How about this guy for SS?

[RShack]

I was doing the equating, I hope that is clear. Last season Miggi hit .799 OPS. and Gonzalez was 0 +- at SS in '05.:002_sbiggrin:

Oh, I see... using 1970's method that would be right. Miggi's 2007 bat calc's to 81 runs, so with no glove factor either way, that would do it. Using the 2008 projections for Miggi that 1970 used, his bat and his glove add 5 runs each to that. Not sure what my method would say.

[Sports Guy]

As much as I dislike Payton (speaking of all this stuff we've been doing with defensive runs, guess how many he was worth last year using this method. -7 as LF, +2 as CF, and -1 as RF), I'd do a Uribe/Payton deal yesterday.

As for the rest, I'd have no problem giving them Fahey, Gibbons, Payton, J Johnson, and Mora all in one deal. That's a 5 for 1, surely they'd do that. What a bargain.

Ok, so there are scenarios where you think Uribe is the better option at SS than LH...I agree with you.

[RShack]

Along the lines of what elgordo and rshack are doing, look at Tony Pena.

I'd say he meets the definition of a no hit, good field SS.

First, using my quick and easy RC calculation he should have had 45 Runs Created last year. According to THT, he had 47 RC, so my method is pretty close at least for him.

To make this fair, I set everything at 500 ABs and 400 BIZ.

Over 500 ABs, Pena and his 600 OPS would be worth 45 runs offensively.

Over 400 BIZ, he would be worth 25 runs defensively.

The average AL SS last year posted a 713 OPS, which was worth 63 runs offensively.

By definition, an average AL SS is worth 0 runs defensively.

Using this method...

No hit, good field Tony Pena was worth 70 runs last year.

The average AL SS was worth 63 runs.

The basic problem is that many folks just don't realize. The baseline assumption is that SS-D is nice to have, but it doesn't hold a candle to OPS. That's why people think that some guy with a mediocre bat and a mediocre glove is somehow more valuable than a guy with a lousy bat and a great glove. But I don't think it's mainly people being stubborn, I think it's mainly that people just don't realize. Nobody ever taught them to know better. There may be a small number of posters who just dig-in, get stubborn, and refuse to change their minds. But that's not most posters. I think most posters really want to show good judgment about these things, but they just don't know how. So, part of the solution is giving them a concrete way to do it.

Here's one possible idea about how to help people know how to do it:

• Take a spreadsheet with rows and columns labeled appropriately, and with the little formula's in the cells. Lock the data-dependent cells, and color-code the input boxes.
• Use some of the empty space on the spreadsheet to place notes about where to go to get the proper data for a player, and what cell to put in to get the more-useful answer about a guy.
• Stash it someplace where people can download the thing.
• Even if they don't have a spreadsheet program, they can find a free one, or if they use gmail they can use google's free one online.
• If Tony & Company decided to, they could even make that very limited spreadsheet functionality available here, if they so desired. I bet McLovin would know how to do that.

What matters is that people have a way to do this, to see for themselves, without having to make a big homework project out of it. If people don't have a readily-accessible tool like that, then they're likely to just go someplace and look at OPS, simply because it's easy and they know how to do that. So, it would be good and helpful to provide members with an easy way to do the right thing instead of the wrong thing. It could even be part of the Plus membership benefits. (Just a thought.)

[Sports Guy]

The basic problem is that many folks just don't realize. The baseline assumption is that SS-D is nice to have, but it doesn't hold a candle to OPS. That's why people think that some guy with a mediocre bat and a mediocre glove is somehow better than a guy with a lousy bat and a great glove. But I don't think it's mainly people being stubborn, I think it's mainly that people just don't realize. Nobody ever taught them to know better. There may be a small number of posters who just dig-in, get stubborn, and refuse to change their minds. But that's not most posters. I think most posters really want to show good judgment about these things, but they just don't know how. So, part of the solution is giving them a concrete way to do it.

