I created this thread because my discussion about Anderson's OBP/OPS sucking kinda hijacked the Giolito thread. Hopefully everything gets moved here. 

To sum up my thoughts:

Anderson's OBP and OPS, while league average for a SS, still suck. That doesn't make him good, it means the league average SS sucks as well. 

I think that Anderson is fine as a 9 hitter until they can find someone better. That may or may not happen. If it does, and Anderson is still under contract, he should become a super sub(2B/SS/3B/OF) for 130 games/ season. 

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

As has been proven statistically in the other thread,  if you have two shortstops as good, or better than Tim Anderson you would have two league average (or better) shortstops. 

The idea that Tim Anderson is a bench player is just false. Half of MLB would have Tim Anderson starting on their teams. Just because one stat is bad, doesn't mean he is bad. This thread is so wrong,  Snopes is about to take it up.

8 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

I created this thread because my discussion about Anderson's OBP/OPS sucking kinda hijacked the Giolito thread. Hopefully everything gets moved here. 

To sum up my thoughts:

Anderson's OBP and OPS, while league average for a SS, still suck. That doesn't make him good, it means the league average SS sucks as well. 

I think that Anderson is fine as a 9 hitter until they can find someone better. That may or may not happen. If it does, and Anderson is still under contract, he should become a super sub(2B/SS/3B/OF) for 130 games/ season. 

I wonder if you could read the bolded to yourself a couple times. Let it sink in. How does that phrase make any kind of sense?

 

Anderson's OBP and OPS, while league average for a SS, still suck. That doesn't make him good, it means the league average SS sucks as well. 

This makes absolutely no sense, I am sorry. 

It's like saying Jorge Posada didn't have a great hitting career for a catcher because the position sucks offensively. 

"Aaron Rodgers is a quick/mobile QB... but QB's are slow and so is Rodgers compared to WR's/RB's/DB's... so... actually Aaron Rodgers is not a mobile QB"

It's just fallacious logic

Tim Anderson is a SS. He does not have to be superior offensively to most OF's or corner IF's to be a good offensive SS. If he's giving us more production than the majority of the league gets out of the SS position. That makes him a plus offensive player. It's that simple.

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Richie

Got to love it when OP debunks his own argument.

Weird thing to post about a player during said player’s good stretch of baseball

1 hour ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

I wonder if you could read the bolded to yourself a couple times. Let it sink in. How does that phrase make any kind of sense?

 

because I use all hitters at all positions as a baseline. Most catchers and middle infielders suck offensively. Most are there as placeholders, until someone is found that is better. It is one of my gripes about the Baseball HOF. Players shouldn't get in because they were great for their position, they should get in because they were great among ALL positions. It shouldn't matter what position they played, the standards should be the same. So what if you played catcher or middle infield? You want to be a HOF hitter? Hit like one. To me, there are 3 categories for baseball: Position Player, Starting Pitcher, and relief pitcher. I don't buy the QB/WR argument in football. Their jobs on the field are completely different. The job between a SS, 1B, and OF are exactly the same. Hit the ball and catch the ball. If you can't hit the ball that well, you damn better be among THE VERY BEST at catching the ball. Otherwise, you're not good enough. 

IMO, .265/.330/.770 is roughly average across all positions. I use this as a baseline. 

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

4 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

because I use all hitters at all positions as a baseline. Most catchers and middle infielders suck offensively. Most are there as placeholders, until someone is found that is better. It is one of my gripes about the Baseball HOF. Players shouldn't get in because they were great for their position, they should get in because they were great among ALL positions. It shouldn't matter what position they played, the standards should be the same. So what if you played catcher or middle infield? You want to be a HOF hitter? Hit like one. To me, there are 3 categories for baseball: Position Player, Starting Pitcher, and relief pitcher. I don't buy the QB/WR argument in football. Their jobs on the field are completely different. The job between a SS, 1B, and OF are exactly the same. Hit the ball and catch the ball. If you can't hit the ball that well, you damn better be among THE VERY BEST at catching the ball. Otherwise, you're not good enough. 

