PDA

View Full Version : Scott Hatteberg: On-Base Machine



Jpup
06-20-2006, 09:19 AM
Scott Hatteberg is 10th in the NL in on base percentage at .401. I think it's simply amazing what this guy has done for the Reds.

The 9 guys in front of him are all-star caliber players:

Abreu, Pujols, Cabrera, Johnson, Bay, Garciaparra, Rolen, Helton, Wright and then Hatteberg.

I don't find very much talk about Hatteberg or his great season, but this guy has been a steal. I have to think that someone would find him a very valuable commodity in a playoff race. His counting stats aren't very good, but all he does is get on base, nothing to complain about there IMO.

Opinions on his season or trade value?

RedFanAlways1966
06-20-2006, 09:23 AM
Scott Hatteberg is 10th in the NL in on base percentage at .401. I think it's simply amazing what this guy has done for the Reds.

I don't find very much talk about Hatteberg or his great season, but this guy has been a steal.

Good post, Jpup. And very true. I am sure someone will complain about the guy... b/c he does not hit enough HRs. That is what firstbaseman do... hit HRs, right?

smith288
06-20-2006, 09:39 AM
Watch out Jpup....some here think Mr Hatte is Castro level as a hitter. Why, I have no clue.

SirFelixCat
06-20-2006, 09:55 AM
Scott Hatteberg is 10th in the NL in on base percentage at .401. I think it's simply amazing what this guy has done for the Reds.

The 9 guys in front of him are all-star caliber players:

Abreu, Pujols, Cabrera, Johnson, Bay, Garciaparra, Rolen, Helton, Wright and then Hatteberg.

I don't find very much talk about Hatteberg or his great season, but this guy has been a steal. I have to think that someone would find him a very valuable commodity in a playoff race. His counting stats aren't very good, but all he does is get on base, nothing to complain about there IMO.

Opinions on his season or trade value?

I was one of the loudest voices on this board against the WMP trade because I thought Hatte would then become a blackhole of a starting 1B.

I GLADLY eat those words. While not stellar, he has been MUCH better than anyone here thought he would be, and I'm grateful for that. I would think WKriv could flip him for some BP help near the deadline....

Jpup
06-20-2006, 10:04 AM
I was one of the loudest voices on this board against the WMP trade because I thought Hatte would then become a blackhole of a starting 1B.

I GLADLY eat those words. While not stellar, he has been MUCH better than anyone here thought he would be, and I'm grateful for that. I would think WKriv could flip him for some BP help near the deadline....

Hatteberg has been stellar IMO. He's almost what some would call "clutch."

Close and Late:

27 ABs .296/.424/.481/.905 6 BB

The rest of the story is that he should play against both lefties and righties. He's actually been a little better against lefties this year.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 10:11 AM
Watch out Jpup....some here think Mr Hatte is Castro level as a hitter. Why, I have no clue.
That would be me. OBP is a dandy statistic but when you are on pace for a .288-9-39 season with a .400 OBP and 60 runs scored in 423 ABs, then those walks aren't doing much IMO. If he was on pace to score 85 runs in those PAs, then I would be happier. Or even knock in 70 runs. Or play above average defense. But I don't see much value in what he has brought to the table. If they moved Dunn to 1B and put Freel/Deno in LF, it would make the lineup more impressive. But since OBP is the darling of this board, it doesn't seem to matter if you do anything else as long as you accumulate walks. He hasn't had good run production at all while having a good walk rate. And that's a fact.

Jpup
06-20-2006, 10:14 AM
That would be me. OBP is a dandy statistic but when you are on pace for a .288-9-39 season with a .400 OBP and 60 runs scored in 423 ABs, then those walks aren't doing much IMO. If he was on pace to score 85 runs in those PAs, then I would be happier. Or even knock in 70 runs. Or play above average defense. But I don't see much value in what he has brought to the table. If they moved Dunn to 1B and put Freel/Deno in LF, it would make the lineup more impressive. But since OBP is the darling of this board, it doesn't seem to matter if you do anything else as long as you accumulate walks. He hasn't had good run production at all while having a good walk rate. And that's a fact.

the fact is that he can not score runs if someone else doesn't drive him in. If he is batting 6th or 7th in the order, he isn't going to score many runs. Bat him second and see what happens. RBIs are dependent on someone "else" getting on base. How you judge a hitter by that, I will never know.

A hitters job is to not make an out. Hatteberg makes less outs than anyone else on the team.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 10:24 AM
the fact is that he can not score runs if someone else doesn't drive him in. If he is batting 6th or 7th in the order, he isn't going to score many runs. Bat him second and see what happens. RBIs are dependent on someone "else" getting on base. How you judge a hitter by that, I will never know.

A hitters job is to not make an out. Hatteberg makes less outs than anyone else on the team.
1) Phillips (all year) and Ross (the last month or so) have done a fine job at the bottom of the order.

2) Hatte is hitting .237-1-13 in 38 ABs with RISP and .071-0-1 in 14 ABs with RISP/2 outs. He's had opportunities to drive in runs. He hasn't come through.

3) I've been through this 100 times between Dunn and Hatteberg threads regarding OBP. OBP is not the end of the discussion. The bad thing about the stat is it is reliant upon other factors. Just b/c you walk doesn't mean you did your job. Especially when you are slow as molasses, b/c when you are no threat on the paths it now takes more than a single to score you.

4) "A hitters job is to not make an out." I think a hitter has more of a job than that. And as I have stated before, if we are happy with someone who's main attribute is walking, then we need to get Eddie Gaedel in here. He'd be much cheaper. Give me someone who makes things happen over someone who walks and now relies on others to make things happen anyday.

westofyou
06-20-2006, 11:14 AM
That would be me. OBP is a dandy statistic but when you are on pace for a .288-9-39 season with a .400 OBP and 60 runs scored in 423 ABs, then those walks aren't doing much IMO.Getting on base is always a good thing, and that statement doesn't mean I"m "Enamored" or "Blinded" by OB%.

Why is it that some people tend to look at wanting to avoid outs and valuing getting on base as some sort of Cabal?

Just another boogyman hiding in the equipment bag as far as I'm concerned.

registerthis
06-20-2006, 11:15 AM
1) Phillips (all year) and Ross (the last month or so) have done a fine job at the bottom of the order.

A single wouldn't score a guy from first, and it sometimes doesn't score a guy from second. "Runs scored" is almost entirely team-dependant, unless you hit a significant number of HRs. Ross has scored only 17 runs all year, and E_E, whom many consider to be having a fine season, has scored only 1 more run than Hatte. All Hatte can do is get himself on base, beyond that it's out of his control.


2) Hatte is hitting .237-1-13 in 38 ABs with RISP and .071-0-1 in 14 ABs with RISP/2 outs. He's had opportunities to drive in runs. He hasn't come through.

He's also getting on base at a .373 clip with RISP, which is better than guys like Dunn and Kearns who also have had far more opportunities.) He's never been a big run producer, but he does the next best thing--he avoids making outs while giving others a chance to drive him (and others) in.


3) I've been through this 100 times between Dunn and Hatteberg threads regarding OBP. OBP is not the end of the discussion. The bad thing about the stat is it is reliant upon other factors. Just b/c you walk doesn't mean you did your job. Especially when you are slow as molasses, b/c when you are no threat on the paths it now takes more than a single to score you.

What you're really trying to say is that Hatte should walk less and swing more--which DOES sound like a familiar criticism of another player I know. It's also a recipe to ruin what offensive skills a player like Hatte has. He's getting so many walks because the pitchers are throwing him stuff outside of the strike zone. Whenever a player is encouraged to "walk less", it means that he should be swinging more. Those swings would be made on pitches that are primarily unhittable, thus ensuring that he makes many more outs for very little return. Encouraging Hatte to be more aggressive at the plate would result in a decrease in his OBP, a decrease in the number of chances the reds as a team have to score runs, and only a very modest increase in his RBI production. That's not a trade-off I'm willing to make.


"A hitters job is to not make an out." I think a hitter has more of a job than that. And as I have stated before, if we are happy with someone who's main attribute is walking, then we need to get Eddie Gaedel in here. He'd be much cheaper. Give me someone who makes things happen over someone who walks and now relies on others to make things happen anyday.

This argument fails because it assumes that everyone should be able to hit like Williams, with power like Ruth. It makes the faulty assumption that walks can be traded for hits with little to know adverse repercussions for the player and the team. Unfortunately, that's not the case. No team can field a squad of Pujols's or Guerrero's, so each player's limitations must be recognized. Asking players to work on their overall game and improve is one thing. Asking players to trade hits for outs is quite another, and you could count on one hand the number of MLB players who could accomplish such a task successfully.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 11:43 AM
A single wouldn't score a guy from first, and it sometimes doesn't score a guy from second. "Runs scored" is almost entirely team-dependant, unless you hit a significant number of HRs. Ross has scored only 17 runs all year, and E_E, whom many consider to be having a fine season, has scored only 1 more run than Hatte. All Hatte can do is get himself on base, beyond that it's out of his control.



He's also getting on base at a .373 clip with RISP, which is better than guys like Dunn and Kearns who also have had far more opportunities.) He's never been a big run producer, but he does the next best thing--he avoids making outs while giving others a chance to drive him (and others) in.



What you're really trying to say is that Hatte should walk less and swing more--which DOES sound like a familiar criticism of another player I know. It's also a recipe to ruin what offensive skills a player like Hatte has. He's getting so many walks because the pitchers are throwing him stuff outside of the strike zone. Whenever a player is encouraged to "walk less", it means that he should be swinging more. Those swings would be made on pitches that are primarily unhittable, thus ensuring that he makes many more outs for very little return. Encouraging Hatte to be more aggressive at the plate would result in a decrease in his OBP, a decrease in the number of chances the reds as a team have to score runs, and only a very modest increase in his RBI production. That's not a trade-off I'm willing to make.



This argument fails because it assumes that everyone should be able to hit like Williams, with power like Ruth. It makes the faulty assumption that walks can be traded for hits with little to know adverse repercussions for the player and the team. Unfortunately, that's not the case. No team can field a squad of Pujols's or Guerrero's, so each player's limitations must be recognized. Asking players to work on their overall game and improve is one thing. Asking players to trade hits for outs is quite another, and you could count on one hand the number of MLB players who could accomplish such a task successfully.
1) Not for nothing, but I would rather have someone get a hit with RISP than walk. I couldn't care less what their OBP is. He isn't producing with RISP and my stats were in rebuttal to another post saying his RBI total is low b/c he hasn't gotten any chances.

2) I am not comparing Ted Williams, Pujols or Vlad. But he is on pace for 39 RBI and 60 runs. Pujols' grandfather could probably get those stats.

3) There is a difference btw telling someone to "walk less" and telling someone to swing at strikes. If Hatte watches two go straight down the chute and then walks with a man on 3rd, are we happy? I doubt it. If he gets 4 straight balls, fine. But he has seen more than his fair share of strikes go by.

4) If the people hitting behind Hatte aren't knocking him in since he seems to get on base everytime and yet is only on pace to score 60 runs, then maybe he should start to swing more.

registerthis
06-20-2006, 12:43 PM
Yes, Hatteberg's problem is that he doesn't make enough outs. Swing away, young padwan.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 12:45 PM
Getting on base is always a good thing, and that statement doesn't mean I"m "Enamored" or "Blinded" by OB%.

Why is it that some people tend to look at wanting to avoid outs and valuing getting on base as some sort of Cabal?

Just another boogyman hiding in the equipment bag as far as I'm concerned.
I think OBP is a good thing, but it isn't the only thing. And it doesn't guarantee runs being scored, as illustrated by the Hatteberg case. I think people are putting too much weight in the stat. That's all. Like if your OBP is over .400 then you are automatically having a great year no matter what else takes place. It doesn't matter that Hatte isn't producing anything else except walks.

westofyou
06-20-2006, 12:47 PM
And it doesn't guarantee runs being scored, as illustrated by the Hatteberg case.6.48 RC/27

I'll take the white mans Randy Milligan thank you.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 12:47 PM
Yes, Hatteberg's problem is that he doesn't make enough outs. Swing away, young padwan.
Never said that. His walks aren't generating runs. Everyone jams OBP down your throat on RZ like it is a guarantee of a plethora of runs being scored. He isn't scoring runs. He isn't knocking in runs. He walks. If his walks aren't enabling the Reds to score more, then he may as well swing a little more. And not at pitches outside of the zone. He looks at plenty of strikes.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 12:49 PM
6.48 RC/27

I'll take the white mans Randy Milligan thank you.
He is on pace for 60 runs scored. So use whatever calculations you want...I'll use the stats from real life.

westofyou
06-20-2006, 12:50 PM
He is on pace for 60 runs scored. So use whatever calculations you want...I'll use the stats from real life.
Really "real life"??

