asset_1800K.mp4 But a poor flip. So I agree with giving the error to the one who put the other player in a position of having to bail him out.

I was disappointed that Heezy's article failed to discuss the pros and cons of amputation. It's not as simple a decision as posters here are making it out to be, particularly when the long-term effects on the player's career are considered.

Not enough garlic. You needed to take them to Mayslack's. Nobody could beat those sandwiches.

I took the liberty of editing the thread title to say "vs." instead of "@", since the Twins are nowhere near my neck of the woods this game.

Some teams are just slow about promoting their prospects. The FSL is said to be a pitcher's league. I hope it doesn't suppress Sano's numbers too badly.

Maybe. Stats say that batters do better against a starting pitcher the second time through the order, and better still the third time through. There's pressure now to start inserting relievers to avoid that third pass - a shorter game will only heighten the pressure to go once through the order and then bring in a new pitcher. If excess relievers are the problem, only a shorter roster seems like a solution, to me. For me, it's the excess time involved in bringing in the reliever - who's doing the pitching isn't itself the problem. New rules that insist on the reliever being warmed up and sitting in the team's dugout (a quick jog's distance from the mound), kind of like basketball or soccer players being in a defined location before substituting in, and getting just 1 warmup pitch, would be my preferred solution. I don't need to watch the pitcher hand the ball to the manager, who then waits and hands the ball to the next pitcher. Do it more like a wrestling tag-team - "Skip says you look tired, I'm in, you're out".

All I am saying is, trade for R.J. Peace and give him a chance. http://www.beatleswiki.com/wiki/images/thumb/0/09/John-Lennon_1969.jpg/220px-John-Lennon_1969.jpg

Moderator's note: Folks are indeed entitled to offer their opinions on the team and players, so let's not pursue this tangent please, lest it turn into bickering.

Maybe other teams also read what I keep coming back to in MLBTR when Hanley was released: "Dombrowski says Cora assuaged any worry that bumping Ramirez would harm chemistry in the clubhouse." It's hard to get a GM to be more direct than that. Or perhaps other teams have their own sources too.

That's because they stop being prospects anymore.

That is using a fuzzy term. There are prospects, as in guys who are signed to play for an organization's minor league teams. And then there are prospects, as in guys who have a chance to make an impact. When we talk about trading "prospects" for a key player, the other team's GM isn't interested in "a hundred" of our guys. And when you do trade your top organizational prospects for a guy, the next draft doesn't replace them just like that. Sure, you'll have a new top-10, but they won't be near as good. By the same logic, every other team has 25 or so new prospects as of this month. So they won't give you a plugged nickel for any but about 5 of your new guys, and they'll give something of actual value for only about 1 or 2, and paired up at that. Just glancing through the top of the MLB Top 100 I can predict that names like Gleyber Torres and Ronald Acuna and Walker Buehler will not appear the next time the list is compiled, because they will have exhausted their rookie eligibility. Ditto for Jesse Winker and Miguel Andujar down around #100. Drat those know-it-alls who place them high on these rankings and then will change their minds. And yes, other prospects will move down or off the list, as others move up. Just as some number of established veterans seemingly dis-establish themselves at random every year - even big names like Sonny Gray and Jonathan Lucroy and Troy Tulowitzki. Top 100 prospects as a whole are, to me, not particularly more over-rated (or under-rated) than any other kind of baseball player. No player comes with a bumper-to-bumper new car warranty when you acquire one and see things through.