MLB - 2010 Spring Training!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm guessing one can make a similar statement for calling the Cubs dangerous in the NL Central a few weeks ago and now they are 4.5 games back.

[SlowwHand]

Let's just say the '69 Mets didn't win based on their offensive prowess . Though their Runs scored per game matches there OBP (ie, lousy) Though their SLG was even worse.

And yet they won. The only thing that matters in the end.

[Sava]

I'm guessing one can make a similar statement for calling the Cubs dangerous in the NL Central a few weeks ago and now they are 4.5 games back.

well, if you said that about the Cubs that makes you doubly retarded

[Imran Siddiqui]

So when the Cubs were tied for the division lead, calling them dangerous would be "retarded"?

WTF Sava?

[snoopy369]

I think calling the Cubs dangerous is always retarded. They're the Cubs, after all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They have once in a while made the playoffs .

[Sava]

you need to watch some Cubs games Imran
painful as they may be, you will learn some things

[Imran Siddiqui]

Only you (or Ben) would assert that someone tied for a division lead after the All Star Break isn't a team that's dangerous in that division.

[Arrian]

You can't walk in runs.

This brightened my day. If only someone had mentioned that while David Robertson was pitching out in Minnesota a month or so ago...

Anyway, I lika da Swisher. The Swisher is good. He gets on base, he has some pop (and it's not a YSIII thing either - 17 of his 20 HR on the road), and his defense is decent (certainly better than it looks). He's a goof, he's not graceful, and sometimes he takes strike three with the bases loaded in a key spot. But I'll happily take him as my #7 hitter.

The idea that you'd prefer someone to not walk in a certain situation strikes me as folly, for two reasons:

1) What Imran said about outs (except for the bit about there being 29 of them available)
2) A hitter who expands the strike zone is a hitter who is likely to do the pitcher a favor and get himself out. Funk that. A walk not only does not use up an out, it also may frustrate/rattle the pitcher, it makes the pitcher work harder (and perhaps make a bad mistake), or it may result in a call to the bullpen for a lesser pitcher.

I can understand the mentality, especially from a fan used to a team having #8/#9 "hitters" who are awful.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

Don't get me wrong:
1. I like Swish also. I did rank this as a Kenny Williams Mistake, after all. I just was arguing it's not a world-ending mistake.
2. I'm not saying walking is bad. I'm saying that you need some hitters who do things well other than walk. You need a power hitter to, well, hit for power. It's not that walking is usually bad - it's just that it's not so black and white as 'tendency to walk=good'. I'd rather have a guy hitting #4-#7 who gets 180 hits per year and 20 walks (let's say 550 PA), than a guy who gets 140 hits and 70 walks (in same 550 PA). Even if XBH are even - and they won't be - you will score more runs with the hits than the walks, even allowing for 10 more outs. Don't assume that 'more walks' translates to 'fewer outs' directly - some of the hits become walks as well.

[Arrian]

Just to keep the debate going, I'll ignore all the stuff I agree with and talk about this:

I'd rather have a guy hitting #4-#7 who gets 180 hits per year and 20 walks (let's say 550 PA), than a guy who gets 140 hits and 70 walks (in same 550 PA). Even if XBH are even - and they won't be - you will score more runs with the hits than the walks, even allowing for 10 more outs. Don't assume that 'more walks' translates to 'fewer outs' directly - some of the hits become walks as well.

Your "walks" guy hits .291 with a .381 OBP. Your "hits" guy hits .340 with an OBP of .363.

So your walks guy is... Bobby Abreu (he's not Swisher - he's better than Swisher, b/c Swish hits .250 maybe and his OBP will probably be .365-.370 or so)? Your hits guy is Robinson Cano in a good year, or maybe Ichiro in a bit of a down year.

Both types are valueable, clearly. But it seems to me that the hacker will not necessarily produce more XBHs. The "take and rake" guy very well may be that guy. Plus, a ~.20 point edge in OBP over 550PAs is pretty significant, so the high average hitter needs to have a clear edge, for me, in the XBH department.

There are problems that come with a guy who almost never takes walks. Have a look at Cano's stats with RISP. They're awful. Career with the bases loaded? He's hit about .220. Why? Because he does not command the strike zone. Good pitchers (hell, they don't even have to be very good) can get him to chase crap and hit a ****ty grounder to second. Maybe Ichiro's career reflects a superior approach with runners on, but then Ichiro is unique.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, we can't see every player who hits everything and doesn't take walks as Ichiro. He has a completely different approach to things. For one, he's an amazing "bad ball" hitter.

Players that don't walk usually have problems with their eye, meaning you can get them to chase crappy pitches. Players that walk a lot usually have an amazing control of the strike zone and usually talk a walk that hit a weak ground ball because they got their bat on a pitch out of the zone. If Swisher didn't take walks, he'd likely turn those pitches out of the zone into weak outs. Take a look at, say, Jeff Francouer, who can enjoy a little bit of success, but pitchers get wise to the fact that he has no control of the strike zone and throw him garbage pitches that he'll swing at.

[snoopy369]

I'm not exactly complaining about people taking walks. I'm talking about them not getting hits. Certainly Nick Swisher With Walks is superior to Nick Swisher Who Needs Glasses. Obviously my example was a bit silly - few good players will take 20 walks a season - but I'd rather have in my 4-7 spots a guy who hits .300+ and only walks an average amount, to a guy who hits .240 and walks well above average, even if the latter has a higher OBP. Even .280+ is probably preferable. If you're going to hit .250ish and take a lot of walks, the only way I want you in the middle of my lineup is if you hit for a lot of power (ie, Jim Thome). Swisher, or his slightly inferior buddy Jack Cust, both would need to hit for a bit more power to be useful middle-of-the-lineup guys.

In my book, 1-2 should get on base, 3 and 4 should have a high batting average and some power, 5-7 should be the lower OBP but still reasonably high average with some power, and 8-9 should be the lower BA guys, hopefully with a decent OBP but not 1-2 level OBP (assuming all 9 batters can't be Ichiro and Joe Mauer). So:
1: .380 OBP, .270 BA, .330 SLG
2: .370 OBP, .280 BA, .350 SLG
3: .350 OBP, .300 BA, .400 SLG
4: .340 OBP, .300 BA, .450 SLG
5: .320 OBP, .280 BA, .430 SLG
6: .320 OBP, .280 BA, .410 SLG
7: .320 OBP, .270 BA, .400 SLG
8: .320 OBP, .250 BA, .340 SLG
9: .350 OBP, .260 BA, .350 SLG

That would be a fine team to me, and I don't think unreasonable (though I didn't spend a lot of time making that list). Swisher, unfortunately, doesn't fit well into it except at the end - 8 or 9 - because his BA is too low for mid-order, and his OBP isn't quite high enough for leadoff. You could play him #2, but you'd rather see him hit the leadoff guy in more often, and he doesn't have that much speed, so the running game doesn't go anywhere with him on.

Really, Swisher is just in-between I think; he's half a leadoff hitter and half a RBI machine. If he hit for more power he'd be a fine cleanup hitter, and if he had more speed he'd be a fine leadoff hitter; but he doesn't do either, so he's sort of confined to the bottom of the order, which he's paid a bit too much for.

[Guynemer]

Tigers get Aubrey Huff in a trade. They do need bats, but...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Really, Swisher is just in-between I think; he's half a leadoff hitter and half a RBI machine. If he hit for more power he'd be a fine cleanup hitter, and if he had more speed he'd be a fine leadoff hitter; but he doesn't do either, so he's sort of confined to the bottom of the order, which he's paid a bit too much for.

Someone who is usually a 120 OPS+ hitter is NOT a 8-9 hitter, unless you are the Yankees. Yes, he doesn't fit into your preconceived notions (and, of course, sabermetrics exists to dispel preconceived, subjective notions which may not be correct) of what a middle order hitter should be, but he obviously was quite valuable in that role for the Oakland A's. And I definitely would not object to having him batting 2nd, 3rd or 6th on a fully healthy Mets lineup.