Roberts Must Go

[Rob H]

Plus you can use DeRosa as a supersub to spell other guys. DeRosa can still add a good amount of value that way.

Actually, PECOTA really likes Fontenot... to a .267 EqA. I was gonna factor in a few PAs going DeRosa's way instead of Fontenot, but then saw that it wouldn't account for much. So I just ballparked it. The 25 run estimate includes that.

[SevisonJN]

Roberts was a .285 EqA hitter last season. DeRosa was .268.

Roberts is projected for a .293 EqA next season. DeRosa is projected for a .270.

Assuming an equal amount of PA for each (let's call it 600... split the difference between Roberts likely getting 650 batting at the top of the order, and DeRosa getting 550 batting lower)...

If they both perform like last year, Roberts is worth about an extra 11.5 runs. If they both perform to their projections, Roberts is worth about 16.5 extra runs. That includes stolen bases, but it doesn't account for the rest of their baserunning or their defense.

All in all, Roberts is probably about a 25 run upgrade over DeRosa.

Those kinds of stats are hard to tell without knowing what the hitters behind Roberts/DeRosa are going to do. Either way, I do not give up Murton, Gallagher, Veal, and Cedeno for a 25-40 run upgrade. Roberts may be better than DeRosa defensively, but that is a steap price to pay for a position that you are pretty solid at already.

[allstar1579]

I actually think Murton is & deserves to be a everyday player. At 25 he hasn't hit his ceiling yet. He is a .300 hitter could very well be a 20-25 HR Guy, with 80+ rbi's.

Gallagher project as a #3 & may be as high as a #2. I think he is a more polished guy than most of the pile of 3-5 guy candidates we have.

He does deserve it, but that is the problem, he won't get the AB here. With AJ and Kakes in CF and RF, his only chance is to take AB away from Scott. Unless one of them gets traded, they are both a waste, and unless we find a way to deal Gibbons and Payton, they don't both make the roster.

Gallagher's projections are still rocky. He isn't as polished as Olson, or Penn, because they have a longer track record at AAA. Gallagher only has 40 IP above AA. He needs another year to show that it wasn't an adjustment period and people woudln't have rocked him the second time they saw him in AAA. Not saying he can't be good, but he needs to make sure he stays on top of the weight issue, keeps his arm slot stable, and logs some more innings in AAA. He's only what 21, 22?

[Roll Tide]

He does deserve it, but that is the problem, he won't get the AB here. With AJ and Kakes in CF and RF, his only chance is to take AB away from Scott. Unless one of them gets traded, they are both a waste, and unless we find a way to deal Gibbons and Payton, they don't both make the roster.

Gallagher's projections are still rocky. He isn't as polished as Olson, or Penn, because they have a longer track record at AAA. Gallagher only has 40 IP above AA. He needs another year to show that it wasn't an adjustment period and people woudln't have rocked him the second time they saw him in AAA. Not saying he can't be good, but he needs to make sure he stays on top of the weight issue, keeps his arm slot stable, and logs some more innings in AAA. He's only what 21, 22?

I wouldn't be surprised to see Payton go in one of the 2 deals. Murton should Platoon in LF/DH with Scott. Gibbons, & Payton should rot on the bench if they cant be dealt. You know late inning PH.

[allstar1579]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Payton go in one of the 2 deals. Murton should Platoon in LF/DH with Scott. Gibbons, & Payton should rot on the bench if they cant be dealt. You know late inning PH.

Couldn't agree more, except for the platoon. That hurts both of their value/development. IF we ended up with both, and I still really believe the O's say without Pie they don't do the deal because they don't want to trade him and are saying blow us away or he's not for sale, then one would need to be traded. Scott is most likely because of his age, but if he had a few good months he and Sherrill (if he is successful closing) would be great trade chips at the deadline. Hopefully along with Hernandez.

