White Sox acquire Juan Pierre

[NorthSideSox72]

Can't find the article now, but saw yesterday... by having Pierre and Vizquel on the team, the 2010 White Sox will have the #1 and #2 among active players in baseball, in both stolen bases, and bunt hits.

 

[qwerty]

That doesn't necessarily dramatically affect the outcome of the season as just about every single team that's ever won the World Series has had a couple of players below league-average for their positions. The question is: does that player contribute in some way and are there other areas of the team strong enough to pick up whatever slack is left? I mean, you don't put a real team together like you'd assemble a fantasy team.

 

There is a philosophy that fans (and sometimes organizations) make too much of the leadoff hitter. And that people who use the "he gets the most ABs on the team" argument are overstating the importance of that position. Statistically speaking, some numbers suggest that the extra plate appearances by the leadoff hitter are worth very little over the course of the season.

 

It just doesn't make much sense to put too much stock in one spot in the lineup like some people seem to be doing when they discuss Pierre. Look, he's far from the ideal and he doesn't excite me, but I think he can contribute enough to help the lineup overall.

 

First and foremost you look for on base percentage from your leadoff hitter, then pitches per plate appearance, and lastly, average. There is a very distinct and direct correlation to on base percentage and runs scored. Nothing is being overstated by the fans, and especially not organizations. Countless studies have been done on the subject, so many in fact, that i don't think there is even a need to post them.

 

Can't find the article now, but saw yesterday... by having Pierre and Vizquel on the team, the 2010 White Sox will have the #1 and #2 among active players in baseball, in both stolen bases, and bunt hits. pitches per plate appearance, and then average.

 

A native of Mobile, Ala., Pierre leads all active players in stolen bases (Omar Vizquel is second with 389) and needs just 41 to become the 37th player in major-league history with 500. He has stolen 30 or more bases in nine consecutive seasons, including a career-high 65 in 2003 and 64 in 2007, and ranked first or second in the NL in that department seven straight years from 2001-07.

 

Pierre also ranks first among active players with 165 bunt hits (Vizquel is second with 150) and has been named by Baseball America as the Best Bunter in the NL each season since 2004. Since the start of the 2001 season, he is tied with Vizquel for the major-league lead with 106 sacrifice hits and ranks seventh with 1,601 hits.

 

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/press...sp&c_id=cws

Edited December 16, 2009 by qwerty

[BaseballNick]

There is a philosophy that fans (and sometimes organizations) make too much of the leadoff hitter. And that people who use the "he gets the most ABs on the team" argument are overstating the importance of that position. Statistically speaking, some numbers suggest that the extra plate appearances by the leadoff hitter are worth very little over the course of the season.

It just doesn't make much sense to put too much stock in one spot in the lineup like some people seem to be doing when they discuss Pierre. Look, he's far from the ideal and he doesn't excite me, but I think he can contribute enough to help the lineup overall.

 

I'd really like to see those numbers.

 

If there was one position in the lineup that you'd put the most stock into, naturally, wouldn't it be the one that gets to the plate more than any other player throughout the course of the season, therefore having more chances than any other player to make a difference in his team's outcome?

 

That said, I like the the Pierre acquisition. I think he can still contribute at a league-average level for a leadoff hitter.

[southsider2k5]

Matsui hit .282 against LHP and .271 against RHP last season.

Thome hit .209 against LHP and .262 against RHP last season.

 

Matsui also hit 50 points higher with RISP, and doesn't seem to injure himself every time he runs out a ground ball.

 

Thome wouldn't see nearly the amount of LHP this year with the depth of the bench.

[southsider2k5]

I find it bizarre that with each move the Sox make, they get a little better, and yet the posts in PHT get more and more over-the-top mad. I'd think it would be the reverse. Weird.

 

We do still need one more bat upgrade, at DH or elsewhere, though. And a backup C, though I think we have options in house for that which I'd be fine with. What happens with that extra bat, though, I think will give us the best picture of the offseason overall.

