Olerud363

Not a bad comparison. I would say Bruce looks slightly better as of today, then Carter after 1990. So I wouldn't mind taking a risk on him for 2 or 3 years. In fact if he performs as well as Carter did, 91-94 I think people would take it... as long as the cost was reasonable. The problem with Carter was that he was the 8th or 9th best player on the World Series teams and they thought he was a key guy, then kept him as he became on of the worst in baseball.

Well that is kind of rude. A lot of things are obvious but aren't true. a) 2016=(2*2015+2014)/3 2016=(2015+2014+2*career averages)/4 c) 2016=career averages*aging factor For a 29 year old, in good health, Which of the 3 projection systems has the lowest error in your opinion? I would say for a 29 year old in good health it is c). However maybe Bruce isn't healthy.

For a 29 year old is there proof that 5 3 4 -1 0 is more significant then another combination of those numbers?? If he had gone 3 -1 5 0 4 would your opinion be different and is there proof that it should be? I don't know the backstory. Maybe the low opinions of Bruce are based on injury or mental status or something.

Anecdotally I can think of guys like Devon White and Marco Scutaro who seemed better hitting leadoff... I mean the manager (Cito Gaston) said hit at the top of the lineup.. everyday... come to work... you know where you'll be. I actually hate Cito with a passion... but am curious if there is any truth to this... there shouldn't be... but if Cito said "Pillar, you are the s***, you are hitting number one... every single day... no matter what... go get 'em" Would Pillar take the final step and really and 100% become the white Devon White??

In that case It would make sense to just bat them from highest to lowest in terms of career on base percentage. Bautista Donaldson EE Tulo ** Martin Saunders Smoak Pillar Goins There you go (** Tulo adjusted for road numbers due to Colorado effect)

No... the ony defense is that Pillar's on base percentage will be higher if he hits leadoff rather then 9th Bautista' s on base percentage will be lower if he hits lead off instead of third. So overall team on base percentage is higher with Pillar at lead off. Let's go back to 93 and take an extreme example White lead off - .340 on base average -- Olerud 5th - .470 reverse them Olerud (nervous at lead off) .410 on base percentage White (pissed lower in the lineup) .300 on base percentage

This is what people are saying Pillar Lead off - on base percentage by position .330 .370 .390 .360 .350 .340 .310 .310 .310 Bautista Lead off - on base percentage by position .370 .370 .360 .350 .340 .310 .310 .310 .310 In configuration two more at bats are going to the best on base percentage, but the best on base percentage is not as high (because Bautista is pissed off at lead off) You have less at bats going to Pillar but Pillar's on base percentage is lower Of course if it doesn't matter where they hit, if Bautista's on base percentage will be the same no matter where he hits, Pillar too... then the above point is moot.

Would hitting leadoff effect Tulo or Bautista's rates?? Would hitting leadoff improve Pillar or Pompey's?? If the answer is no, then of course Tulo and/or Bautista should hit lead off. If one is advocating Pillar or Pompey hit leadoff it is because they believe that they would improve as lead off hitters. Me: Pillar should hit lead off, I believe he would have a .330 on base percentage as a lead off hitter, I believe Bautista would be nervous hitting lead off and his on base would decrease by 20 points. If you don't believe that say You: ********... it doesn't matter where they hit. Bautista will have a .375 on base average no matter what, Pillar .310 no matter what. Hit the better guy first.

It's crazy how uneducated our society is... people don't understand basic concepts like long term averages... Cola lifetime average is .265, with a .323 on base, and a .438 slugging... It isn't rocket science, most guys will hit their life time averages next year, if they are young they might improve a bit, if they are old they might decline. It is very simple, Cola will hit his lifetime average. No need for advance stats. The advanced stats guys might take a deeper look... just to see if there is anything in there that indicates he is better then his lifetime averages... they didn't find anything...

The premise is that Travis won't be healthy for the first month So maybe it should be Martin, If Bautista won't do it then why should Tulo?? The other choices are Saunders, Pillar, Goins, Smoak, all of who have sub .310 career on base averages. Martin hasn't been a consistent power threat... he's like had solid 10 homer 55 rbi seasons sometimes, 20 70 other years. So it's kind of dumb, but Martin isn't losing his 100 rbis over this, since he's only going to have 60-75 anyway... so out of the guys with .350+ on base percentages he gets to do it.

Pillar has the highest career on base percentage of those 3 guys, .303 to .301 to .295 Pillar has the lowest minor league on base percentage, but not by much .370 to .370 to .360 One could argue that all 3 would put up around .320 next year, the projections probably say that, or .310 Barring anybody having issues and suck attacks the most runs would be scored with the folllowing line up Bautista Donaldon EE Tulo Martin Saunders Smoak Pillar Goins

My hypothesis would be that comfort adds 15 points of oba, discomfort takes away 15 So if your natural on base percentage is .415, you will get .430 when comfortable, .400 when uncomfortable. If your natural on base percentage is .415 you'd be there allready. Your natural on base percentage is probably from .000 to .100 depending... like if you are just normal guy it is probably zero, if you played some college ball maybe it is .100.

Where the hell is Grant when you need him?? Grant -- You love Cito -- the Cito-ball means giving guys (like Devo) a "respectful" lineup spot. Give me some cherry pick facts to back this up. Pillar=White Devo - will have .340 oba if we lead him off... Cito would. Help me out here.

