10PagesOfClearBlueSky

Who was I insulting to? Frodaddy or myself? Because I satirized myself as being a fan who is "blinded by their love of SPEED." Plus, I liked his post and added a smiley face to mine. Seems pretty clear that I was just trying to be silly. I think you overplayed the indignation hand here a little bit.

Yes, but how would you construct the lineup of the group of fans who selected the lineup? I'm thinking fans who draw coloring crayon pictures of their high OBP idols at the top, while fans who are blinded by their love of SPEED can just be bunched together at the bottom...

My response was indeed a joke about the whole age controversy documented in the film. I very much enjoyed Pelotero and look forward to the sequel.

I hesitate to "characterize" your analysis, because it would be a translation on my part of YOUR MATH into MY ENGLISH and would include subjective terms like "substantial", "significant" and "obviously". I appreciate the seriousness with which you approach a legitimate question.

Interesting. I'd be all for it, willing to spend the most I've ever spent an a kickstarter initiative, if I just knew hold old the Producers are...

You're choosing to argue against a hypothetical that was intentionally extreme in its nature. It was to illustrate the fact that comments like "IMO OBP is the ONLY quality to be considered when constructing a lineup" are ridiculous. Is OBP incredibly important? Yes. My purpose with the hypothetical was just to make my idea plainly clear by pushing out the averages to the point where that philosophy cost a team actual runs. My subsequent discussion of Guzman and Mientkiewicz was a fact based example of the same type of scenario, in which SPEED likely played a noteworthy role in actual runs being scored by different types of players. Is my example perfect? No. I say as much in the posts. I mention that subsequent hitters impact the likelihood of scoring more than the SPEED of the player on base. To outright ignore SPEED as a factor, however, is to ignore something that clearly impacts the amount of runs being scored. Just because ideas like moneyball have taught us that teams historically have greatly overpaid for a difficult-to-quantify quality like SPEED doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered, or that it doesn't exist, or that it can't sometimes, in certain lineups, in regards to certain types of players, be more important than things like OBP. You're coming in to the conversation a little bit late to be expected to have read all of it though, much less to have paused your conventional SABR wisdom enough to ask yourself whether or not SPEED may exist in a statistical grey area, and whether or not it may actually impact games in a way that it is difficult to quantify.

Nice post. I enjoyed the attempt to somewhat quantify the presence of "luck", especially in the context of St. Patrick's Day having just occurred. Just because something like "luck", or "SPEED" (right guys?) isn't easy to quantify, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. St. Patrick's Day and Baseball kind of go together in a strange way. I guess it is probably because Spring Training is in full enough swing to really be on everybody's minds right about this time of year. Does anybody ever buy those St. Patrick's Day themed Twins T-Shirts that I always see in the stores at this time of year? Seems like a lot of money to spend for a T-Shirt that seems likely to only be worn for a couple days out of the year....