 

Word. No we aren't getting superstars, but the team is getting better with each move. We should all know by now that the Sox don't have a lot of money to spend, so we aren't going out and getting a big named guy, unless their price plummets, and they like freezing their ass off during April.

[southsider2k5]

I will say for a team that supposedly has no money, shelling out $82 million for Rios, Pierre and Teahan is curious at best. I'm pretty sure I'd trade those 3 for John Lackey.

 

And then go out with De Aza, Fields, and who in your starting line up?

[southsider2k5]

Oh good, I only read the trade blurb on Yahoo and Rotoworld and they indicated that Pierre would play CF.

 

It'll be interesting to see who has the better numbers next season b/w Podsednik and Pierre also.

 

Chicago radio said all day long that it would be LF.

[BigSqwert]

Can't find the article now, but saw yesterday... by having Pierre and Vizquel on the team, the 2010 White Sox will have the #1 and #2 among active players in baseball, in both stolen bases, and bunt hits.

That's like saying signing Bonds would give us the best power team in baseball.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's like saying signing Bonds would give us the best power team in baseball.

bwuh? I made no judgmental statement at all - just pointed out the interesting statistic. So no, it would be more like saying, if the Sox acquired both Bonds and Griffey, that they'd have the #1 and #1 active players in HR. Which they would.

 

[shakes]

I still don't understand why we just don't play Danks.

Some thought we were rushing Beckham and he did great. Baseball should start to be like other sports and not be afraid to play some of these guys right away.

I'd rather rush Danks than play Pierre a lot wouldn't you all?

 

100% No.

 

Beckham and Danks are on a completely different level as prospects. They don't even belong in the same sentence. Danks contact rates and pitch recognition have a long way to go. He strikes out way too much for the minor leagues, his K numbers would be huge if he started out with the big club. He has holes in his swing he needs to fix before he comes up. He's far from a sure thing, and by all acounts is not yet ready.

 

What makes you think he can play now? And what makes you think he could out hit Pierre?

 

[WCSox]

It's like you didn't read a thing I said. Dye's OBP is not good enough to lead off.

 

It certainly was in 2006. Why didn't Dye lead off then, when Pods was injured? Or how about Thome, who has been hanging around a .400 OBP for the past three years? Remember, speed doesn't matter!

 

Our 2B could easily be a 3B, a shortstop, or even a DH. As for Lopez, UZR/150 tells us that he's a better fielder at second than Alexei, Teahen, Beckham, or Konerko are at any position. That's right. He would be the best infielder of all of our starters and you just called him bad.

 

LOL, Bekcham at DH? Brilliant!

 

You don't seem to understand the point that our infield is already set and that we need a corner OF. Pierre plays LF and could give Rios an occasional day off in CF. Your suggestions do not fit the Sox's current needs. Lopez also has a recent history of injury problems, which is why he wasn't tendered.

 

I agree that O-Dog is a very good leadoff hitter (definitely better than Pierre) but, again, he's a 2B and Kenny has already moved Beckham there permanently.

 

He's no more injury prone than Quentin. That "dinosaur" has average speed and has always gotten on base at an above-average rate. I have no idea why you're talking about how he is as an outfielder. He's never been one. He's a plus-plus glove at first base, which is where he would play (pushing Konerko to DH).

 

Mientkiewicz played OF occasionally in Pittsburgh, but he's extremely marginal in that role. Another reason why he's a bad fit for this team (remember, we needed a corner OF). We don't need another DH right now, as Jones is going to get most of his ABs there.

 

However, the overarching reason why Mientkiewicz is a terrible idea is that he's never healthy. He hasn't had 300 ABs since 2006 and had a whopping 18 last season. LOL at your "he's not more injury prone than Quentin" line. Yeah, that's a great reason to sign him.

 

So you're saying "Upton is a useless piece of crap, but it would cost us everyone to get him".

 

Interesting straw man argument, but that's not what I said. My point is that Upton's numbers have been heading south for the past two years and that he didn't respond well to shoulder surgery. Therefore, he's a big question mark right now. However, his '07 and '08 numbers, as well as his contract status, will inflate his trade value. I don't trade for Upton until he at least repeats his 2008 OBP.

