Preaching patience with Chris Davis...

[CA-ORIOLE]

Davis has a 906 OPS this year as a DH and a 948 OPS in his career as a DH. Weaver would have taken either one.

No, I actually think you're wrong about that. Before this year Davis started 6 games at DH and this years he's started 20 games at DH. I doubt he'd value that data very much at all even if it was a much larger sample size. In fact I think it's the type of data that he'd completely disregard.

[Can_of_corn]

What's the difefrence between strike zone control and P/PA? Davis is 4.08 P/PA. it seems to me he has the eye to take more walks, just not the inclination. He probably is being encouraged to be more aggressive than he should be, especially with 2 strikes, because of his power.

Who was encouraging him in Texas?

[El Gordo]

Well, I think something that might be staring you in the face is, it takes at least 3 pitches to K. Usually more. He's going to see more pitches than Tejada or Pierre (or whoever) because of that fact, but that doesn't mean he's going to walk more.

If he has the eye to avoid swinging at poor pitches, early in the count, enough to have a high P/PA he ought to be able to avoid swinging at them for strike 3. It is a matter of patience IMO. Not swinging at the pitchers pitch for stirke 3. The odds are better than 50/50 that it wont be a strike. Davis and Reynolds are an odd pair. Davis hit's for a better average, makes mre consistent contact, but strikes out as much(more this year) and walks much less. If Reynolds could hit for a higher average and Davis could take more walks, they would bith be more valuable players IMO, in spite of the fact that they would both probably hit less HR. I think both have the ability to do so but not the inclination. Chicks and GM's still dig the long ball.

[OFFNY]

No, I actually think you're wrong about that. Before this year, Davis started 6 games at DH, and this year he's started 20 games at DH. I doubt he'd value that data very much at all, even if it was a much larger sample size. In fact, I think it's the type of data that he'd completely disregard.

OOOExactly. Even more so, being that it's such a small sample size, he might not even be aware of it in the first place to even need to disregard it.

[wildcard]

Yes, thank you. Earl put people in positions to succeed, but he didn't do it by looking at how someone hit over the last week and a half while playing left field and base everything on that.

Jon, you are really better than this. There is no reason to twist data like this. I am going to start thinking that you are running for office with this kind of fault statement.

Davis played his first game in RF on June 15th. That is 5 weeks ago. He was hitting .306 at the time. He is now at .261.

The OH always tries to keep data accurate if we can. Lets hold to that practice.

[Pickles]

If he has the eye to avoid swinging at poor pitches, early in the count, enough to have a high P/PA he ought to be able to avoid swinging at them for strike 3. It is a matter of patience IMO. Not swinging at the pitchers pitch for stirke 3. The odds are better than 50/50 that it wont be a strike. Davis and Reynolds are an odd pair. Davis hit's for a better average, makes mre consistent contact, but strikes out as much(more this year) and walks much less. If Reynolds could hit for a higher average and Davis could take more walks, they would bith be more valuable players IMO, in spite of the fact that they would both probably hit less HR. I think both have the ability to do so but not the inclination. Chicks and GM's still dig the long ball.

The whole point is, I guess, that he does swing at bad pitches early in the count, they just aren't strike three. He swings through them, instead of grounding out to 2b, sees 2 more pitches, and then Ks.

[El Gordo]

No, I actually think you're wrong about that. Before this year Davis started 6 games at DH and this years he's started 20 games at DH. I doubt he'd value that data very much at all even if it was a much larger sample size. In fact I think it's the type of data that he'd completely disregard.

I keep thinking of Annie Hall, when Woody Allen pulls out Marshall McLuan to shoot down the insufferable faux intelectual in the movie line if front of him. If only some one could pull out an e-mail from Earl right now. :laughlol:

[DrungoHazewood]

Jon, you are really better than this. There is no reason to twist data like this. I am going to start thinking that you are running for office with this kind of fault statement.

Davis played his first game in RF on June 15th. That is 5 weeks ago. He was hitting .306 at the time. He is now at .261.

The OH always tries to keep data accurate if we can. Lets hold to that practice.

It's cliche, but correlation does not equal causation. You've offered zero evidence that Davis' slump is nothing more than a coincidence.

[wildcard]

You do realize that he has 110 career PAs as a DH, right? And that you can infer almost nothing from that, right?

No, of course you don't. You truly and deeply believe that nothing should be regressed and that all random spikes and dips have meaning.

