Placido Polanco is pretty good. Delivering a Polanco-type season is nothing to be ashamed about.

a 102 ops+ for a second baseman is considered to be 'not good'???

I admit I didn't read the article, but just this excerpt is exactly why stat guys aren't taken seriously by many msm. here is how I read it "if you are a common person, you may think superficially Ramirez had a good season, but because I'm smarter than you I look deeper and realize that he didn't have as good of a season as traditional stats may indicate" ---of course the part that I also read which he didn't stat in this portion, is that "he's a first year stat guy who has just found out about ops+ and wants to pretend to know more and hasn't bothered to recognize the significance of postional difference, and of course being an early stat guy he somewhat discounts defense".


to bag on Polanco as not good is silly to so many degrees that it's just funny.

I did like Baer as Jethro. And his dad was a helluva boxer.

The one bright spot was his .185 isolated power, but even that might be gaudy.. His fly balls went for home runs about 14% of the time, a bit higher than the normal 10%.

The "normal" 10%? Since when was league average for all hitters considered as "normal" for a particular hitter? Since when was homeruns / flyballs seen as not a skill, but random variation?

Don’t forget that he’s not a young’un — he’s 27. He’s only got a couple seasons left to improve before he’s too old for teams to put up with his bad habits.

From Cots, Alexei Ramirez inf 4 years/$4.75M (2008-11). Many teams would put up with his "bad habits", with an around average 2b / SS, for that salary.

to bag on Polanco as not good is silly to so many degrees that it's just funny.

Yeah. I read that as "Using nedry stats, Polanco looks good, but those of us who actually watch ballgames and use real stats know he's not good." Then I looked up Polanco and saw he hit .307.

his OPS+ only comes to 103.

"Only", as if 2B do 103 all the time, and as if he hadn't got out of Cuba just last fall and come straight to the majors.

Didn't Ramirez significantly exceed expectations? So even if 103 OPS+ wasn't good (which, of course, it is for a 2B), he also turned what looked like a horrible hole in the lineup for the White Sox into a net positive and was a big reason why they won the AL Central. That seems worthy of at least a sixth-place vote for ROY.

Didn't Ramirez significantly exceed expectations? So even if 103 OPS+ wasn't good (which, of course, it is for a 2B), he also turned what looked like a horrible hole in the lineup for the White Sox into a net positive and was a big reason why they won the AL Central. That seems worthy of at least a sixth-place vote for ROY.

Yeah, he had a great, unexpected year. Still, I don't think it's crazy to wonder if a guy who walked unintentionally 18 times all year can repeat it. He may be able to and I actually hope he does, but he'll have to make adjustments. I call this my Jeff Francoeur worry stone.

From Cots, Alexei Ramirez inf 4 years/$4.75M (2008-11). Many teams would put up with his "bad habits", with an around average 2b / SS, for that salary.

Exactly, I wasn't sure how Ramirez would do in the MLB but his contract is dirt cheap. For instance, Aaron Rowand earns twice as much in 1-year what Ramirez will get over the next 4. If Ramirez can play a average defensive CF, he's even more of a value.

The "normal" 10%? Since when was league average for all hitters considered as "normal" for a particular hitter? Since when was homeruns / flyballs seen as not a skill, but random variation?

According to http://hittrackeronline.com/, 6 of his homers had just enough distance. At 28%, that's about in line with the same percentage as a typical hitter.

Hit Tracker killed this conversation.

Placido Polanco is pretty good. Delivering a Polanco-type season is nothing to be ashamed about.

I wasn't insulting Polanco, especially since I'm a Phillies fan. I was calling for him to play third base instead of David Bell. Ramirez has been likened to Chase Utley, or more generally as one of the game's elite players. Polanco isn't an elite player, which is why I compared Ramirez to him.

a 102 ops+ for a second baseman is considered to be 'not good'?

It's not great; my point in writing the article was to put to rest any idea that he's a great player. He's good, definitely a couple wins above replacement.

here is how I read it "if you are a common person, you may think superficially Ramirez had a good season, but because I'm smarter than you I look deeper and realize that he didn't have as good of a season as traditional stats may indicate"

That was me being snarky. I'm snarky about 50% of the time when I write.

Since when was league average for all hitters considered as "normal" for a particular hitter?

This is a good point. To make a rough estimate as to the validity of this statement, I put in players' 2007 and 2008 HR/FB in Excel and came up with a .801625 correlation, which is very high. So I was wrong for bringing this up.