Can you be more smug?

westofyou
06-20-2006, 12:56 PM
Speaking of real life stats and 60 runs scored let's not forget that were. talking a projection of 468 ab's too.

Since 1990 Red 1st sackers with less than 475 ab's a season





CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
1990-2005
1B
AT BATS < 475
RBI vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RUNS YEAR R AB RBI
1 Hal Morris 1994 60 436 24
2 Sean Casey 2002 56 425 -12
3 Hal Morris 1995 53 359 5
4 Hal Morris 1990 50 309 2
5 Hal Morris 1993 48 379 4
T6 Sean Casey 1998 44 302 12
T6 Eduardo Perez 1997 44 297 13
8 Hal Morris 1997 42 333 -11
9 Hal Morris 1992 41 395 9
10 Todd Benzinger 1990 35 376 0

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 12:57 PM
Really "real life"??

Can you be more smug?
Not being smug and I apologize if I came off that way. But can't we look at the big picture here? He has a nice OBP. That's it. It is not leading to run production on the field. So I do not find him valuable at this time. He isn't scoring runs or knocking them in. So what does he do?

OBP is like a get out of jail free card around here. I agree it is important, but there is more to the game.

pedro
06-20-2006, 12:58 PM
Oh come on, you know that a player isn't good unless he has 125 RBI.

westofyou
06-20-2006, 01:01 PM
He isn't scoring runs or knocking them in. So what does he do?
The man has taken 7% of the Reds at bats and scored 7% of the Reds runs, he's driven in 5% of the Reds runs and represents 1.2% of the payroll.

I like that payback myself.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 01:08 PM
Oh come on, you know that a player isn't good unless he has 125 RBI.
No, in his case I'll take 50.

But then again, he has a .400 OBP which means he should be starting in the ASG.

For all the kicking and screaming about certain players on the Reds (i.e., Lopez) it amazes me that Hatte is being praised. It really does. Maybe Lopez should just walk a bit more and the board will welcome him back with open arms.

membengal
06-20-2006, 01:12 PM
I like Hatt, I like OBP, and I have no problem with Lopez. Why do you think I or people that like Hatt and OBP would?

westofyou
06-20-2006, 01:13 PM
Maybe Lopez should just walk a bit more and the board will welcome him back with open arms.Or maybe he should field a bit better or hit for more power?

If were going to set "types" for positions (power at first, rbis' from big LF's) then a SS is sure to get love for OB% (which Lopez has) or Power (which is lacking this season) or just picking it.

But I'll give love to any player that doesn't make outs and any player that does that at a lower cost to the payroll.

GullyFoyle
06-20-2006, 01:15 PM
If you had a team of players each compiling .400 OBP you would score plenty of runs, regardless of how that OBP comes about...

Edit: or as WoY pointed out, if the Reds had a team of Hattebergs, they would average 6.48 runs per game

TeamBoone
06-20-2006, 01:19 PM
4) If the people hitting behind Hatte aren't knocking him in since he seems to get on base everytime and yet is only on pace to score 60 runs, then maybe he should start to swing more.

Do you really think it's his job to make up for others' deficiencies? Pleeeeeeeeeeze!

He's doing his job.

vaticanplum
06-20-2006, 01:20 PM
No, in his case I'll take 50.

But then again, he has a .400 OBP which means he should be starting in the ASG.

For all the kicking and screaming about certain players on the Reds (i.e., Lopez) it amazes me that Hatte is being praised. It really does. Maybe Lopez should just walk a bit more and the board will welcome him back with open arms.

that's also a matter of expectation. Lopez is one of our own and still developing; we have high expectations for him and hope that he can improve all areas of his game. The Reds took on Hatteberg as a veteran. We knew he was never going to hit 35 home runs in a season or be a gold glove winner. He was hired to get on base (yes, often by walking), and he's doing so very, very well.

pedro
06-20-2006, 01:29 PM
No, in his case I'll take 50.

But then again, he has a .400 OBP which means he should be starting in the ASG.

For all the kicking and screaming about certain players on the Reds (i.e., Lopez) it amazes me that Hatte is being praised. It really does. Maybe Lopez should just walk a bit more and the board will welcome him back with open arms.


no, his OBP is fine. He needs to hit with a little more pop and not make so many errors since his range sucks.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 01:31 PM
Do you really think it's his job to make up for others' deficiencies? Pleeeeeeeeeeze!

He's doing his job.
No, that is not my point. My point is that a lot of people are overly excited b/c of his OBP. His OBP isn't generating runs. He isn't knocking in runs. He is hitting well under .200 with RISP. His OBP in those situations in in the high 3s. So maybe take a cut or 2 with runners on instead of working the count and, IMO, trying to walk and maybe we'll see a little more production. He hasn't produced ANYTHING except a high OBP. If that OBP doesn't help him score runs, then what good is it?

I'm not discounting OBP value. I am discounting its value in certain situations, this being one of them. We can run around in circles on this topic for years, but Hatteberg has brought nothing to the Reds success this season.

westofyou
06-20-2006, 01:38 PM
His OBP isn't generating runs. He isn't knocking in runs. He is hitting well under .200 with RISP. Which represents 1 out every five times he has logged an at bat. So he, having scored 7% of the teams runs and driven in 5% of the teams runs must be doing something at some time to account for those runs, even if he isn't doing it in that 20% window of RISP situations.

Do those count?

redsrule2500
06-20-2006, 01:42 PM
I'm sick of people thinking amounts of homeruns are determined by your defensive position.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 01:48 PM
Which represents 1 out every five times he has logged an at bat. So he, having scored 7% of the teams runs and driven in 5% of the teams runs must be doing something at some time to account for those runs, even if he isn't doing it in that 20% window of RISP situations.

Do those count?
Driven in 5% of the teams runs? I didn't realize that 5% was an impressive number. 7% isn't that great either.

Look at it this way...there are 8 hitters (take away pitchers) on the team. If everyone was equal, everyone should have a 12.5% share of all stats. Hatte is at 7% of runs scored and 5% of runs batted in.

He has 8% of PAs for the team. How is that impressive? It is barely decent.

Rojo
06-20-2006, 02:00 PM
I think edabbs44 has a point here. It is possible to have an "empty" OBP. It might be the single most important offensive stat but its not above qualifiers.

Projections withstanding, edabbs44 isn't the one making the two-legs-bad, four-legs-good argument here.

westofyou
06-20-2006, 02:00 PM
Driven in 5% of the teams runs? I didn't realize that 5% was an impressive number. 7% isn't that great either.
It's better than "He isn't knocking in runs." which vague as it is pretty much means "zero" from what I can tell.

Nevertheless, you seem to want to lean on that 20% situation while discounting the other 80%, meanwhile you'll point at BA as an indicator in the 20% with no problem of its measurement value.

But on the other hand you discount 80% of his at bats and other metrics like OB% and Runs Created as being "not real" or a tool that "people are overly excited about"

Is a tool that measures all hits as equal an efficient tool to use when measuring a players worth? And is using it to measure only 20% of the players at bats really allowing us to get a true idea of how the player produces?

Guacarock
06-20-2006, 02:02 PM
I'm of two minds in this debate.

On the one hand, we would be a veritable scoring machine if we could clone Scott Hatteberg and drop 8 Scotts, up and down the lineup, all boasting an OBP above .400. And think how much money we could lavish on pitching if every positional starter drew a salary under $1 million. So, yes, we are getting top value from Mr. Hat, particularly in relationship to what he's costing the team.

That said, he doesn't belong hitting 5th or 6th in the lineup. Look at ESPN's list of the top 40 NL batters, ranked by OBP. Hatteberg is among the absolute elite, No. 10 with his OBP at .401.

But among all those 40 players, only two have fewer RBI than Hatteberg -- Freel and B. Clark, both lead-off men. Two others among the 40 -- Eckstein and Ausmus -- are tied with Hatteberg in collecting 17 RBI. Again, Eckstein is a leadoff batter, while Ausmus hits 7th for the Astros.

Similarly, only two of the 40 -- Ausmus and Florida's Mike Jacobs -- have scored fewer runs than Hatteberg. Two others -- the Cubs' M. Barrett and B. Clark again -- are tied with him with 26 runs.

Why could such a high OBP player as Hatteberg not be scoring runs or knocking them in? And why that shortfall, when we aren't an offensively challenged squad like the Cubs, who have scored only 279 runs to the Reds' 356?

I submit: the problem rests with Narron's decision to bat Mr. Hat 5th or 6th. Instead, I would place him up top of the order, as a table-setter, with the other high OBP guys like Freel and Lopez.

If we don't want him there, owing to his lack of speed, then hit him 7th just ahead of Ross. We know Ross is turning into an RBI machine, so maybe we should give him his own lead-off man.

Food for thought. Take it for what it's worth.

NJReds
06-20-2006, 02:11 PM
I submit: the problem rests with Narron's decision to bat Mr. Hat 5th or 6th. Instead, I would place him up top of the order, as a table-setter, with the other high OBP guys like Freel and Lopez.


It'd be similar with what the Mets do with LoDuca, who's no speed demon, but takes a lot of pitches. He bats second behind Reyes, and in front of the boppers: Beltran, Delgado and Wright.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 02:14 PM
It's better than "He isn't knocking in runs." which vague as it is pretty much means "zero" from what I can tell.

Nevertheless, you seem to want to lean on that 20% situation while discounting the other 80%, meanwhile you'll point at BA as an indicator in the 20% with no problem of its measurement value.

But on the other hand you discount 80% of his at bats and other metrics like OB% and Runs Created as being "not real" or a tool that "people are overly excited about"

Is a tool that measures all hits as equal an efficient tool to use when measuring a players worth? And is using it to measure only 20% of the players at bats really allowing us to get a true idea of how the player produces?
Not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate so I can respond?

Bottom line is the guy isn't scoring runs at a good rate and isn't knocking them in either. Our usual #5 or 6 hitter is on pace to have 39 rbi and score 60 runs in 499 PAs. Use whatever indicators you want, that is one pathetic year. His OBP could be .900 and if that's what he ended up with, it would not be worth it.

Everyone can blame the people hitting behind him for not knocking him in, but if Hatte walks he'll need 2 hits to get him across in most situations. He is not going to steal 2nd or score from first on most doubles. So I would rather him swing the bat a little more (esp when men are on base) when the ball is in the zone than try and drive his OBP up.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 02:15 PM
It'd be similar with what the Mets do with LoDuca, who's no speed demon, but takes a lot of pitches. He bats second behind Reyes, and in front of the boppers: Beltran, Delgado and Wright.
I have no problem with this...I think it would make more sense since his productivity where he currently bats is :thumbdown

NJReds
06-20-2006, 02:31 PM
I have no problem with this...I think it would make more sense since his productivity where he currently bats is :thumbdown

True. Meanwhile, Ross and Phillips seem to get a lot of big hits at the bottom of the order.

Rojo
06-20-2006, 03:39 PM
Dave Magadan, Ken Oberkfell, older Pete Rose, those are some of the guys who fit the same profile as Hatte -- OBP is their only "tool". Let's call them hippocratic players - they do no harm.

OnBaseMachine
06-20-2006, 03:40 PM
I'm sorry, but no, I am not Scott Hatteberg.

oneupper
06-20-2006, 03:49 PM
I'm not discounting OBP value. I am discounting its value in certain situations, this being one of them. We can run around in circles on this topic for years, but Hatteberg has brought nothing to the Reds success this season.

Last night showed me exactly what Hat brings to the REDS.
Eight inning, one out, men on first and second...Hat leans into a breaking ball.

All of a sudden bases loaded one out, great situation for a hitter like Philips.

No hit, no RBI for Hat...but he set the stage.

I'll take a truckload of Hattebergs. No opposing SP would make it to the fifth inning.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 03:54 PM
Last night showed me exactly what Hat brings to the REDS.
Eight inning, one out, men on first and second...Hat leans into a breaking ball.

All of a sudden bases loaded one out, great situation for a hitter like Philips.

No hit, no RBI for Hat...but he set the stage.

I'll take a truckload of Hattebergs. No opposing SP would make it to the fifth inning.
Please tell me you are kidding. Krivsky should sign Rudy Stein from the Bad News Bears then.:D

membengal
06-20-2006, 04:09 PM
He's not kidding. Hatte got on however he could get on. His acquiring a base mattered, and put more pressure on the Mets. Phillips then was able to cash it in.

oneupper
06-20-2006, 04:20 PM
Please tell me you are kidding. Krivsky should sign Rudy Stein from the Bad News Bears then.:D

Nope. Not kidding. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would have preferred he hit the ball to the right side to "get the runners over" and give up the out.

