Sosa [Archive] - Baseball Fever

lovethegame

11-16-2007, 02:14 PM

Right, but an average to below average player can get 92 RBI in a season, like Sosa did.he got 92 because Texas sat him for the better part of the second half in a youth move.
He'd have delivered well over 100 with abs.
As for RBI being irrelevant, how do you win games without runs being driven in?
I said he'd be worth a look for 2 or 3 mil not the seven he asks for.
dh hitting 30-110-270 is a pretty good buy these days

digglahhh

11-16-2007, 02:24 PM

he got 92 because Texas sat him for the better part of the second half in a youth move.
He'd have delivered well over 100 with abs.
As for RBI being irrelevant, how do you win games without runs being driven in?
I said he'd be worth a look for 2 or 3 mil not the seven he asks for.
dh hitting 30-110-270 is a pretty good buy these days

How many runs would an "average" player driven in hitting in Sosa's situations?

He drove in 92 runs, that doesn't answer the question of whether he was particularly good at driving in runs. Give Nate Robinson 50 shots a game, he'll come within a point or two of Kobe for the scoring title....:rofl:

cardsfanatic

11-16-2007, 04:27 PM

LMAO! Sosa was horrible this past season in the best hitters ballpark in the AL, arguably the entire league now that the humidor has come around. 3-7 million a year? Surely you jest.

rockin500

11-16-2007, 04:55 PM

LMAO! Sosa was horrible this past season in the best hitters ballpark in the AL, arguably the entire league now that the humidor has come around. 3-7 million a year? Surely you jest.
horrible? perhaps as a fielder. but that hasnt been his game in ages. He was off a complete year and he still had an OPS+ of 102. horrible seasons arent 102.

cardsfanatic

11-16-2007, 05:48 PM

horrible? perhaps as a fielder. but that hasnt been his game in ages. He was off a complete year and he still had an OPS+ of 102. horrible seasons arent 102.

Basing everyone on just OPS+... seems a little limited, dontcha think? .252/.311/.468 aren't world beater numbers. For most of the season he was below .300 OPB, too. The guy had a little pop in a MONSTER homerun ballpark which carried him through to that 102 OPS+... but he was, in my account, horrible last season. Certainly not someone I'd be after if I were a GM. You could get the same production out of a youngster from your farm club, I'm sure... and for a far cheaper price tag.

I guess if RBI are your thing then pay away on Sosa. However, RBI aren't a reflection of any sort of skill, either.

nerfan

11-16-2007, 07:37 PM

As for RBI being irrelevant, how do you win games without runs being driven in?

As we said, contextual RBI's. I can do this with a quote

HA HA HA I KILLED MOTHER TERESA

but that wouldn't be stating fact, would it. Great players tend to get a lot of RBI, but RBI does not necessarily have to be gotten by great players (funny grammar there).

Player A hit

.234/.284/.399 with 102 RBI's

Player B hit

.233/.288/.390 with 101 RBI's

Wow. Would you say those are great numbers, or what? :rofl:

rockin500

11-16-2007, 08:37 PM

Basing everyone on just OPS+... seems a little limited, dontcha think? .252/.311/.468 aren't world beater numbers. For most of the season he was below .300 OPB, too. The guy had a little pop in a MONSTER homerun ballpark which carried him through to that 102 OPS+... but he was, in my account, horrible last season. Certainly not someone I'd be after if I were a GM. You could get the same production out of a youngster from your farm club, I'm sure... and for a far cheaper price tag.

I guess if RBI are your thing then pay away on Sosa. However, RBI aren't a reflection of any sort of skill, either.
never said they were world beater numbers. and 102 factors in his ballpark, remember that. so factoring in his ballpark, he was still a league average hitter. his onbase percentage was low, nothing new there, but his slugging was good enough that it made him league average.

i certainly wouldnt offer him anything above a 2M contract unless it was incentive laden.

plask_stirlac

11-17-2007, 11:28 AM

Yes, runs have to be driven in. But there are much better stats. Check these players.

Player A: 600 PA, .892 OPS, 104 RBI
Player B: 600 PA, .695 OPS, 104 RBI
Player C: 600 PA, .892 OPS, 78 RBI

Do you really think Player B was better than C? Was B comparable to A?