Might as well just sign a bunch of first basemen this offseason and stick them out at short, second, and catcher using this logic

LOL so defense and positions don’t matter but somehow relief pitchers get a pass? 

 

1 minute ago, ChiSox1917 said:

Might as well just sign a bunch of first basemen this offseason and stick them out at short, second, and catcher using this logic

No being able to athletically play a defensive position matters. It doesn't change the fact that most players who play MI/C suck offensively. It has been that way for years and probably always will be that way. I get it. It doesn't mean you don't keep trying to find one that doesn't suck offensively. 

1 minute ago, OmarComing25 said:

LOL so defense and positions don’t matter but somehow relief pitchers get a pass? 

Defense matters. Positions don't. Relief pitchers have a different job than starters. That is how I look at it. What is their job during a baseball game? Starters job is to pitch 5-7 innings and get outs. Relief pitchers job is to pitch to 1-3 batters and get them out. Similar, but different. 

7 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

because I use all hitters at all positions as a baseline. Most catchers and middle infielders suck offensively. Most are there as placeholders, until someone is found that is better. It is one of my gripes about the Baseball HOF. Players shouldn't get in because they were great for their position, they should get in because they were great among ALL positions. It shouldn't matter what position they played, the standards should be the same. So what if you played catcher or middle infield? You want to be a HOF hitter? Hit like one. To me, there are 3 categories for baseball: Position Player, Starting Pitcher, and relief pitcher. I don't buy the QB/WR argument in football. Their jobs on the field are completely different. The job between a SS, 1B, and OF are exactly the same. Hit the ball and catch the ball. If you can't hit the ball that well, you damn better be among THE VERY BEST at catching the ball. Otherwise, you're not good enough. 

So your basic point is that all SS and 2B in MLB suck because they aren't Machado who sucks at fielding but can hit.

Have ever considered the fact that most of the really good OPS guys can't find the position? Or does being a good fielder not factor into being a good SS.

5 minutes ago, ptatc said:

So your basic point is that all SS and 2B in MLB suck because they aren't Machado who sucks at fielding but can hit.

Have ever considered the fact that most of the really good OPS guys can't find the position? Or does being a good fielder not factor into being a good SS.

No, they all suck because they're not Lindor and Jose Ramirez. Two examples of middle infielders who can both field their position and hit. I realize that players like Lindor and Jose Ramirez don't exactly grow on trees, but that doesn't mean you don't stop looking. If you think that your boss isn't looking for someone who could do your job better and cheaper than you, then you're lying to yourself. 

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

Defense matters. Positions don't. Relief pitchers have a different job than starters. That is how I look at it. What is their job during a baseball game? Starters job is to pitch 5-7 innings and get outs. Relief pitchers job is to pitch to 1-3 batters and get them out. Similar, but different. 

By this theory, SS has a different job than the 1B. 1B is to catch the ball from the other fielders and hold runners on the base. An SS job is to cover a much greater range and throw the ball to the 1B. The OF primary job is to catchthe ball before it hits the ground, the SS primarily catches the ball on the ground.

All of the jobs require a different set of physical skills which in turn impacts their hitting.

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Defense matters. Positions don't. Relief pitchers have a different job than starters. That is how I look at it. What is their job during a baseball game? Starters job is to pitch 5-7 innings and get outs. Relief pitchers job is to pitch to 1-3 batters and get them out. Similar, but different. 

That doesn’t make sense. You’re separating relief pitchers and starters when their jobs are FAR more similar than position players’ are. The job of a catcher or SS is significantly different than a 1B or LF. You also continue to argue against yourself. You admitted yourself that good hitting middle IF or catchers are very rare. Good hitting first basemen are a dime a dozen. Hence the big difference in value.

This thread makes my head hurt.

4 minutes ago, OmarComing25 said:

That doesn’t make sense. You’re separating relief pitchers and starters when their jobs are FAR more similar than position players’ are. The job of a catcher or SS is significantly different than a 1B or LF. You also continue to argue against yourself. You admitted yourself that good hitting middle IF or catchers are very rare. Good hitting first basemen are a dime a dozen. Hence the big difference in value.