I prefer seeing Hat in there over Aurilia, even vs. lefties. Aurilia's numbers IMO, would be MUCH worse if he didn't benefit from being sandwiched between Griffey and Dunn.

westofyou
06-20-2006, 04:35 PM
Not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate so I can respond?
Put it this way, lets say the movie "The Searchers" represents Scott Hatteberg.

I like the Searchers, so I'll say it's a good looking western film.

In the meantime you've only seen it on your Ipod (which represents the 20% of the RISP at bats that you have focused on with Hatteberg)

You in turn then say that it's really not a good looking movie at all because it looks like crap on your Ipod, plus you can't believe that I think it looks like a pretty good film at all because it looks like crap on your Ipod.

Then I try to tell you why I like the film (thematically, actor wise etc..) that represents the Stats that you have said aren't real world stats (OB%, RC/27)

In turn you say... yeah but it looks like crap on my Ipod, so it must be crap and then you stat, it doesn't matter what criteria I use to try and convince you that it's a good movie, you still think it's crap.

BTW the Reds are #1 in OPS for the 6th slot, and #1 in runs and RBI, Hatteberg is second on the team in ab's in that slot, the slot where he hurts the team is #5.

reds44
06-20-2006, 04:37 PM
With the amount of run production and RBIs this team gets from LF,CF,RF,3B, 2B, and now with Ross catcher, I think it can afford to have a on base guy like Hatteberg playing first then a power/rbi guy.

However Hatteberg shouldn't be more then a 1 year thing.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 04:43 PM
Nope. Not kidding. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would have preferred he hit the ball to the right side to "get the runners over" and give up the out.

I prefer seeing Hat in there over Aurilia, even vs. lefties. Aurilia's numbers IMO, would be MUCH worse if he didn't benefit from being sandwiched between Griffey and Dunn.
I would have preferred to have Hatte get a hit than get a HBP. But if we would all rather him lean into one than swing and try and break the game open, then what is the point of having him in the lineup?

There are people like that in the league and they are called defensive specialists. If you have someone who is not a very good defender and we are supposed to jump for joy when he doesn't get out of the way of a curveball, it is pretty sad.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 04:44 PM
With the amount of run production and RBIs this team gets from LF,CF,RF,3B, 2B, and now with Ross catcher, I think it can afford to have a on base guy like Hatteberg playing first then a power/rbi guy.

However Hatteberg shouldn't be more then a 1 year thing.
There is a difference btw Hatteberg and someone who is not an RBI guy. You would almost have to try to not knock in the runs.

Rojo
06-20-2006, 05:36 PM
With the amount of run production and RBIs this team gets from LF,CF,RF,3B, 2B, and now with Ross catcher, I think it can afford to have a on base guy like Hatteberg playing first then a power/rbi guy.

However Hatteberg shouldn't be more then a 1 year thing.

Well put. Except you have to look at the possibility of inserting Deno and moving Dunn to first. When considering such a move you can't let Hatte's dazzling OBP blind you.

KronoRed
06-20-2006, 05:38 PM
I'm glad the Hat is doing well, but I still think Dunn should have been at 1st

Redsland
06-20-2006, 05:43 PM
I'm glad the Hat is doing well, but I still think Dunn should have been at 1st
Why?

His BA w/ RISP is terrible.

:mooner:

KronoRed
06-20-2006, 05:43 PM
Bat avg sucks.

:D

gonelong
06-20-2006, 05:50 PM
No, that is not my point. My point is that a lot of people are overly excited b/c of his OBP. His OBP isn't generating runs. He isn't knocking in runs. He is hitting well under .200 with RISP. His OBP in those situations in in the high 3s. So maybe take a cut or 2 with runners on instead of working the count and, IMO, trying to walk and maybe we'll see a little more production. He hasn't produced ANYTHING except a high OBP. If that OBP doesn't help him score runs, then what good is it?

I'm not discounting OBP value. I am discounting its value in certain situations, this being one of them. We can run around in circles on this topic for years, but Hatteberg has brought nothing to the Reds success this season.

His OBP isn't generating runs.
If that OBP doesn't help him score runs, then what good is it?
I am discounting its value in certain situations, this being one of them.

That HBP moved Dunn to 3B and Kearns to 2B. When Phillips doubled Dunn scores, but so does Kearns, likely not the case if he is on 1B. Hat's OBP helped to generate an additional run.

... but Hatteberg has brought nothing to the Reds success this season.
I completely disagree. His OBP has to be included in the success of the season to date. The number of pitches he makes the opposing starting pitcture throw is valuable.

The argument around this message board for 2 or 3 years was that we couldn't possibly trade Casey. The counter-argument was that if you lost some production at 1B and put that money into the pitching staff (think a Harang or Arroyo) that you would be much better off. (Arroyo + Hat > Haynes + Casey).

Besides, that HBP last night pushed the Reds Win Expectancy from .776 to .816 ... so it obviously has some value.

GL

reds44
06-20-2006, 05:51 PM
Well put. Except you have to look at the possibility of inserting Deno and moving Dunn to first. When considering such a move you can't let Hatte's dazzling OBP blind you.
Oh I agree Dunn should be at 1st, and the Hat would be no reason not to move Dunn to 1st.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 05:55 PM
Dear Scott,

Don't swing the bat. You are much more valuable when you lean into a pitch and get hit. When you swing, you're value to the team plummets.

Thank you,
The RedsZone Faithful

westofyou
06-20-2006, 05:56 PM
Dear Scott,

Don't swing the bat. You are much more valuable when you lean into a pitch and get hit. When you swing, you're value to the team plummets.

Thank you,
The RedsZone Faithful
Argue the point, instead of poking other posters for not valuing what you want valued.

KronoRed
06-20-2006, 05:57 PM
Hat would be a nice backup.

pedro
06-20-2006, 05:59 PM
Dear Scott,

Don't swing the bat. You are much more valuable when you lean into a pitch and get hit. When you swing, you're value to the team plummets.

Thank you,
The RedsZone Faithful

Dear Scott,

Please make outs more often because walks aren't cool and we know what massive power you have. If you could turn a few of those strikes you don't think you can hit into double plays that'd be cool too.

Thank You,

Krispy McRisperson

Redsland
06-20-2006, 06:02 PM
Dear Scott,

If you get a pitch you like, swing at it. If you don't, don't.

Thank you,
The RedsZone Faithful

KronoRed
06-20-2006, 06:03 PM
Dear RedsZone,

WHO ARE YOU GUYS? LEAVE ME ALONE

Thank you,
Scott Hatteberg

Redsland
06-20-2006, 06:04 PM
:laugh:

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 06:08 PM
The funny thing about the posts on this thread is that I am not advocating Hatteberg to make outs. I am advocating him to get more hits in lieu of his walks. When people value his walks is almost like they think the only options are making an out or walking. Of course the walk is better. Or leaning into a pitch. And I do not want him to be swinging at anything just for the sake of it. He looks at plenty of strikes and I am advocating him swinging the bat. It's like everyone cheers when the guy takes a walk. I really don't understand. Especially where he's hitting.
With RISP he is hitting .237 with 13 RBI in 38 ABs. I was told his OBP was .360. Big deal. Knock in the runs.

Puffy
06-20-2006, 06:16 PM
I was told his OBP was .360. Big deal. Knock in the runs.

You do realize that:

(1) hitting a round ball travelling upwards of 90 mph with a round bat is the hardest thing to do in sports.
(2) the other team has 9 strategically placed individuals in what is called "the field" to stop you from getting on base via a batted ball.
(3) that if it was so easy to hit every strike for a base hit everyone would do it every time.

pedro
06-20-2006, 06:18 PM
The funny thing about the posts on this thread is that I am not advocating Hatteberg to make outs. I am advocating him to get more hits in lieu of his walks.

That's a fallacy though. Let's say he does swing more and even hits his batting average in those AB's when he doesn't walk (which he probably won't) he is now making more outs and both his overall OBP and BA will drop. That is not a recipe for success.

edit: actually , if he did hit his BA oin those situations his BA wouldn;t go down. Nonetheless, I doubt he'll hit .290 on pitches he doesn't think he can handle.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 06:18 PM
You do realize that:

(1) hitting a round ball travelling upwards of 90 mph with a round bat is the hardest thing to do in sports.
(2) the other team has 9 strategically placed individuals in what is called "the field" to stop you from getting on base via a batted ball.
(3) that if it was so easy to hit every strike for a base hit everyone would do it every time.
The guy is hitting .290. If he was hitting .210 I would be all for the walk.

Redsland
06-20-2006, 06:21 PM
I am advocating him to get more hits in lieu of his walks.
You've seen a chart in another thread that shows you can't trade walks for hits, because swinging at pitches that are out of the strikezone results in lower batting averages (i.e., more outs).

That's the trade: walks or outs, not walks or hits.

That being the choice, I'll take the walk over the out.

edabbs44
06-20-2006, 06:25 PM
You've seen a chart in another thread that shows you can't trade walks for hits, because swinging at pitches that are out of the strikezone results in lower batting averages (i.e., more outs).

That's the trade: walks or outs, not walks or hits.

That being the choice, I'll take the walk over the out.
Does he walk on 4 pitches every time? I'm sure he's looked at a strike or 2.

Edskin
06-20-2006, 06:26 PM
Hatte is a great guy to have on the team for one major reason:

He is 100% DEPENDABLE.

I think that's a very overlooked aspect for a player-- especially in baseball. Hatte is not prone to major hot streaks, but he also seems to avoid major slumps. A manager can plug him in night in and night and have a reasonable expectation of what they are getting. A guy like Kearns is more baffling because one night he goes 3-4 with a HR and the next night he's 0-4 with 3 K's.

Hatte almost NEVER gets himself out. He doesn't have great talent, and if a pitcher makes good pitches, he doesn't really have enough skill to make them pay. But he's patient, plays within his limitations, etc.....

I love players like that. He doesn't even have the talent to crush HR's when pitchers make mistakes, but you can be sure that he'll only swing at pitches he can hit-- and rarely does he have an "ugly" at bat.

I'm not saying he's all "effort" because I think there is a difference between effort and smarts. Hatte is simply a smart ballplayer-- and smart ballplayers are valuable because you can count on them every night.

Redsland
06-20-2006, 06:34 PM
Does he walk on 4 pitches every time? I'm sure he's looked at a strike or 2.
If he doesn't like a pitch, are you saying he should go after it anyway?

If he knows he can't drive a particular pitch, are you saying he should chase after it anyway?

If he was looking for a different pitch, are you saying he should swing through instead of checking?

If he's ahead in the count, are you saying he should be hacking at anything close?

Do any of those approaches seem like the best way to plate a run?

pedro
06-20-2006, 06:34 PM
Does he walk on 4 pitches every time? I'm sure he's looked at a strike or 2.


Batters swing at pitches they think they can handle. Strikes or not. If he doesn;t think he can handle a pitch then I don't want him swinging at it.

Edskin
06-20-2006, 06:34 PM
As a follow up-- that's my problem with Dunn. For the record, I fall firmly in the middle of the "Dunn debate" leaning more towards the "stat geek" side. But I still think he could improve his baseball IQ. I don't really care about his RISP numbers or the fact that he hits so many solo HR's. But I do get frustrated at times by what appears to me to be a somewhat inconsistent approach.

I think Dunn is infintely more talented (better) than the Rob Deer's etc... that he gets compared to. That's why I'd like to see him "play the situation" a little more in his at-bats.

A guy like Hatte always seems in-tuned with the pticher, the situation, the history, etc.. I am always impressed with his approach. I like Dunn, and I appreciate what he brings to the team, but I do think he could learn a thing or two from Hatte.

pedro
06-20-2006, 06:40 PM
As a follow up-- that's my problem with Dunn. For the record, I fall firmly in the middle of the "Dunn debate" leaning more towards the "stat geek" side. But I still think he could improve his baseball IQ. I don't really care about his RISP numbers or the fact that he hits so many solo HR's. But I do get frustrated at times by what appears to me to be a somewhat inconsistent approach.

I think Dunn is infintely more talented (better) than the Rob Deer's etc... that he gets compared to. That's why I'd like to see him "play the situation" a little more in his at-bats.

A guy like Hatte always seems in-tuned with the pticher, the situation, the history, etc.. I am always impressed with his approach. I like Dunn, and I appreciate what he brings to the team, but I do think he could learn a thing or two from Hatte.


Dunn does seem to be changing his approach every few days lately. It appears to me that he has lost all touch with what works for him.

oneupper
06-20-2006, 06:45 PM
With RISP he is hitting .237 with 13 RBI in 38 ABs. I was told his OBP was .360. Big deal. Knock in the runs.

