The Pinstriped Morningside Heights

Cashman正在玩waiting game，現在和費城人的傳聞由王建民換Jason Michaels變成Henn加Sturtze換Michaels。如果不成功的話我認為Pavano會被換走，原因：
Johnson
Mussina
Pavano
Chacon
Wang
Wright
Rivera
Farnsworth
Meyers
Sturtze
Proctor
Small
這裡已經有12位投手，除了Proctor外其他人不被換走也會留在25人名單，而Cashman還想找多一個中繼。Pavano是洋基唯一一個較吸引的籌碼(在今年的投手市場下)。
 

不是聽說要簽Tavarez嗎
個人比較希望用Pavano外加現金
看能不能換到CF


Jackal24
 

九連霸應該不會有太大問題?
我不敢這麼樂觀
假設以現在的陣容來看
很多主力都有老化問題
強森爺 老穆都是我擔心的
另外小王 查康 Small能繼續猛嗎
方斯渥夫可以補上Go的缺嗎
如果後續沒有補強
我想洋基頂多和去年差不多
那不要說冠軍或是9連霸
季後賽都有危險
雖說紅襪藍鳥也充滿了不確定
目前只想趕快補好CF
補好了趕快補一下牛棚吧
這種牛棚不能打季後賽
 

今天傳出消息 (http://major.jp)
洋基有意要Cano改守中外野
如果此事成真
2壘又不知誰可以補？
又，突然要一個2B去改守CF
這樣守備可靠嗎 ？
 

那是Cano自己offer他願意去守CF
不過他速度不是很快 應該還是會待2B吧
 

關於Myers那一段，「看看他最近幾年的 splits，」後面好像少了幾句話；關於Bernie的那一段，「由於 Yankees 給他 arbitration 的條件是他必須拒絕接受，」，好像也少了一兩句話 XD
 

紅襪這樣換的話球迷會暴動
不可能 如果成真我想洋基爽呆了
 

to stephen,

1)Pierre 是個中外野手不代表他的中外野守備好，說明白點他的守備是爛。

2)Pierre 在洋基應該打第九棒，另一方面 Jeter 是個比 Damon 還要好的一棒打者(這點要花點時間証明，但是事實)。

應該答了你的問題。
 

"Jeter 是比 Damon 還要好的一棒打者" -- 這的確要花一點時間證明。

不過沒問題的，就像 Fermat Last Theorem，雖然等了三百年，總有一天還是被人給證明出來。
 

to ken,

不用花這麼久，已經有人用數字証明了。

http://www.yesnetwork.com/yankees/news.asp?news_id=1532
 

Jeter還是適合2棒吧
 

to tong:

1. yes nework? hum.. 好吧，相信他應該比 dirtdog 公正一點。

2. how long had Jeter been a lead off hitter? 你最好先證明那些數字不是 fluke。
 

The concept of a "leadoff hitter" itself is a fluke.

把 Jason Giambi 放在第一棒，他也是 leadoff hitter。棒次的用處是分配打擊機會，每往前一棒一整個球季就多大概 18 PA

Jeter 的 career OBP .386，Damon 的 career high 也不過是 .382 (career OBP .353)。

Jeter 的 career SLG .461，Damon 的 career SLG .431。

這兩個人差不多同時上大聯盟，Jeter 年紀小半歲左右。Damon 速度快一些，Jeter 也並不糟就是了。Damon 的 SB/CS 是 281/75，Jeter 是 215/57，成功率幾乎一樣。由於 Boston 和 New York 這兩隻球隊都不太注重盜壘，所以這方面 Damon 多出來的 credit 並沒有太大影響，更別提現代棒球對於盜壘越來越不看重了。Jeter 在跑壘方面判斷力相當好，盜壘數目相較之下影響就小的多了。

就算只以盜壘數來考量跑壘方面的能力，兩個人的差距也不能夠抵消掉 OBP 和 SLG 之間的差別。
 

Jeter還是放在2棒的好
之所以打1棒是因為洋基沒有1棒
 

to cliff
請問為何您認為隊長不適合打一棒?
又為何您認為他比較適合打二棒?
以他的OBP與速度
選球與跑壘判斷
您認為理想的一棒條件有啥?
 