I'm not saying OPS can tell everything, no one stat can, but it's better than RBI. There are only so many outs in a game to use and it's good to have power.

Fuzzy Bear

11-17-2007, 11:36 AM

Sammy can still play the OF, albeit not real well. He can still hit lefties, and he can still power the ball.

It's ridiculous to say that Sammy could not occupy a spot on an MLB roster. He's a replacement level outfielder at this point, but he's an OK 4th OF/DH platoon type at this point in his career. If he were platooned and rested, he could probably have 2-3 more productive years. I don't think he'd do well beyond that role, however.

FatAngel

11-17-2007, 12:41 PM

At this stage Sosa looks pretty much like Joe Carter. If he plays 140 games, I´d expect about 100 RBI, 25 HR and 500 Outs.

cardsfanatic

11-17-2007, 04:36 PM

never said they were world beater numbers. and 102 factors in his ballpark, remember that. so factoring in his ballpark, he was still a league average hitter.

Which, for a corner OF or DH, is bad. There's a much higher premium on offensive production at those positions and being "league average" amongst second basemen, shortstops and outfielders alike isn't all that impressive to me. Here, let's compare Sosa directly to the average right fielder. You can also get these numbers straight from here if you don't believe me: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=204012

The average RF in the AL last year sported a line of:
.288/.359/.465

The average RF in the NL last year sported a line of:
.275/.344/.442

Sosa:
.252/.311/.468

So, tell me, how does Sosa stack up to _that_ production -- and that's the true "average" right fielder... ? Spout off his OPS+ all you like and compare his bat to 2B and catchers all you like... when it comes down to it, Sosa was plain bad. The _average_ rightfielder league wide was better than Sosa hands down. I couldn't really care less how many homeruns he hit in that bandbox in Arlington or how many RBI's he got. He sucked.

That's my last post on the discussion. I've already spent more time on Sosa than needed because IMO, he's one of the most overrated players of the modern era.

Westlake

11-17-2007, 06:06 PM

Not totally. A so-so player, even with the best ever hitters in front of him, will have a damn hard time getting 120-150 RBI. You have to be at least pretty good to reach 150-165+ in a season.

Just makes no sense to use RBI when so many other better stats are available for anyone that isn't stuck in some overly traditionalist way of thinking about baseball. Time we move on, people.

lovethegame

11-18-2007, 03:37 AM

Man people hate this guy.
21-92 in 2/3 of a season and " he sucks".
Nice
Average players get 2 or 3 mil and for 25-30 with 100 to 115 rbi it looks like a good deal.
RBI still matter to me , call me sentimental.

Erik Bedard

11-18-2007, 05:56 AM

There's sentimentality and then there's rigid refusal to use far better alternatives.

downstairs

11-18-2007, 09:14 AM

White Knight

11-18-2007, 11:58 AM

Its the same problem Bonds would have had (as it now looks like he'll be playing for the Prison League). Nobody likes him! I mean, maybe the Cubs... it seems there are a few lingering Sammy apologists there... but even most of them hate him.

I'm one of them. Steroids or not, him and McGwire hitting 60+ multiple times not only was good for baseball, it brought back baseball in 1998.

Westlake

11-18-2007, 12:25 PM

Its the same problem Bonds would have had (as it now looks like he'll be playing for the Prison League). Nobody likes him! I mean, maybe the Cubs... it seems there are a few lingering Sammy apologists there... but even most of them hate him.

No, not even close. Not one person here will tell you that Bonds was not EXTREMELY productive this year. I thought he might have belonged in the top 5 in the MVP. Everyone hates him, but pretty much everyone will tell you that he is still a VERY productive player. Sosa, on the other hand, isn't.

HR and RBI... yikes. Kingman had 35 HR and 94 RBI in his last season, but he was still terrible offensive player, with an OPS under .700. Sosa's was under .800 this year. He's not useful defensively or on the basepaths, and a DH with a sub .800 OPS is a waste of that spot.

Old Sweater

11-20-2007, 12:08 AM

He had great clutch stats.

RISP/ .333 .387 .593 74rbi

2 outs, RISP/ .333 .408 .651 33rbi

White Knight

11-20-2007, 12:16 AM

He had great clutch stats.