It's funny to me how often the chosen mode of debate in this thread has been to pretend I am making an extreme argument, and then argue against that made up extreme argument. FrodaddyG, Since you seem to be one of those incredibly pleasant people who are very often inclined to use the well respected and exceedingly sophisticated humor and communication style of sarcasm as your chosen method of discourse, I will try to respond in a similar manner in hopes that the communication is successfully received. Yes, Frodaddy, you got me. Despite making clear statements like "I'm not saying SPEED should be prioritized over OBP", I secretly think that lineups should be made up entirely of "9 Guzmans". You nailed it there. In fact, despite saying things like "combinations of high OBP and SPEED are obviously most desirable" I actually secretly despise OBP. In fact, I like guys that exclusively posses the skill of speed, and who get on and off base as quick as possible because I just don't even like the part where they're on base. I have been waiting for somebody to tell me that the actual stats I discussed were the "rock solid science of made up facts". You're right, I created those 2000 plate appearances from thin air. In fact, Meintkiewicz and Guzman didn't really exist. I knew I was going to have this discussion with the ever convincing and insurmountably sarcastic FrodaddyG, so I went back in time and faked these two player's existences for the sake of then having their fabricated stats at my disposal. My motivation? Because of how much I love Gardy, of course. I'm sorry, but I have to stop the sarcastic tone. It is just exhausting to keep up, and it makes me feel like I should be sitting in a dimly lit room eating Doritos and watching Anime. The way you go about your argument makes you seem like you either don't pay full attention to the conversation, or aren't capable of the type of intellectual honesty that people who disagree with me, like Willihamer and Lobombo, display within their posts. The arguments that you are attempting to belittle me for making have quite simply never been made by me. But don't let that get in the way of another of your hilarious and high-brow sarcastic responses. I think it is clear that OBP is one of the most important factors in determining the amount of runs a player or team scores. OBP is also very easy to quantify. I think that SPEED is another factor which has a substantial impact on the amount of runs a player or team scores. Sometimes, a player or teams speed can even make up for somewhat lower OBP when in regards to actual runs being scored. I also think that SPEED is a skill that is very difficult to quantify. Here's the real problem though, and the difference between "Sabermetric minded thinkers" and "Sabermetric adherents". Thinkers would say, "Speed is hard to quantify, but it exists and definitely has to impact games in certain significant ways, even though an excellent way to quantify it hasn't been found yet. How can we find it?". Adherents.... They would just ignore it as a factor unless somebody has found a way to quantify it. If it's not presented in a nicely packaged statistic, it just doesn't exist in their world view. So, adherents say things like "You would prefer a whole lineup full off Guzmans, 'cause you love Gardy."

Sure, more easily represented and quantifiable. That doesn't mean that it is more of a contributing factor. Just because an attribute isn't easily tracked and sortable doesn't mean that it isn't greatly influential in the actual outcomes of games.

Taking the overall run production of the three divisions and positioning their run totals as a function of their 2-hole hitters' OPS numbers is not relevant to the discussion of whether or not a fast guy can make up for and exceed his higher On Base peer-players runs scored totals. Not sure what your analysis really proves at all, as the OPS of number two hitters in the lineup is far from the only difference between the three divisions that contribute to their runs scored totals.

I think that you meant I was using a woefully inadequate sample size, meaning not large enough. Clearly a larger sample size would be preferable, but I wouldn't say that over 1000 plate appearances would be woefully inadequate. In this particular case, however, it seems somewhat difficult to do just "do it across the league". One problem is that I am trying to compare specific types of players (slower OBP guys to faster guys) who also faced similar competition within similar conditions. Not sure how I would sort that type of information out of or into a league-wide analysis. In order to do so I would need to be able to label SPEED guys and OBP guys. Seeing as how these are often one in the same, it would be hard to get relevant data. Those are the reasons I chose Mientkiewicz and Guzman. I felt that they were two players that Twins Daily forum would easily recognize for what they were during 2001-2002, a pretty good on base guy and a pretty darn fast guy who had a very similar number of plate appearances. "So, as a general rule, it's better to defer to guys that can get on base at a higher rate before you worry about how well they translate that into scoring" Worrying about "how well they translate that into scoring " is exactly what managers who want to score the most runs possible should be doing. Managers who want to get guys on base but aren't concerned with how often those guys come around to score would be woefully neglectful of the true objective of lineup construction, which is scoring runs. If anyone is predisposed to focusing on one particular skill-set, it is you regarding OBP.

Really? Willingham scored 85 runs to Mauer's 81. I tend to think that the 25 more times that Willingham drove himself in by hitting a home run had quite a bit to do with the higher runs scored number. If we subtract self created RBI, which are home runs and not contingent upon how many outs there are when they occur, Mauer scored 71 times from the base paths, while Willingham scored 50 runs from the base paths. Despite the confidence with which you share your theory, and despite its general validity in many comparisons, I just don't think your theory holds much water in this particular scenario.

Uh oh... I'm new here. I guess I didn't get the memo.