[allstar1579]

The leadoff hitters importance seems to lie in the first inning, only. After that there is a strong possibility that any hitter can leadoff an inning. The importance of Roberts if he were to bat first (which he should) is to be on base when Soriano steps to the plate. Brian also goes deep into counts which should aid in increasing the opposing pitchers pitch count. If were the Cubs I would go after Roberts also. I wouldn't give up Gallagher, Veal, Murton, and Cedeno, but I hope they do. Murton, Scott, Jones, and Markakis sounds like a top 5 outfield for the next 3-5 years. Gallagher and Veal would allow us to further stockpile high quality arms. I like the job AM has done thus far (assuming Bedard deal goes down soon), but it has been painfully slow.

That is not necessarily true. Any hitter CAN leadoff an inning, but it's not just about the leadoff, it's about having the guys immediately before your best run producers being the guys with the highest OBP. You want as many people on base when the high SLG% guys are batting.

The second leadoff idea is a way to attempt to extend innings or get the run producing started faster the 2nd time through the lineup. It's really a matter of how you use your #2 hitter. if your number two has some power to him, then the 2nd leadoff man can produce some good offense once you get through the order once.

[RShack]

At first glance, one would think so. Personally, I don't understand it myself, but a few million Monte Carlo simulations can't be wrong.

Sure they can. It happens all the time.

I'm not sure what you're citing them as evidence of, but many simulation techniques imply at least a couple basic assumptions that IMO are highly dubious when it comes to baseball: (1) that any-and-all attributes of the problem-space which aren't reflected in baseball stats are either nonexistent or have no value, and (2) that serial events in a ballgame (and a season) are discrete events that are unrelated to each other. In lieu of knowledge about such things, simulations techniques typically rely on simply inserting randomness.

Personally, I think that's a silly thing to do. However, evidently there is some difference of opinion about this. If you believe that stats capture everything that matters, and if you believe that baseball events are truly discrete events, then you might trust the simulations. On the other hand, if you believe stats don't capture everything that matters, and/or if you think that serial baseball-events are (or can be) somehow related and intertwined, then you prolly should be very suspicious of them.

[RShack]

The leadoff hitters importance seems to lie in the first inning, only. After that there is a strong possibility that any hitter can leadoff an inning.

That's true from the 3rd inning on. The #1 hitter is certain to leadoff the first, and the #5 hitter is most likely to leadoff the 2nd. After the 2nd inning, it's pretty much random.

[SevisonJN]

That is not necessarily true. Any hitter CAN leadoff an inning, but it's not just about the leadoff, it's about having the guys immediately before your best run producers being the guys with the highest OBP. You want as many people on base when the high SLG% guys are batting.

The second leadoff idea is a way to attempt to extend innings or get the run producing started faster the 2nd time through the lineup. It's really a matter of how you use your #2 hitter. if your number two has some power to him, then the 2nd leadoff man can produce some good offense once you get through the order once.

Right, so batting Roberts behind Soriano makes little sense. Soriano SLG% last year was .560 and his OBP was .337. Roberts SLG% was .432 and his OBP was .377. The basis for your arguement is my point. Derreck Lee would bat third .513/.400 and A. Ramirez fourth .549/.366. The Cubs have the 15, 18, and 28th best hitters (based on SLG%), Roberts was 105th/160. In OBP however, Lee is 16th, 61st (Ramirez), and 113 (Soriano) best hitters (based on OBP). Roberts would be 42nd in the same category. The only arguement I see for Soriano batting 1st, is centered on him wanting to. Where the Cubs bat him and where he should bat are two differant things.

[McNulty]

The leadoff hitter is overrated anyways. Youkilis leadoff for the sox most of last year just because he is the "Greek God of walk". No one would ever confuse him with a speedster and look where they got.

[SevisonJN]

The leadoff hitter is overrated anyways. Youkilis leadoff for the sox most of last year just because he is the "Greek God of walk". No one would ever confuse him with a speedster and look where they got.

That is true.

[Baltimoron]

The leadoff hitter is overrated anyways. Youkilis leadoff for the sox most of last year just because he is the "Greek God of walk". No one would ever confuse him with a speedster and look where they got.

speed is commonly overrated as a desired attribute of leadoff hitters, but being good at the plate is not.