RISP/ .333 .387 .593 74rbi

2 outs, RISP/ .333 .408 .651 33rbi

Oh, people here hate the clutch as much as they do the RBI, batting average, and the ability to not strike out. Sad, but true.

Old Sweater

11-20-2007, 05:46 AM

Oh, people here hate the clutch as much as they do the RBI, batting average, and the ability to not strike out. Sad, but true.

Just some of them and then even they would like those clutch stats as a fan or as a fellow player or manager.

lovethegame

11-20-2007, 02:01 PM

Just some of them and then even they would like those clutch stats as a fan or as a fellow player or manager.
Come up with all these cyber feel good stats you can ,the games are won by runs driven in and fewest allowed.
Sosa had a remarkable run against pitchers as juiced as anyone and last year barring a Texas sit down he'd have been top ten RBI with 30 or so

Old Sweater

11-20-2007, 02:36 PM

Come up with all these cyber feel good stats you can ,the games are won by runs driven in and fewest allowed.
Sosa had a remarkable run against pitchers as juiced as anyone and last year barring a Texas sit down he'd have been top ten RBI with 30 or so

Since when is BA, OBP, SLG% and RBI's cyber feel good stats? Guess you didn't even bother reading my other post before popping off.

cardsfanatic

11-21-2007, 09:33 PM

Oh, people here hate the clutch as much as they do the RBI, batting average, and the ability to not strike out. Sad, but true.

Not really sad. True, perhaps. I don't know how most of the posters around here feel about said things and I won't speak for them on the matter, either. However, tell me, what's sad about not liking "stats" that aren't easily replicated? I mean, RISP numbers and "clutch" stats have wild swings from season to season. "Clutch" players will hit .400 one year with RISP and the next they'll hit .127. I mean, did they just lose the "skill" to produce in the clutch? C'mon.

I'm from the school of thought that a player is never any better than he is. What I mean by that is that whether or not it's an RBI opportunity, a RISP situation or whatever... a player is only as good as that player is. It's not like he just all of a sudden gets better at certain times -- if he did, then why not approach every single AB like that? So, the RBI basically boils down to opportunities as does RISP. When the chips fall into place those stats pile up. When they don't, those stats suffer. In the end it doesn't tell you a whole hell of a lot about a player and his performance. And that's why some people don't like the RBI or clutch stats. Neither one is representative of any sort of skill as neither can be replicated without luck and chances. While things like drawing walks, not striking out, hitting homeruns etc... _can_ be replicated and _are_ a skill that typically stays constant throughout a players career. And I don't know who doesn't like the ability to not strike out. I know some of the SABR guys say K's don't matter but I'm against the grain on that one. While I love SABR and read all the books about it I can get my hands on, the whole "strikeouts are no worse than any other out" deal is one I definitely disagree with.

desertmonk

11-22-2007, 01:45 AM

the whole "strikeouts are no worse than any other out" deal is one I definitely disagree with.

Agreed, putting the ball in play and they can make an error, or a runner can advance easier, a strike out is the worst thing you can do at the plate in my opinion.

Chi

11-22-2007, 04:58 AM

digglahhh

11-22-2007, 07:33 AM

Agreed, putting the ball in play and they can make an error, or a runner can advance easier, a strike out is the worst thing you can do at the plate in my opinion.

Or... they can turn a double play!

Like Chi said, it is all contextual.

skyking162

11-22-2007, 08:35 AM

Agreed, putting the ball in play and they can make an error, or a runner can advance easier, a strike out is the worst thing you can do at the plate in my opinion.

That's not a fair comparison. Nobody's saying a strikeout is just as good as a ball put into play. But a strikeout is basically just as harmful as a pop out or a ground out.

Hitting in the clutch is definitely important to winning games. But it's not a good measure of player ability because it's not a repeatable skill. The players you want up in the clutch are the best hitters overall, not the ones that hit the best in the clutch the previous season.

League-average offense from a player with zero defensive value is not worth much. DHs deserve a huge penalty for taking up the DH spot. Teams should not be paying for the Sammy Sosa name. They should be playing a young guy who can't field and pay him the league-minimum if they want average offense.