Many teams would put up with his "bad habits", with an around average 2b / SS, for that salary.

I wasn't talking about his contract. A cheap contract can justify having almost anyone on your team.

"Only", as if 2B do 103 all the time, and as if he hadn't got out of Cuba just last fall and come straight to the majors.

"Only" is in retort to the claims that he's an elite player. You can list all the excuses for him that you want, it doesn't make him an elite player. He could be great if he improves his plate discipline and defense, but I'm talking about claims being made about right now.

Still, I don't think it's crazy to wonder if a guy who walked unintentionally 18 times all year can repeat it. He may be able to and I actually hope he does, but he'll have to make adjustments.

This is my concern as well.

Crash,

Who has called him an elite player or one comparable to Utley? It seems you're trying to dispel some widely held belief that, to my eyes, isn't even a narrowly held beilef.

my point in writing the article was to put to rest any idea that he's a great player.

You can list all the excuses for him that you want, it doesn't make him an elite player.

Are there a bunch of people running around claiming Alexei is great or elite? I'm a White Sox fan, and I've heard other White Sox fans describe him as exciting and surprisingly good. But I've never heard him described in the terms you use. So isn't this entire column a response to a straw man?

Who has called him an elite player or one comparable to Utley?

I have to leave in a few minutes, so I'll just motion towards Google for now. I can't cite anything for you specifically off of the top of my head.

The Rookie of the Year debates and results are really what piqued my interest here, because after Longoria, almost everyone had Ramirez as #2 and I'm not just talking about the BBWAA.

So isn't this entire column a response to a straw man?

If what I'm claiming people are saying isn't true. I wouldn't have bothered to write it if I didn't feel like it was interesting enough.

my point in writing the article was to put to rest any idea that he's a great player.

Two problems:
1) Does anyone think Ramirez is a "great player" - didn't RTFA, but are there actual examples of people thinking this? Otherwise, it's just a straw man.
2) Sorry, but Baseball Digest Daily isn't "putting to rest" any ideas.

Edit- Have now read TFA and it's better than the blurb would indicate. Still, it seems the point you want to make is simply that Aviles was a better player than Ramirez, a comparison I would have like to see.

Still, it seems the point you want to make is simply that Aviles was a better player than Ramirez, a comparison I would have like to see.

Well, that's an ancillary point of mine and perhaps best left to a future article, but I actually had Aviles ahead of Longoria for the RoY.

I have to go for now but thanks for the criticism (no snark).

More halfassed analysis.

Ramirez is an above average middle-of-the-field player. No, he's not going to walk 70 times a year, but if he can deliver a .330 OBP and hit a few more homers than the typical SS/2B, what's not to like? I'd take Chase Utley over him, but how often do players like Utley come around? But Ramirez's production is similar to Brian Roberts' rookie production.

And let's not forget that Ramirez was God-awful in April when he was obviously shocked by the cold weather. He's going to have to make some adjustments to keep his production steady or increasing, but one season's worth of stats is only going to elicit so much.

"Since when was homeruns / flyballs seen as not a skill, but random variation?"

It's the case for pitchers, but not (to the best of my knowledge) for hitters.

Pujols had a home run to flyball rate of 22% this year. He's due for a pretty epic collapse.

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 14, 2008 at 01:11 PM (#3009245)
"Since when was homeruns / flyballs seen as not a skill, but random variation?"

It's the case for pitchers, but not (to the best of my knowledge) for hitters.

Yeah, that was my point. Should have added hitters in there to be more precise. If it was just random variation, with 10% as "normal" we should be seeing the likes of Cust (31% in 2008, 33.7% in 2007), Howard (29.2% in 2008, 28.4% in 2007), "regressing", and hitting fewer home runs, while the likes of Ichiro (4.4% in 2008, 4.3% in 2007) would be hit more.

More halfassed analysis.

I take offense to this. It may not be Tangotiger-caliber analysis, but it wasn't half-assed. I spent a lot of time and effort in researching and writing this. I'm sorry I didn't live up 100% to Sabermetric standards, and I'm sorry you didn't agree with it, but it certainly was not half-assed.

Call my article, or just my conclusion, whatever you want -- stupid, unjustifiable, etc. -- but don't question my work ethic.

Capice? :)

More halfassed analysis.



