re: Nola

quote:

---

quote:
ETA: 21 errors


That is high. I think he was a great defensive player...21 errors in that age of baseball was not overly terrible as it would be today, IMO.

What about '99? And what were his two year fielding percentages?

---

22 errors in 1999. He and Barbier were battling each other in 98 and 99 for worst fielding %. You must be thinking of someone else as a great defensive player.

quote:

---

I don't know. I think there might be a defensive upgrade, but it hasn't shown up in the box score. But even assuming it's there and it's real, it is probably fairly small and I wonder -- is it worth the offensive cost?

---

First, I want to go on record: Nola is the best infielder on the team. I would also like to point out that he is a true freshman with 74 at bats -- He was drafted out of HS, was the 2008 Gatorade LA player of the year, a Louisville AA and hit .447 w/ an .895 slugging % -- he can handle the stick, just needs more AB's. Mainieri knew this and had a date set to pull the plug on the current, throw Nola into the mix, and have enough regular and post-season play left to get Nola much needed AB's before the regionals. Defensively, Mainieri knew he had stud so no worries there.

Question:
1. Do you think Nola should be starting a SS?

2. Who's bat do you want so desperately to insert into the line-up, and justify taking Nola off the field?

The experience this guy has been getting will pay huge dividends in the Regional and Super (if we move on). Easily the best fielder and arm (outside of Helnihi) on the Team. He looks balanced at the plate and sees the ball extremely well - 2Ks in his last 8 games. No other Tiger comes close. Coaches want Nola to be more patient in his approach and to go the other way more. Nola is a natural pull hitter and can really turn on the inside pitch i.e. very quick bat but has a tendency to pull-off on inside pitches. PM and company are working with him hard. I say Nola surprises and has a decent regional (.300). He has 75 at-bats. He'll be an offensive leader next year.

quote:

---

The basic fact is that a sacrifice bunt is not an attempt to get on base. OBP is designed to measure how often a player gets on base when he is trying to get on base.

---

No, it's not. It's a measure of how often a guy reaches base. If a guy is trying to NOT reach base, that's bad. Outs are bad. And I'm yet to see a guy lay down a bunt and then walk to the dugout. He's still trying to reach base. Adding the "trying" definition is ridiculous. an out is an out. All outs are bad. Some just aren't as bad as others.

quote:

---

Well, the OBP discussion I thought was fairly disconnected from Nola. We're on a tangent and I'm not really talking about Nola. This isn't a point about him, really. This is a point about getting on base.

---

You brought it up specificallly to point out that Nola's OBP was incorrect on LSUSports.net and that his OBP should actually be lower. You brought this up. As you continue to argue with how OBP should be calculated, I think it's pertanent to point out that you didn't know how it was calculated in the first place.

quote:

---

My math is right from the post you cited

---

No, it's not. We are talking about OBP. Sac bunts don't affect OBP positively or negatively. They are excluded from consideration.

quote:

---

Exactly - OBP measures the value of getting on base. Deleting a sacrifice gives value to failing to get on base. If Hanover had swung away instead of the 4 times he bunted, maybe he would have gotten on base 4 times. Maybe he would have gotten out 4 times. Maybe he would have gotten on at .343 rate like in his other PA's. the thing is: I don't care what MIGHT have ahppened. I care what did. He got out four times. He didn't get on base.

---

So, you want to include errors and fielders' choice in the numerator too? Hell, by that logic, you probabl want to include sac bunts as an AB for the purpose of calculating batting average as well? Anything else you want to change?

The fact is that a sac bunt is not an attempt to reach base. Everyone but you seems to know that. And if you included it in the OBP, then the OBP would be less reflective of a player's ability to get on base.

This is common sense.

I'm not interested in having an inane discussion on the details of OBP, even though I disagree with your point.

My interest is in your assertion that because OBP is calculated the way it is, it inflates Nola's value relative to the other players on the team. I disagree with that.

quote:

---

An error... why not? He got on. Recent baseball research shows that a hitter has very little control over whether a batted ball that isn't a home run becomes a hit on or out. In the end, it's up to the defense. What's really the difference between a fielder making an error or being out of position (which results in a hit)?

---

Like I said, I'm not interested in discussing this as a separate topic. However, the above is duly noted and will be used to evaluate your other baseball opinions moving forward.

quote:

---

Try this thought experiement. Take two players. You know nothing about their hitting stats except two things:
1) They both have relatively the same number of at bats
2) Player A has 6 sac hits. Player B has 0 sac hits.

Now, knowing nothing else. Who's the better hitter? Anyone who has watched baseball for more than a year knows the answer to this question and will be right 95% of the time.

---

And this applies to Nola how? Nobody has said he's a good hitter.

Some have said that while he's not a great hitter, his OBP is pretty decent which helps justify his status as a starter. BTW, that is exactly what OBP is for. It is an attempt to give credit for things other than hits.

You have taken than and illogically argued that sacrifices should be counted against OBP. That's just stupid. Additionally, the thought that a person's OBP would go down if he were to sacrifice less is completely illogical as well. The guy would statistically perform the same way as he did in every other AB thus keeping his OBP very similar.