You're obscuring the conversation a bit. A faster base runner DOES often score more as a percentage of the opportunities that he has to score. That is not in doubt. Take two players that have the same OBP. Undoubtedly you would assume that if everything else is equal, including the outcomes of the at-bats that follow them getting on base, the faster baserunner will score more runs than the slower baserunner. Now take a baserunner that is fast enough to often times score runs from 2nd and fairly often score from 1st, and put him on base slightly less than a player that can sometimes score from 2nd and can hardly ever score from 1st. It is possible to imagine that faster player still scoring more runs, even though he has slightly less opportunities than the player who has more opportunities to do so but is less fast. Now gradually increase the numbers either way until you reach a point where a substantial amount of On Base skills are being overcome by the speed of the lesser OBP guy. This happens in Baseball all the time, one example of which is the Mientkiewicz/Guzman example. To what do you attribute the clear percentage of scoring per On Base opportunity that Guzman displays compared to Mientkiewicz (43% to 31%)? If speed is at least any part of what you attribute the difference to, then you must acknowledge that OBP does not neccessarily trump SPEED in every instance. Therefore, OBP from top to bottom is not a smart lineup constructing system. Now ask yourself: Is it possible that my team would score runs with a player who is faster but has a less high on base percentage in a higher spot in the order? How often could your guy who "created his own advantage" benefit from also being in front of hitters who will more often give him an opportunity to go from 2nd to home, 1st to 3rd, and 1st to Home? Very often, perhaps, but you would never find out because his somewhat lower OBP demands that a slower player with a somewhat higher OBP take the more advantagous place of batting in front of the power hitters in a lineup. The Mientkiewicz/Guzman example isn't neccessarily able to single out how much of Guzman's increased scoring was directly due to SPEED, but it at least indicates the ability for SPEED to be a significant factor in determining a players usefulness and deservedness at the top of a batting order despite other options for that lineup spot having higher OBP's. Simply put, SPEED can trump OBP. It probably happens more often than we realize, and certainly happens more often than you seem willing to admit.

Hilarious. Yep, definately Gardy. He likes to do it because he thinks middle infielders are sexy. He does it because they have the keys to the box that Drew Butera owns containing photos of Gardy thinking middle infielders are sexy. Amazing he ever has managed the team to a win with his concentration on photographs of boxes of photographs of sexy Drew Butera and low on base percentage middle infielders. Like I said, hilarious.

Yes, it does. It clearly illustrates the concept. It does it in a way that is easily digestable. I was simply trying to show you how it is CONCIEVABLE that a player with lower OBP scores more runs due to factors like speed. I would think that instead of saying it illustrates nothing, that you would first say something like: "I understand the concept that you illustrated. But have you seen it anywhere in factual occurences?" That would suggest that you're interested in seeing if the concept is viable, not just in simply looking for a reason to outright dismiss my hypothetical scenario. If I showed you a situation in which it actually was feasible that it occured, would you state that my findings "prove everything"? I doubt it. I'll show you a scenario like that anyhow, in hopes that an objective observer would admit I have done so and begin to lesson their stubborness about the ultimate importance of OBP. Since this is Twins Daily, and Gardy we're talking about, I chose some names we're all familiar with. From 2001-2002 Cristian Guzman and Doug Mientkiewicz played on the same team, both often hitting at the top of the lineup, and mostly against the same pitchers and defenses. They also had a conveniently similiar amount of plate appearances. During this time, Mientkiewics made 1180 plate appearances and posted an excellent .376 on base percentage. Mientkiewicz was a pretty slow runner, even in his prime. I don't think anybody would really argue that point, but I wouldn't put it past the posters on this board. Anyhow... Mientkiewicz was decent at getting around the basepaths, and scored a run at about 31% of the time. During that same time period, Guzy made 1183 plate appearances. He posted a mediocre .312 on base percentage. The thing of it is, Guzy was a very fast runner. Not neccessarily a great base stealer even, but he was undeniably fast. Guzy scored 43% of the time. Who would you rather have? Dougie, the slower, high OBP guy? Or Guzy, the much faster, much lower OBP guy? During this time, Mientkiewicz scored 137 runs. Guzman scored 160 runs. Obviously the rest of the lineup, the situations in which each player was on base and many other factors went into the difference in runs being scored. With the huge advantage Mientkiewicz had in amount of scoring opportunities (444 to 369) it would be foolish to not see that speed was very likely a substantial factor resulting in a very good OBP guy who was slower footed scoring less actual runs than a pretty mediocre OBP guy who was pretty darn fast. Does it always work out like this? No. Just look down the batting order a bit and you'll find Corey Koskie, who made 1225 plate appearances with a very good .365 OBP. Koskie wasn't a speed demon by any accounts, but he scored more than both Mientkiewicz and Guzman, 171 times. The homerun numbers helped Koskie, but it shows a slower OBP guy scoring quite a bit, facing many of the same pitching and defense conditions. See? I'm fair with my arguments about the "Get to Know 'Em" Twins... Anyhow, even if you're not, I'm confident that I have proven there is at minimum very likely more than just a "billy hamilton to Matthew Lecroy" validity to my perspective on this subject.

You must not have read the entire post either then, because I said that Mauer in the 2 hole would be a good option if there were no decent On Base guys to put in front of him. In 2012 Joe Mauer's OBP was .416. He scored 81 runs. ben revere's OBP was .333. He scored 70 runs. The difference between the two run totals was basically Mauer's 10 home runs to revere's 0. Your argument that high OBP guys should be at the top of the order is pointless, as nobody here seems to be arguing against that. I'm certainly not. Of course I want high On Base guys at the top of the order. My argument is that greater speed and somewhat lower OBP can result in higher run totals than higher OBP and lower speed. Not making an out, getting on base, etc. are all means by which players eventually score runs. So, scoring runs is actually the objective, right? If that's the case then refusing to acknowledge that players with lower OBP's can actually score more runs per On Base opportunity due to their speed is plain and simple ignoring the obvious. Sometimes higher OBP guys don't score as many runs as lower OBP guys who convert the opportunities at a higher rate. Would you rather have a team that scores more runs, or stubbornly insist that OBP is the end-all-be-all of lineup construction considerations?

Some people choose to make straightforward statements, while some other people opt for sarcastic questions. I don't wonder why that is. I've learned that communication is nuanced, and sometimes people feel more comfortable communicating things in the way you have chosen to. No, MLB runs leaderboards tend to be dominated by HIGH OBP guys that also have A LOT OF SPEED. Obviously, both of these qualities in combination can often result in the elite type of run scoring that we see on the leaderboards. Do players like cabrera and hamilton occupy the runs leader board despite relative lack of speed? Yes, of course super high on base percentages, not to mention high homerun numbers, lead to more opportunities to score runs. This was never the argument. If you review the thread you would see that I am contending that OBP should not neccessarily be the top consideration when constructing a lineup. To say it more clearly, there is a threashhold of speed that results in more conversions of On Base opportunities into runs than just pure OBP does. Mauer, fielder, and posey were the three top leaders in OBP this year. Strangely, the first time any of them, fielder, shows up on the runs leader board, is at number 50. Obviously because they were driven in less than some other players higher in the list. Why though? The prowess of the hitters behind them clearly has the most to do with it. Neglecting to acknowledge that their speed and ability to get around the basepaths, however, is absurd. Players with baserunning abilities, a large part of which is SPEED, have an augmented ability convert their On Base opportunities more often than players who aren't as skilled on the basepaths. None of this is to say that speed should be prioritized over OBP. Obviously the elite combination of both is most desirable. All I am saying, straightforward, is that speed can definately help players who don't get on base as often come around to score at a higher rate per on base opportunity than players with higher OBP who are slower-footed. Therefore, speed should be a consideration when constructing lineups. Sometimes, a slightly lower OBP, combined with greater speed, can result in more runs actually scored during the course of a season. You're using a straw-man argument. I never said "Low OBP fast guys" should be batted higher in the order. I am simply saying that a very fast guy with an OBP that may be somewhat lower than another player could potentially, and often times does, end up scoring more runs during the course of a season.

Joe Vavra been taunting you, bragging about his impressive rotator cuffs, and you want to take away his point of pride?

Actually, it does. It illustrates that the ability to score can come from different skill-sets. One type is the skill-set of getting on base very often and converting that on base situation into a run often enough to score a significant amount of runs. Another skill-set puts you on base at a less often percentage, but yet results in converting a higher percentage of on base situations into runs. Of course converting on base situations is in large part based on the hitting that occurs subsequently in the lineup, but if you don't believe that a speedy player with a lower on base percentage like Cristian Guzman could convert more on base situations into runs than a slower player with a higher on base percentage like Doug Mientkiewicz, then you are truly unable to see the actual Baseball forest due to blocked view from the statistical trees.

Our conversation got me thinking and doing some math. I wondered what the threshold would be for preferring speed over OBP. I thought about it this way: Take Hypothetical Player A, who has a very good .380 on base percentage. Let's say he's reasonably competent on the base paths, and that the speed he has allows him to score 50% of the time. This means that out of 600 plate appearances Player A will be on base 228 times and will score a run 114. Not bad at all, the on base machine gets the job done. Now take Hypothetical Player B, with an average .325 on base percentage. Let's say Player B is a pretty darn fast runner, however, and that his speed helps him to score 60% of the time, ten percent more than the high on base guy. In 600 plate appearances Player B gets on base 195 times. His skill-set doesn't include the high on OBP of Player A, but he does have that 10% more scoring per time on the base paths due to the skill-set he does have. Player B scores a run 117 times, three more runs per 600 plate appearance than the On-Base guy. These numbers seem to indicate that the difference need not be Billy Hamilton to Mathew LeCroy in order for speed to be preferable over OBP when the ultimate objective is to score runs.

The only way your statement makes any sense is if you take my comments completely out of context.

First of all, I am not arguing that high On-Base guys are slow footed and clogging up base paths. What I am saying is that getting on base is important in that it makes scoring a run possible in the first place, but it doesn't guarantee the On-Base guy of scoring at a higher rate than a somewhat lower On-Base guy who could steal a base or go from first to third, or first to home. Your assumption is that the slow footed on base guy and the power guy are not one-in-the-same. Morneau comes to mind as a guy who fits this description. I would rather have Morneau hitting a double with a fast guy on first. I know that your argument is that you would rather have Morneau hitting with a GUY ON FIRST period. I understand that, and in a vaccuum I would choose the same. Keep in mind that I am not arguing for low On-Base guys in the two spot, I am simply saying that a significant amount of speed could potentially outweigh a somewhat higher OBP when in regards to the actual reality of bringing a guy around to touch home plate. I also tend to think that throughout the history of Baseball, managers have tried many different approaches. An approach that seems to have been settled on, presumably due to its higher level of effectiveness, is to balance a lineup with a combination of speed and OBP guys in front of RBI threats.

To take your perspective to its logical end, you wouldn't understand why OBP isn't the most important consideration when determining which players are placed on your roster in the first place. On Base fanatics seem to view "getting on base" as the ultimate end. Yes, you have to get on base to score runs. That doesn't mean that a guy who gets on base more often is necessarily likely to score runs more often. It also doesn't mean that they are more likely to drive in more runs. Balance throughout a lineup is a somewhat nebulous concept, but to me it seems to have value when you consider that the ultimate goal is to score runs.

It's funny to me when people just want OBP in the 2-spot, because the ultimate goal is to score runs. If a high On-Base guy doesn't come around to score, what is the value in having them on base in the first place? What you've apparently never "heard explained" is that sometimes high on base guys can be high on base clogs. If a speedy guy gets on base less, but yet comes around to score much more often due to his speed, it would seem to be a clear indication of why a manager would prefer the speed guy hitting number 2 in his order. That being said, Tolbert is obviously not a poster child for this argument, as his time in the 2-spot seemed to usually have to do with maintaining the "lineup continuity" that you mentioned. While I wouldn't prioritize continuity over the best man for the job, I wouldn't belittle it as completely insignificant either. When hitting has much to do with comfort and confidence in repeating a successful approach, I would think there is at least some sense in trying to make that comfort level more likely. I would definitely not say it makes a big enough difference to forego more sound lineup construction, but I would submit that it might make some difference.