That's an awful small sample size. If you look up his career stats, you'll find his is a .269 BA .374 OBP hitter, or a bit better than his career averages.
I don't think he has an RISP issue.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him get a 10 RBI week sooner than later and silence some critics.

registerthis
06-20-2006, 07:20 PM
Here's what I know about Scott Hatteberg:

Scott came to the Reds from an organization that values OBP above all other stats. The Oakland mantra is get on base any way that you can, and by default the runs will follow. There seems to be something to that theory, because the A's have finished first or second each of the last 7 years, and have added a couple of divisional appearances and 100 win seasons in the process. They're in first place yet again this year.

I would do cartwheels if the Reds could emulate that level of success over that period of time, because something about the Oakland system works very well.

In Scott Hatteberg, you have the Oakland system personified. Nothing he does is spectacular, except his ability to get on base in any way imaginable to increase the chances for his team's success. He isn't an MVP, he isn't a triple crown threat, and his offensive abilities don't do much to impress the crowds. But, most importantly, what he does *works*. I will take a .400 OBP every day of the week, regardless of what the other stats are. And whatever his methods are that are helping him achieve that .400 OBP, I don't want him to change them at all.

Raisor
06-20-2006, 08:04 PM
Hatte's NL Rankings:

(as a 1B)

TPA-14th

Runs Created-11th

RC/27-9th

He's doing swell.

TeamBoone
06-20-2006, 08:17 PM
Dear Scott,

Don't swing the bat. You are much more valuable when you lean into a pitch and get hit. When you swing, you're value to the team plummets.

Thank you,
The RedsZone Faithful

Oh come on! That's happened ONCE! And it wasn't even a blatent lean-in... not even close to Brady Clark's. He merely turned his shoulder in a weak attempt to not be hit. I see others do this all the time when a pitch is up and in, difference being, he got hit.... hit, not grazed.

And please don't ever categorize RedsZone as if it's one person; we are all very different as are our opinions and observations.

TeamBoone
06-20-2006, 08:19 PM
Dunn does seem to be changing his approach every few days lately. It appears to me that he has lost all touch with what works for him.

I'm more inclined to think he's trying some new things in various situations. I read recently that he's been working a lot with Chambliss so it makes sense.

pedro
06-20-2006, 08:46 PM
I'm more inclined to think he's trying some new things in various situations. I read recently that he's been working a lot with Chambliss so it makes sense.

I hope you're right TB because it really looked liked he had turned the corener and now he's back to pulling everything again and he hasn't walked in almost a week.

TeamBoone
06-20-2006, 09:37 PM
The guy is hitting .290. If he was hitting .210 I would be all for the walk.

I can not believe you want him to swing at balls outside the zone. He may or may not hit it... and if he does, he may not hit it well.

A ball is a ball... why mess with it if you're not sure you can drive it for a hit.

That's screwball logic.

Redsland
06-20-2006, 09:41 PM
That's screwball logic.
Unless he can throw the screwball for strikes.

:D

KronoRed
06-21-2006, 05:02 AM
You know what I'd love Scott to do?

Hit into more double plays, it shows he's trying

:D

registerthis
06-21-2006, 11:07 AM
You know what I'd love Scott to do?

Hit into more double plays, it shows he's trying

:D

Only if it scores a runner from third. At least then it's a "productive" double play.

RedsManRick
06-21-2006, 11:35 AM
The funny thing about the posts on this thread is that I am not advocating Hatteberg to make outs. I am advocating him to get more hits in lieu of his walks. When people value his walks is almost like they think the only options are making an out or walking. Of course the walk is better. Or leaning into a pitch. And I do not want him to be swinging at anything just for the sake of it. He looks at plenty of strikes and I am advocating him swinging the bat. It's like everyone cheers when the guy takes a walk. I really don't understand. Especially where he's hitting.
With RISP he is hitting .237 with 13 RBI in 38 ABs. I was told his OBP was .360. Big deal. Knock in the runs.

Would you rather have 4 walks and 6 outs, or 2 hits and 8 outs? Nobody disagrees that hits are better than walks. However, (and lookup posts by Steel if you need the the full explanation), batters don't turn walks in to hits, the turn them in to outs. You are asking him to do something that batters simply don't do effectively. Could he start to swing at everything? Sure. And maybe 1 of those 5 walks turns in to a hit while the other 4 turn in to outs. That does NOT help run production.

The problem with Hatteberg is not that he walks when he should be getting hits. It's that when he gets hits, they are mostly singles. His not scoring runs when he does get on base is much more a commentary on the people behind him driving him in than it is on him not being able to score himself.

Saying you want him to turn walks in to hits is akin to me saying I want Ryan Freel to turn singles in to doubles. It just doesn't work that way. Yes, it would be great if he could hit .400 and drive in 150 runs. But he is who he is, and just because walks don't get RBI doesn't mean he's not valuable. Is he an all-star? Heck no. Would we be better off with Dunn/Junior at 1B and Deno in the OF? Maybe. Is Hatteberg useless because he walks too much? Nope.

Rojo
06-21-2006, 12:44 PM
FTR, I want Hatte to be Hatte, he shouldn't change a thing. However, its worth pointing out that he doesn't have much to offer besides a good eye, which is why his production is middling.

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 01:30 PM
FTR, I want Hatte to be Hatte, he shouldn't change a thing. However, its worth pointed out that he doesn't have much to offer besides a good eye, which is why his production is middling.
My exact reasoning. Finally I get some backup.

pedro
06-21-2006, 01:33 PM
My exact reasoning. Finally I get some backup.

I'm not sure you're getting any back up there. Unless you're conceding that Hatte shouldn't change his approach.

Rojo
06-21-2006, 02:05 PM
I think some words were put in his mouth.

westofyou
06-21-2006, 02:22 PM
I think some words were put in his mouth.

Originally Posted by edabbs44
Dear Scott,

Don't swing the bat. You are much more valuable when you lean into a pitch and get hit. When you swing, you're value to the team plummets.

Thank you,
The RedsZone Faithful

Yeah.. just his.

Rojo
06-21-2006, 02:30 PM
I took it to mean that maybe Scott's not that good, other than the OBP thing.

But I'll let edabbs defend himself.

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 02:40 PM
Yeah.. just his.
That was in response to someone saying how him getting hit by a pitch the other night showed his value.

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 02:42 PM
This thread is titled "Hatteberg = OBP Machine" or something like that with everyone gushing about his OBP. I have been arguing that his OBP hasn't made that much of a difference to the team and got blasted b/c of it. That's it.

westofyou
06-21-2006, 02:45 PM
I took it to mean that maybe Scott's not that good, other than the OBP thing.


Ok, I can see that.

My take is the game is called "baseball" not "hitball" aquiring bases leads to runs which leads to wining in my book.

I'll also note that historically the Reds have gotten very little slugging from their 1st baseman, so getting what they are getting for 750 K along with a very good OB% is par for the course in Reds country, and IMO perfectly acceptable for a stopgap and more advantagous then a low OB guy who might drive in 15 more runs at the cost of on base skills.

ochre
06-21-2006, 03:06 PM
This thread is titled "Hatteberg = OBP Machine" or something like that with everyone gushing about his OBP. I have been arguing that his OBP hasn't made that much of a difference to the team and got blasted b/c of it. That's it.
But what have you offered as proof of your hypothesis? You don't feel like he has made much of a difference? Pardon me for not jumping on your bandwagon.

Not making outs means more team plate appearances. More team PAs means more pitches thrown by the opposing pitching staff (particularly when players walk, as that guarantees at least 4 pitches thrown by the opposing pitcher). Not only that, but quite likely several of those additional PAs will be with the opposing pitcher throwing from the, generally less optimal, stretch. If you can, in a quantifiable manner, show me how those factors have 'not helped the team', I might join you on your bandwagon, but the burden of proof, with you as the offerer of the hypothesis, is on you.

pedro
06-21-2006, 03:17 PM
I don't have a problem with the idea that Hatteberg ain't that great. What I do take issue with is the idea that he would be better if he tried to become something his is not, or that the Reds would be better off if he tried.

ochre
06-21-2006, 03:19 PM
oh, I wasn't saying he was great. I'm in the Dunn should be playing 1st and batting 2nd camp. So in that context I view Hatteberg as Dunn's 'mini-me'.

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 03:24 PM
But what have you offered as proof of your hypothesis? You don't feel like he has made much of a difference? Pardon me for not jumping on your bandwagon.

Not making outs means more team plate appearances. More team PAs means more pitches thrown by the opposing pitching staff (particularly when players walk, as that guarantees at least 4 pitches thrown by the opposing pitcher). Not only that, but quite likely several of those additional PAs will be with the opposing pitcher throwing from the, generally less optimal, stretch. If you can, in a quantifiable manner, show me how those factors have 'not helped the team', I might join you on your bandwagon, but the burden of proof, with you as the offerer of the hypothesis, is on you.
Your theory here cannot be quantified, since you cannot prove that Hatteberg has actually caused the opposing pitcher to leave the game early with his selective swinging. I can see where you are going with this and agree with the theory, but how can you prove this? If Hatte gets up 3 times in a game and sees, generously, 3 more pitches per AB (in 3 ABs) than someone who would replace him at 1B, I don't see 9 extra pitches running the starter out of the game early.

And if you want me to prove my theory, then look at Hatteberg's numbers. The name of the game is scoring runs. Correct? Here is what he is on pace for:

501 PAs
9 HR
38 RBI
59 runs scored
.401 OBP

To me, that is not very productive. Now you can knock the people hitting behind him for not knocking him in, but Phillips hits behind him and is having a great year. When you have zero speed and collect walks, you need (most likely) a couple of hits or a HR to knock you in.

So how exactly has his OBP helped the team this season? Because the other pitcher maybe throws a few more pitches? I agree that is a plus, but not every team has a bullpen like Cincy's.

Because he gives others on the team opportunities to knock him in? Then move him up in the order since he is obviously not scoring in bunches where he is.

My whole point is the guy has not been a plus for the team this year. If his OBP was .900 and he had the same BA, runs scored and RBI that he does now, would it make a substantial difference in what he has brought to the table this year? I don't think so.

OBP is great, but let's not equate that to being a great pick-up, a great addition or really helping the team. If that OBP translates into more, I am all for it. But since he isn't scoring a ton of runs then what, besides seeing more pitches, is he really accomplishing? He isn't driving in many runs since his production with RISP leaves something to be desired.

And I know I will be bombarded with RC/27 and a bunch of other stats. That's fine. But my biggest issue is when people are acting like he has been outstanding. He has been adequate at best.

pedro
06-21-2006, 03:25 PM
Frankly I think the Reds should trade him while he's doing so well. well as long as Dunn moves to 1st.

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 03:26 PM
And I am not wanting him to "make more outs" or "swing at balls." He looks at plenty of strikes.

RedsManRick
06-21-2006, 03:32 PM
And I am not wanting him to "make more outs" or "swing at balls." He looks at plenty of strikes.

And yet he's struck out only 14 times all year, so he's not watching very many 3rd strikes. If you asked Scott, I'm sure he'd tell you that he's not looking to walk, but that he'd rather take a strike that he's not confident he can hit well, then try to hit it and ground out weekly.

Unless you really think that he's passing on pitches he thinks he could solidly in hopes of drawing a walk.

ochre
06-21-2006, 03:34 PM
And I am not wanting him to "make more outs" or "swing at balls." He looks at plenty of strikes.
swinging at pitches he can't handle will not lead to more hits, but to more outs.

.
period.

westofyou
06-21-2006, 03:34 PM
Batters don't follow out their natural instinct to wallop the ball, but stall around the plate in the hope of drawing a base instead of hitting the ball hard.

Bill Lange 3-14-1909

ochre
06-21-2006, 03:40 PM
Your theory here cannot be quantified, since you cannot prove that Hatteberg has actually caused the opposing pitcher to leave the game early with his selective swinging. I can see where you are going with this and agree with the theory, but how can you prove this? If Hatte gets up 3 times in a game and sees, generously, 3 more pitches per AB (in 3 ABs) than someone who would replace him at 1B, I don't see 9 extra pitches running the starter out of the game early.

And if you want me to prove my theory, then look at Hatteberg's numbers. The name of the game is scoring runs. Correct? Here is what he is on pace for:

501 PAs
9 HR
38 RBI
59 runs scored
.401 OBP

To me, that is not very productive. Now you can knock the people hitting behind him for not knocking him in, but Phillips hits behind him and is having a great year. When you have zero speed and collect walks, you need (most likely) a couple of hits or a HR to knock you in.

So how exactly has his OBP helped the team this season? Because the other pitcher maybe throws a few more pitches? I agree that is a plus, but not every team has a bullpen like Cincy's.

Because he gives others on the team opportunities to knock him in? Then move him up in the order since he is obviously not scoring in bunches where he is.

My whole point is the guy has not been a plus for the team this year. If his OBP was .900 and he had the same BA, runs scored and RBI that he does now, would it make a substantial difference in what he has brought to the table this year? I don't think so.

