Offseason Priorities

[_Sir_Charles_]

Why is everyone so quick to dismiss Mike Leake? I don't get it. Yeah, he didn't have a great year...but has everyone forgotten his age and experience? Yeah, he tossed some stinkers this year...what do you expect from a young pitcher? People seem to forget that he also threw some real gems too. This is a middle of the rotation-to-back of the rotation pitcher. They aren't all going to be aces. He's a great change of pace to the rest of the staff (especially after Bronson leaves). And he's got loads of room for improvement. Add in his athleticism and his bat and I hang onto the kid. Without a doubt.

We have no real clue what Cingrani, Corcino or even Chapman will do in the rotation. I don't see a better option than Leake right now IMO, and I think he'll only get better with more experience.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Why is everyone so quick to dismiss Mike Leake? I don't get it.

Don't know. He's one of the best 5 pitchers in the league which is worth more to you than it is to others.

[DGullett35]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Why is everyone so quick to dismiss Mike Leake? I don't get it. Yeah, he didn't have a great year...but has everyone forgotten his age and experience? Yeah, he tossed some stinkers this year...what do you expect from a young pitcher? People seem to forget that he also threw some real gems too. This is a middle of the rotation-to-back of the rotation pitcher. They aren't all going to be aces. He's a great change of pace to the rest of the staff (especially after Bronson leaves). And he's got loads of room for improvement. Add in his athleticism and his bat and I hang onto the kid. Without a doubt.

We have no real clue what Cingrani, Corcino or even Chapman will do in the rotation. I don't see a better option than Leake right now IMO, and I think he'll only get better with more experience.

I agree with you. Leake reminds me of Arroyo coming off of a crappy 2011. I think Leake will be better next year but what we can expect from him is 10-12 wins and a mid 4 or high 3 ERA and I think that is solid for a #5 starter plus he swings the bat better than any pitcher in the league. I do think we need some depth though. Not everyone will stay healthy like this year. That just doesnt happen every year. If Chappy moves to the rotation which I think he wont as long as Dusty is skipper Leake could and I say could be the odd man out being our 6th starter maybe starting the season in AAA. But like I said it will be a miracle for everyone to stay healthy again for a full year so the chips will fall into place IMO. Leake will be a heck of alot better next year.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Please explain how OBP can be important and BA unimportant. It's illogical.

BA reflects hits per official at bats. Hit percentage is a big part of OBP, it directly feeds into OBP. Anyone who disregards BA, but says OBP is very important, IMO is, well, incorrect.

The Reds have a relatively low BA team. They also have a relatively low OBP team. The two are strongly related.

The Reds need to emphasize OBP and BA more, and can afford a modest reduction in power. This doesn't require trashing the whole lineup, but it does mean adding one significant starting player who gets on base and hits well, even if not for power. Or two.

And, IMO, it means a different mix on the bench.

In the regular season, the Reds BA was .251, league average was .254, Reds OBP was .315, league average was .318. Reds hit total was 1377, league average was 1393. Reds had 879 singles, league average was 927. Reds walked 481 times. League average was 488.

IMO these stats need to improve, particularly when you consider Votto's singular role and how poor these numbers are for the rest of the ballclub.

To answer your question: Batting Average does not correlate well with run scoring in real MLB games, OBP does. That is why OBP is important and BA is not important. It is logical.

Batting Average is an antique fossil of a statistic. Famous articles and entire books have been written about why Batting Average is a very poor way to evaluate baseball players.

The easiest way to understand why batting average is so bad is because it does not correlate very strongly with run scoring. OBP and SLG correlate MUCH better with run scoring. OPS and wOBA are even better.

There are two HUGE holes in Batting Average. First, it counts all hits the same. That is like a cashier thinking all coins have the same value. Obviously, home runs have much more value than singles just like dimes are more valuable than nickels. So why use a stat that ridiculously counts all hits the same? Secondly, Batting Average completely ignores Walks and HBPs even though they have 85% as much value as singles. Batting average totally ignores about 15% of plate appearances. Why? If a fan is still using Batting Average as a component in their player evaluation then most serious students of the game will not respect their opinion at all. Such people are clearly behind the times and still using disproven statistics that were debunked many years ago. A baseball statistician who uses Batting Average is like an Amish computer engineer or a Creationist Bioengineer. Batting Average is an anachronism.

For example, many casual fans believe that Ichiro Suzuki is a great hitter. He has a career .322 Batting Average, which is the 3rd best among all active players.