The concept of "leadoff hitter" itself is a fluke ???

Then, every batting order is a fluke.

How come the MLB managers do not just sort their players by OBP and SLG to make the batting order?
 

A better way to compare Jeter and Damon's SB ability as leadoff hitter is to look at their LEADOFF STATS:

In last three seasons,

Jeter, SB/CS: 18/9 ==> 66.7%
AB: 988 ==> 1 SB per 54.9 AB

Damon, SB/CS: 63/15 ==> 80.8%
AB: 1797 ==> 1 SB per 28.5 AB
 

to 路人n
您大概誤解我的意思了
我不是說Jeter不能打1棒
只是以他的長打率和上壘率
當2棒可以銜接起1棒和中心打者
我的意思是因為洋基裡面
沒有可以打1棒的
所以他現在打1棒
但是我覺得他打2棒更好
 

Yanks又不是沒有好的二棒 AROD打二棒也很好啊 速度夠快 OBP高 SLG更好 後面還三支大棒子可以把前面兩棒打回來...我覺得比前兩棒擺兩個Jeter型的打者(Damon+Jeter)更有威脅性...
 

to ken

Jeter在leadoff的位置有1830個打數，他的career leadoff number 是.317/.390/.472 OPS.862，當然你可以覺得1830個打數仍然不能夠証明他不是 fluke。

Damon的career leadoff number是.290/.353/.435 OPS.787(4780AB)，他的盜壘成功率比Jeter好不少，但他的SB%是否彌補到雙方在上壘率的差距真的見仁見智。

ps：我只是不明白為何不少人說洋基需要找一個leadoff打者，Jeter可能比較適合打第二棒(但數字說其實沒有什麼分別，甚至是唱反調)，但不代表要找個Pierre回來打一棒。Damon加入後打一棒我不反對，但這也是因為Jeter打二棒「可能」較好，而不是因為Damon是個比Jeter好的leadoff。
 

To the anonymous reader(s),

1. If you are so lazy to make up a name, I'll be too lazy to read your post but might be deligent enough to delete them.

2. A question:
How often is a "leadoff hitter" batting leadoff after the first inning in AL? If a table setter doesn't get to set the table all the time, how can you describe his stats as "the stats being a leadoff hitter"?

3. The most important thing a hitter can do is "not to waste an out". No matter he's a leadoff or cleanup hitter, that's the most important contribution he can make. You have to keep an inning alive for good things to come.

This is why you want to have your better hitters at the top of the order, they keep the inning alive and get on base, which lead to runs. Some hitters with power can get the runs cross the plate faster than others, but the idea is all the same.

I see Jeter a better hitter than Damon is, period. A better hitter with similar sets of tools, he surely can make a better leadoff man.
 

to kan tong
洋基如果找來Pierre
因該是把他放第九棒吧
 

Oops，現在沒有 spell check 已經活不下去了。

我要用的是 diligent。
 

to cliff,

這個你要問Torre，Womack在05年1、2棒的打數加起來是177。
 

不過 Damon的棒子挺黏的 今年只被三振69次 (Jeter117次) 或許 他打第二棒會更合適也說不定...
 

phoenixes 說 "到目前為止，王建民被暫定為明年的第三號，算是個人最意外的事了"
---------------------------

聽到dec. 12 WFAN 對TORRE 的訪問,似乎若SP這些人不變的話，明年還是要count on PAVANO ,WRIGHT and Chacon. 感覺wang 會在牛棚，不遇英文聽力不夠好，不敢說一定聽得沒錯
http://wfan.com/chrismikeaudio/
 

我覺得排棒的原則有兩個，一個是讓好的球員能多一些打席出來，用這個原則來看，當然愈好的球員就要排到愈前面的棒次。

另外一個原則是要盡可能增加第一局分數的期望值（第二局的打序就不好預期了，以後的局數更難），在這個原則下，長打能力強的球員要在第一局晚一點上場（但要避免上不了場），所以三四棒要排會打全壘打的球員。

我想第二個原則應該比第一個原則重要才對，差一個棒次一個球季下來差18個打席左右，以這個打席數目的差距而言，一個很好的球員比一個普通的球員再多貢獻個兩分都很難，但只要兩支一分全壘打變成兩分的就差了兩分了。