Mattingly

11-22-2007, 08:44 AM

Why did Texas give him far fewer ABs in Sep/Oct than before the AS Break?

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/individual_player_gamebygamelog.jsp?playerID=12254 4&statType=1

In September, he'd gotten 5 two-hit games, but in October, he had 1 three-hit game and 1 two-hit game.

The player formerly known as Slammy Sammy had 83 ABs in June, but a combined 82 in September & October (51 & 31, respectively).

Mattingly

11-22-2007, 08:47 AM

That's not a fair comparison. Nobody's saying a strikeout is just as good as a ball put into play. But a strikeout is basically just as harmful as a pop out or a ground out.

Hitting in the clutch is definitely important to winning games. But it's not a good measure of player ability because it's not a repeatable skill. The players you want up in the clutch are the best hitters overall, not the ones that hit the best in the clutch the previous season.

League-average offense from a player with zero defensive value is not worth much. DHs deserve a huge penalty for taking up the DH spot. Teams should not be paying for the Sammy Sosa name. They should be playing a young guy who can't field and pay him the league-minimum if they want average offense.
I'd argue that a strikeout could be more dangerous. If you have a groundout, if there's nobody out, you could even have a DP and still score a run from 3B. That could win the game for you.

A flyout could be a sac fly. Anything but a strikeout. You could even have a strikeout-throwout DP, which won't score many runs, last I've heard, unless the catcher throws to 2B on a double-steal, then the 3B runner scores.

skyking162

11-22-2007, 09:14 AM

I'd argue that a strikeout could be more dangerous. If you have a groundout, if there's nobody out, you could even have a DP and still score a run from 3B. That could win the game for you.

A flyout could be a sac fly. Anything but a strikeout. You could even have a strikeout-throwout DP, which won't score many runs, last I've heard, unless the catcher throws to 2B on a double-steal, then the 3B runner scores.

Yes, there are positive and negative things that can happen on a ball put in play that can't happen on a strikeout. Most flyballs are not sac flies. Most groundouts don't advance runners. Almost zero GIDPs are positive events, and they completely kill rallies. If you average the results of strikeouts and the results of in-play outs, the strikeout comes out a small step behind. If I may quote linear weights, an in-play out is worth about -.090 runs while a strikeout is -.098 runs. That might make a difference of a run or two over a full season for a high-K batter.

Mattingly

11-22-2007, 09:27 AM

Yes, there are positive and negative things that can happen on a ball put in play that can't happen on a strikeout. Most flyballs are not sac flies. Most groundouts don't advance runners. Almost zero GIDPs are positive events, and they completely kill rallies. If you average the results of strikeouts and the results of in-play outs, the strikeout comes out a small step behind. If I may quote linear weights, an in-play out is worth about -.090 runs while a strikeout is -.098 runs. That might make a difference of a run or two over a full season for a high-K batter.
Actually, I think that the only thing worse than a strikeout is a DP. With a K, you kill one, with a DP, you kill two.

When you've got a 1-out rally going on, your big hitter up, I've seen top players like A-Rod, Ortiz, Pujols, Manny hit into DPs. It happens to everyone, but the DP I'll definitely agree will kill the rally.

Some of those instances I'd mentioned earlier like the bases no-out DP scoring a runner from 3B are pretty rare, but I was just using a "for example" thing.

As to what I'm saying, if you're a .265 hitter, I'll take that if you're low-priced and there for defense, especially if you're starting that day. At least if you can advance the runners on a bunt or deep flyout, that will certainly give the rally some chance. Just think:

No outs, 1B/2B runners, hard flyout to RF makes it 1 out, 2B/3B runners (if the 1B runner takes the chance on running).

Regardless, just score some runs. :)

Rags2Riches

11-22-2007, 09:29 AM

I would disagree with that. Strikeouts are an inefficient use of pitches - a batter striking out can put a lot more strain on a pitcher than, say, popping out on the first pitch.

It's situational, like most things in baseball. There are times a strikeout is the worst thing for the hitter/best for the pitcher, and there are times that they aren't.