OBP is great, but let's not equate that to being a great pick-up, a great addition or really helping the team. If that OBP translates into more, I am all for it. But since he isn't scoring a ton of runs then what, besides seeing more pitches, is he really accomplishing? He isn't driving in many runs since his production with RISP leaves something to be desired.

And I know I will be bombarded with RC/27 and a bunch of other stats. That's fine. But my biggest issue is when people are acting like he has been outstanding. He has been adequate at best. Who has said he is outstanding? Many (in this thread at least) have said they'd prefer to see Dunn instead of Hatteberg.

You are throwing team influenced stats, runs and rbis, out there like they are the hard gospel when it comes to an individual's performance. OBP correlates to team runs better than any of the other stats you have listed there for projections.

gonelong
06-21-2006, 03:48 PM
Your theory here cannot be quantified, since you cannot prove that Hatteberg has actually caused the opposing pitcher to leave the game early with his selective swinging. I can see where you are going with this and agree with the theory, but how can you prove this? If Hatte gets up 3 times in a game and sees, generously, 3 more pitches per AB (in 3 ABs) than someone who would replace him at 1B, I don't see 9 extra pitches running the starter out of the game early.

IMO, you have not recognized the full value of his OBP here.

Here is a rough illustration ...


Hat is on pace to get 466 ABs (500+ PA) with a .400 OBP. The Reds team OBP is .342

If my math is correct that means that that Hat will have 27.5 less out this year
than the team average at a .342 OBP for 466 ABs/500+PAs.

Those 27.5 ABs will then go to the next Reds player who at .342 OBP will convert 9.4
to non-out events.

Those 9.4 ABs will then go to the next Reds player who at .342 OBP will convert 3.2
of these to non-out events.

Those 3.2 ABs will then go to the next Reds player who at .342 OBP will convert 1
non-out AB.

That one AB will go to the next Reds player.

So, by saving 27.5 outs over the course of the season ... Hat will generate 41 more ABs
for his teammates, all with runners on base, and if players were on 1B, etc ahead of him, he has moved them all up.

I'd say that is significant.




And I know I will be bombarded with RC/27 and a bunch of other stats. That's fine. But my biggest issue is when people are acting like he has been outstanding. He has been adequate at best.

Adequate as a player. I can agree with that. As a lower budget team, at his price, he has been an outstanding pickup IMO. Maybe we are just arguing semantics.

GL

Cyclone792
06-21-2006, 04:01 PM
edabbs, not to sound critical or anything, but the first thing you must recognize when you're attempting to objectively analyze an individual hitter's performance is to completely eliminate any teammate dependent variables from that analysis.

Using teammate dependent variables to determine the level of production from an individual hitter is about as flawed of an analysis as one can make.

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 04:08 PM
Who has said he is outstanding? Many (in this thread at least) have said they'd prefer to see Dunn instead of Hatteberg.

You are throwing team influenced stats, runs and rbis, out there like they are the hard gospel when it comes to an individual's performance. OBP correlates to team runs better than any of the other stats you have listed there for projections.
Check out page 1. He was described as stellar. That would be a synonym, no?

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 04:09 PM
edabbs, not to sound critical or anything, but the first thing you must recognize when you're attempting to objectively analyze an individual hitter's performance is to completely eliminate any teammate dependent variables from that analysis.

Using teammate dependent variables to determine the level of production from an individual hitter is about as flawed of an analysis as one can make.
I have spoken about BA before. That has been thrown out even though it is non team dependent.:)

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 04:11 PM
Can someone pull up a stat of Hatteberg in relation to the rest of the league regarding least amount of swings or most looked at strikes per PA or something like that? I think that would be an interesting exercise.

Cyclone792
06-21-2006, 04:12 PM
I have spoken about BA before. That has been thrown out even though it is non team dependent.:)

The second thing you must recognize when you're attempting to objectively analyze an individual hitter's performance is that certain teammate independent statistics correlate to actual run production much better than other teammate independent statistics.

Using variables that correlate much more poorly than other existing variables to determine the level of production from an individual hitter is a very poor analysis.

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 04:16 PM
Who has said he is outstanding? Many (in this thread at least) have said they'd prefer to see Dunn instead of Hatteberg.

You are throwing team influenced stats, runs and rbis, out there like they are the hard gospel when it comes to an individual's performance. OBP correlates to team runs better than any of the other stats you have listed there for projections.
OBP = runs scored. I have heard that (or an equivalent statement) plenty. Shouldn't it really be OBP + production of other teammates = runs scored? Which now negates your statement using the logic quoted above?

Wouldn't runs scored or RBI correlate to team runs more than than OBP? Those are the stats I am using.

ochre
06-21-2006, 04:16 PM
Can someone pull up a stat of Hatteberg in relation to the rest of the league regarding least amount of swings or most looked at strikes per PA or something like that? I think that would be an interesting exercise.
Go for it!

ochre
06-21-2006, 04:18 PM
OBP = runs scored. I have heard that (or an equivalent statement) plenty. Shouldn't it really be OBP + production of other teammates = runs scored? Which now negates your statement using the logic quoted above?

Wouldn't runs scored or RBI correlate to team runs more than than OBP? Those are the stats I am using.
they don't. The studies have been done and discussed here over and over again.

really.

OBP, of the generally availabe, single statistics (I consider OPS a composite statistic) correlates most closely to runs scored over a large enough sample size. OPS correlates nearly as well as RC and some of the other more advanced statistics.

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 04:26 PM
they don't. The studies have been done and discussed here over and over again.

really.

OBP, of the generally availabe, single statistics (I consider OPS a composite statistic) correlates most closely to runs scored over a large enough sample size. OPS correlates nearly as well as RC and some of the other more advanced statistics.
Runs scored doesn't correlate to runs scored more than OBP? OK.

Cyclone792
06-21-2006, 04:30 PM
I posted this merely a week ago, but it bears repeating ... heck, maybe this correlation test deserves its own sticky in BIG, BOLD letters.

:evil:

FWIW, if anybody can actually prove these facts wrong, I'm all ears, because then we all might learn something new. My guess, however, is that it won't be proven wrong because nobody's ever done it before.

OPS, OBP, SLG, runs created and just about every other stat someone has pulled out over BA correlate to run scoring significantly better than BA. That's why people use those stats instead of BA. It's been proven over and over and over again. All those stats correlate better to run scoring than batting average, and it's not even close.

Here's a sample of 10 seasons from 1996-2005 showing the correlation of those stats to actual runs scored ...