 

That's a huge oxymoron. All of the Upton rumors have him going for much less than that. That package would probably bring us Adrian freaking Gonzalez....and yes, there are metrics that show he's due to rebound.

 

There aren't any "metrics" that show that he's "due to rebound." He had no power with a torn labrum and he had even less power a full 9 months after surgery.

 

The problem with Upton is that it'd cost us at least two top-tier prospects to get him. And if he hits like he did last year, it'd be a disaster. While I agree that Upton projects much better than Pierre (at least in terms of OBP), Kenny didn't have to give up two top-tier prospects to nab Pierre. Husdon and Flowers both project rather high as well.

 

You're just drinking the Kenny Williams kool-aid and making some really strange excuses for his poor decision.

 

Says the guy who's arguing that Doug Freaking Mientkiewicz is a better leadoff option than Pierre. LOL!

Edited December 16, 2009 by WCSox

[greg775]

Word. No we aren't getting superstars, but the team is getting better with each move.

 

I don't know about that. The guys we've added do not make me think our lineup is any better than last year.

The acquisition of Peavy and hopefully Putz makes me believe our pitching is way better. There are just as many question marks with our new position players as there would be Dye and Thome and Pods.

 

Wasn't this Link guy supposed to be decent?

Edited December 16, 2009 by greg775

[Ranger]

First and foremost you look for on base percentage from your leadoff hitter, then pitches per plate appearance, and lastly, average. There is a very distinct and direct correlation to on base percentage and runs scored. Nothing is being overstated by the fans, and especially not organizations. Countless studies have been done on the subject, so many in fact, that i don't think there is even a need to post them.

 

Just read a couple of pages back and you'll see that I'm fully aware of what defines a leadoff hitter. The overstatement that is often made is that a team can't win with so-and-so as a leadoff hitter. Having a good productive hitter at the top of the order can and does certainly help, but it is often not the difference between a winner or a loser. It comes down to the whole, not the sum of the parts. Some people seem to think the leadoff hitter is everything (based on the feedback I get)...that simply isn't true. (That being said, I think about 70% of those I've heard from have a favorable opinion of the Pierre pickup.)

 

Now, you can't afford to have an abyss at the top. Like I said earlier, if he hits .200 and has a .300 OBP, that could be a killer. But if he's mediocre as a leadoff hitter, that's absolutely good enough to have a winning lineup. Of course, the rest of the lineup has to do its job, as well. The leadoff hitter is no more important than someone, say, in the middle of the order. For example, Fangraphs examined that very topic and determined that replacing a leadoff hitter with the 5th hitter in the order with a wOBA 20 points better amounted to about one team run for the season. That is, one team run in the extra 70 ABs a leadoff hitter gets over a guy that bats 5th and is more productive. Of course, those numbers are still dependent on the rest of the order and you can debate that assertion, too. But whether or not you believe that number to be accurate, I think the underlying point is solid: the leadoff hitter isn't everything

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Just read a couple of pages back and you'll see that I'm fully aware of what defines a leadoff hitter. The overstatement that is often made is that a team can't win with so-and-so as a leadoff hitter. Having a good productive hitter at the top of the order can and does certainly help, but it is often not the difference between a winner or a loser. It comes down to the whole, not the sum of the parts. Some people seem to think the leadoff hitter is everything (based on the feedback I get)...that simply isn't true. (That being said, I think about 70% of those I've heard from have a favorable opinion of the Pierre pickup.)