Davis also has a .968 OPS as a pinch hitter. I think they need to hold him out of the game until the key moments in the late innings. Can you imagine the advantages of having a .968 player batting instead of Flaherty or Chavez when it really counts?!

Actually pinch hitters almost never have a lot of at bat at pinch hitting. Not 1000 like you would like. Managers pick them to be pinch hitter because they do well at it for a few at bats when the are not playing their normal position. So would I hold Davis out so he can pinch hit? No. It he is on the bench would I pick him to pinch hit against a righthanded pitcher. Sure.

[OFFNY]

Jon, you are really better than this. There is no reason to twist data like this. I am going to start thinking that you are running for office with this kind of fault statement.

Davis played his first game in RF on June 15th. That is 5 weeks ago. He was hitting .306 at the time. He is now at .261.

The OH always tries to keep data accurate if we can. Let's hold to that practice.

Fine. Then, is there a reason why you haven't commented on the point that Tony brought up about Davis having had similar slumps earlier in the season which had nothing to do with him playing the outfield ??? And if so, how exactly is you theory about Davis necessarily slumping due to the position change any more relevant than somebody pointing out that he had similar slumps which had nothing to do with the position change, therefore putting little or no weight into your claim ???

BTW, the only thing I will say is that Davis' current slump corresponded with his move to the outfield. The numbers spell that out,

but I don't believe it's accurate to say it's the REASON for his slump. He's had slumps similar to this one previously this year when he put up a .233/.287/.407/.694 line in 24 games games covering 94 PAs when he exclusively played 1B/DH.

Either way, he needs to find his way out of this quagmire or he will risk losing playing time.

[wildcard]

It's cliche, but correlation does not equal causation. You've offered zero evidence that Davis' slump is nothing more than a coincidence.

Not even trying to convince you. There is really no point in that. I see that correlation between him playing the OF and when he stopped hitting well. Believe, don't believe it. Doesn't matter to me.

[wildcard]

BTW, the only thing I will say is that Davis' current slump corresponded with his move to the outfield. The numbers spell that out, but I don't believe it's accurate to say it's the REASON for his slump. He's had slumps similar to this one previously this year when he put up a .233/.287/.407/.694 line in 24 games games covering 94 PAs when he exclusively played 1B/DH.

Either way, he needs to find his way out of this quagmire or he will risk losing playing time.

Tony, I am not trying to say that there are not other factors involved with Davis slump. And no one can prove anything here. But it is worth noting that when Davis started playing the OF his slump started. Everyone can draw their own conclusion.

[SrMeowMeow]

It would be silly to give up on Chris Davis. He's been exposed to the challenges of playing full-time and he hasn't embarrassed himself. He has plenty of potential.

And there is no evidence that players need to "learn how to hit" at different positions. In fact, there's evidence that that concept doesn't exist (except for DH). And, intuitively, it makes no sense anyway. A standard case of trying too hard to find explanations for what is almost always just random variation around a player's true talent. I'm sure you could find a couple dozen players in the MLB whose OPS varies convincingly with the phase of the moon, just because that's how normal distributions work. And that's why correlation doesn't equal causation, and why it requires a little advanced statistical analysis to determine whether or not a correlation is strong or weak.

[El Gordo]

Not even trying to convince you. There is really no point in that. I see that correlation between him playing the OF and when he stopped hitting well. Believe, don't believe it. Does matter to me.

Simple question. Reynolds played attrocious 3B last year. Clearly it troubled him. But it didn't effect his offense last season. He had a fairly typical season with the bat. Why wouldn't this disprove your theiory using your correlation logic. Also Reynolds appears to be much more comfortable at 1B this year, and yet he is having a poor year with the bat. I might buy into your notion about Davis, if he appeared to be struggling in the OF, but he actually looks more comfortable to me.

[wildcard]

Fine. Then, is there a reason why you haven't commented on the point that Tony brought up about Davis having had similar slumps earlier in the season which had nothing to do with him playing the outfield ??? And if so, how exactly is you theory about Davis necessarily slumping due to the position change any more relevant than somebody pointing out that he had similar slumps which had nothing to do with the position change, therefore putting little or no weight into your claim ???

Why didn't you bold the first part Tony's sentence? He sees that the slump corresponds to the move to the offense. Though he may not accept it as THE REASON. He doesn't reject it as a factor. Instead he notes it.