Randy Wells Splooge-a-thon

[Gil Gunderson]

If we're discussing wins and RBI as criteria for the award, can we just dismiss the award as a sham and move on?

I'd like to think at least Eli is with me. 

I'm with you, fresh off a discussion with a Sox fan who believes Mark Buehrle has had a better decade than Johan Santana because he has more wins.

I was having a discussion with a buddy last night.  He really likes Chris Getz.  I mentioned to him that Getz makes an out roughly 67.5% of the time he comes to the plate, and that's not good.  So, my buddy kept insisting that his .270 BA is good.  I said, "Sure, but it still doesn't change the fact he makes outs at a rate that would make Juan Pierre proud."

I just don't understand why these concepts are so hard to grasp.  I even got him to agree that you can't score a run unless you get on base.

Finally, he asked me what I thought was an acceptable batting average.  At that point I just said .240, mentioned Adam Dunn, and walked away.

I'd stipulate that this is an acceptable average; it's not great, but it's not terrible either.  If a .270 average is coupled with like a .390 OBP, then I'd say that player is pretty decent.

[MAD]

If we're discussing wins and RBI as criteria for the award, can we just dismiss the award as a sham and move on?

I'd like to think at least Eli is with me.

I'm with you, fresh off a discussion with a Sox fan who believes Mark Buehrle has had a better decade than Johan Santana because he has more wins.

I was having a discussion with a buddy last night.  He really likes Chris Getz.  I mentioned to him that Getz makes an out roughly 67.5% of the time he comes to the plate, and that's not good.  So, my buddy kept insisting that his .270 BA is good.  I said, "Sure, but it still doesn't change the fact he makes outs at a rate that would make Juan Pierre proud."

I just don't understand why these concepts are so hard to grasp.  I even got him to agree that you can't score a run unless you get on base.

Finally, he asked me what I thought was an acceptable batting average.  At that point I just said .240, mentioned Adam Dunn, and walked away.

I'd stipulate that this is an acceptable average; it's not great, but it's not terrible either.  If a .270 average is coupled with like a .390 OBP, then I'd say that player is pretty decent.

I think Oleg's point is that it's just frustrating to have a discussion with someone who, through years and years of conditioning, turn to batting average as their defense of a player, as if it should end the argument.  Sure, IF a player has a .390 OBP to go along with that .270 BA, you've got something.  But I'm pretty sure Mel Zetz doesn't have anywhere near a .390 OBP.

EDIT:  Getz' SLUGGING isn't even near .390 (.370).  And his OBP is .322.  No Sox fan should "really like" Chris Getz, unless it's a relative.

[ChuckD]

If we're discussing wins and RBI as criteria for the award, can we just dismiss the award as a sham and move on?

I'd like to think at least Eli is with me.

I'm with you, fresh off a discussion with a Sox fan who believes Mark Buehrle has had a better decade than Johan Santana because he has more wins.

I was having a discussion with a buddy last night.  He really likes Chris Getz.  I mentioned to him that Getz makes an out roughly 67.5% of the time he comes to the plate, and that's not good.  So, my buddy kept insisting that his .270 BA is good.  I said, "Sure, but it still doesn't change the fact he makes outs at a rate that would make Juan Pierre proud."

I just don't understand why these concepts are so hard to grasp.  I even got him to agree that you can't score a run unless you get on base.

Finally, he asked me what I thought was an acceptable batting average.  At that point I just said .240, mentioned Adam Dunn, and walked away.

I'd stipulate that this is an acceptable average; it's not great, but it's not terrible either.  If a .270 average is coupled with like a .390 OBP, then I'd say that player is pretty decent.

.270 BA is slightly above average (~.260), but pretty meaningless in terms of gauging player performance. A .390 OBA is really good--not pretty decent.

[Gil Gunderson]

If we're discussing wins and RBI as criteria for the award, can we just dismiss the award as a sham and move on?

I'd like to think at least Eli is with me.

I'm with you, fresh off a discussion with a Sox fan who believes Mark Buehrle has had a better decade than Johan Santana because he has more wins.

I was having a discussion with a buddy last night.  He really likes Chris Getz.  I mentioned to him that Getz makes an out roughly 67.5% of the time he comes to the plate, and that's not good.  So, my buddy kept insisting that his .270 BA is good.  I said, "Sure, but it still doesn't change the fact he makes outs at a rate that would make Juan Pierre proud."

I just don't understand why these concepts are so hard to grasp.  I even got him to agree that you can't score a run unless you get on base.

Finally, he asked me what I thought was an acceptable batting average.  At that point I just said .240, mentioned Adam Dunn, and walked away.

I'd stipulate that this is an acceptable average; it's not great, but it's not terrible either.  If a .270 average is coupled with like a .390 OBP, then I'd say that player is pretty decent.

.270 BA is slightly above average (~.260), but pretty meaningless in terms of gauging player performance. A .390 OBA is really good--not pretty decent.

Oh, I agree, I was just creating a hypothetical.  But, nevertheless, I agree with what's been said.  BA is just the beginning of an argument over a player; OPS usually is the end, I believe.

[Oleg]

If we're discussing wins and RBI as criteria for the award, can we just dismiss the award as a sham and move on?

I'd like to think at least Eli is with me.

I'm with you, fresh off a discussion with a Sox fan who believes Mark Buehrle has had a better decade than Johan Santana because he has more wins.

I was having a discussion with a buddy last night.  He really likes Chris Getz.  I mentioned to him that Getz makes an out roughly 67.5% of the time he comes to the plate, and that's not good.  So, my buddy kept insisting that his .270 BA is good.  I said, "Sure, but it still doesn't change the fact he makes outs at a rate that would make Juan Pierre proud."