I take offense to this. It may not be Tangotiger-caliber analysis, but it wasn't half-assed. I spent a lot of time and effort in researching and writing this. I'm sorry I didn't live up 100% to Sabermetric standards, and I'm sorry you didn't agree with it, but it certainly was not half-assed.

I'm sorry, but it is, and it has nothing to do with your work ethic. It's "analysis" like this:

That means that if he had hit 5 less singles, 2 less doubles, and 2 less home runs, he would have been a league-average second baseman offensively. 17 total bases separated him from literal mediocrity.


Granted, we can’t just take those hits away from him and say he’s bad — he did get those hits honestly. But the point is simply to show how very close he is to average, not superstardom as some would have you believe.

that's half assed. That's as bad as removing Roy Halliday's 6 worst starts and using that to claim he should be the CYA winner.

What if he had hit 5 more singles, 2 more doubles, and 2 more HR? He'd have a batting line of .306/.335/.510 and an OPS+ of 116. Using your logic, one could say that he's a mere 17 TB away from being a better player than the imminent NL MVP.

As for the other analysis, what is the correlation between the stats you quote and potential future growth among rookies? Is there any? I didn't see it, just a bunch of numbers that showed he was either above or below average. Do rookies who get a higher % of flyballs turned into HR tend to do better or worse as they age? What does the fact that he's 4% points above average tell us? Do rookies who see few pitches per PA tend to not develop? What's the point of comparing a rookie's numbers in that area to a second year player's, and what does it mean that the second year player had a much poorer hitting season despite seeing much more pitches per PA? How does batting order position affect that stat (Iwamura was a leadoff hitter, Ramirez mostly 7, 8, 9)?

If you can't answer those questions, then what was the point of printing the stats?

Hit Tracker killed this conversation.

Sure, blame the link and not the linker.

Using your logic, one could say that he's a mere 17 TB away from being a better player than the imminent NL MVP.

I'm pretty sure Ramirez would need a bit more than that to reach Pujols.

Sure, blame the link and not the linker.

Shouldn't you be out somewhere firing someone now?

I'm pretty sure Ramirez would need a bit more than that to reach Pujols.

I said imminent, not deserving. It would be unprecedented for someone who led the league in RBI by such a huge margin and played for a first place team to not win the MVP.

I said imminent, not deserving. It would be unprecedented for someone who led the league in RBI by such a huge margin and played for a first place team to not win the MVP.

Well, Manny led all other players by 17 RBI in 1999 (with a more impressive 165) for the first-place Indians and finished third in MVP voting, so I don't see how Howard's 22-RBI victory is all that much different.

It doesn't really matter anyway. I'll be stunned if Pujols doesn't win, and rather comfortably I think.

If what I'm claiming people are saying isn't true. I wouldn't have bothered to write it if I didn't feel like it was interesting enough.

I wonder if you're somehow misconstruing people's excitement over him as a rock-solid valuation of him.

Alexei's not a great player, but he's a helluva lot of fun to watch.

The Rookie of the Year debates and results are really what piqued my interest here, because after Longoria, almost everyone had Ramirez as #2 and I'm not just talking about the BBWAA.

Rookie of the Year is not the MVP. For someone to say that a second base rookie who had a 103 OPS+ is "not deserving of even a sixth-place vote for the American League Rookie of the Year" is totally out in left field.

Well, Manny led all other players by 17 RBI in 1999 (with a more impressive 165) for the first-place Indians and finished third in MVP voting, so I don't see how Howard's 22-RBI victory is all that much different.

It doesn't really matter anyway. I'll be stunned if Pujols doesn't win, and rather comfortably I think.

Whoops, forgot about Manny. OK, almost unprecedented.

Still, Manny had a few things going against him that Howard doesn't. One, he has no Alomar to split the vote. Yes, Utley is a legit MVP candidate, but the writers haven't figured that out yet. Maybe they will this year. Two, the 2 guys ahead of him were having historically great years. Aside from the hitting, didn't Pudge steal more bases that year than he allowed? That's gotta be worth a few MVP points. And they both came from playoff bound teams. Even with all that, Manny nearly won.

Pujols had the same season he always does, and for a 4th place team. Not to belittle his accomplishments or anything, but that's not enough, IMO, to overcome the RBI title/first place team mojo.

Anyway, it's all Kremlinology.

Pujols had a home run to flyball rate of 22% this year. He's due for a pretty epic collapse.

Not only is this not true (it was 20.7%), but:

Year HR/FB
2002 18.5%
2003 22.5%
2004 20.3%
2005 20.3%
2006 22.5%
2007 15.8%
2008 20.7%

2008 is not the outlier here, 2007 is.