但第六棒及以後在第一局上場打擊的機會低，在第二局及以後上場的次序又難預測，所以第二個原則就用不上了。

我也覺得不應該用打序去找球員，而應該要用守備位置去找球員，然後再依找來球員的特性去排打序以滿足上面所提的兩個原則。
 

I agree what you said about keeping an inning alive, but it's not what we were discussing. keeping an inning alive is not the most important requirement for a leadoff hitter, You don't see the highest AVG/OBP/SLG hitter of the team batting leadoff very often.

The statement "I see Jeter a better hitter than Damon is, period. A better hitter with similar sets of tools, he surely can make a better leadoff man." is not ture. For one, their SB abilities are quite different while leading off.

Besides, by this standard, the 31 year old Barry Bonds must be one of the best leadoff hitters at that time, but in fact, he hardly batted leadoff. How about V.Guerrero? he is also not a leadoff hitter.

There're players better than Damon with similar tools, but it doesn't mean they are better leadoff hitter than Damon. They may be more suitable for batting 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th because of the better abilities on AVG/OBP/SLG.

It depends on how you reason all the stats. But if AVG/OBP/SLG are the only factors for a leadoff hitter, why not just sort players by AVG, OBP, and SLG to make the batting order? It shows the MLB manager also takes others into consideration, for example, SB and other players' abilities.
============================================

Need a ID, no problem.

ID
 

To answer your second question, the "leadoff hitter" is a term, used to describe the no.1 batter in the batting order.

The stats Kan and I mentioned are the stats when Jeter and Damon batted at no.1 in the batting order, which is called "leadoff hitter" by baseball world.

It's like a cleanup hitter doesn't always "clean up" the baserunners, but baseball world still calls the no.4 guy in the batting order "cleanup hitter". It's just a term.

Or a gold glover doesn't always wear a "gold color" glove. It's also a term.

Or closers aren't always used to close a game, but baseball world still calls them closers. It's a term.
 

To ID,

See? We can communicate with a handle, no matter how fake/meaningless it is. As long as there's one.

SB is not the most important facet of a leadoff hitter, not even from the view of the traditional minds. It's "get-on-base" matters the most, which happens to be OBP. It's not hard to persuade an old-timer that Jeter is a better leadoff hitter than Damon is, but it might be hard pressed to convince them that Jeter shouldn't be dropped lower in the lineup because of the power surge in the MLB for the past decade.

If I have a lineup of 9 Barry Bonds, defense be damned, I won't hesitate to place him in the leadoff hitter role. Do you want to get a Derek Jeter, Ichiro Suzuki, Johnny Damon to replace that Barry Bonds just because the latter is not a "true" leadoff hitter? No way, no one in his sane mind should do that. There's no such thing as a "true" leadoff hitter. You put someone there and he's one. Then you can compare him to the rest of the bunch, though that's a meaningless comparison.

The "leadoff hitter" bears some merit in the old days when we had never seen a DH, and it still has some meaning in the NL nowadays. If you have automatic outs in the pitchers, you want the next guy to get on base as often as possible. If that guy can steal a few bases, that's a plus. However, that's only a plus, not a necessity. Baseball Prospectus has discussed this in one of their BP annuals (2004 or 2005, look for "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or something like that), I'll leave the analysis to them.

Unless you have a player as slow as Jason Giambi, you can make up a lineup card based on OBP/SLG without a problem. Please be noted that it's not as simple as you think since players with higher OBP do not necessarily have higher SLG. There're some trade-off there.

We want to make our team competitive by matching up a position to a position, not a lineup slot to a lineup slot. The idea of the qualities a leadoff hitter should have is somewhat misleading. The question should be "how am I going to give my better hitters more at bats?"
 

似乎要對一個非sabermetrics追求者解釋
盜壘其實沒想像中的重要
有如要解釋太陽打西邊出來一樣不可思議
>"<
 

我覺得排棒次的兩個原則是
1.強棒要盡可能的往前擺
2.強棒要盡可能的連在一起
如果把最好的打者擺在一棒 為了第二原則 八九棒不能太差 這樣就違反了第一原則
如果按照第一原則 八九棒擺上最差的打者 這樣第一棒的推壘能力就浪費掉了

兩個原則的均衡點通常都是把最強的打者擺在2~4棒 一棒擺上OBP高的 然後把弱棒盡量往後丟
 

(1) I see you agree some of my points like considering other players' abilities to make the lineup and decide the leadoff hitter. No questions here.

(2) I'd like to add one more question to your final one, "how am I going to give my better hitters more at bats":

"How can I make my better hitters to drive more runs by getting players before him to scoring positions?"

Getting better hitters more at bats is important, but getting higher chance for them to drive in runs is more important.


(3) I'm not a Red Sox fan or Jonny Damon fan or anti-Jeter fan, I just use the example which was already used by others to express "The concept of a leadoff hitter itself is NOT a fluke."

(4) I don't see SLG is one of the most important qualities for leadoff hitter. Most people want to put the better SLG guys at 3rd, 4th, or 5th.

(5) We cannot just merely use AVG/OBP to decide the leadoff hitter. Again, why not just sort the players by AVG/OBP to decide this? This is NOT used by baseball managers and it shows they also take others into consideration, like I said, SB and other teammates' abilities, and so on.

We shouldn't say SB and others aren't important and only AVG or OBP should be used.

(6) The 'leadoff hitter' doesn't lose its meaning even in current era, DH or not.

We don't know how many time the leadoff hitter will lead off an inning during a game, but we do know the leadoff hitter will lead off the game and thus, first inning.

The managers want to increase the scoring chance by putting a player who can get on base and to scoring position so the best hitters of the team can have high chance to drive in runs.

Baseball is such a complex game, even gaining a little advantage to increase scoring chance on first inning and maybe others is huge.

(7) Getting on base and scoring position doesn't just mean AVG and OBP, other abilities are also important, like SB.

To other Yankees fans, try jumping out of the deadlock of Jeter vs. Damon and see this as a general case, like CCLu did in his last post.
 

似乎要對一個非sabermetrics追求者解釋
盜壘其實沒想像中的重要
有如要解釋太陽打西邊出來一樣不可思議
>"<
==========================================

Making personal attacks doesn't make you right. It only shows your personality.

Besides, didn't I show any stats at all? I was hoping I can get some serious discussions here instead of this kind of attacks. Do I feel bad when you do this? No. But I do feel sorry for you.
 

It looks like some people still only focus on Jeter vs. Damon and don't understand the main points of the discussion. Here is the summary:

(1) "The concept of a leadoff hitter itself is NOT a fluke."

Getting better hitters more at bats is important, but getting higher chance for them to drive in runs is far more important.


(2) "OBP is NOT the only thing to be considered while making a lineup and deciding a leadoff hitter."

Others are also taken into consideration in real world, like SB, teammates' abilities, and so on. For example, you don't make Jeter leadoff when there're one Jeter and eight Womack(s).
 

劣者第一篇留言就請教過Je
您認為身為better的第一棒
究竟應該具備些什麼條件
您並沒有回答
在您寫的落落長陳述中
就如larry說的
您認為Damon比Jeter更適合第一棒的理由
似乎也只有在盜壘能力這一項
如果連OBP這麼大的差距都可以適而不見
並抓著SB不放
那真的Pierre,Furcal都是超級好的第一棒

另外
我前一篇並沒有做任何個人攻擊
只是強調每個人都相信自己相信的
五六年前我也認為盜壘能力是很重要的
不要誤會喔
現在的我不是認為速度不重要
只是覺得盜壘這個行為沒有"想像中"的重要
這是我現在相信的
您當然可以不相信
 

「The concept of a "leadoff hitter" itself is a fluke.」

!!

leadoff 的觀念不是最近才出現的，已經存在百年了。套句忘了哪邊看來的名言：「違背傳統的點子其實只是沒有作好文獻回顧的天馬行空的想像。」
 

To je,

If you have 1 Jeter and 8 Womacks, the only lineup making sense is Jeter batting leadoff. Jeter himself does not have a real big bat either. Since you won't score a lot of runs with that 1 Jeter 8 Womacks lineup, you'd like Jeter on base and hope Womacks can make something happen rather than Womacks making outs and Jeter bats with bases empty.