Go look at corner infielders around baseball They don't make them like they used to. Abreu was BY FAR the best offensive 1B in the AL this year, and nobody said he was having a great season. If you think of your traditional 1B slugger, you can almost count the number of those guys on one hand in the majors this season. 

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

No, they all suck because they're not Lindor and Jose Ramirez. Two examples of middle infielders who can both field their position and hit. I realize that players like Lindor and Jose Ramirez don't exactly grow on trees, but that doesn't mean you don't stop looking. If you think that your boss isn't looking for someone who could do your job better and cheaper than you, then you're lying to yourself. 

Again by this philosophy let's take the best OF in Trout. All other OF must suck because they can't play center field AND hit like him. If you are comparing all other players to the best at their positions everyone in the MLB sucks except for maybe 10 players. 

The entire premise of your discussions is invalid.

Everyone is dumber for having to listen to this insanely idiotic diatribe. I award you no points. May God have mercy on our souls. 

21 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

because I use all hitters at all positions as a baseline. Most catchers and middle infielders suck offensively. Most are there as placeholders, until someone is found that is better. It is one of my gripes about the Baseball HOF. Players shouldn't get in because they were great for their position, they should get in because they were great among ALL positions. It shouldn't matter what position they played, the standards should be the same. So what if you played catcher or middle infield? You want to be a HOF hitter? Hit like one. To me, there are 3 categories for baseball: Position Player, Starting Pitcher, and relief pitcher. I don't buy the QB/WR argument in football. Their jobs on the field are completely different. The job between a SS, 1B, and OF are exactly the same. Hit the ball and catch the ball. If you can't hit the ball that well, you damn better be among THE VERY BEST at catching the ball. Otherwise, you're not good enough. 

IMO, .265/.330/.770 is roughly average across all positions. I use this as a baseline. 

Also this is wrong.

MLB average today is .249/.319/.730, the AL clocks in slightly higher at .250/.318/.734

http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting

8 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Also this is wrong.

MLB average today is .249/.319/.730, the AL clocks in slightly higher at .250/.318/.734

http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting

That is depressed by the insane number of really bad teams. Much more than most seasons in MLB history. You're going to have to lose 90-92 games to pick top 10 this year.

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Again by this philosophy let's take the best OF in Trout. All other OF must suck because they can't play center field AND hit like him. If you are comparing all other players to the best at their positions everyone in the MLB sucks except for maybe 10 players. 

The entire premise of your discussions is invalid.

Everyone is dumber for having to listen to this insanely idiotic diatribe. I award you no points. May God have mercy on our souls. 

whoa Ptatc goes in hard

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

That is depressed by the insane number of really bad teams. Much more than most seasons in MLB history. You're going to have to lose 90-92 games to pick top 10 this year. You're 

No, this is the average.   It has nothing to do with bad teams.   it is the average

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

That is depressed by the insane number of really bad teams. Much more than most seasons in MLB history. You're going to have to lose 90-92 games to pick top 10 this year. You're 

For your average baseline you can’t just ignore everyone at the bottom, then it’s no longer an average.

5 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Again by this philosophy let's take the best OF in Trout. All other OF must suck because they can't play center field AND hit like him. If you are comparing all other players to the best at their positions everyone in the MLB sucks except for maybe 10 players. 

The entire premise of your discussions is invalid.

Everyone is dumber for having to listen to this insanely idiotic diatribe. I award you no points. May God have mercy on our souls. 

Nope, but I do compare them to the top 33% at their position. 

4 minutes ago, OmarComing25 said:

For your average baseline you can’t just ignore everyone at the bottom, then it’s no longer an average.

They're called outliers. Ever heard of them?  There is the average, which is simple math. Then you take the ridiculous outliers and throw them out. Only then do you have an accurate representation. I wish someone would go through the last 5 years of data and pick out players that have had a 4+year career in the Majors and go look at their stats. I'd imagine you'd find that my baseline for that is pretty close to average. 

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman