Offense Observations After Boston Series

[larrytt]

This brings about quite a perplexing event. Since we aren't allowed to look at stats...

If Luke Scott drives in a run, and Oldfan isn't there to see it with his own eyes, does a run actually score?

Dang, I can't believe I didn't think of this first . . . same question goes for Markakis.

-Larrytt

[BRobinsonfan]

AVE: Scott .254 Payton .243 ADVANTAGE: Scott by 12

OBP: Scott .334 Payton .283 ADVANTAGE: Scott by 51

SLG: Scott .474 Payton .370 ADVANTAGE: Scott by 104

OPS: Scott .809 Payton .653 ADVANTAGE: Scott by 156

I'd say the difference is huge. Perhaps it is your not looking up stats, and instead judging players by recent recollections, explains your bias against Markakis, the team's leader in OPS. (Although it's hard to explain this bias, considering Markakis not only leads the team in OPS, but has a 1.101 for July so far! He's hot, and you want to move him down the batting order.)

-Larrytt

[Heavy Sigh] Yes Larry.... it would appear from those "stats" that Scott is indeed a much better hitter by far... but those "stats" (if you wan't to call them that) don't tell us anything about the situation in the game when Scott got those "hits," or what position in the line-up he was hitting in or the cocky angle at which he wore his batting helmet... I mean... when you compare all the "productive outs" Payton has made versus the unproductive hits that Scott keeps putting up... it isn't really close. If you had been watching baseball for the last 40 years you wouldn't make that mistake and you would know that Mr. Scott couldn't carry Jay Payton's jock strap.

[i kid, I kid]

[Sports Guy]

I didn't look up the stats but the difference I don't believe is huge. Scott is about as streaky a hitter as I have ever seen. I don't think anyone here knew that though before this season. If they did, nobody posted it.

But what does it matter what he did in the past? I mean, if past numbers mean nothing, who cares if he was streaky before?

So, what good would it have done to talk about it if the idea of the stat means nothing?

[BRobinsonfan]

But what does it matter what he did in the past? I mean, if past numbers mean nothing, who cares if he was streaky before?

So, what good would it have done to talk about it if the idea of the stat means nothing?

Good question SG... but I hope you don't turn blue holding your breath for an answer.

[El Gordo]

What part of "don't squeeze the tar baby", don't you folks understand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby

[J.D.]

What part of "don't squeeze the tar baby", don't you folks understand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby

Until I read that article... all of it.

But now I know, and knowing is half the battle.

[BaltimoreTerp]

What part of "don't squeeze the tar baby", don't you folks understand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby

If we start doing that classic SNL Chase/Pryor sketch in here, would it finally get this godawful embarrassment of a "thread" closed and banished to the eleventh circle of Hell where it belongs?

(Without getting us banned? :laughlol:)

[Old#5fan]

Streaky player is such a cop out. Most players are streaky. And if they aren't, you don't even realize it because they're simply steady but not "lighting the world on fire."

I totally disagree with this. My definition of streaky is going from player of the week - hot to so bad your manager starts sitting you for Jay Payton. Now that's streaky. I don't think that covers "most" players, just because you post it here with nothing at all to substantiate because it simply is untrue.

[Old#5fan]

But what does it matter what he did in the past? I mean, if past numbers mean nothing, who cares if he was streaky before?

So, what good would it have done to talk about it if the idea of the stat means nothing?

Hey, I agree with you in that it does no good, but it seems to me the stats gurus usually talk about how the past will indicate the future, but I don't recall anyone claiming how streaky Scott would be. Nobody at all.

[Old#5fan]

[Heavy Sigh] Yes Larry.... it would appear from those "stats" that Scott is indeed a much better hitter by far... but those "stats" (if you wan't to call them that) don't tell us anything about the situation in the game when Scott got those "hits," or what position in the line-up he was hitting in or the cocky angle at which he wore his batting helmet... I mean... when you compare all the "productive outs" Payton has made versus the unproductive hits that Scott keeps putting up... it isn't really close. If you had been watching baseball for the last 40 years you wouldn't make that mistake and you would know that Mr. Scott couldn't carry Jay Payton's jock strap.

[i kid, I kid]

Depends on whether Scott is in his "hot" streak or "cold" streak as to whether he's better than Payton.

[Sports Guy]

Hey, I agree with you in that it does no good, but it seems to me the stats gurus usually talk about how the past will indicate the future, but I don't recall anyone claiming how streaky Scott would be. Nobody at all.

Well, we talked about his power that you were completely wrong about and you still ignored it...Perhaps people are just tired of saying things to you as you tell us the sky is red.

[larrytt]

Hey, I agree with you in that it does no good, but it seems to me the stats gurus usually talk about how the past will indicate the future, but I don't recall anyone claiming how streaky Scott would be. Nobody at all.

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1305076&postcount=11

"Scott has always had a rep for being a very streaky hitter."

That was on May 1, 2.5 months ago.

Streaky players go through periods where they hurt the team, but they also go through periods where they can carry the team. It averages out. A streaky hitter and a consistent hitter with the same overall stats are of roughly equal value to the team.

-Larrytt

[larrytt]

Depends on whether Scott is in his "hot" streak or "cold" streak as to whether he's better than Payton.

At the risk of not learning the "tar baby" lesson (and because these stats might be of interest to readers anyway), here are some OPS stats:

APRIL

Scott .795 Payton .625 WINNER: Scott by 170

MAY

Scott .782 Payton .681 WINNER: Scott by 101

JUNE

Scott 1.093 Payton .784 WINNER: Scott by 309

FIRST HALF OF JULY

Scott .279 Payton .375 WINNER: Payton by 96

July barely counts, with only 37 and 24 AB, respectively (both sat out a lot of games), but I'm sure if you want Payton's .375 over .279, you're welcome to it. I think most baseball people would bet on Scott coming out ahead of Payton by the end of July, but we'll see. (Overall, Scott is up .809 to .653; let's face it, this isn't a fair fight!!!)

It seems to me that, except for the very recent slump by Scott, there haven't been too many times you'd want Payton over Scott, based on who's hot or cold. Which of these months would you put Payton in over Scott? Except for July, he's actually been pretty consistent week to week except for when he exploded in June. Historically, he's a career .860 OPS player, although he only started playing regularly last year.

If you paid attention to stats (which, unfortunately, you don't), you'd notice that the time to consider playing Payton over Scott is not when Scott slumps (except for his recent extreme slump); it's against lefties. They have limited AB's against them, so the stats don't mean as much, but in 64 AB, Payton has a .851 OPS, while Scott has a .676 OPS. The problem with sitting Scott out against lefties is that there's a good chance he's going to be in LF or DH for the next few years, so you want him getting practice against them. (For perspective, however, Scott had an .850 OPS against lefties last year, with his overall .855 OPS.)

Against righties this year, Scott has an OPS of .843, to Payton's .544. Ouch!

-Larrytt

[Dr. FLK]

The sky is red.

Well, we talked about his power that you were completely wrong about and you still ignored it...Perhaps people are just tired of saying things to you as you tell us the sky is red.

Actually, you are the one whole told us the sky is red...

[TWpj]

GRady Sizemore has never done anything against him either. He sucks!

I never knew anyone that could be more completely wrong on so many sports related topics are you are but hey, its cool...its your thing...How you roll!

He's basically never been right about anything on any board, at any time. Why would he start now?