Batting Average active leaders

1.	Albert Pujols	.3246
2.	Joe Mauer	.3229
3.	Ichiro Suzuki	.3223
4.	Todd Helton	.3199
5.	Miguel Cabrera	.3182
6.	Vlad Guerrero	.3176
7.	Joey Votto	.3163
8.	Ryan Braun	.3132
9.	Derek Jeter	.3131
10.	Matt Holliday	.3126

38.	Prince Fielder	.2868
61.	Jason Giambi	.2803
78.	Jim Thome	.2764
133.	Adam Dunn	.2404

That list makes Ichiro and Jeter look pretty darn good. They look like uber-elite players that are creating tons of runs for their teams. But wait...

OPS active leaders

1.	Albert Pujols	1.0220
2.	Manny Ramirez	.9960
3.	Joey Votto	.9680
4.	Todd Helton	.9640
5.	Jim Thome	.9560
6.	Miguel Cabrera	.9557
7.	Lance Berkman	.9528
8.	Alex Rodriguez	.9447
9.	Ryan Braun	.9426
10.	Vlad Guerrero	.9312
11.	Prince Fielder	.9309

14.	Jason Giambi	.9258
25.	Adam Dunn	.8696

49.	Derek Jeter	.8293
83.	Ichiro Suzuki	.7839

Now Ichiro and Jeter don't look so hot do they? Out of 135 active players with enough ABs to qualify, Ichiro Suzuki is #83 -- deep in the bottom half of the list. Still think he is an elite hitter? No way. Jeter is barely in the top 50. The fact is that both of them are slap hitting singles hitters who don't walk much. Therefore they are not nearly as good as batting average aficianados think they are. Batting Average fools most people into thinking that Ichiro and Jeter are great hitters when they are not.

Similarly but in reverse, Batting Average would indicate hitters like Fielder, Giambi and Thome are not special and would indicate that Adam Dunn downright sucks. Yet all of those guys rank highly in OPS -- much higher than Jeter and Ichiro. Those sluggers don't hit for average, but they walk a lot and hit for power. They create a lot more runs for their teams than the batting average guys do. They are much better hitters than perennial .300+ hitters like Ichiro and Jeter.

Between Ichiro Suzuki (career .322 BA) and Adam Dunn (career .240 BA), which player is more likely to make an out when he comes to the plate? Answer: Ichiro Suzuki (career .365 OBP) is more likely to make an out than Adam Dunn (career .370 OBP) each time he comes to the plate. Not only does Dunn make fewer outs he is also much more likely to get an extra base hit and hence much more likely to create a run for his team (by scoring or driving in runs).

Batting Average leads people astray. Not only is Batting Average not a good statistic, it is a misleading statistic. It makes people look foolish by arguing for the wrong players.

If you have OBP and SLG you have no need for BA. Batting Average adds nothing to the mix. BA is a stripped down, misleading statistic that adds no value to player evaluation.

wOBA is the best offensive metric because it properly weights all the various hit types (including BBs and HBPs) for how they contribute to run scoring (based on the results of thousands of real MLB games) and it even factors in base stealing. OPS correlates to real run scoring just as well as wOBA. OPS is not a mathematically pure measurement for various reasons -- but it works great. If you have these superior metrics there is no good reason to put any faith in Batting Average whatsoever.

[Strikes Out Looking]

My biggest offseason priority is get a CF who can find first base.

[Red Rover]

The Reds need protection for Votto (another RBI machine).

When Stubbs gets on base he scores 50% of the time.
When Votto gets on base he scores 20% of the time.

Get someone on this team to knock Votto in please.

[Rojo]

Wow Dumpling, you're really on to something. Does Bill James know about this?

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

If a fan is still using Batting Average as a component in their player evaluation then most serious students of the game will not respect their opinion at all.

Is there a stat that measures condescension?

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Rojo

Wow Dumpling, you're really on to something. Does Bill James know about this?



Is there a stat that measures condescension?

The guy asked me to show him how BA and OBP were not the same. I did.

Sometimes you have to state things extra clearly and maybe a bit harshly when people don't understand it the first 10 times you explain it to them.

Your condescension remark is on the money unfortunately. People that are clued in to sabermetrics do in fact look down upon those that continue to use debunked stats. For better or worse that is just the way it is. It works the other way too. People that like the old-school stats often insult the saber geeks. Just look at kc61's post where he insulted me for saying BA was not as good as OBP. It works both ways.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

If you have OBP and SLG you have no need for BA. Batting Average adds nothing to the mix. BA is a stripped down, misleading statistic that adds no value to player evaluation.

wOBA is the best offensive metric because it properly weights all the various hit types (including BBs and HBPs) for how they contribute to run scoring (based on the results of thousands of real MLB games) and it even factors in base stealing. OPS correlates to real run scoring just as well as wOBA. OPS is not a mathematically pure measurement for various reasons -- but it works great. If you have these superior metrics there is no good reason to put any faith in Batting Average whatsoever.