I'm sorry but you need to explain to me and give a example of when a SO is not a good thing for a Pitcher......I've been around baseball for over 35+ yrs and have NEVER heard of a SO not being beneficial to a pitcher.

the only example of this being true is if after a batter fouls off 7-8 or more straight balls then he strikes out......sure I'm sure the pitcher would have loved to have just had a pop out 5 pitches ago to save some pitches but still, a SO not helping?

Erik Bedard

11-22-2007, 10:07 AM

Come up with all these cyber feel good stats you can ,the games are won by runs driven in and fewest allowed.
Sosa had a remarkable run against pitchers as juiced as anyone and last year barring a Texas sit down he'd have been top ten RBI with 30 or so

First off, games are not "won by runs driven in and fewest allowed". They are won by scoring more runs than the other team.

So, let's think about this logically, not in terms of "cyber feel good stats". Excluding home runs, how do teams score runs? By getting runners on base and moving them around, right? And if you don't have any runners on base, then moving them around seems pretty useless, right? So getting on base is one of, if not the most valuable measurement of a player's worth, since there would be no runs driven in if nobody got on base. Sammy Sosa does not get on base very well. Therefore, while he does drive in runs, he does not set his team up to drive in runs, this making him not a very valuable offensive player. He is also terrible in the field, making him a below Major League average baseball player.

Amazing what you can get when you ignore traditional beliefs and try and reason things out for yourself.

rockin500

11-22-2007, 04:20 PM

I'm sorry but you need to explain to me and give a example of when a SO is not a good thing for a Pitcher......I've been around baseball for over 35+ yrs and have NEVER heard of a SO not being beneficial to a pitcher.

the only example of this being true is if after a batter fouls off 7-8 or more straight balls then he strikes out......sure I'm sure the pitcher would have loved to have just had a pop out 5 pitches ago to save some pitches but still, a SO not helping?
they drive up pitch counts. I'm as big of a strikeout fan as anyone around, but i do know that a high strikeout pitcher will always have more pitches in a game than guys like jamie moyer, mark buerhle, maddux and the likes.

digglahhh

11-22-2007, 05:16 PM

I'm sorry but you need to explain to me and give a example of when a SO is not a good thing for a Pitcher......I've been around baseball for over 35+ yrs and have NEVER heard of a SO not being beneficial to a pitcher.

the only example of this being true is if after a batter fouls off 7-8 or more straight balls then he strikes out......sure I'm sure the pitcher would have loved to have just had a pop out 5 pitches ago to save some pitches but still, a SO not helping?

He's just saying that a strikeout is not there are scenarios in which a strikeout is not the best possible outcome for a pitcher.

Just like there are certain scenarios in which a strikeout is not the worst possible outcome for a hitter.

lovethegame

11-23-2007, 09:37 AM

Since when is BA, OBP, SLG% and RBI's cyber feel good stats? Guess you didn't even bother reading my other post before popping off.
oooh easy on the ego sport, what made you think I was talking about you.
I am tired of those who want to diminish the production of players.
Lots of juiced up 98 mph plus pitchers who have quietly vanished were tossing to those thought to be juiced up.
People have called Sosas less then 500 ab season with 21 -92 and solid production with runners in scoring position lousy and he sucks.
I think that's foolish

lovethegame

11-23-2007, 09:48 AM

First off, games are not "won by runs driven in and fewest allowed". They are won by scoring more runs than the other team.

So, let's think about this logically, not in terms of "cyber feel good stats". Excluding home runs, how do teams score runs? By getting runners on base and moving them around, right? And if you don't have any runners on base, then moving them around seems pretty useless, right? So getting on base is one of, if not the most valuable measurement of a player's worth, since there would be no runs driven in if nobody got on base. Sammy Sosa does not get on base very well. Therefore, while he does drive in runs, he does not set his team up to drive in runs, this making him not a very valuable offensive player. He is also terrible in the field, making him a below Major League average baseball player.