[Baltimoron]

Sure they can. It happens all the time.

I'm not sure what you're citing them as evidence of, but many simulation techniques imply at least a couple basic assumptions that IMO are highly dubious when it comes to baseball: (1) that any-and-all attributes of the problem-space which aren't reflected in baseball stats are either nonexistent or have no value, and (2) that serial events in a ballgame (and a season) are discrete events that are unrelated to each other. In lieu of knowledge about such things, simulations techniques typically rely on simply inserting randomness.

Personally, I think that's a silly thing to do. However, evidently there is some difference of opinion about this. If you believe that stats capture everything that matters, and if you believe that baseball events are truly discrete events, then you might trust the simulations. On the other hand, if you believe stats don't capture everything that matters, and/or if you think that serial baseball-events are (or can be) somehow related and intertwined, then you prolly should be very suspicious of them.

WRT to game events, #2 matters, but maybe not too much, depending on what you are seeking to simulate and how complex your model is. Season events is kinda weird language, what do you mean?

Basically, Markov assumes that events are independent of each other.

We know this isn’t true as a walk is rarer with the bases loaded and no outs than with 2 outs, man on 3rd. Or that LHers get more pull GB singles with a runner on first.

And how a base event came to be matters. A guy on second who walked and stole second presents a greater chance of scoring than a a big slugger who singled and lumbered to second on a passed ball.

Here is Tom Tango's take on this issue from his archives:

Basically, what Markov says is that "how you enter a state is independent as to how you leave a state".

So, if you can picture the different ways that you enter the "2nd and 1 out" state:

- start state: 1 out, event: double, end state: 2nd and 1 out

- state state: 1 out, man on 2b, event: single, end state: 2nd and 1 out (runner scores, and batter takes 2b on a single... something that is unlikely with a walk, I agree)

- state state: 0 outs, man on 1b, event: succ bunt, end state: 2nd and 1 out

etc, etc, etc.

So, GIVEN that you've got a man on 2b and 1 out, what happens to that runner, according to Markov chains, is independent as to how he got there.

Now, is this true?

What's cool is that you can compare the expectation from a Markov chain to empirical analysis, and you'll get results that are close enough that you can make that claim.

The same applies for getting on 1b and 0 outs. If you get there on a walk, you know that the pitcher is slightly worse than the pitcher that made you get on base with a single. Maybe if you got a walk, you are more likely to come from the top of the order, and so you have better hitters behind you. Maybe a single happens with fast players more, etc, etc, etc. There are alot of "hidden information" contained in how you get there. But, empirical analysis shows that the rate at which you score from a walk or single with 1b and 0 outs is virtually the same (.399 to .397).

Now, when I produce the Linear Weights results for each event, I base this on the empirical data for 1999 to 2002. That is, I look at exactly how many runs scored from that event/base/out to the end of the inning. (See above homepage link. The overall values are in the last line.)

If I set up my Markov chains, I'll get overall numbers that match pretty closely to that last line.

And, as a third step, I can also reproduce the numbers in the last line by assuming things like "single/walk = same chance of scoring". So, again, whatever differences might exist is insignificant.

link

[RShack]

The leadoff hitter is overrated anyways. Youkilis leadoff for the sox most of last year just because he is the "Greek God of walk". No one would ever confuse him with a speedster and look where they got.

Bill James once wrote something saying that the speedster is wasted in the leadoff spot. He said the speedster should be 5th or 6th, because on-base speed matters most when the next guy hits a single, and guys at the bottom of the order are more likely to hit a single than the big-bat guys are.

[Baltimoron]

Bill James once wrote something saying that the speedster is wasted in the leadoff spot. He said the speedster should be 5th or 6th, because on-base speed matters most when the next guy hits a single, and guys at the bottom of the order are more likely to hit a single than the big-bat guys are.

This is pure gold. Get that nittiness out of you and keep kicking the good knowledge.