Unless I'm missing some obvious sarcasm in which case I apologize.

Still, Manny had a few things going against him that Howard doesn't. One, he has no Alomar to split the vote. Yes, Utley is a legit MVP candidate, but the writers haven't figured that out yet. Maybe they will this year. Two, the 2 guys ahead of him were having historically great years. Aside from the hitting, didn't Pudge steal more bases that year than he allowed? That's gotta be worth a few MVP points. And they both came from playoff bound teams. Even with all that, Manny nearly won.

Here's how I see it. Pujols has one thing going for him that isn't always the case - he's clearly the best player in the league. He's the best hitter by a pretty wide margin (a partial season of Chipper notwithstanding), and even if the managers don't recognize his Gold Glove, he's widely regarded as an excellent fielder. So any voter who views the MVP as synomymous with best player will put Albert at the top of their ballot. And the guys closest to him in value are also not from playoff teams, so there's not a lot of lost votes there. Just as important, those best-player voters will have Howard seriously down at the bottom of the ballot, and might be left off a few altogether.

Second, the narrative voters, if you want to call them that, have several guys to choose from: Howard, Manny, C.C., probably a few others. But even the narrative voters will grudgingly give Pujols a vote at worst in the middle of the pack (and Manny and C.C. will likely suffer some non-ballot appearances due to their time in the AL/and in C.C.'s case, being a starting pitcher).

Finally, Howard may lose some of the Philly vote not just to Utley, but also to Lidge.

I don't think the voters mesmerized by big RBI totals will be nearly enough to overcome these advantages, and Albert will win pretty handily.

I'm sorry, but it is, and it has nothing to do with your work ethic. It's "analysis" like this

I don't see how that's a mistake on my part. I noted that it wasn't a great methodology; it was just a "food for thought" kind of thing.

that's half assed. That's as bad as removing Roy Halliday's 6 worst starts and using that to claim he should be the CYA winner.

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that "because Ramirez is only 17 total bases from average, he should be out of RoY conversations." You're reading way too much into that one small part of my article.

As for the other analysis, what is the correlation between the stats you quote and potential future growth among rookies?

According to my Excel math, there is a .475 (moderate) correlation between walk rate and WPA. That generally means that the more you walk, the better you'll be. Ramirez doesn't walk.

I don't know about just rookies. I don't have an efficient method of siphoning out non-rookies.

Do rookies who get a higher % of flyballs turned into HR tend to do better or worse as they age?

That wasn't a point I made.

Do rookies who see few pitches per PA tend to not develop?

This is a good one to research.

What's the point of comparing a rookie's numbers in that area to a second year player's, and what does it mean that the second year player had a much poorer hitting season despite seeing much more pitches per PA? How does batting order position affect that stat (Iwamura was a leadoff hitter, Ramirez mostly 7, 8, 9)?

I didn't compare Ramirez to Iwamura specifically, Iwamura just happened to lead in PPA.

If you can't answer those questions, then what was the point of printing the stats?

For the most part, you're not asking questions relevant to my article, since you're putting words in my mouth. I can clarify anything I said for you if you're not sure.

Rookie of the Year is not the MVP.

I've long considered it the MVP among rookies. How else can you hand it out? Any other way would rely on non-objective methods (i.e. "Defied expectations" or "Was the most exciting").

For someone to say that a second base rookie who had a 103 OPS+ is "not deserving of even a sixth-place vote for the American League Rookie of the Year" is totally out in left field.

That was my snark. As I said, my ballot went Aviles-Longoria-Galarraga. I think Ramirez might fit in fourth or fifth. ;-)

I have to leave in a few minutes, so I'll just motion towards Google for now.

OK, Crash, so I googled "Alexei Ramirez great," "Alexei Ramirez elite" and "Alexei Ramirez Utley" and found nothing that would suggest those sentiments are out there. Now you probably heard it somewhere from somebody, so I won't call it a strawman. But I also won't elevate it anywhere past twigman.

I'm snarky about 50% of the time when I write.

Why is your writing worth reading then? I don't mean that snarkily, seriously. Why bother reading an ARTICLE (not a mere comment) that is "50%" snark. That is, almost by definition, bad writing.. and certainly the not insightful analysis you claim to give.

Unless I'm missing some obvious sarcasm in which case I apologize.