SEASON
1996-2005
RUNS CREATED displayed only--not a sorting criteria
OPS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
OBA displayed only--not a sorting criteria
SLG displayed only--not a sorting criteria
AVERAGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RUNS YEAR R RC OPS OBA SLG AVG
1 Indians 1999 1009 1024 .840 .373 .466 .289
2 Mariners 1996 993 1042 .850 .366 .484 .287
3 White Sox 2000 978 956 .826 .356 .470 .286
4 Rockies 2000 968 979 .816 .362 .455 .294
5 Yankees 1998 965 960 .825 .364 .460 .288
T6 Rockies 1996 961 968 .827 .355 .472 .287
T6 Red Sox 2003 961 1032 .851 .360 .491 .289
8 Indians 1996 952 1021 .844 .369 .475 .293
9 Indians 2000 950 1011 .837 .367 .470 .288
T10 Orioles 1996 949 961 .822 .350 .472 .274
T10 Red Sox 2004 949 992 .832 .360 .472 .282
12 A's 2000 947 936 .817 .360 .458 .270
13 Rangers 1999 945 973 .840 .361 .479 .293
14 Rangers 1998 940 933 .819 .357 .462 .289
15 Astros 2000 938 992 .837 .361 .477 .278
T16 Rangers 1996 928 966 .827 .358 .469 .284
T16 Red Sox 1996 928 958 .816 .359 .457 .283
18 Mariners 2001 927 946 .805 .360 .445 .288
T19 Giants 2000 925 982 .834 .362 .472 .278
T19 Mariners 1997 925 963 .839 .355 .485 .280
T21 Rockies 2001 923 1008 .837 .354 .483 .292
T21 Rockies 1997 923 975 .835 .357 .478 .288
23 Red Sox 2005 910 930 .811 .357 .454 .281
24 Diamondbacks 1999 908 942 .805 .347 .459 .277
T25 Mariners 2000 907 916 .803 .361 .442 .269
T25 Braves 2003 907 967 .824 .349 .475 .284
27 Rockies 1999 906 953 .819 .348 .472 .288
28 Yankees 1999 900 940 .819 .366 .453 .282
29 White Sox 1996 898 928 .807 .360 .447 .281
T30 Yankees 2004 897 900 .811 .353 .458 .268
T30 Yankees 2002 897 913 .809 .354 .455 .275
T30 Indians 2001 897 915 .807 .350 .458 .278
T33 Blue Jays 2003 894 896 .803 .349 .455 .279
T33 Brewers 1996 894 909 .794 .353 .441 .279
35 A's 1999 893 901 .801 .355 .446 .259
36 Yankees 1997 891 918 .798 .362 .436 .287
37 Rangers 2001 890 937 .815 .344 .471 .275
38 Cardinals 2000 887 932 .812 .356 .455 .270
39 Yankees 2005 886 932 .805 .355 .450 .276
40 A's 2001 884 876 .784 .345 .439 .264
41 Blue Jays 1999 883 921 .810 .352 .457 .280
42 Royals 2000 879 870 .773 .348 .425 .288
T43 Yankees 2003 877 911 .810 .356 .453 .271
T43 Twins 1996 877 871 .782 .357 .425 .288
T45 Red Sox 1998 876 894 .810 .348 .463 .280
T45 Cardinals 2003 876 936 .804 .350 .454 .279
47 Astros 1998 874 923 .792 .356 .436 .280
48 Giants 1999 872 888 .790 .356 .434 .271
T49 Yankees 1996 871 887 .796 .360 .436 .288
T49 Yankees 2000 871 903 .804 .354 .450 .277
51 Indians 1997 868 927 .825 .358 .467 .286
T52 Rangers 2005 865 883 .798 .329 .468 .267
T52 Reds 1999 865 900 .792 .341 .451 .272
T52 White Sox 2004 865 840 .790 .333 .457 .268
55 Angels 2000 864 945 .825 .352 .472 .280
T56 Blue Jays 2000 861 920 .810 .341 .469 .275
T56 White Sox 1998 861 861 .782 .339 .444 .271
T58 A's 1996 860 892 .796 .344 .452 .265
T58 Rangers 2004 860 859 .786 .329 .457 .266
T60 Red Sox 2002 859 875 .789 .345 .444 .277
T60 Mariners 1999 859 894 .798 .343 .455 .269
T60 Mariners 1998 859 926 .812 .345 .468 .276
63 Indians 2004 858 882 .795 .351 .444 .276
T64 Royals 1999 856 855 .781 .348 .433 .282
T64 White Sox 2002 856 844 .787 .338 .449 .268
66 Cardinals 2004 855 918 .804 .344 .460 .278
T67 Mets 1999 853 912 .797 .363 .434 .279
T67 Rockies 2003 853 860 .790 .344 .445 .267
T69 Red Sox 1997 851 922 .815 .352 .463 .291
T69 Angels 2002 851 851 .773 .341 .433 .282
T71 Giants 2004 850 912 .795 .357 .438 .270
T71 Orioles 1999 850 904 .800 .353 .447 .279
T71 Indians 1998 850 895 .795 .347 .448 .272
74 Rangers 2000 848 873 .798 .352 .446 .283
75 Astros 2001 847 893 .798 .347 .451 .271
76 Giants 1998 845 872 .774 .353 .421 .274
77 Rangers 2002 843 871 .794 .338 .455 .269
78 Orioles 2004 842 874 .776 .345 .432 .281
79 Phillies 1999 841 887 .782 .351 .431 .275
T80 Phillies 2004 840 898 .788 .345 .443 .267
T80 Red Sox 1999 840 893 .796 .350 .446 .277
T80 Braves 1999 840 864 .777 .341 .436 .266
T83 Royals 2003 836 811 .763 .336 .427 .274
T83 Angels 2004 836 846 .770 .341 .429 .282
85 Rockies 2004 833 890 .800 .345 .455 .275
86 Cubs 1998 831 839 .771 .337 .433 .264
87 Angels 1997 829 826 .762 .346 .416 .272
88 Tigers 2004 827 849 .786 .337 .449 .272
T89 Rangers 2003 826 863 .784 .330 .454 .266
T89 Braves 1998 826 870 .795 .342 .453 .272
T89 Rockies 1998 826 903 .808 .347 .461 .291
92 Reds 2000 825 885 .790 .343 .447 .274
T93 Tigers 2000 823 842 .781 .343 .438 .275
T93 Astros 1999 823 866 .775 .355 .420 .267
95 Reds 2005 820 876 .785 .339 .446 .261
96 Diamondbacks 2002 819 831 .769 .346 .423 .267
97 Diamondbacks 2001 818 877 .783 .341 .442 .267
98 Orioles 1998 817 865 .793 .347 .447 .273
99 Blue Jays 1998 816 864 .788 .340 .448 .266
100 Brewers 1999 815 878 .779 .353 .426 .273
T101 Cardinals 2001 814 849 .780 .339 .441 .270
T101 Mariners 2002 814 835 .769 .350 .419 .275
103 Blue Jays 2002 813 796 .757 .327 .430 .261
104 Orioles 1997 812 834 .770 .341 .429 .268
T105 Braves 2000 810 846 .775 .346 .429 .271
T105 Cardinals 1998 810 900 .781 .341 .441 .258
107 Cardinals 1999 809 852 .764 .338 .426 .262
T108 Mets 2000 807 851 .776 .346 .430 .263
T108 Phillies 2005 807 866 .772 .348 .423 .270
T108 Rangers 1997 807 828 .771 .334 .438 .274
T111 Cardinals 2005 805 820 .762 .339 .423 .270
T111 Astros 2003 805 831 .767 .336 .431 .263
T113 Yankees 2001 804 825 .769 .334 .435 .267
T113 A's 1998 804 763 .735 .338 .397 .257
T115 Braves 2004 803 858 .777 .343 .434 .270
T115 Astros 2004 803 848 .778 .342 .436 .267
117 Twins 2003 801 828 .772 .341 .431 .277
118 A's 2002 800 819 .771 .339 .432 .261
119 Giants 2001 799 932 .802 .342 .460 .266
T120 Dodgers 2000 798 843 .771 .341 .431 .257
T120 White Sox 2001 798 823 .785 .334 .451 .268
T122 Padres 1997 795 815 .749 .342 .407 .271
T122 Mariners 2003 795 801 .754 .344 .410 .271
124 Orioles 2000 794 821 .776 .341 .435 .272
T125 Pirates 2000 793 836 .762 .339 .424 .267
T125 Dodgers 1999 793 830 .760 .339 .420 .266
T125 A's 2004 793 854 .776 .343 .433 .270
T128 Diamondbacks 2000 792 816 .763 .333 .429 .265
T128 Red Sox 2000 792 837 .764 .341 .423 .267
T130 White Sox 2003 791 812 .777 .331 .446 .263
T130 Braves 1997 791 817 .769 .343 .426 .270
T130 Phillies 2003 791 830 .762 .343 .419 .261
133 Indians 2005 790 849 .787 .334 .453 .271
T134 Padres 2001 789 777 .735 .336 .399 .252
T134 Cubs 2004 789 855 .786 .328 .458 .268
T136 Cardinals 2002 787 809 .763 .338 .425 .268
T136 Angels 1998 787 796 .751 .335 .415 .272
T138 Giants 1997 784 808 .751 .337 .414 .258
T138 Tigers 1997 784 772 .747 .332 .415 .258
T140 Tigers 1996 783 753 .743 .323 .420 .256
T140 Giants 2002 783 879 .786 .344 .442 .267
142 Twins 2004 780 803 .763 .332 .431 .266
T143 Rockies 2002 778 797 .760 .337 .423 .274
T143 White Sox 1997 778 799 .758 .341 .417 .273
T143 Reds 1996 778 803 .753 .331 .422 .256
T146 White Sox 1999 777 811 .766 .337 .429 .277
T146 Mets 1997 777 755 .737 .332 .405 .262
T146 Astros 1997 777 825 .747 .344 .403 .259
T146 Cubs 2001 777 815 .766 .336 .430 .261
150 Pirates 1996 776 779 .736 .329 .407 .266
T151 Blue Jays 2005 775 750 .738 .331 .407 .265
T151 Pirates 1999 775 808 .753 .334 .419 .259
153 Braves 1996 773 811 .765 .333 .432 .270
T154 Devil Rays 1999 772 784 .754 .343 .411 .274
T154 Twins 1997 772 776 .741 .333 .409 .270
T154 Red Sox 2001 772 817 .773 .334 .439 .266
T154 A's 2005 772 749 .737 .330 .407 .262
T154 Cubs 1996 772 730 .721 .320 .401 .251
T159 Twins 2001 771 807 .770 .337 .433 .272
T159 Padres 1996 771 793 .740 .338 .402 .265
161 Braves 2005 769 802 .768 .333 .435 .265
T162 Padres 2004 768 814 .756 .342 .414 .273
T162 Twins 2002 768 793 .769 .332 .437 .272
T162 A's 2003 768 763 .743 .327 .417 .254
165 Blue Jays 2001 767 806 .755 .325 .430 .263
166 Blue Jays 1996 766 786 .752 .331 .420 .259
167 Cubs 2000 764 806 .746 .335 .411 .256
168 A's 1997 763 813 .762 .339 .423 .260
169 Angels 1996 762 816 .770 .339 .431 .276
T170 Dodgers 2004 761 801 .755 .332 .423 .262
T170 Angels 2005 761 746 .734 .325 .409 .270
172 Cardinals 1996 759 749 .736 .330 .407 .267
173 Dodgers 2001 758 781 .748 .323 .425 .255
174 Giants 2003 755 812 .763 .338 .425 .264
T175 Astros 1996 753 770 .733 .336 .397 .262
T175 Pirates 2003 753 819 .758 .338 .420 .267
T177 Padres 2000 752 764 .732 .330 .402 .254
T177 Giants 1996 752 756 .719 .331 .388 .253
179 Marlins 2003 751 787 .754 .333 .421 .266
T180 Devil Rays 2005 750 770 .754 .329 .425 .274
T180 Reds 2004 750 793 .749 .331 .418 .250
T180 Reds 1998 750 771 .739 .337 .402 .262
T183 Astros 2002 749 800 .755 .338 .417 .262
T183 Padres 1998 749 771 .739 .330 .409 .253
185 Twins 2000 748 771 .744 .337 .407 .270
T186 Tigers 1999 747 778 .768 .326 .443 .261
T186 Royals 1997 747 770 .740 .333 .407 .264
T186 Cubs 1999 747 780 .749 .329 .420 .257
T189 Royals 1996 746 746 .731 .332 .398 .267
T189 Phillies 2001 746 782 .743 .329 .414 .260
T189 Mets 1996 746 768 .737 .324 .412 .270
192 Orioles 2003 743 741 .729 .323 .405 .268
T193 Marlins 2001 742 782 .749 .326 .423 .264
T193 Dodgers 1997 742 790 .748 .330 .418 .268
T195 White Sox 2005 741 752 .747 .322 .425 .262
T195 Expos 1996 741 749 .733 .327 .406 .262
T197 Brewers 2000 740 749 .729 .325 .403 .246
T197 Marlins 1997 740 773 .741 .346 .395 .259
T197 Rockies 2005 740 772 .744 .333 .411 .267
T197 Brewers 2001 740 753 .745 .319 .426 .251
201 Indians 2002 739 727 .733 .321 .412 .249
202 Expos 2000 738 792 .758 .326 .432 .266
203 Royals 2002 737 736 .721 .323 .398 .256
204 Angels 2003 736 750 .743 .330 .413 .268
T205 Expos 2002 735 786 .752 .334 .418 .261
T205 Reds 2001 735 764 .744 .324 .419 .262
207 Twins 1998 734 715 .717 .328 .389 .266
208 Devil Rays 2000 733 727 .728 .329 .399 .257
209 Marlins 2000 731 786 .740 .331 .409 .262
T210 Braves 2001 729 745 .736 .324 .412 .260
T210 Orioles 2005 729 774 .761 .327 .434 .269
T210 Royals 2001 729 741 .727 .318 .409 .266
213 Brewers 2005 726 775 .754 .331 .423 .259
214 Pirates 1997 725 768 .733 .329 .404 .262
T215 Tigers 2001 724 729 .730 .320 .409 .260
T215 Cubs 2003 724 739 .739 .323 .416 .259
217 Tigers 2005 723 756 .750 .321 .428 .272
T218 Mets 2005 722 764 .738 .322 .416 .258
T218 Tigers 1998 722 763 .738 .323 .415 .264
220 Royals 2004 720 703 .720 .322 .397 .259
221 Blue Jays 2004 719 729 .732 .328 .403 .260
T222 Expos 1999 718 763 .751 .323 .427 .265
T222 Marlins 2004 718 743 .736 .329 .406 .264
T224 Diamondbacks 2003 717 785 .746 .330 .417 .263
T224 Marlins 2005 717 778 .748 .339 .409 .272
226 Devil Rays 2003 715 743 .724 .320 .404 .265
T227 Royals 1998 714 740 .724 .324 .399 .263
T227 Devil Rays 2004 714 734 .725 .320 .405 .258
T227 Brewers 2003 714 784 .748 .329 .419 .256
T230 Dodgers 2002 713 728 .729 .320 .409 .264
T230 Phillies 1998 713 751 .721 .326 .395 .264
T232 Angels 1999 711 700 .716 .322 .395 .256
T232 Expos 2003 711 731 .727 .326 .401 .258
T234 Phillies 2002 710 816 .761 .339 .422 .259
T234 Padres 1999 710 729 .725 .332 .393 .252
236 Reds 2002 709 758 .738 .330 .408 .253
T237 Braves 2002 708 762 .741 .331 .409 .260
T237 Phillies 2000 708 764 .729 .329 .400 .251
239 Brewers 1998 707 726 .726 .330 .396 .260
T240 Mets 1998 706 745 .724 .330 .394 .259
T240 Cubs 2002 706 755 .734 .321 .413 .246
T242 Cubs 2005 703 798 .764 .324 .440 .270
T242 Dodgers 1996 703 705 .701 .316 .384 .252
244 Royals 2005 701 691 .716 .320 .396 .263
T245 Mariners 2005 699 694 .709 .317 .391 .256
T245 Marlins 2002 699 771 .740 .337 .403 .261
T245 Indians 2003 699 701 .717 .316 .401 .254
248 Mariners 2004 698 757 .727 .331 .396 .270
249 Diamondbacks 2005 696 797 .754 .332 .421 .256
250 Reds 2003 694 724 .713 .318 .395 .245
251 Astros 2005 693 735 .730 .322 .408 .256
T252 Marlins 1999 691 724 .719 .325 .395 .263
T252 Angels 2001 691 745 .732 .327 .405 .261
T252 Expos 1997 691 746 .741 .316 .425 .258
255 Mets 2002 690 701 .717 .322 .395 .256
256 Cardinals 1997 689 733 .720 .324 .396 .255
T257 Twins 2005 688 694 .714 .323 .391 .259
T257 Marlins 1996 688 742 .722 .329 .393 .257
T259 Cubs 1997 687 704 .717 .321 .396 .263
T259 Orioles 2001 687 674 .699 .319 .380 .248
261 Twins 1999 686 688 .712 .328 .384 .264
262 Dodgers 2005 685 713 .721 .326 .395 .253
T263 Mets 2004 684 723 .726 .317 .409 .249
T263 Padres 2005 684 742 .724 .333 .391 .257
265 Brewers 1997 681 709 .723 .325 .398 .260
T266 Pirates 2004 680 715 .722 .321 .401 .260
T266 Pirates 2005 680 735 .723 .322 .400 .259
268 Padres 2003 678 721 .721 .333 .388 .261
269 Devil Rays 2002 673 688 .704 .314 .390 .253
270 Devil Rays 2001 672 681 .707 .320 .388 .258
271 Expos 2001 670 682 .715 .319 .396 .253
272 Dodgers 1998 669 684 .698 .310 .387 .252
273 Phillies 1997 668 695 .707 .322 .385 .255
T274 Marlins 1998 667 672 .690 .317 .373 .248
T274 Orioles 2002 667 679 .712 .309 .403 .246
276 Diamondbacks 1998 665 681 .707 .314 .393 .246
277 Padres 2002 662 697 .702 .321 .381 .253
278 Pirates 2001 657 683 .706 .313 .393 .247
279 Blue Jays 1997 654 674 .699 .310 .389 .244
280 Reds 1997 651 719 .710 .321 .389 .253
T281 Phillies 1996 650 716 .712 .325 .387 .256
T281 Pirates 1998 650 673 .686 .311 .374 .254
283 Giants 2005 649 688 .714 .319 .396 .261
284 Expos 1998 644 677 .704 .310 .394 .249
T285 Mets 2003 642 644 .688 .314 .374 .247
T285 Mets 2001 642 695 .710 .323 .387 .249
287 Pirates 2002 641 685 .700 .319 .381 .244
288 Nationals 2005 639 682 .708 .322 .386 .252
289 Expos 2004 635 694 .705 .313 .392 .249
290 Brewers 2004 634 708 .708 .321 .387 .248
291 Brewers 2002 627 682 .711 .320 .390 .253
292 Devil Rays 1998 620 683 .706 .321 .385 .261
293 Diamondbacks 2004 615 674 .703 .310 .393 .253
294 Tigers 2003 591 619 .675 .300 .375 .240
295 Tigers 2002 575 606 .679 .300 .379 .248
296 Dodgers 2003 574 618 .671 .303 .368 .243

Correlation to actual run scoring is as follows ...