Here's one possible idea about how to help people know how to do it:

• Take a spreadsheet with rows and columns labeled appropriately, and with the little formula's in the cells.
• Use some of the empty space on the spreadsheet to place notes about where to go to get the proper data for a player, and what cell to put in to get the more-useful answer about a guy.
• Stash it someplace where people can download the thing.
• Even if they don't have a spreadsheet program, they can find a free one, or if they use gmail they can use google's free one online.
• If Tony & Company decided to, they could even make that limited spreadsheet functionality available here, if they so desired. I bet McLovin would know how to do that.

What matters is that people have a way to do this, to see for themselves, without having to make a big homework project out of it. If people don't have a readily-accessible tool like that, then they're likely to just go someplace and look at OPS, simply because it's easy and they know how to do that. So, it would be good and helpful to provide members with an easy way to do the right thing instead of the wrong thing. It could even be part of the Plus membership benefits. (Just a thought.)

LOL...I am glad you think you know what the hell you are talking about when it pertains to other posters. It amazes me how poor of a judge you are especially compared to how good you think you are at it.

[RShack]

LOL...I am glad you think you know what the hell you are talking about when it pertains to other posters. It amazes me how poor of a judge you are especially compared to how good you think you are at it.

SG, please stop trolling every thing I say. If you have something to contribute, then please do it. But please stop the angry-sniper routine. It's neither helpful nor appropriate. If you don't like the way we're discussing this, but have no way to make the discussion better, then just go someplace else and conjure up some more fantasy trades. That's something you're good at. But when it comes to figuring out how to help folks get a more balanced view, not so much. It's not your strong suit.

[Sports Guy]

SG, please stop trolling every thing I say

Then stop saying stupid and derogatory things putting down the people on this board....You do it all the time..You are always putting words into people's mouths, as if you have never read what they are saying....You are always lumping people into one of your fantasy world categories...It is absurd and you have been called on it enough that I am surprised a mod hasn't stepped in....And I find it funny that you would call me a troll..Pot calling the kettle block. You

If you have something to contribute, then please do it. It's neither helpful nor appropriate

You should follow your own advice.

[El Gordo]

Along the lines of what elgordo and rshack are doing, look at Tony Pena.

I'd say he meets the definition of a no hit, good field SS.

First, using my quick and easy RC calculation he should have had 45 Runs Created last year. According to THT, he had 47 RC, so my method is pretty close at least for him.

To make this fair, I set everything at 500 ABs and 400 BIZ.

Over 500 ABs, Pena and his 600 OPS would be worth 45 runs offensively.

Over 400 BIZ, he would be worth 25 runs defensively.

The average AL SS last year posted a 713 OPS, which was worth 63 runs offensively.

By definition, an average AL SS is worth 0 runs defensively.

Using this method...

No hit, good field Tony Pena was worth 70 runs last year.

The average AL SS was worth 63 runs.

So let me see if I've got this straight. If LH puts up a.560 OPS he is woth 39 runs as a league average defender, 79 runs if he is as good defensively as Everett and 59 runs if he is half way in between. If he is only a league average defender, which almost certainly he is not, he is only 3 runs less than Uribe's numbers last season at 42. So it would seem to me there is almost no reason to trade for Uribe, unless you feel his offense and defense are going to improve significantly. I think I can understand why DT would be willing to settle for LH if a good young prospect can't be had, even if the Supreme High OH Cognoscenti wouldn't be. Thanks again;)

[Mashed Potatoes]

LOL...I am glad you think you know what the hell you are talking about when it pertains to other posters. It amazes me how poor of a judge you are especially compared to how good you think you are at it.

Actually I agree with Rshack here. If 1970's rough experiment is close to the truth then we've been giving defense the short end of the stick. We would've detested acquiring Adam Everett but according to Tom Tango he makes for an average MLB short stop when balancing his offense and defense. I associate no-hit great-glove short stops with old baseball stupid traditions, once lumped into that category I have a violently negative gut reaction.

