In other words, his OBP is 5 points shy of his career avg since April 30th.

 

Isn't this the stat that keeps getting emphasized with respect to a leadoff hitter?

 

If he's merely supposed to be on base, He's been doing it at the clip we should expect for the past 2+ months.

 

8 SB vs. 3 CS since then, too.

 

Just sayin'.

 

 

I think most people have backed off in thrashing him.

Edited July 7, 201114 yr by BigSqwert

Maybe over the last two weeks, but people kept framing it as if he was piss-poor for the whole season.

8 for 11 isn't good.

In other news, Adam Dunn is sporting a solid OBP when you don't count his 100+ strikeouts.

8 for 11 isn't good.

 

It's roughly the same percentage Ellsbury and Crisp (#3 and #4 in the league leaders) have stolen bases at for the whole season.

In other news, Adam Dunn is sporting a solid OBP when you don't count his 100+ strikeouts.

 

Do you really think this is comparable? I'm talking about a trend since a certain date, not cherry-picking ABs.

Do you really think this is comparable? I'm talking about a trend since a certain date, not cherry-picking ABs.

You eliminated 33% of his season to tell us he's doing well.

You eliminated 33% of his season to tell us he's doing well.

 

I would think that 2/3rds would be a more relevant number than 1/3rd, and that recent 60+ game trends that are more in line with career totals are more meaningful than a single 13 game cold stretch in late april, but you'd never know it around here.

In other news, Adam Dunn is sporting a solid OBP when you don't count his 100+ strikeouts.

 

It's not the strikeouts that are the big problem, he had 199 last year while hitting .260. It's the fact that when he does hit the ball it goes straight up in the air, instead of out towards the fences.

Like I've said in other threads, if Pierre continues to trend back towards his norm, Ozzie deserves all the credit here. He'll never get it from most people.

Edited July 7, 201114 yr by Greg Hibbard

Like I've said in other threads, if Pierre continues to trend back towards his norm, Ozzie deserves all the credit here. He'll never get it from most people.

 

Thing is, Viciedo would still be an upgrade. Although his OBP is alright, it's completely empty. I've been one of the bigger Pierre backers (or least one of the smaller "haters") but it's ignorant to think Viciedo would not be an improvement. Of course with Rios and Dunn performing so poorly as well I'd be fine with DV filling in for one of them instead. He just needs to be up here.

 

Frankly, I'd rather see Viciedo/De Aza/Danks instead of Dunn/Pierre/Rios right now.

 

Like I've said in other threads, if Pierre continues to trend back towards his norm, Ozzie deserves all the credit here. He'll never get it from most people.

 

Because his job is to win games, not to stick with the worst player in baseball until he's just mediocre enough to not have negative value.

 

 

 

It's roughly the same percentage Ellsbury and Crisp (#3 and #4 in the league leaders) have stolen bases at for the whole season.

Who cares.

Who cares.

 

The generally accepted rate for stolen bases is 75%. 8 for 11 is 72.7%. It's not good but it's not that terrible that it needs to be called out.

Because his job is to win games, not to stick with the worst player in baseball until he's just mediocre enough to not have negative value.

Pierre isn't the worst player in baseball. He isn't even the worst player on the Sox. By that logic, David Ortiz would have been cut by the Red Sox a long time ago (he had 2 straight years of having terrible starts, IIRC).

Our problems are mostly with Rios and Dunn.

Pierre isn't the worst player in baseball. He isn't even the worst player on the Sox. By that logic, David Ortiz would have been cut by the Red Sox a long time ago (he had 2 straight years of having terrible starts, IIRC).

 

I only said that he was, for a period of time, the worst everyday player in baseball. My point was that by sticking with him he may have done more damage than Pierre is worth, and he therefore does not necessarily deserve any credit.

 

 

I only said that he was, for a period of time, the worst everyday player in baseball.

 

For 13 games at the end of April, he went 7 for 51.

 

Outside of that 13 game stretch, he has batted close to .290, including a stretch of 34 games where he had at least one hit in 27 of them.

 

During the same 13 games, Dunn was 6 for 50 with zero home runs. That was the first example I thought to look at. I can find others if you want.

 

So no, he was not the worst everyday player in baseball, even for that 13 game stretch.

Edited July 7, 201114 yr by Greg Hibbard

For 13 games at the end of April, he went 7 for 51.

 

Outside of that 13 game stretch, he has batted close to .290, including a stretch of 34 games where he had at least one hit in 27 of them.

 

During the same 13 games, Dunn was 6 for 50 with zero home runs. That was the first example I thought to look at. I can find others if you want.

 

So no, he was not the worst everyday player in baseball, even for that 13 game stretch.

According to advanced statistics such as WAR, he was the worst player in baseball for a pretty good chunk of time.

For 13 games at the end of April, he went 7 for 51.

 

Outside of that 13 game stretch, he has batted close to .290, including a stretch of 34 games where he had at least one hit in 27 of them.

 

During the same 13 games, Dunn was 6 for 50 with zero home runs. That was the first example I thought to look at. I can find others if you want.

 

So no, he was not the worst everyday player in baseball, even for that 13 game stretch.

 

Dunn was only a DH. Pierre played the field and made several awful errors that cost his team games. That made him the worst player.

According to advanced statistics such as WAR, he was the worst player in baseball for a pretty good chunk of time.

 

Does WAR accurately calculate Pierre's value in terms of his SPECIFIC replacement, or in terms of "league average" aggregates?

 

More specifically, would Viciedo have potentially cost us games with his glove the same way, and is 100 PA in the majors enough to speculate about his offensive value?

 

I see a lot of contrition for falling in love with Beckham too soon but then praise for Viciedo as if he's the second coming in exactly the same fashion. It's an interesting juxtaposition, to say the least.

Does WAR accurately calculate Pierre's value in terms of his SPECIFIC replacement, or in terms of "league average" aggregates?

 

More specifically, would Viciedo have potentially cost us games with his glove the same way, and is 100 PA in the majors enough to speculate about his offensive value?

 

I see a lot of contrition for falling in love with Beckham too soon but then praise for Viciedo as if he's the second coming in exactly the same fashion. It's an interesting juxtaposition, to say the least.

 

Its backup QB syndrome. The guy who isn't playing is always the most popular guy, because he doesn't ever make outs.

Its backup QB syndrome. The guy who isn't playing is always the most popular guy, because he doesn't ever make outs.

Whereas Pierre is among the league leader in making outs.

He's had 2 horrible months out of 3, his OBP on the year is .324, his ISO is .047, he's 13 of 23 in SB and he's been hot garbage in the field. He's in the middle of a hot streak that's gotten his numbers back to bad rather than among the worst in the game, cherry picking some stats doesn't change the fact that he's beed awful this season.

 

Of course no one's complaining right now he has a .900+ OPS over his last 10 games, it's a very convenient time to start posting some Juan Pierre stats.