Runs Created = 0.955013527
OPS = 0.945836495
OBP = 0.905001688
SLG = 0.890128653
BA = 0.827190939

I see one outlier on the very bottom there, and it just so happens to be batting average. Runs Created, OTOH, correlated over 95.5 percent, and OPS was a hair behind at 94.6 percent. Runs created dives into all the gory details of run production, all of which is centered around two key ingredients: avoid outs and acquire bases. OPS is the quick'n dirty way to simply measure a player's ability to avoid outs and acquire bases. OBP measures a player's ability to avoid outs, and SLG measures a player's ability to acquire bases.

Avoid outs and acquire bases. That's the magic combination; that's how you produce runs. I don't care how you avoid outs or how you acquire bases, that's what I want a hitter to do. Whether it's home runs, doubles, singles, walks or some combination, it doesn't matter. Just avoid outs and acquire bases as best you can, and you'll be the best hitter that you can be.

And as we can see, Runs Created and OPS are far better indicators of avoiding outs and acquiring bases than is batting average.

Cyclone792
06-21-2006, 04:31 PM
Runs scored doesn't correlate to runs scored more than OBP? OK.

You're applying teammate dependent statistics for an individual hitter's analysis.

See rule #1 above.

Trust me, if an individual hitter's runs scored and RBI total told us anything worthwhile, myself and many others would already be using it. But the fact is those two stats from an individual hitter tell us little to nothing, it's been proven, and that's why we don't use it.

Objective truth is what I'm seeking, and using individual runs scored and RBI totals to determine the level of production from an individual hitter is taking me in the opposite direction of where I want to go.

Cyclone792
06-21-2006, 04:35 PM
FWIW, in 2005 the Reds had 1,604 runs scored and RBI.

That correlated at roughly 51 percent. Color me unimpressed.

How about the magical ((Runs + RBI) - HR)) formula? That correlated at 59 percent. Again, color me unimpressed.

RedsManRick
06-21-2006, 04:38 PM
My whole point is the guy has not been a plus for the team this year. If his OBP was .900 and he had the same BA, runs scored and RBI that he does now, would it make a substantial difference in what he has brought to the table this year? I don't think so.

OBP is great, but let's not equate that to being a great pick-up, a great addition or really helping the team. If that OBP translates into more, I am all for it. But since he isn't scoring a ton of runs then what, besides seeing more pitches, is he really accomplishing? He isn't driving in many runs since his production with RISP leaves something to be desired.

And I know I will be bombarded with RC/27 and a bunch of other stats. That's fine. But my biggest issue is when people are acting like he has been outstanding. He has been adequate at best.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we're all in agreement here. Hatteberg has not been the key to our season, he's not an all-star, and there are numerous 1B better than him in our own divison.

I think you make some good points about the problem of a walk heavy OBP paired with catcher like speed. There is also the issue of mismanagement in so far as he should be batting high in the order because of his lack of ability to advance himself past 1b.

However, he only makes 750k and could be a valuable cog, a small but valuable piece, of a contending team. There are players making much more who are producing less. The point of the first post (and I could be wrong) was not that Hatteberg is awesome, but that he is a good value. Hatteberg is no Derrek Lee, no Albert Pujols. But he is Scott Hatteberg, and that's not a bad deal for what we're paying him.

ochre
06-21-2006, 04:38 PM
Runs scored doesn't correlate to runs scored more than OBP? OK.
You are freely mixing individual and team stats. It doesn't really work that way.

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 05:01 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we're all in agreement here. Hatteberg has not been the key to our season, he's not an all-star, and there are numerous 1B better than him in our own divison.

I think you make some good points about the problem of a walk heavy OBP paired with catcher like speed. There is also the issue of mismanagement in so far as he should be batting high in the order because of his lack of ability to advance himself past 1b.

However, he only makes 750k and could be a valuable cog, a small but valuable piece, of a contending team. There are players making much more who are producing less. The point of the first post (and I could be wrong) was not that Hatteberg is awesome, but that he is a good value. Hatteberg is no Derrek Lee, no Albert Pujols. But he is Scott Hatteberg, and that's not a bad deal for what we're paying him.
I agree. He was described as stellar in one post. He has been described similarly in others. I am voicing my opinion of what he has produced this season. Not the value of his OBP. And since OBP is his greatest attribute, that's where this discussion is headed. It is rehashing the Dunn debate all over again.

ochre
06-21-2006, 05:05 PM
His OBP is stellar. The person that called him stellar followed it directly with an 'IMO', so I'm not real sure as to what you are/were trying to accomplish by the subsequent posts you have made.

Cyclone792
06-21-2006, 05:09 PM
I agree. He was described as stellar in one post. He has been described similarly in others. I am voicing my opinion of what he has produced this season. Not the value of his OBP. And since OBP is his greatest attribute, that's where this discussion is headed. It is rehashing the Dunn debate all over again.

Which proves my point long ago that the Dunn debate isn't about Dunn itself, but instead is about a serious misunderstanding of the value of certain statistics.

Maybe the authors of Baseball Prospectus (http://www.baseballprospectus.com) know something?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2562



by Dayn Perry

Before delving into those harrowing inhabitants of the Baseball Prospectus statistics page like VORP, RARP, EqA or any other acronym that sounds like a debutante sneezing or something uttered on Castle Wolfenstein circa 1986, it's worth asking: What's wrong with those comfy traditional offensive measures like RBI, batting average and runs scored?

This Baseball Prospectus Basics column is going to address that question and, ideally, demonstrate why the traditional cabal of offensive baseball statistics tell only a piece of the story. Later, someone smarter (but shockingly less handsome) than I will take you on a tour of the more advanced and instructive metrics like the aforementioned VORP, RARP and EqA. For now, though, we'll keep our focus on why we need those things in the first place.

Many of the stats you encounter in mainstream baseball circles are what we call "counting stats." That is, they count things: 23 homers, 107 RBI, six triples, etc. This may sound painfully obvious, but the more a hitter plays in a given season, the higher his counting stats are likely to be. Some counting stats, like RBI and runs scored, are highly team and batting-order dependent. A cleanup hitter logging 600 plate appearances in a potent lineup must work very hard not to rack up at least 100 RBI. Whereas a leadoff hitter on an otherwise weak offensive team won't crack the 100-RBI mark no matter how effective he is. If a superior player is surrounded by weak hitters, it's entirely possible that he'll cash in on a much greater percentage of his RBI opportunities and still have a lower RBI total than a lesser player in a stronger lineup.

The thing to understand about counting stats is that, absent supporting information, they're really only useful at the margins. That's to say, it's hard to rack up 140 RBI and somehow stink. Conversely, it's difficult to log a season's worth of plate appearances, total 40 RBI and somehow be any good.

The flip side of this is that it's entirely possible, especially in eras conducive to run scoring, to break the vaunted 100-RBI barrier and still be an ineffective player. It's debatable what the worst 100-RBI season is, but Ruben Sierra in 1993 may be hard to beat. More later on why he was a lousy player that season.

So, highly context-dependent counting stats like RBI and runs scored can be inflated or deflated by a panoply of factors that have nothing to do with that hitter's true abilities. One of the prevailing missions of sabermetrics is to evaluate the player in a vacuum: What's he doing independently of his teammates and environment? Using only RBI or runs scored to judge a player or to frame an argument at the tavern is a fool's errand.

Home runs, since they have almost nothing to do with a hitter's teammates, are more reliable than RBI, but they're still not an ideal metric. It's fully possible for a player with fewer home runs than another to be a far superior player. How's that? Again, it's context. Home runs (and singles, doubles, triples, etc.) aren't lineup- and teammate-dependent like RBI and runs scored, but, like any other unadjusted statistic, they are dependent upon the ballpark and, when comparing players across history, the era (more on park and league effects later in this series).

Another factor to consider when comparing hitters is the notion of positional scarcity. This is the idea that it's easier to find good hitters at the less demanding defensive positions than it is at those positions that require a great deal of skill with the glove. The less demanding positions are the corner slots: left field, right field, third base and first base. The more exacting positions are those up the middle: catcher, shortstop, second base and center field. Up-the-middle defenders handle more balls and cover more ground than corner players, or, in the case of the catcher, they have defensive duties distinct from those who man other positions.

So if a first baseman and a shortstop have identical offensive statistics and equal defensive abilities relative to their positions, who's the better player? The shortstop, because the offensive-productivity bar for shortstops is notably lower than it is for first baseman, since it's far easier to find a good-hitting first baseman than it is a good-hitting shortstop. Generally, from highest level of positional scarcity to least, the positions go shortstop, catcher, second baseman, center fielder, third baseman, right fielder, left fielder and first baseman. Those can vary from year to year, but most seasons up-the-middle defenders who can hit will always be rarer beasts than corner players who can hit. This is why Alex Rodriguez is such a special player: He hits like an All-Star first baseman, yet he plays the most challenging defensive position on the diamond, and does it well to boot. Again, many stats you'll find on this site are already adjusted to reflect the demands of the position.

And what of batting average? Well, it's a percentage stat and not a counting stat, so it has a somewhat different set of concerns and caveats. First, it's subject to sample-size errors. To provide an extreme example, a hitter who goes one for three on Opening Day and one who plays the entire season going 200 for 600 will both be hitting .333 when you check the box scores; however, it's the latter hitter whose .333 average is more legit. Why? Because it's been borne out over time, whereas the former hitter may be a banjo-hitting fringe player who had a lucky day. (As an aside, counting stats are also prone to a different kind of sample-size error. It's the dread "on pace to" statistical distraction. When some unlikely player is, say, leading the league in RBI after the first two weeks of the season, we'll hear how he's "on pace" to put up 380 RBI on the season or some such nonsense.) Basically, if a hitter is doing something that's completely out of step with the rest of his career, you should be skeptical and demand a larger sample before you buy into those reports that his stroke has been tweaked or how he's seeing the ball better since he started drinking liver smoothies. Sample size is a major principle to grasp, and you'll never look foolish by being roundly unmoved by what a player does in the first few weeks of the season.

That's not all that's wrong with batting average. As much as the .300 hitter is a lionized, what does that really tell us about a player? It tells us he got a hit of some kind in 30% of his at-bats. We have no idea what kinds of hits he got, and we have no idea how he fared in terms of reaching base by other means. We don't even know how many times he came to the plate.

When dealing with percentage statistics, having at least a rough idea of the number of plate appearances is essential. And as far as batting average goes, you can tell much more about a player if his average (AVG) is presented along with his on-base percentage (OBP) and slugging percentage (SLG).

OBP is how often a player reached base via hit, walk or hit by pitch; among traditional offensive statistics, it's the most important. The higher a player’s OBP, the less often he’s costing his team an out at the plate. Viewed another way, 1-OBP = out %. In other words, OBP subtracted from the number 1 will yield the percentage of how often a hitter comes up to bat and uses up one of his team’s 27 outs for that game. A player can play all season, rack up impressive counting stats and still be using up far too many outs.

SLG measures a player's power, albeit not perfectly. It places more value on extra-base hits than it does on singles, and what you're looking at when you see a hitter's SLG is the total bases he averages per at-bat. For example, a player with a .500 SLG averages one-half total base per at-bat.

You'll often see AVG, OBP and SLG presented in the following format: .300/.400/.500, where .300 is the player's AVG, .400 is the player's OBP and .500 is the player's SLG. Another statistic you can glean from this "holy trinity" is Isolated SLG, which is the player's SLG minus his AVG. This expresses how much "raw" power he's producing by focusing solely on his extra-base hits. So of the trinity, AVG, which by far the most popular and heavily relied upon, really provides you with the least important information. It's good info in the presence of OBP and SLG, but by itself it's almost as useless as RBI.

What's a good OBP and SLG? Well, as we've already mentioned, offensive statistical standards depend greatly upon a player's era, home ballpark and defensive position. Generally speaking, if a player today puts up a .360 OBP and .500 SLG, he's doing his job. If he's a shortstop in Dodger Stadium with these numbers (and with an ample number of plate appearances, of course), he's an MVP candidate; if he's a first baseman in Denver with these numbers, he's nothing special. Again, context is where the rubber hits the road. (We discuss OPS, the stat that adds OBP + SLG, later in this series.)