Amazing what you can get when you ignore traditional beliefs and try and reason things out for yourself.
Baloney.
There is a reason guys bat 1st or 2nd to ,oh boy here I go again in that nasty tradional mode, set the table.
You can get on all you want but if you leave em there you lose.
Sosa had a very good year especially given less than 500 abs.
In 2001 btw , a year so many are calling Bonds greatest ever he had 73 hr and 137 rbi.
Sosa had 64 hr and 160 rbi.
That's a lot of Cubbies crossing home plate
Remove the hr and Bonds had 64 rbi and Sosa had 96

plask_stirlac

11-23-2007, 10:40 AM

Baloney.
There is a reason guys bat 1st or 2nd to ,oh boy here I go again in that nasty tradional mode, set the table.
You can get on all you want but if you leave em there you lose.
Sosa had a very good year especially given less than 500 abs.
In 2001 btw , a year so many are calling Bonds greatest ever he had 73 hr and 137 rbi.
Sosa had 64 hr and 160 rbi.
That's a lot of Cubbies crossing home plate
Remove the hr and Bonds had 64 rbi and Sosa had 96

Most teams can find a better "table-cleaner" than Sosa to DH, even if he did fine.

The Twins couldn't so I would actually be interested in him.

Mattingly

11-23-2007, 10:45 AM

Anybody in favor of this thread being split? Since we've varied away from Sammy Sosa and into how games are won, should a separate thread be created? I can copy the relevant posts, then remove them from here.
He's just saying that a strikeout is not there are scenarios in which a strikeout is not the best possible outcome for a pitcher.

Just like there are certain scenarios in which a strikeout is not the worst possible outcome for a hitter.
If I see corner runners, tied game, I'd take a strikeout. However, you still have to worry about getting the next out. Do you switch in the 8th from your setup to your closer?

If I get a DP, then the inning's over, rally is gone. Therefore, a DP is truly a pitcher's best friend. However, if you've got a groundball pitcher but the infielders can't catch a break, nor can they catch or field anything at all, then I'd say that a strikeout is the pitcher's best friend.

Then again, with corner runners, the hitter can simply swat one over the fence for a 3-run longball. Anything can happen.

Erik Bedard

11-23-2007, 11:35 AM

Matt: I'm trying to have this discussion within the framework of a Sammy Sosa discussion, so I don't think a thread separation is necessary. It's your call, though.

Baloney.
There is a reason guys bat 1st or 2nd to ,oh boy here I go again in that nasty tradional mode, set the table.
You can get on all you want but if you leave em there you lose.
Sosa had a very good year especially given less than 500 abs.
In 2001 btw , a year so many are calling Bonds greatest ever he had 73 hr and 137 rbi.
Sosa had 64 hr and 160 rbi.
That's a lot of Cubbies crossing home plate
Remove the hr and Bonds had 64 rbi and Sosa had 96

Your logic when you say that "You can get on all you want but if you leave em there you lose" is highly flawed. It's technically correct, but what you want it to mean is totally different from what it does mean. You leave runners on base not by not driving them in, but by making outs. If you get on base, you don't make outs.

The second half of your post is again, taken out of context. The Cubs scored fewer runs than the Giants, because the guys on their team didn't get on base as much. The Giants scored nearly 800 runs (799, to be exact), because the guys on their team got on base very well, largely thanks to Bonds, who accomplished the primary goal of batting, to not make an out, more than half the time he stepped up to the plate.

Old Sweater

11-23-2007, 11:42 PM

People have called Sosas less then 500 ab season with 21 -92 and solid production with runners in scoring position lousy and he sucks.
I think that's foolish

It is foolish with his RISP stats. None of them could say he sucked in clutch situations and would be hard pressed to find better stats then Sosa had.

RISP/ .333 .387 .593 74rbi

2 outs, RISP/ .333 .408 .651 33rbi

cardsfanatic

11-24-2007, 05:58 AM

It is foolish with his RISP stats.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuude, I like, so agree! I'm sure you'd agree with me here, too. I've said for years now Mario Mendoza was unjustly labeled as a poor hitter. I mean, c'mon guys, look at the stats!

Ol' Dude hit .327 for his career with runners on third base!!!! OMG!
He hit .375 as a pinch hitter!!!!
He hit .310 with runners on the corners!!!!
.323 at Memorial Stadium!!!!

Dude, he was such ownage it's not funny. You can't refute the stats, either! The guy was a great hitter... I don't care what metrics or your eyes tell you. Mario Mendoza should be in the hall of frickin' fame!