Methinks you fell into the Grand Canyon of Sarchasm.

OK, Crash, so I googled "Alexei Ramirez great," "Alexei Ramirez elite" and "Alexei Ramirez Utley" and found nothing that would suggest those sentiments are out there. Now you probably heard it somewhere from somebody, so I won't call it a strawman. But I also won't elevate it anywhere past twigman.

Well, now I know I can always count on BBTF to question my integrity. How polite!

Why bother reading an ARTICLE (not a mere comment) that is "50%" snark.

A) I was being facetious.

B) My job as a writer is to inform, entertain, and/or persuade. Sarcasm absolutely has its place, even in the world of baseball analysis. As I said before, I'm sorry if you don't like it but there's nothing I can do to change that and even if there was, I'm not going to change my writing style.

That is, almost by definition, bad writing.. and certainly the not insightful analysis you claim to give.

I have never claimed to give "insightful analysis." I do my best, but I leave the adjectives and adverbs up to you guys.

Well, now I know I can always count on BBTF to question my integrity. How polite!

Well, I've never heard or read anything favorably comparing Ramirez to Utley. If you've seen it, I think it behooves you to link it if you don't want to be accused of setting up a strawman.

What praise that Ramirez has gotten is directly proportionate to the expectations of him going in (very low; most people thought the Sox were nuts to carry him on the 25-man roster at all) and the way he bounced back from an utterly awful start to his season.

I do agree that there are some troubling signs about his future. I look at him, and I see Angel Berroa.

Well, now I know I can always count on BBTF to question my integrity. How polite!

WTF? I guess this means you're threatened that there is no evidence of your claim so you're instead going to shift the discussion to what a jackass SOSH is for taking the time to look for it himself.

Poor show.

Well, now I know I can always count on BBTF to question my integrity. How polite!

Hell, you directed me to Google it. I'm not questioning your integrity. I said you probably heard it somewhere, hence the column. I'm only saying that the idea that Alexei Ramirez is a great player or comparable to Utley is simply not widely, or even narrowly, held. And I live just outside Chicago, where such foolishness would be mostly likely to take root.

If you've seen it, I think it behooves you to link it if you don't want to be accused of setting up a strawman.

All things considered, I should have kept the URL's of the articles I read but I didn't think it'd be important. Now I know. I'm always learning when I write.

Well, now I know I can always count on BBTF to question my integrity. How polite!

WTF? I guess this means you're threatened that there is no evidence of your claim so you're instead going to shift the discussion to what a jackass SOSH is for taking the time to look for it himself.

The juxtaposition of your quote and my quote is hilarious.

I don't think anyone here is "a jackass" for critiquing my writing (it's what helps me improve); I just don't think anyone here is qualified to question my integrity (besides maybe Brattain) or otherwise make personal arguments.

Hell, you directed me to Google it.

Yeah, that was a bad suggestion because I can't even find anything on it.

The juxtaposition of your quote and my quote is hilarious.

Your quote is complete shameful BS. Yours and mine are not comparable or juxtaposable in any way.

Your quote is complete shameful BS.

And questioning the honesty and work ethic of someone you have never met nor ever even held a conversation with before is not shameful?

Of course, what else should I expect someone who runs a blog with the headline "This Is Where I Ridicule Persons, Places, or Things."

Now I know what your motivation is. You win, congratulations.

Criticizing your argument (by calling it a strawman) is not the same as criticizing your integrity.

No, I realize this. That is fine. It's those who have jumped from "This isn't a widely-held belief" to "He made it up." And also those who have accused me of "half-assing" it.

And your work ethic was explicitly not called into question.

See above. "Half-assed" refers to effort.

Criticizing your argument (by calling it a strawman) is not the same as criticizing your integrity. People of unimpeachable integrity commit logical fallacies all the time.

This.

Of course, what else should I expect someone who runs a blog with the headline "This Is Where I Ridicule Persons, Places, or Things."

Now I know what your motivation is. You win, congratulations.

A guy so proud of his snark shouldn't throw that stone.

To put this silly argument to rest, I admit that you guys are right: if I'm going to say that a belief is widely-held, I should come ready with examples. However, it gives none of you (besides Brattain, who has taken the plunge into conversing with me on a more frequent basis) the right to question my character or my work ethic. In the future, if you wish to criticize my articles (and please do, I'd hate to realize years from now that I've been making the same mistakes over and over), keep it civil and keep it objective.

Thanks.

Go Phillies!