I don't think hitting Tulo 8th is the answer. The Cito Gaston approach is to give players the lineup spot they deserve. RESPECT Pillar Martin Donaldson Bautista EE Tulo Saunders Smoak Goins Pillar hits a bit better because he is up front, Donaldson, Bautista, EE, Tulo are close enough to middle of the order that they feel comfortable and respected. It all be ********.

And what I mean is "unconventional" according to this board. Actually would be conventional to the cassuals. To this board - Hitting fast low obp guy first is unconventional, to casual fans and Ned Yost -- Pillar fast, lead off

Nobody is really answering the question. It doesn't matter if Pillar gets his on base percentage up to .350... what matters is whether the team on base percentage would be better, with Pillar hitting leadoff, because everybody is happy and comfortable. Cito Gaston believed that if you make the players feel better, make them comfortable, they will hit better. We have no one that really fits in as a lead off hitter, so say putting a big guy (Bautista, Tulo) 1st will knock 30 points of their oba, and putting Pillar 1st will add 30 points to his oba. Well, then hitting Pillar 1st will actually increase offense, because you have a couple of guys performing better. Which may be total ********. Just kind of funny no one answers the question properly. The only reason not to hit Bautista 1st is because one thinks it might effect his performance... if Bautista will get his ussual power and walk heavy .370+ oba hitting 1st then put him there. If you believe that there is some phychology involved then unconventional lineups could actually make sense.

I absolutely agree assuming it doesn't effect Bautista's performance. Statistically - Bautista Psychologically?? - Is there any evidence that pissing off players decreases their performance??? Is there any evidence that giving them a cushy line up spot increases their performance. I mean you say to Pillar, Bautista -- Bautista is lead-off, Pillar you 9th, deal with it -- (Bautista sad, Pillar sad) Bautista - .230 .340 .480, Pillar .260 .290 ..350 Or you say - Pillar, you lead off, you great, just don't swing at so many bad pitches, Bautista, you 3rd as ussual (Bautista and Pillar "we studs") Bautista - 260 .370 .520, Pillar .275 .320 .400 -- I'm phrasing this all in my usual silly way, but it is a serious question... would hitting everyone in their "happy" spots, increase their performance just slightly??? Or is that ********. Hit them where it makes sense statistically.

I think Grant is right on this one.... Pillar was a good minor hitter, he seems to be projected for a similar offensive season. His defense is projected to regress a bit. But even if it does Pillar would still be a good player.

Goins looks like Don Mattingly... probably crazy statement. But what I mean is, doesn't Goins look like he _should_ hit. If you were just watching a few games and saw him line a couple balls to the opposite field, saw him hit one of his 5 homers. You'd say "that's a ballplayer, hell of a ballplayer" I'm thinking that's what happened to Gruber.... saw Ryan Goins in his best 5 game stretch in 2013, "that's a ballplayer!"

I don't truly understand this view. Fangraphs thinks he is OK for a backup... his career numbers are amazingly close to Ryan Goins actually. Not that there is huge love for Goins around here. In a lot of ways he is the anti goins. Awkward, patient, seems to get the most out of his abilities. Looks horrible. Goins looks great. He looks like he should hit like Don Mattingly. Impatient (other then 50 games last year) Goins/Kawasaki 200 games, 700 plate appearnaces, 1.x fWAR. real close. Not starters, but OK backups... am I wrong??

And just to really emphasize what a horrible person you are... the wording here is just so mean spirited... so against human values.... "We all know", "Completely Absurd"... what you are saying here is that fangraphs has published a dishonest projection... you don't say "I think the projection might be wrong because of (insert complicated technical explanation here). You say that the projection is absurdly wrong, that every single person knows it, but for some reason Fan Graphs (Steamer) won't modify their system. You are implying that the Steamer people are intellectually lazy, while you, Grant, are a true genius.

Have you contacted fan graphs about this?? Stop with the s***. You are incredibly dishonest. If you have found a flaw in the system, point it out to fangraphs, get them to post the following here: Dear Blue Jays Message Board A poster of yours, Grant, an incredible genius has found a flaw in the Ben Revere projection. His insight have helped us improve the system. If you have found a true flaw in the Ben Revere projection, by definition that knowledge can be used to improve the system.

Also literacy (ability to read and understand) isn't the same as grammar and spelling. Grammar and spelling indicate good memory and ability to follow rules. Part of intelligence, but creative people with insight often aren't as good at grammar and spelling because they aren't wired to be rule followers.

From Yahoo answers No intelligence is some thing of a grey area, many people in MENSA for instance cant spell, and talk gibberish. Try going to there web site for yourself. The brain is a very complex organicism, there are few hard and fast rules that can define inelegance or a high IQ, in fact some people you might dismiss can have a very high IQ, while others in positions of authority can have an average intelligence, for instance look at the last few British Prime Ministers. A failed bus conductor for one. Grammar / spelling are the ability to copy and repeat, that’s a memory question not one of inelegance, the more connection the brain makes, the more likely undesirable side effects are likely to crop up. Many of the most famous and intelligent people thought out history, have had problems with spelling / grammar / explaining themselfs. As they see things in a different way, Newton for instance cant have been the first person to have some thing fall on his head, If your really interested you might want to take a course in non clinical psychology, or just view some of the papers on line. They can get a bit heavy, so a look at the MENSA web site might be all your looking for.

He's also a pilot... Some people just aren't good at grammar... maybe mild dyslexia... brain just doesn't fire right sometimes I don't know... personally I experience this... sometimes I read things over, 10 minutes after I wrote them, and can't believe the errors... have no idea why I can't see them the first time. bad grammar and bad spelling doesn't always = bad intelligence... there are people with great grammar and spelling who are dumb as rocks.