People don't put the guy with highest SLG on the top of the lineup because you need man on bases to drive in some runs. I agree with that. In LaRussa's experiment he can only put McGwire to the 2 hole, not leadoff, is the same logic.

However, we are not talking about A-Rod or Jeter or Giambi or Sheffield should bat leadoff for the Yankees. They are on the same team and you put A-Rod in the one hole means he gets less chance to see man on bases. I have no argument here.

The initial argument is Damon and Jeter, two players on two different teams (if it takes more than 4 years to sign Damon, I hope this remains so), who is a better leadoff hitter.

They are leadoff hitters by default, or you can say by their managers' decisions. OBP and SLG makes difference when scoring runs and that counts the most here. Statistics told us you need a very high SB% (I remember that it's higher than 75% or some number around that) to compensate for the deficits those CSs cause. These two players made that in their careers. Damon does have more SBs, but he also has more CSs. These cancel out each other.

I'd thought this is quite an easy comparison, so I didn't expect argument this long. See, Jeter may have less SB, but he's still a fast runner and a very smart one. Baseball America credited him as one of the AL best base runners several times. You can achieve so much in the base paths and Jeter does all that. Even Henderson can't run from first to home on a single to RF every time. Well, in fact Jeter did that once (5th inning, 7/19/03), the victim was C.C. Sabathia.

As long as Jeter plays leadoff, he's a better leadoff than Damon. He hits for higher average, gets on base more often, and he has better power (both are not very good in this department). Jeter does run well in all regards, only have less SB but also less CS than Damon.

If you want to argue Jeter is not a leadoff type player, then who is? If you put Jeter in Taiwan team, I think he would be the best hitter on the team and should play the three hole. Now he's with the Yankees so he hit leadoff and a good one.

The comparison between players with the same batting order is quite meaningless. You compare them position to position, that way you find the best player you can get in each position thus make your team competitive. You don't find a leadoff hitter, a 2 hole hitter, a 3 hole hitter, a cleanup and so on.
 

to 路人,

這個觀念的出現本身就是個問題。

「違背傳統的點子其實只是沒有作好文獻回顧的天馬行空的想像。」這句話我記得裡面還有「有些時候」這四個字。不太確定是不是有，但我認為這是重要的條件

必須要檢查可以得到的資訊和文獻去分析到底怎麼回事，不是存在百年的東西就是好點子。傳統棒球有不少沒有經過深思或只是gut feeling的觀念已經不是新聞了。
 

To CCLu,

I want to continue to discuss with you since your last post doesn't reply directly to my two questions, but it looks like few others don't allow different opinions here.

===========================================
(1) "The concept of a leadoff hitter itself is NOT a fluke."

Getting better hitters more at bats is important, but getting higher chance for them to drive in runs is far more important.


(2) "OBP is NOT the only thing to be considered while making a lineup and deciding a leadoff hitter."

Others are also taken into consideration in real world, like SB, teammates' abilities, and so on.
===========================================

I wasn't emphasizing SB itself, as mentioned in (2), I use it to emphasize that OBP is NOT the only stat to be considered in real world. You seem to agree that others are also used like "teammates' abilities".

Again, I'm not saying Jeter is not a better leadoff, What I'm questioning is the method to decide leadoff hitters (not just Jeter and Damon).

Others may not be as important as OBP, but are still considered in real world. You can not just ignore them and should put some weighs on them (not just SB, incling others like teammates abilities).




To larry and few others,

I must miss the "no different opinions or personal attacks" sign.

"people like you ...." ????

I don't want to go into the loops of badmouthing each other.




To 路人,

I believe I explain clearly why "The concept of a leadoff hitter itself is NOT a fluke." above, take a look.

Also, for the quality of lead off hitters, I also explain that not just OBP should be considered, others (SB, teammates' abilities, and so on) are also used in real life. It just depends on how much weighs you put on each of them, but most important, can not simply ignore them.

Last, how do you know I don't believe "sabermetrics"? I'm questioning if SB and others should be ignored at all and only use OBP to compare leadoff hitters.
 

