Texsox Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Is there an easy way to add in his stolen base numbers, subtract out any hits where he was caught stealing, and xome up with a new slugging percentage? I'm not certain if it would be usefull or not, but it seems like his total bases may be worth looking at. It seems as if a single is as good as a double many times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Is there an easy way to add in his stolen base numbers, subtract out any hits where he was caught stealing, and xome up with a new slugging percentage? I'm not certain if it would be usefull or not, but it seems like his total bases may be worth looking at. It seems as if a single is as good as a double many times. You wouldn't need to take cs out of his slg -- a single + thrown out at second is still a single, so it counts as 1 tb, not 1 tb-1 tb=0 tb, and that's kind of the analogue here. But any sb taken after a walk or hbp or error or fc shouldn't be added, and for that you'd have to go back to individual game records, I believe. Personally, I don't think this would be informative since we have each stat separately and know what they mean, but JMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palehosefan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I've been arguing with other fans about stuff like this. I believe the SLG% I found was .473 with 303 total bases in 640 at-bats if you count the SB's. They made a point that a single and a steal isn't really the same as a double because you don't drive in as many with a single and a steal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I've been arguing with other fans about stuff like this. I believe the SLG% I found was .473 with 303 total bases in 640 at-bats if you count the SB's. They made a point that a single and a steal isn't really the same as a double because you don't drive in as many with a single and a steal. I think that's a good objection to this sort of thing. Anyway, if you really want to 'adjust' slugging percentage, though, you can only add those times he got on base on a base hit. Which will make a difference (not sure how big) -- he got 41 bb and 81 singles w/ none on, and 56 of his sb came with only himself on, on 1b. So I'd guess 15-25 of those sb shouldn't be added. And probably a few from the other 14. Then if you wanted to look at an 'adjusted' obp, you'd have to take off the cs, etc. Time to remind myself I don't believe in this stuff anyway... Sorry, just bored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Is there an easy way to add in his stolen base numbers, subtract out any hits where he was caught stealing, and xome up with a new slugging percentage? I'm not certain if it would be usefull or not, but it seems like his total bases may be worth looking at. It seems as if a single is as good as a double many times. I think this is what you want. For comparison I add the 'gold standard' of lead off men Juan Pierre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palehosefan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Even when I counted only 35 steals, his slugging% improved to something like .427, which wasn't bad at all either. Either way he gave his teammates over 100 chances to knock him in from 2nd or 3rd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 here's one -- 70 SB's = 85 runs --- Runs are what matter. Aaron Rowand scored 9 more times in almost 200 fewer plate appearences Juan Uribe scored 3 less times in 170 fewer plate appearences "Baseclogger" Paul Konerko scored 1 less time in 70 fewer plate appearences Carlos Lee scored 18 more times in 70 fewer plate appearences I couldn't give two s***s about how many bases he steals -- Steals don't traslate directily into runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 here's one -- 70 SB's = 85 runs --- Runs are what matter. Aaron Rowand scored 9 more times in almost 200 fewer plate appearences Juan Uribe scored 3 less times in 170 fewer plate appearences "Baseclogger" Paul Konerko scored 1 less time in 70 fewer plate appearences Carlos Lee scored 18 more times in 70 fewer plate appearences I couldn't give two s***s about how many bases he steals -- Steals don't traslate directily into runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 here's one -- 70 SB's = 85 runs --- Runs are what matter. Aaron Rowand scored 9 more times in almost 200 fewer plate appearences Juan Uribe scored 3 less times in 170 fewer plate appearences "Baseclogger" Paul Konerko scored 1 less time in 70 fewer plate appearences Carlos Lee scored 18 more times in 70 fewer plate appearences I couldn't give two s***s about how many bases he steals -- Steals don't traslate directily into runs. When the Sox hitters were on they scored like 10 runs -pad them stats!- when they were off they scored 0 or maybe a dinger . Speed is more consistant and gives you a chance to win every night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palehosefan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 here's one -- 70 SB's = 85 runs --- Runs are what matter. Aaron Rowand scored 9 more times in almost 200 fewer plate appearences Juan Uribe scored 3 less times in 170 fewer plate appearences "Baseclogger" Paul Konerko scored 1 less time in 70 fewer plate appearences Carlos Lee scored 18 more times in 70 fewer plate appearences I couldn't give two s***s about how many bases he steals -- Steals don't traslate directily into runs. Brewers 634 runs White Sox 865 runs I'll take it a step further. Pod scored 13.4% of the Brewers runs, our top run scorer Carlos scored 11.9% of our runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Brewers 634 runs White Sox 865 runs Yep. Not a fair comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 When the Sox hitters were on they scored like 10 runs -pad them stats!- when they were off they scored 0 or maybe a dinger . Speed is more consistant and gives you a chance to win every night. Over and over, people have shown that's just not true. I started a thread on this during the season, and one of the first entries in Jason's blog analyzed this. The White Sox did not have more low-scoring games than other teams, period. Just b/c KW says it's true doesn't make it true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlackSox8 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 here's one -- 70 SB's = 85 runs --- Runs are what matter. Aaron Rowand scored 9 more times in almost 200 fewer plate appearences Juan Uribe scored 3 less times in 170 fewer plate appearences "Baseclogger" Paul Konerko scored 1 less time in 70 fewer plate appearences Carlos Lee scored 18 more times in 70 fewer plate appearences I couldn't give two s***s about how many bases he steals -- Steals don't traslate directily into runs. pod has no ability in if he scores a run.....unless he holds up or whatever on a single or double. it depends on the people behind him and if they can drive him in. Overbay sucked dick in the second half at driving in runs....and who else on the team had the ability to drive him in. The Sox at least had boppers to drive their players in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 that's why the brewers scored the second fewest runs in baseball right? because they were second in baseball in stolen bases. Stolen bases don't = wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 pod has no ability in if he scores a run.....unless he holds up or whatever on a single or double. it depends on the people behind him and if they can drive him in. Overbay sucked dick in the second half at scoring runs....and who else on the team had the ability to drive him in. The Sox at least had boppers to drive their players in. Do they? -- Maggs is gone, Lee is gone, Frank will be out for part of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palehosefan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Nobody should be arguing that either. The Yankees and Bosox don't steal bases because they have powerhouse lineups that don't need someone on 2nd or 3rd to hit a HR and drive them in. Its basically an un needed risk to attempt steals for power hitting teams. We are going to try to manufacturer runs and good basestealers will be an asset. I'll take it a step further. Pod scored 13.4% of the Brewers runs, our top run scorer Carlos scored 11.9% of our runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 that's why the brewers scored the second fewest runs in baseball right? because they were second in baseball in stolen bases. Stolen bases don't = wins. Wrong. Worst team batting average in the majors don't = wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 that's why the brewers scored the second fewest runs in baseball right? because they were second in baseball in stolen bases. Stolen bases don't = wins. Yes, that is why we are goiung towards a more balanced team. An all speed team won't work, which is why we need guys behind him to drive him in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I still think Cheat has a point. Even though the Brewers had a worse team, the sb didn't help him very much. This guy played a LOT, and he was the leadoff hitter. 85 runs isn't that impressive. And I haven't seen any stats to back up the supposed benefits. But we can still have fun w/ numbers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 The current White Sox team is about 75 runs worse over the course of the season than last years team... Unless you can prove to me that the acquisition of Vizcaino and Hermanson are gonna put up ERA's of 0.00 to make up for those 75 runs than this team is in serious trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palehosefan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Thats very overrated, it doesn't matter how many at-bats a player gets, the runs are the only thing that matters. Does it really matter if the guy scores a run after walking or by stealing a base? Does that change anything? Its still a run. He still scored 85 runs on a horrible rbi team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 The current White Sox team is about 75 runs worse over the course of the season than last years team... Unless you can prove to me that the acquisition of Vizcaino and Hermanson are gonna put up ERA's of 0.00 to make up for those 75 runs than this team is in serious trouble. Hopefully a well-rounded starting rotation will help this. One that doesn't have Schoenweis and Wright in it on opening day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palehosefan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 St. Louis outscored opponents by 196 runs, Boston outscored opponents by 181. We only outscored opponents by 34 runs on the entire season, do you think no changes would have made that any better? Podsednik will give us a chance to score some runs, maybe not as many as Carlos, its debatable, but the trade also gave us flexibility to fix our main problem, which was starting pitching. Its very debatable whether Pod, Viz, and PTBNL were enough for CLee, but what we do with the money is what will determine the real value of the trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Thats very overrated, it doesn't matter how many at-bats a player gets, the runs are the only thing that matters. Does it really matter if the guy scores a run after walking or by stealing a base? Does that change anything? Its still a run. He still scored 85 runs on a horrible rbi team. Well, last season he had batting behind him Craig Counsell (not ideal but had a good year), Geoff Jenkins (same old same old, got on base some, with good power), and Lyle Overbay (huge year). Those are damn good hitters, and he only scored 85 times. Sure, the Brewers didn't score as many runs and didn't have great hitters up and down. But it's not like he was relying on Chad Moeller and Ben Sheets to drive him in. He just didn't get on-base often enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Is there an easy way to add in his stolen base numbers, subtract out any hits where he was caught stealing, and xome up with a new slugging percentage? I'm not certain if it would be usefull or not, but it seems like his total bases may be worth looking at. It seems as if a single is as good as a double many times. Why would you want to do this anyway? It will just make you sad and mad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.