I disagree. In fact, the anti-BA argument is founded on a mistaken premise IMO.

The faulty assumption is that for a stat to be useful, it has to provide a complete view of offensive performance. This is wrong IMO. Sometimes, looking at a specific aspect of offensive performance is more useful.

wOBA and OPS are composite stats. They try (reasonably effectively) to combine aspects of offensive performance, weight them, and come up with a number reflecting total offensive (or in the OPS case total hitting) performance.

These stats may be imperfect, but very useful. But sometimes it is equally useful to look at the component parts.

BA tells you a batter's ability to get base hits, of any description, per official at bats. Some hitters have that knack. It becomes important, for example, on a team that may otherwise lack that skill. I think the Reds would be aided by a few high BA hitters, for example.

All of these statistics, if understood and taken in context, are helpful and important. I know it's very trendy to trash traditional statistics like BA and RBIs, but in their place they are quite useful.

The fact that Joey Votto hit .337 BA this year is useful and helpful information. It's certainly not the only statistic worth reading, but most of us have the capacity to look at more than one thing.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

People that are clued in to sabermetrics do in fact look down upon those that continue to use debunked stats.

ugh.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Just look at kc61's post where he insulted me for saying BA was not as good as OBP. It works both ways.

Never intended to insult you or anyone on the site, no matter how strident their posts may be.

And I don't disagree that OBP is more useful. I do disagree that BA is some kind of garbage stat that warrants an adverse reaction when used.

All these stats have uses, if taken in the proper context and understood correctly.

[PuffyPig]

Leake gives great value as a 5th starter.

He's cheap, not terrible and has pretty good upside.

There are many 5th starter types who are relatively expansive, not particularly good and offer little upside.

Unless someone bowls me over on a deal, Leake stays on the team gladly.

The last thing the Reds need is to trade or sign a 5th starter type like Westbook who generally require 2-3 years and $8M+ per season.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The guy asked me to show him how BA and OBP were not the same. I did.

Sometimes you have to state things extra clearly and maybe a bit harshly when people don't understand it the first 10 times you explain it to them.

Your condescension remark is on the money unfortunately. People that are clued in to sabermetrics do in fact look down upon those that continue to use debunked stats. For better or worse that is just the way it is. It works the other way too. People that like the old-school stats often insult the saber geeks. Just look at kc61's post where he insulted me for saying BA was not as good as OBP. It works both ways.

I think it would be fair to say that Kc61 understands the flaws of BA and OBP. The guy has been on here for years and has quality stuff. he doesn't need a third grade lesson on this. Nor do I feel he was being condescending to you, he simply pointed out that BA can't be 100% useless and OBP a great metric as they are linked quite a bit. Yes BA has it's flaws, but it's not reasonable to completely throw out the door if we are going to be using OBP so much. I think most would agree that they have a preference for a .320/.350 hitter vs. a .260/.350 hitter.

His point was that the Reds are weak in both OBP and BA, and that in a perfect world the Reds should be trying to improve OBP through BA (ie. get hitters that walk at fair rates, but also have strong contact abilities, which is a skill the bulk of the team doesn't have).

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

Leake gives great value as a 5th starter.

He's cheap, not terrible and has pretty good upside.

There are many 5th starter types who are relatively expansive, not particularly good and offer little upside.

Unless someone bowls me over on a deal, Leake stays on the team gladly.

The last thing the Reds need is to trade or sign a 5th starter type like Westbook who generally require 2-3 years and $8M+ per season.

Leake would be fine if he could avoid all the line drives and home runs. If he were simply a ground ball pitcher who occasionally got hit hard, I could live with him, but his line drive rate and homer rate this year were disturbing.

If the Reds could get a solid veteran instead, I think it would help them in the stretch and post-season. But I wouldn't overpay as in the example you use.

Best case, I'd like to see Leake succeed, but I really do think (despite some good numbers on Fangraphs) that his 2012 performance raises concerns.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Why is everyone so quick to dismiss Mike Leake? I don't get it. Yeah, he didn't have a great year...but has everyone forgotten his age and experience?

He's this year's whipping boy.. much like Arroyo was last year.
I agree with you.. he's young, had almost no minor league experience and still learning.. Great BOR guy with upside at a low salary... Seems to be able to stay healthy and pitches QS at a reasonable rate.
Sure, I'd trade him for a decent return, but it's not like he's garbage dragging the team down..