Old Sweater

11-24-2007, 06:21 AM

Duuuuuuuuuuuuude, I like, so agree! I'm sure you'd agree with me here, too. I've said for years now Mario Mendoza was unjustly labeled as a poor hitter. I mean, c'mon guys, look at the stats!

Ol' Dude hit .327 for his career with runners on third base!!!! OMG!
He hit .375 as a pinch hitter!!!!
He hit .310 with runners on the corners!!!!
.323 at Memorial Stadium!!!!

Dude, he was such ownage it's not funny. You can't refute the stats, either! The guy was a great hitter... I don't care what metrics or your eyes tell you. Mario Mendoza should be in the hall of frickin' fame!

Daaaaaaaaaaaandy, I'm so gald that you agree with me. What was his best stats for one year? Did he pwn like Sammy did this year Daaaaaaandy?

lovethegame

11-24-2007, 07:53 AM

I was saying at the start that Sosa for 2 or 3 mil is a good deal.
I still think that's the case

digglahhh

11-24-2007, 01:44 PM

You guys are aware that all stats are "made up," right. I mean, that is the point of statistical analysis - to derive tools to explain and evaluate the relationships between things.

Long ago, when we were still contemplating the legitimacy of Lambroso's assertion that a sloped forehead was a good indicator of inherent criminal tendency, - we determined a stat called the RBI that as an indicator of offensive production.

Since then, we've seen marvelous advances in physiology, sociology, and criminal justice and they have resulted in a much greater understanding of the root sources of crime. We've also seen some brilliant work in regarding to quantifying offense production in ways that correlate much better than RBI. One day, the people who use these methods will not be mocked by those who are proud to still be looking for sloped foreheads!

Old Sweater

11-24-2007, 03:50 PM

^ Didn't make a lick of sense to me but, heavy man.

lovethegame

11-28-2007, 01:19 PM

Wow, Balsa Wood is a 4.25 mil investment but Sosa "sucks"

Erik Bedard

11-28-2007, 01:29 PM

Nobody is saying he "sucks". We are saying that he is below average, and that using RBI to claim otherwise is highly flawed. If anybody wants to pay 3M for a below average player, then they're stupid.

lovethegame

11-28-2007, 01:35 PM

cardsfanatic

11-30-2007, 03:27 AM

Which, for a corner OF or DH, is bad. There's a much higher premium on offensive production at those positions and being "league average" amongst second basemen, shortstops and outfielders alike isn't all that impressive to me. Here, let's compare Sosa directly to the average right fielder. You can also get these numbers straight from here if you don't believe me: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=204012

The average RF in the AL last year sported a line of:
.288/.359/.465

The average RF in the NL last year sported a line of:
.275/.344/.442

Sosa:
.252/.311/.468

So, tell me, how does Sosa stack up to _that_ production -- and that's the true "average" right fielder... ? Spout off his OPS+ all you like and compare his bat to 2B and catchers all you like... when it comes down to it, Sosa was plain bad. The _average_ rightfielder league wide was better than Sosa hands down. I couldn't really care less how many homeruns he hit in that bandbox in Arlington or how many RBI's he got. He sucked.

That's my last post on the discussion. I've already spent more time on Sosa than needed because IMO, he's one of the most overrated players of the modern era.

Darn tootin I said he sucked last season. I stand by this post 100% and it's funny how no Sosa defenders even responded to it. I suppose they had no defense for Sosa, which hey, can't blame 'em. I can't find one either. The _average_ RF'er in both leagues was better than Sosa. Yet I'm supposed to believe that because he raked in the RBI on an all-offense, no-pitching team in a park that plays like Coors Field Jr., he was anything other than bad?

SamtheBravesFan

11-30-2007, 08:05 AM

Darn tootin I said he sucked last season. I stand by this post 100% and it's funny how no Sosa defenders even responded to it. I suppose they had no defense for Sosa, which hey, can't blame 'em. I can't find one either. The _average_ RF'er in both leagues was better than Sosa. Yet I'm supposed to believe that because he raked in the RBI on an all-offense, no-pitching team in a park that plays like Coors Field Jr., he was anything other than bad?

... actually, Sosa played worse at Arlington.

Home: .227/.303/.439, 10 HR, 43 RBI
Away: .276/.318/.495, 11 HR, 49 RBI