Remember our pal Ruben Sierra and his 101 RBI from 1993? Let's go back and look at him, knowing what we know now. Yeah, there's his 101 RBI. But that season his trinity numbers were .233/.288/.390. Those are ugly, and they get even uglier when you recall that he split his time between DH and the outfield corners. That means he had little defensive value, and, hence, his offensive standard was higher than that of most players. A .288 OBP and .390 SLG are patently unacceptable for a corner defender, no matter how many RBI he racks up.

So, in summary:

Counting stats (RBI, HR, runs scored) aren't very informative because they're highly context dependent and don't account for how many outs a player is using up.
Percentage stats are far better than counting stats, but only in the presence of a sizeable data sample (i.e., plate appearances).
Percentage stats are only negligibly influenced by teammates and lineup slotting, but, like all traditional statistics, they are influenced by ballpark and historical era.
Players at the corner positions generally produce better offensive numbers than those players at the more vital up-the-middle positions.
AVG isn't really useful unless viewed in tandem with OBP, SLG and plate appearances.
And the greatest of these is OBP because it can also tell you how often a player creates outs at the plate.

And that's that. Like I said, there's a whole other world of statistics out there besides the ones that have been foisted upon you since you bought your first set of Topps. Now that you know what's wrong with traditional offensive statistics, you're ready to arm yourselves with the tools of state-of-the-art baseball analysis.

Rojo
06-21-2006, 05:25 PM
Is it not safe to say th a high-OBP player who can't run, field or hit for power is less than stellar without dragging out the hedgehog argument.

Cyclone792
06-21-2006, 05:45 PM
Is it not safe to say th a high-OBP player who can't run, field or hit for power is less than stellar without dragging out the hedgehog argument.

Here's the main point you're missing here: A high OBP is worth exponentially more than Hatteberg's inability to run or field.

Hatteberg's OPS right now is .833. Last season, the major league average OPS for all first basemen was .824. So offensively we've got a league average first baseman, and no, the inability to run doesn't really change that.

On to defense: Is Hatteberg a good defender? No, I've yet to see that claim anywhere. But how many runs is his glove costing us? Over the course of a season, I'd be very, very surprised if his glove is more than 10 runs below average. Of the metrics I've seen, his glove last season was about two or three runs below average. That's miniscule; that's so close to average that we might as well call it average. He may be a few runs worse or a few runs better so far this season, but I doubt the range is greater than one or two runs either way.

Put it all together, and Scott Hatteberg so far through 2006 has been your prototypical league average first baseman. Based off his raw performance, is being league average the same as being stellar? Of course not.

But how about league average first base production at the whopping salary of $750k for the entire season? You bet that's stellar. Imagine what you could do with a team if you had half your every day position players, starting pitchers and relievers were league average at a salary of $750k. You'd have a truckload of money to spend on the other half of your every day roster on high caliber players, and you'd have yourself an amazing team, provided you actually spent the money on high caliber players intelligently.

This is the point about Hatteberg and how a player like him helps you win. He's performing at a league average level while costing a minimal salary. That allows you to spend payroll elsewhere to help stock the team with more high caliber players that are above average, good, great or superstars. If you don't believe me, then we can always take Sean Casey back and pay him $8 million, and Casey was a below average first baseman three of his final four seasons as a Red.

The proper argument/criticism around Scott Hatteberg should reflect on whether or not people think he can continue to be as productive as he's been. The criticism centering around his production so far this season is ridiculous, because it's been worth far more than his salary.

ochre
06-21-2006, 05:55 PM
The proper argument/criticism around Scott Hatteberg should reflect on whether or not people think he can continue to be as productive as he's been. The criticism centering around his production so far this season is ridiculous, because it's been worth far more than his salary.
There is another one that revolves around defense and moving Dunn to first to improve the outfield D.

Rojo
06-21-2006, 05:55 PM
The proper argument/criticism around Scott Hatteberg should reflect on whether or not people think he can continue to be as productive as he's been. The criticism centering around his production so far this season is ridiculous, because it's been worth far more than his salary.

And Denorfia will earn league minimum. Is that argument "proper" or is it "ridiculous"?

westofyou
06-21-2006, 05:58 PM
There is another one that revolves around defense and moving Dunn to first to improve the outfield D.
Plus it adds a BA driven bat to the lineup, with some pop to the lineup.

Cyclone792
06-21-2006, 06:05 PM
There is another one that revolves around defense and moving Dunn to first to improve the outfield D.


And Denorfia will earn league minimum. Is that argument "proper" or is it "ridiculous"?

I've advocated that from the very beginning. In fact, I've been advocating that as early as the day that Wily Mo Pena was shipped out of town for Arroyo and it became apparent that Dunn was going to left field with Hatteberg playing first base.

Move Dunn to first base, move Griffey to left field, move Denorfia into center field, move Phillips to shortstop and move Lopez to second base. The team would be instantly better.

Every published article I've read indicates that Hatteberg signed here believing he would be a spot starter and a pinch hitter off the bench, not an every day first baseman.

The fallacy lies in criticizing Hatteberg over what is really the fault of the Reds' front office.

ochre
06-21-2006, 06:06 PM
Plus it adds a BA driven bat to the lineup, with some pop to the lineup.
Which, with Dunn taking the 2nd slot that is likely the best slot for Hatte too, puts that BA driven bat somewhere 6-8 in the lineup to cleanup the OBP guys.

Cyclone792
06-21-2006, 06:18 PM
Regarding Denorfia into center field and my stance ...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44013&page=26


I could easily see Denorfia giving us 10-11 offensive win shares and 5-7 fielding win shares in center field over a full season. If Denorfia breaks out a bit past expectations, he could even get in the 13-15 range for offensive win shares, which would push him near or possibly over the 20 win share plateau after including his fielding.


That's a fair estimate on Denorfia, 15-20 WS. To paraphrase Billie Bird in "It's a Wonderful Life," a player like that can help you find the answers.


Definitely. And when I look at how Denorfia will accumulate those 15-20 win shares, I like him even more. He won't do it with gaudy stats such as a high BA or high home run totals that spikes the salary demand upward. His production is such that his 15-20 win shares will likely always be exceptionally cost efficient in salary.

I really really really hope Krivsky realizes this!

Unfortunately, it's June 21st, 2006, and Krivsky still likely hasn't realized any of the above.

Rojo
06-21-2006, 06:22 PM
Move Dunn to first base, move Griffey to left field, move Denorfia into center field, move Phillips to shortstop and move Lopez to second base. The team would be instantly better.

And rest a "stellar" player?

This is starting to turn on semantics. My point is this: when you only look at OBP, you can fool yourself into thinking that someone like Hatte is better than he is. And that might lead you away from some decent options -- the decent options that it sounds like you and I agree on.

Cyclone792
06-21-2006, 06:27 PM
And rest a "stellar" player?

This is starting to turn on semantics. My point is this: when you only look at OBP, you can fool yourself into thinking that someone like Hatte is better than he is. And that might lead you away from some decent options -- the decent options that it sounds like you and I agree on.

I'm not only looking at OBP; I'm looking at the entire player, and the entire picture. If we're doing anything here, you're putting words into my mouth.

Guess what happens if Krivsky, Narron and Co. have the light bulb go off in their head and realize, "Hey, we're a better team if we move Dunn to first, Griffey to left and start Denorfia in center field every day"?

You know what happens, which is that Scott Hatteberg has no place to play so he becomes a spot starter and pinch hitter off the bench. And there's nothing wrong with that at all; all of the above are what should be happening. If a better option surfaces, use it. Hatteberg's production at first base given his salary is stellar. Denorfia's production in center field given his salary, and the impact on team side-effects (moving other players around to improve overall defense) is even more stellar.

Heck, Hatteberg would be an outstanding hitter to come off our bench and pinch hit late in a game. Plus he'd be a solid insurance policy against injuries, and not a bad option to start sparingly to give guys a rest.

I really find this curious how people have a problem with the stance of 1) If the front office is foolish and wants to start Hatteberg at first base, it's actually not a bad move from a production/salary standpoint at first base alone, and 2) If the front office wasn't foolish, Hatteberg would be a spot starter and a key reserve off the bench while Denorfia plays every day in center, Griffey moves to left and Dunn moves to first.

#2 is the better option, but if the front office is dense and doesn't see it, #1 is tolerable from the first base side of things. Don't blame Scott Hatteberg for the inability of Krivsky/Narron to realize we're a better team with a different option. Blame Krivsky and Narron.

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 06:39 PM
His OBP is stellar. The person that called him stellar followed it directly with an 'IMO', so I'm not real sure as to what you are/were trying to accomplish by the subsequent posts you have made.
I was responding to posts such as these:


Scott Hatteberg is 10th in the NL in on base percentage at .401. I think it's simply amazing what this guy has done for the Reds.

The 9 guys in front of him are all-star caliber players:

Abreu, Pujols, Cabrera, Johnson, Bay, Garciaparra, Rolen, Helton, Wright and then Hatteberg.
I don't find very much talk about Hatteberg or his great season, but this guy has been a steal. I have to think that someone would find him a very valuable commodity in a playoff race. His counting stats aren't very good, but all he does is get on base, nothing to complain about there IMO.

Hatte is not having an amazing or great season. He is in no way comparable to those guys in front of him in OBP. A .400 OBP does not mean you are having an amazing season.

Hatteberg has been stellar IMO. He's almost what some would call "clutch."

Hatteberg is hitting .238 with RISP and .071 with RISP with 2 outs. Close and late he has better stats, but I would hardly consider him clutch.



Quote:
2) Hatte is hitting .237-1-13 in 38 ABs with RISP and .071-0-1 in 14 ABs with RISP/2 outs. He's had opportunities to drive in runs. He hasn't come through.

He's also getting on base at a .373 clip with RISP, which is better than guys like Dunn and Kearns who also have had far more opportunities.) He's never been a big run producer, but he does the next best thing--he avoids making outs while giving others a chance to drive him (and others) in.

Those stats are horrific with RISP no matter what his OBP is.

ochre
06-21-2006, 06:48 PM
If you still think BA w/ RISP is the be all stat, then I guess we are done here.

westofyou
06-21-2006, 06:55 PM
If you still think BA w/ RISP is the be all stat, then I guess we are done here.
Let's go watch a movie on an Ipod.

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 07:00 PM
Not at all. That post was in reference to other posts stating that he has a low RBI total b/c of lack of opportunities. But I quoted it to show how any argument regarding Hatte goes back to how great his OBP is. Along with how clutch he has been.

And I guess no comments on the other posts, about how amazing he has been and how great of a season he is having?

Now, specifically to Ochre and WOY, do you agree that he is having a great season? Or how amazing he has been? These are the posts I am refuting. The other discussions just come from rebuttals and the like. I am interested in your opinions.

westofyou
06-21-2006, 07:10 PM
Now, specifically to Ochre and WOY, do you agree that he is having a great season? Or how amazing he has been? These are the posts I am refuting. The other discussions just come from rebuttals and the like. I am interested in your opinions.

He's having a Hal Morris season, from what I can tell, little things and nothing flashy, seldom makes glaring mistakes, seldom is carried off the field on the shoulders of his teammates. He's a stopgap, getting paid peanuts, who comes from two winning organizations that value the little things (only problem is it's a diffrent little things then most value). I'm into those little things, I don't count on this team doing much more then setting themselves up for next year, that's where the real meat on the bone lies with this group.

By then Scott will either be gone or a back up who gets 200 ab's. As for now, I'll take the professional at bats and hope that things slide themselves into a better defensive setup, one that exploits a batter aside from Hatteberg.

But for the price I'll never not want a Hatteberg type on my team, but if he does a OB nosedive then his need is gone as well.

He's not a real impact on either side of the ledger in my opinion.

ochre
06-21-2006, 07:11 PM
I think, for the money he is making, and the fact that he was brought in, ostensibly, for a lesser role, he is having a great season. I'm also aware of the tendency for players, over enough time, to play to their career norms. I, therefore, feel that he will not be nearly as good in the second half.

Not making outs is a huge attribute to bring to the table for any player. He's better at it than Casey was last year and a fairly similar player peripherally. I think Adam Dunn should be the every day firstbaseman, though, and, although he has exceeded my expectations, I have never really wanted Hatteberg to be a regular on this team.

edabbs44
06-21-2006, 08:46 PM
OK. It seems like we are on the same page. No need to continue to run around in circles. Nice debate.

Jpup
06-22-2006, 08:47 AM
OK. It seems like we are on the same page. No need to continue to run around in circles. Nice debate.

You can call a dog's tail a leg all day long, but it's still a tail.

Hatteberg has had a great season. I'm sorry that I have been extremely busy the last two days. I would love to "debate" this with you, but there is nothing to debate. Scott Hatteberg is an on-base machine.

I think he has also been a steal and has made the Reds a better team. I don't see how you could think otherwise.

btw, it's at .404 now. that's good for 9th in the NL.