I just don't understand why these concepts are so hard to grasp.  I even got him to agree that you can't score a run unless you get on base.

Finally, he asked me what I thought was an acceptable batting average.  At that point I just said .240, mentioned Adam Dunn, and walked away.

I'd stipulate that this is an acceptable average; it's not great, but it's not terrible either.  If a .270 average is coupled with like a .390 OBP, then I'd say that player is pretty decent.

.270 BA is slightly above average (~.260), but pretty meaningless in terms of gauging player performance. A .390 OBA is really good--not pretty decent.

Oh, I agree, I was just creating a hypothetical.  But, nevertheless, I agree with what's been said.  BA is just the beginning of an argument over a player; OPS usually is the end, I believe.

I thought the begining and end was Brian Baschnagel?  Or is that something else?

[Eli]

OPS usually is the end, I believe.

That probably depends how nerdy you want to get.

[Gil Gunderson]

OPS usually is the end, I believe.

That probably depends how nerdy you want to get.

Somewhere above dumbassery, but below full-blown statfaggory.

[Eli]

OPS usually is the end, I believe.

That probably depends how nerdy you want to get.

Somewhere above dumbassery, but below full-blown statfaggory.

Oh, fine.

[JD]

OPS usually is the end, I believe.

That probably depends how nerdy you want to get.

Somewhere above dumbassery, but below full-blown statfaggory.

Oh, fine.

You guys are lucky this isn't in the 'statfag' thread. 


SO lucky!

[PenFoe]

Who's even close to being in competition with Wells? Tommy Hanson?  Wells' numbers are better.  Ryan Hanigan?  Absolutely no power, even for a catcher.

I was trying to think of someone last night.  There's really nobody in the NL this year other than Hanson.  But as you pointed out, his numbers are worse, plus he's pitched 40 less innings.  I saw one website that said Sandoval qualified as a rookie, but I think his 154 PA last year doesn't make him eligible.  The only position players I can think of are McCutchen and Rasmus, both the former hasn't been up for too long and the latter has struggled quite a bit after his hot streak.

Fowler and Happ.

Fowler's not even as good as Hanigan, whom I already summarily dismissed with some twitches of my fingers.  Happ's a good call, though.  He'll get a lot of attention for (1) the nifty W-L record, (2) playing on the East Coast, and (3) playing for the defending World Champs.  Both he and Wells are 26.  EERIE, am I right, PA?

Arguing Fowler vs. Hanigan for ROY is completely useless, so I won't debate it, however I read that ROY qualifications include:

Currently a player is considered to be a rookie, and thus eligible for the award, if the player has accumulated in prior major league seasons:
   * Fewer than 130 at bats or
   * Fewer than 50 innings pitched
   * Fewer than 45 days on the active roster, excluding time on the disabled list, in military service, or time when the rosters are expanded (currently after September 1)

So I just wanted to point out that Sandoval is indeed, ineligible.

Also, it should be pointed out that non-Japanese (meaning guys that don't have prior professional experience) starting pitchers have only won the award 7 times since 1980 (includes both leagues, so 7/56=12.5%).  

So assuming either Wells or Happ wins it, they'll be in fairly elite company with perennial All-Stars like Dontrelle Willis, Jason Jennings and Steve Howe.

TPD.

Would be doing a real disservice to not point out one more guy who is eligible.

Nice choice, Jim.

With Happ taking a DL stint, he may have opened up the door a little bit for everyone's favorite overachiever.

Happ: 149.2 IP, 10-4, 2.77 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, .231 BAA, 104/52 K/BB
McGehee: 296 AB, 15 HR, 57 RBI, 55:33 K/BB, .304/.370/.517
Wells: 143 IP, 10-8, 2.96 ERA, 1.25 WHIP, .260 BAA, 84/38 K/BB

Happ has the minor statistical advantage over Wells in pretty much every category (K/BB is a slight nod to Wells), but McGehee's .931 OPS over the last month is definitely helping his cause. 

[Eli]

With Happ taking a DL stint, he may have opened up the door a little bit for everyone's favorite overachiever.

Happ: 149.2 IP, 10-4, 2.77 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, .231 BAA, 104/52 K/BB
McGehee: 296 AB, 15 HR, 57 RBI, 55:33 K/BB, .304/.370/.517
Wells: 143 IP, 10-8, 2.96 ERA, 1.25 WHIP, .260 BAA, 84/38 K/BB

Happ has the minor statistical advantage over Wells in pretty much every category (K/BB is a slight nod to Wells), but McGehee's .931 OPS over the last month is definitely helping his cause. 

Tommy Hanson should get some consideration, too.  Threw seven more scoreless innings tonight and his ERA is down to 2.65.

[CubFaninHydePark]

Well, that 2-out, 1-2 grand slam to the great Jody Gerut can't help...

[Andy]

It might help Jody Gerut get some Rookie of the Year votes.  Retroactive to 2003.  Hey, he finished fourth that year, every vote counts!

[PenFoe]

To Eli's point, I did miss Tommy Hanson, I thought he was shorter on innings, but he's over 100 now.

Also, would be remiss not to mention Chris Coughlan: 436 ABs, 72 R, 9 HR, 42 RBIs, 74/50 K/BB, 7 SB, .303/.376/.440, 116 OPS+.

Pretty similar numbers to McGehee (though McGehee's sporting a 129 OPS+) but a lot more ABs.

[Andy]

Chris Coughlan and Andrew McCutcheon are the best rookies in the NL.  I should know, they're going to win my fantasy league for me.

Argue with THAT.

(Oh, and I have Randy Wells, too.  But I'm going to have to stop starting him.)