To 路人

1. 斷章取義的引述不是正確的引述方式。

2. 你的談法讓我想到下面這個對比：
某甲在讀 Adam Smith (經濟學之父) 的 "The Wealth of Nations" （國富論，史上最偉大的經濟學著作），發現其中有若干錯誤，然後用 Smith 的散文格式寫法洋洋灑灑寫了三四十頁寄到 AER (Top 1 Economics Journal) 去。

如果編輯居然把這篇文章送給任何一個經濟學者來審，他得到的 referee report 可能只有下面兩句： "The article is out of date. Where have you been in the last 100 years?"
 

To kf,

實證數據告訴我們 OBP 比 SLG 重要，OPS 裡面 OBP 和 SLG 的權重是 1:1，不過有很多研究提議加重 OBP 的權重，從 1.4 到 2 甚或 3 不等。

我在最早的回復裡說 OBP 是 most important，沒有說他是 only important。

在討論 Damon 和 Jeter 誰是比較好的第一棒時是你把兩人的 SB 拿出來談（如果真的是你的話），如果大家認定你覺得 Damon 是個比較好的第一棒怨不得別人。討論有一定的脈絡，這不是由個人定義的。如果你的討論完全離題，請你說明清楚，不要浪費其他人的時間。
 

劣者並沒有說OBP是唯一重要的指標
甚至也寫了速度是很重要的指標
只是速度不代表SB的數目
以Bill James認為Speed Score要觀察的有
盜壘發動比率 盜壘成功比率 三壘安打比率 上壘後得分比率
其中並沒有包括盜壘成功次數

劣者也沒有說Jeter是最好的首棒打者
只是在現在的NYY
他確實將這個角色扮演的很好
希望這一篇有助於釐清您對我言詞的誤解
 

To CCLu,

What I don't agree with you is your comparison method and the two statements you made:

(1) "The concept of a "leadoff hitter" itself is a fluke." on 12/12

and later, when you use the following statement on 12/13

(2) "Unless you have a player as slow as Jason Giambi, you can make up a lineup card based on OBP/SLG without a problem."


Because everyone agrees we should consider more than OBP, I think (2) is not an issue anymore. Since OBP is not the only factor considered, next time, when comparing leadoff hitters, people should take "other factors" into their consideration to make the their comparison complete.

No matter how less important "other factors' are, they still deserve some weighs on the equation (1:2, or 1:3, or 1:4, ...). Using an incomplete method by ignoring "other factors" to get the same result doesn't mean the method is correct.

I only saw people said 'other factors' are less important, but never saw them put 'other factors' into their equation, they actually just ignored these factors on their comparisons after saying OBP is more important or "other factors' are less important.

btw, I brought up 'SB' to remind people that the "other factors" can NOT be simply ignored when comparing leadoff hitters. I never once said Jeter is not the better leadoff hitter, and brought up issues on others' comparison.

Maybe people were just too defensive on NY-BOS rivalry, they didn't notice their imcomplete comparison method and kept bringing back Jeter-Damon issue which they actually mainly discussed with Ken.


============================================

Back to (1), the only reasons you gave were "more at bats for better hitters" and "leadoff hitters doesn't lead off that often after 1st inning". I already explain clearly why "The concept of a leadoff hitter itself is NOT a fluke."

The following are copied from previous posts:

"We don't know how many time the leadoff hitter will lead off an inning during a game, but we do know the leadoff hitter will lead off the game and thus, first inning.

The managers want to increase the scoring chance by putting a player who can get on base and to scoring position so the best hitters of the team can have high chance to drive in runs.

Baseball is such a complex game, even gaining a little advantage to increase scoring chance on first inning and maybe others is huge."

and

"Getting better hitters more at bats is important, but getting higher chance for them to drive in runs is far more important"


============================================

Since you don't respond to the above anymore, it seems like (1) is not an issue either. We can conclude that, although leadoff hitter may be a little less important than pre-DH era,

"The concept of a leadoff hitter itself is NOT a fluke."

============================================

Have a nice weekend!!
 

I finally had it enough with people abusing anonymous commenting so I take that function off. If you want to comment, please register with Blogspot.