 

Now, you can't afford to have an abyss at the top. Like I said earlier, if he hits .200 and has a .300 OBP, that could be a killer. But if he's mediocre as a leadoff hitter, that's absolutely good enough to have a winning lineup. Of course, the rest of the lineup has to do its job, as well. The leadoff hitter is no more important than someone, say, in the middle of the order. For example, Fangraphs examined that very topic and determined that replacing a leadoff hitter with the 5th hitter in the order with a wOBA 20 points better amounted to about one team run for the season. That is, one team run in the extra 70 ABs a leadoff hitter gets over a guy that bats 5th and is more productive. Of course, those numbers are still dependent on the rest of the order and you can debate that assertion, too. But whether or not you believe that number to be accurate, I think the underlying point is solid: the leadoff hitter isn't everything

 

The other problem with overstating the importance of a leadoff hitter, is that it narrows your field of potential players. I'd rather find the 9 best guys available, and then make the lineup from there, than specifically seek out a leadoff hitter and limit the pool of players I can choose from. Its simple math. The bigger pool of players I have to choose from, to make each position better, the more successful I'd be as a GM.

 

Find the best players within your budgetary and resource constraints, then let your manager make the lineup card.

 

[iamshack]

Just read a couple of pages back and you'll see that I'm fully aware of what defines a leadoff hitter. The overstatement that is often made is that a team can't win with so-and-so as a leadoff hitter. Having a good productive hitter at the top of the order can and does certainly help, but it is often not the difference between a winner or a loser. It comes down to the whole, not the sum of the parts. Some people seem to think the leadoff hitter is everything (based on the feedback I get)...that simply isn't true. (That being said, I think about 70% of those I've heard from have a favorable opinion of the Pierre pickup.)

 

Now, you can't afford to have an abyss at the top. Like I said earlier, if he hits .200 and has a .300 OBP, that could be a killer. But if he's mediocre as a leadoff hitter, that's absolutely good enough to have a winning lineup. Of course, the rest of the lineup has to do its job, as well. The leadoff hitter is no more important than someone, say, in the middle of the order. For example, Fangraphs examined that very topic and determined that replacing a leadoff hitter with the 5th hitter in the order with a wOBA 20 points better amounted to about one team run for the season. That is, one team run in the extra 70 ABs a leadoff hitter gets over a guy that bats 5th and is more productive. Of course, those numbers are still dependent on the rest of the order and you can debate that assertion, too. But whether or not you believe that number to be accurate, I think the underlying point is solid: the leadoff hitter isn't everything

I agree with the general point you are making - one slightly below-average player is not going to determine the fate of our season, regardless of whether he sees the most PA's on the team or not. However, I think people are getting frustrated because they sense that we continue to add below-average player after below-average player. Sure, you can have below-average players if you have above-average players to pick up the slack (which I think you alluded to). The problem is, we don't exactly have many above-average players in the lineup right now to do so. Eventually, as you decrease incrementally (I guess it would be decrementally), it begins to add up to a poor offense. I think that is what has some posters here a bit concerned.

Edited December 16, 2009 by iamshack

[Ranger]

The other problem with overstating the importance of a leadoff hitter, is that it narrows your field of potential players. I'd rather find the 9 best guys available, and then make the lineup from there, than specifically seek out a leadoff hitter and limit the pool of players I can choose from. Its simple math. The bigger pool of players I have to choose from, to make each position better, the more successful I'd be as a GM.

 

Find the best players within your budgetary and resource constraints, then let your manager make the lineup card.

 

Which is pretty much how every team (with few exceptions) has to do it.

 

 

I agree with the general point you are making - one slightly below-average player is not going to determine the fate of our season, regardless of whether he sees the most PA's on the team or not. However, I think people are getting frustrated because they sense that we continue to add below-average player after below-average player. Sure, you can have below-average players if you have above-average players to pick up the slack (which I think you alluded to). The problem is, we don't exactly have many above-average players in the lineup right now to do so. Eventually, as you decrease incrementally (I guess it would be decrementally), it begins to add up to a poor offense. I think that is what has some posters here a bit concerned.

 

I don't know if I agree with that. And I think sometimes it's difficult to define what we mean by "average" in that I think people mean "bad" when they call someone "average." I think they do have better-than-average players in the offense. Or maybe it's better just to call them "good". Quentin, Rios, AJ, and Beckham are pretty good offensive players if they perform to their normal capabilities. The others, I think, are good enough. I think they have a good enough offense to put together a good team year overall, considering the pitching. I know people freak out about the leadoff situation, but there just aren't that many good ones out there anyway.