You have made numerous posts on the subject and have yet to make a decent argument for your position.

quote:

---

A player doesn't have much control whether the batted ball becomes a hit or an out

---

So, in your mind, the difference between a guy who hits .250 and a guy who hits .350 can be summed up in the # of HRs and in luck. I find that funny.

I'd say that the difference is in many different factors that involve skill...not luck (ability to make contact consistently, ability to hit the ball hard, ability to hit the ball on a line, general approach at the plate, ability to handle off speed pitches, ability to spread the ball around, ability to cover the inside and outside of the plate, ability to lay off pitches he can't handle, etc. etc. etc.)

quote:

---

I'd say that a guy who hit 350 with no power and no walks is going to a sudden and unfortunate drop in his batting average

---

There are hundreds of examples of guys who hit for average without power.

quote:

---

I also never said a player's OBP would go down if he were to sarcifice less.

---

You said that excluding sac bunts "skews the number". I'd say it does not affect the number.

quote:

---

ou argue that if instead of sacrificing, a player would do X is making an assumption. I'm making no asumption about what the guy who would do in those "lost" PA's.

---

Exactly. Which is why you ignore them. You don't assume an out (like you want) any more than you assume a hit (equally as ridiculous). You exclude them from consideration because of what OBP is attempting to measure.

quote:

---

And when a player sacrifices as often as Nola, yes, it skews his OBP. According to his OBP, when he comes up to the plate, he has a 33.7% chance of getting on. However, when he comes up to the plate, he reaches base 31.9% of the time, in real life. No assumptions

---

You are basing this on an incorrect premise of what OBP is. OBP has exceptions built in. I recognize this going in. When I look at OBP, I'm not interested in the actual percent of the time a player has reached base. To me, that is less informative. I'm interested in the percentage of the time he has reached base that he should be given credit for. I want to know how effective that player is at getting on base. I don't want to give credit for the errors or FCs because that AB was not successful. And, I don't want to consider PAs where the bat was taken out of hand.

quote:

---

Going way back in this thread, someone got to the crux of the argument about Nola: do the runs he saves on defense make up for the runs he loses on offense? Does this high number of sacrifice outs cost our offense even more runs than a typical 337 OBP hitter?

---

While you are at it, you need to consider the positive effect of moving 1 or 2 players into scoring position and the runs that are generated from those moves.

quote:

---

Honestly, I don't know. but it's a neat question. I'm sorry that you don't like me asking it.

---

I don't mind you asking the question. I've chimed in with my opinion on it multiple times. But, don't get upset if my opinion of you is formed based on your opinion on this topic.

quote:

---

There are hundreds of examples of guys who hit for average without power.

---

Yes, and they do it by putting lots of balls in play. High average/no power hitters tend to have very low strikeout rates. It's not that more of the balls they put in play become hits, it's that they put a lot more balls in play.

quote:

---

You said that excluding sac bunts "skews the number". I'd say it does not affect the number.

---

It skew the number because OBP is no longer measuring what it is supposed to measure: how often a guy doesn't get out. At its most basic, the formula for OBP is times on base divided by times at the plate. If you take something away from that basic formula, you better have a good reason. And just because we've always done it that way doesn't mean that's a good reason. It's too late to actually change the formula, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't look at things we exclude.

quote:

---

Exactly. Which is why you ignore them. You don't assume an out (like you want) any more than you assume a hit (equally as ridiculous). You exclude them from consideration because of what OBP is attempting to measure.

---

I'm not assuming an out. I'm recording it. The batter is out. You want to ignore it. Let me say it again: I'm not assuming he will get out. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. He got out. I'm not making it up.

quote:

---

You are basing this on an incorrect premise of what OBP is. OBP has exceptions built in. I recognize this going in. When I look at OBP, I'm not interested in the actual percent of the time a player has reached base. To me, that is less informative. I'm interested in the percentage of the time he has reached base that he should be given credit for.

---

WTF?

Really, WTF? I have no earthly idea what that last sentence means. I don't care about should. I don't care about would. I care about did. I care about is. What is informative is how often a guy gets on or gets out. I don't like someone else's value judgments of what should count. What is the reason for the exclusion? WHY? I prefer having the raw data and making my own judgments. How often did he get out? How many of those outs were K's? How many were sacs? How many DP's? Then I'll make my own judgments on what he should get credit for. OBP is supposed to measure getting on base. When you get out, you didn't reach base. That simple. Count it.

quote:

---

I don't want to give credit for the errors or FCs because that AB was not successful. And, I don't want to consider PAs where the bat was taken out of hand.

---

But a sac isn't a succesful AB either. Reaching on error would result in more runs than a successful sac. And we agree on FC's. It still cost the team an out and the team didn't gain a runner. You didn't help the team score runs.

There are four bases and three outs in an inning. It's just simple logic that a base is more valuable than an out. You shouldn't sacrifice an out for a base. A "successful" sacrifice results in LESS runs.

As Earl Weaver said, "if you play for one run, that's all you're gonna get." But even then, bunting a runner over will not only result in less runs, but actually decrease your chances in scoring one run most of the time. A runner on first with no outs is a better run scoring situation than a runner on second with one out.

So let's be clear: a sacrifice bunt is a bad AB. It counts as an out. Outs are bad. I don't like them. And I really hate bunting. It's giving away outs.