However we've never had an easily accessible way to calculate defense like we do offense, therefore we focus on the latter and make guesses based on scouting reports for the former. What's cool about 1970's work is it quantifies offense and defense into the same runs created. Rshack's arguing for a way to make these rough calculations available so that everyone can use them and our threads don't turn into redundant LH haters vs. LH tolerators. It would lead to much more productive debate.

I have my reservations because I don't understand how accurate the OOZ/BIZ statistics are. Furthermore, I could see LH put up a .500 OPS pretty easily, requiring phenomenal defense which I'm not sure he's capable of. He's certainly more palatable now then he was before this thread started.

[TommyD4207]

This has been a very interesting thread indeed.

I think one of the things that most people forget is that defense is more important at SS than it is at many other positions. This has to come into play when analyzing a player's worth. Whether or not defense can make up for a lousy bat is more possible if a guy plays SS than 1B.

Being that extrapolated out, LH reached 71 runs where the average SS is 63 runs, that makes LH actually above average.

Now, I won't get too excited and I'm not going to start campaigning for LH to be the Orioles starting SS. I am a big believer in that people shouldn't act as if everything is a foregone conclusion and that there should always be an open door to acknowledging it's possible.

Unfortunately, in this thread, that rule was violated. If I wanted to, I could go back and show posts where people stated matter-of-factly without any doubt that LH was a godawful SS and that there was no way in hell that his defense could possibly make up for his offense.

We are starting to see that it's very possible that LH could in fact be an above average MLB SS. Stay tuned as this thread should get more and more interesting!

[Pickles]

I'd like to add something here but I've been hesitant to do it because I can't remember where exactly I read it but it was almost certainly on this board, probably in the minors section. Anyway, a scout from another orginization was talking about the Bowie squad this summer and he was pretty much saying there wasn't anybody who projected as a major leaguer, positional-wise, on the team. I'm assuming, hopefully at least, that this was when Reimold was out w his assorted injuries bc I'd like to believe that he does project. Anyway, the scout said that the only guy on the team who projected as a "starter" at the major league level was Luis Hernandez. I'm suprised nobody else has brought this up before, and truthfully I was hoping they would because I realize it isn't real good protocol to go quoting something wo a link. So if anybody else remembers it from over the summer it'd be nice if they could provide said line. It just goes to show that apparently people from other orgiznizations think that LH could, plausibly at least, one day be a starter at the big league level.

[RShack]

Well, I figured I'd check in here, just to see what thoughts other people may have posted. Imagine my surprise to see that umpteen trade threads had damn near bumped this one off the front page. So, just to keep it visible (and to make sure the Chris Roberson thread doesn't catch it in terms of posts), I've decided to ask a question.

I see that various people are somewhat less opposed to the whole LH idea than they used to be. Nobody is "clamoring" for LH, but some folks are maybe a little more open-minded about LH than they used to be. The obvious reason for being dubious about LH is that, while the little stat exercises may give you pause, you don't really trust them. One big reason is that the D-value is based on the small ML-only data. Other reasons might be that you don't think the specific D-stats used measure the right thing, etc. So, for whatever combination of reasons, you're opposed to LH because you think the stat exercises will prove to have overstated LH's value as a SS. You figure that there's a smaller likelihood that LH would actually deliver on being as good or better than the other guys. You think there's a greater likelihood that the projections are not just wrong, but are wrong-enough that LH's actual play will fall so-short that he would prove to be of lesser value than the other guys. It only makes sense to have doubts about this. While we don't know how each guy will play in 2008, we can be pretty sure that the stat-exercise projections will be wrong somehow. Just for grins, we could all guess about how each of these guys (LH, Cedeno, Hu, Ryan, and Aybar) will actually do. How many O-runs and how many D-runs? Then, we can look back later and see how wrong we all are ;-)

In the meantime, I have a hypothetical question: If we *pretend* that the stat-exercise projections are valid and trustworthy (I'm not saying there are, I'm just saying let's *pretend* they are), then would you say that LH is the preferred choice over the other guys? Or would you still not like him because you don't like the way he's earning his runs?