[iamshack]

Which is pretty much how every team (with few exceptions) has to do it.

 

 

 

 

I don't know if I agree with that. And I think sometimes it's difficult to define what we mean by "average" in that I think people mean "bad" when they call someone "average." I think they do have better-than-average players in the offense. Or maybe it's better just to call them "good". Quentin, Rios, AJ, and Beckham are pretty good offensive players if they perform to their normal capabilities. The others, I think, are good enough. I think they have a good enough offense to put together a good team year overall, considering the pitching. I know people freak out about the leadoff situation, but there just aren't that many good ones out there anyway.

I think most of the posters you are responding to mean "league average" when using the term "average." Using that definition for the purposes of this discussion, it's difficult to claim anyone in our lineup other than perhaps Beckham is going to be above league average at their respective position. Certainly Rios and Quentin could be better, as could AJ, I suppose (not sure since he doesn't seem to drive in runs), but there are a lot of "could be's" in there.

 

Personally, I am not too concerned as of now. I like our pitching staff and I think they give us a good chance to overcome a below-average offense and make the postseason, at which point the weather will be colder, the runs more scarce, and a definite advantage to dominant pitchers over hitters.

[WCSox]

Just read a couple of pages back and you'll see that I'm fully aware of what defines a leadoff hitter. The overstatement that is often made is that a team can't win with so-and-so as a leadoff hitter. Having a good productive hitter at the top of the order can and does certainly help, but it is often not the difference between a winner or a loser. It comes down to the whole, not the sum of the parts. Some people seem to think the leadoff hitter is everything (based on the feedback I get)...that simply isn't true. (That being said, I think about 70% of those I've heard from have a favorable opinion of the Pierre pickup.)

 

Now, you can't afford to have an abyss at the top. Like I said earlier, if he hits .200 and has a .300 OBP, that could be a killer. But if he's mediocre as a leadoff hitter, that's absolutely good enough to have a winning lineup. Of course, the rest of the lineup has to do its job, as well. The leadoff hitter is no more important than someone, say, in the middle of the order. For example, Fangraphs examined that very topic and determined that replacing a leadoff hitter with the 5th hitter in the order with a wOBA 20 points better amounted to about one team run for the season. That is, one team run in the extra 70 ABs a leadoff hitter gets over a guy that bats 5th and is more productive. Of course, those numbers are still dependent on the rest of the order and you can debate that assertion, too. But whether or not you believe that number to be accurate, I think the underlying point is solid: the leadoff hitter isn't everything

 

The Sox haven't had a consistently-effective leadoff hitter for years, and it's puzzling to see people go nuts when they sign a speedy, slap-hitting veteran with a mediocre OBP while operating under a stringent budgetary constraint. What did people realistically expect? Figgins or Granderson? Hell, I wanted Kenny to sign Orlando Hudson last winter. But that ship has sailed and the middle infield is curently set with Beckham and Alexei. The only in-house option is Beckham, and the Sox will be relying HEAVILY on him to drive in runs this year (especially if Quentin doesn't stay healthy). So that isn't a realistic option, and moving him to DH to open up room for an infielder like O-Dog is a complete waste of his defensive talent and would stunt his defensive development as well.

 

One can complain about Pierre's OBP all day, but the overarching need for the Sox right now is productive players. Pierre is a good contact hitter (.290-.300 BA) who will steal 30-40 bases a season (albeit at a lower-than-optimal %), has a good track record of health, can play LF, and can give Rios a couple of days off in CF. IMO, that's a solid upgrade over Pods, Wise, Owens, or Getz. Kenny very well might've been able to find somebody slightly cheaper with a .350 OBP, but probably not with those other skills as well. Whether he hits 1st or 9th, Pierre improves the team in several ways.

 

I would only be disappointed with this move if Pierre's salary precluded Kenny from signing a veteran power hitter to replace Thome/Dye. I don't see $3M being that much of an obstacle.

Edited December 16, 2009 by WCSox

[Kalapse]

The other problem with overstating the importance of a leadoff hitter, is that it narrows your field of potential players. I'd rather find the 9 best guys available, and then make the lineup from there, than specifically seek out a leadoff hitter and limit the pool of players I can choose from. Its simple math. The bigger pool of players I have to choose from, to make each position better, the more successful I'd be as a GM.

 

Find the best players within your budgetary and resource constraints, then let your manager make the lineup card.

I agree 100% which is why I dislike acquiring a guy like Pierre, he's not all that good at baseball but he's a prototypical "leadoff hitter" so Kenny went out of his way to get him.

[iamshack]

I agree 100% which is why I dislike acquiring a guy like Pierre, he's not all that good at baseball but he's a prototypical "leadoff hitter" so Kenny went out of his way to get him.

I agree with you about the leadoff part, but we definitely could use the team speed.

 

Say we ignored every every statistic other than OBP and simply signed the players with the highest OBP out of the entire player pool. While good in theory, a team of plodders with not many skills other getting on base seems a bit limited to me.

Haven't the A's, Blue Jays, Red Sox, etc., tried this for the past 5-6 years, with limited success?

 

Is the correlation between OBP and runs scored that strong that you can completely ignore other skills such as bunting, speed, and contact altogether?

[Kalapse]

I agree with you about the leadoff part, but we definitely could use the team speed.

 

Say we ignored every every statistic other than OBP and simply signed the players with the highest OBP out of the entire player pool. While good in theory, a team of plodders with not many skills other getting on base seems a bit limited to me.

Haven't the A's, Blue Jays, Red Sox, etc., tried this for the past 5-6 years, with limited success?

 

Is the correlation between OBP and runs scored that strong that you can completely ignore other skills such as bunting, speed, and contact altogether?

Jesus, you read way too much into my posts. I'm just tired of arguing at this point, you've worn me down.

 

Was Juan Pierre the best corner outfielder that Kenny could acquire or was he the best "leadoff hitter" that he could acquire that could also play that position? That's all I'm saying.

[iamshack]

Jesus, you read way too much into my posts. I'm just tired of arguing at this point, you've worn me down.

 

Was Juan Pierre the best corner outfielder that Kenny could acquire or was he the best "leadoff hitter" that he could acquire that could also play that position? That's all I'm saying.

I wasn't trying to wear you down, Kal. It was an honest question. I figured you would know the latest theory on just how strong the correlation actually is.

 

As for Pierre, I'm not sure. But don't you agree you get into a numbers crunch situation wherein he may not be the best player available from a certain perspective, but he may be for your club specifically? At some point you've got to address certain needs relative to your team, regardless of whether there may be a better player available. That's all I'm curious about.

[chunk23]

I agree with you about the leadoff part, but we definitely could use the team speed.

 

Say we ignored every every statistic other than OBP and simply signed the players with the highest OBP out of the entire player pool. While good in theory, a team of plodders with not many skills other getting on base seems a bit limited to me.

Haven't the A's, Blue Jays, Red Sox, etc., tried this for the past 5-6 years, with limited success?

 

Is the correlation between OBP and runs scored that strong that you can completely ignore other skills such as bunting, speed, and contact altogether?

 

The Red Sox have clearly been successful, and the Blue Jays would have been champions in any other division. THe A's were pretty successful early in the decade. Besides, Moneyball isn't about valuing OBP. It's about identifying undervalued aspects of a player's ability in order to maintain a low payroll. At the time it was OBP, now it's probably defensive ability.

 

It seems to be a rare player profile who has high OBP but can't do anything else. I would a guess venture that a high OBP would have a strong association with at least a high SLG. Contact as well. The Dunns of the world are an exception with an extremely high ISO. Most players won't have a high OBP without a high contact rate.

 

Obviously, there are several different profiles for a high OBP player. Ichiro doesn't walk much, but makes such a high amount of contact that it doesn't matter. A single is more valuable than a walk, so this is a great profile. But it typically is the worst long term, since it's so reliant on speed and athleticism. A player like Youkilis, who walks quite a bit, has a skill set that will last with age. You want to build around that kind of player. Both are valuable, but in the long term you want someone who has a high walk rate.

 

OPS is actually a great indicator of success, but one criticism is that it doesn't value OBP high enough. In fact, the predictive value of OPS is remarkably close to more advanced statistics like wOBA. So much so that an eyeball estimate using OPS is probably good enough. OBP is easily the most important stat for a hitter.

 

As for Pierre, I'm not sure. But don't you agree you get into a numbers crunch situation wherein he may not be the best player available from a certain perspective, but he may be for your club specifically? At some point you've got to address certain needs relative to your team, regardless of whether there may be a better player available. That's all I'm curious about.

 

Certainly the team needs a "leadoff" hitter, but finding a good left fielder is the higher priority. I think some here overvalue leadoff hitters. It's not really a big deal. Having at least average offensive production from your corner OFs is. And we won't be getting that.

Edited December 16, 2009 by chunk23

[iamshack]

The Red Sox have clearly been successful, and the Blue Jays would have been champions in any other division. THe A's were pretty successful early in the decade. Besides, Moneyball isn't about valuing OBP. It's about identifying undervalued aspects of a player's ability in order to maintain a low payroll. At the time it was OBP, now it's probably defensive ability.

 

It seems to be a rare player profile who has high OBP but can't do anything else. I would a guess venture that a high OBP would have a strong association with at least a high SLG. Contact as well. The Dunns of the world are an exception with an extremely high ISO. Most players won't have a high OBP without a high contact rate.

 

Obviously, there are several different profiles for a high OBP player. Ichiro doesn't walk much, but makes such a high amount of contact that it doesn't matter. A single is more valuable than a walk, so this is a great profile. But it typically is the worst long term, since it's so reliant on speed and athleticism. A player like Youkilis, who walks quite a bit, has a skill set that will last with age. You want to build around that kind of player. Both are valuable, but in the long term you want someone who has a high walk rate.

 

OPS is actually a great indicator of success, but one criticism is that it doesn't value OBP high enough. In fact, the predictive value of OPS is remarkably close to more advanced statistics like wOBA. So much so that an eyeball estimate using OPS is probably good enough. OBP is easily the most important stat for a hitter.

 

 

 

Certainly the team needs a "leadoff" hitter, but finding a good left fielder is the higher priority. I think some here overvalue leadoff hitters. It's not really a big deal. Having at least average offensive production from your corner OFs is. And we won't be getting that.

 

Well, this isn't about Moneyball, as much as the association seems to come from my mention of teams such as the A's, Blue Jays, and Red Sox. Unfortunately, anytime anyone mentions a team run by a GM mentioned in Moneyball, the topic seems to arise. That was not my intention at all.

 

What I am asking about is the correlation between OBP and runs scored. It's pretty obvious that teams such as the A's, Blue Jays, and Red Sox compiled teams filled with players who sustained high OBP's, even at the expense of any other skillset. I distinctly remember the Blue Jays, A's and Red Sox being station-to-station teams between 2003-2008 or so, and I was curious as to whether the shortcomings of having a roster full of those types of players ever overshadowed the advantages of having a roster rich in high OBP players. Or to put it another way, did their inability to manufacture runs in other ways (besides just reaching base) cause them to score less runs than perhaps another team with a lower OBP but with players with other skillsets as well, such as running the bases better, moving runners over, etc., ?

 

Perhaps there is a critical mix that exists between OBP ability and other skillsets? Sort of a point of diminishing returns or something?

 

That is more of what I am interested in here.

[WCSox]

I agree 100% which is why I dislike acquiring a guy like Pierre, he's not all that good at baseball but he's a prototypical "leadoff hitter" so Kenny went out of his way to get him.

 

Pierre has skills (hitting for average, bunting, running the bases well) that have been sorely lacking in our lineup for years. There's value to having a player that can do something other than hit home runs, walk, and play RF poorly.

Edited December 16, 2009 by WCSox