I think the Sox are primed for a run at the top for a while.  I think the Indians will be up with the Sox for a while competing for a AL Central title and WC birth every year.  I see Minnesota and Detroit trying to hang along for the ride and every so often staying in the race till August.  The Royals--well the Royals--they will remain at the bottom.  The White Sox have the rotation--and depth in there--to remain at the top.  A strong and young backend of the bullpen and a good mix of young hitting talent (Crede, Anderson, Uribe, Iguchi to an extent) to go along with solid vets (Dye, Konerko, Thome.)  They also have solid pitchers in the minors in Liotta, Broadway and McCarthy.  They have some good hitters as well with Sweeney, Valido, Rogowski and Fields.  Most importantly, the Sox have the financial resources to stay at the top.  Indians have a great balance of young hitters, pitchers, but they need to get younger in the pen.  Their system is productive and they have the financial resources, but haven't used it.  The Twins don't spend money and even with their farm system, I don't see them contending with the Sox and Indians.  Tigers have Zumaya and Verlander on the way, but their hitters are getting old and have no pen.  

The winner in the central will be the team that stays healthy and gets better than expected production from some of their players. The White Sox, Tigers, Twins and Cleveland all have a shot at doing that.

The White Sox probably have the most room to absorb some problems and stay competitive. But I think they also have the biggest question marks regarding health and the fewest players who are likely to improve on last years performance.

Cleveland has some possibilities for improvement. But they have some young guys who could just as easily take steps back.

Same with the Twins. They have some players who could break out in Morneau, Mauer (not that last year was a problem) and Kubel. And I think they helped themselves with Castillo, White and Batista. They have a lot of depth in the rotation, if you include their pitching prospects like Baker and Liriano, and the bullpen is solid. But, like Cleveland, they need to be served by youth. That is always dicey.

The Tigers are in much the same position. They are probably the weakest of the four and it would take more than a few standout performances for them to pull out the division title. But they have some talent that could do it.

I think Chicago, Cleveland and Minny all deserve to feel like contenders entering the season.  IF (that's a big word) Liriano and Baker pitch like they did last year, the Twins will have the best pitching in the division, no disrespect to Chicago intended.  Nathan and Rincon are still lethal on the back end, and Crain, despite changing into a sinkerballer instead of a strikeout fiend, also has value.  Romero is addition by subtraction, and I could see LIriano break into the majors as the lefty in the pen (like Santana did) for that reason.  
The TWins HAVE TO trade for an OF bat and find a real 3b.  They have minor league pitching all over the place, but precious few hitting prospects of any real impact.  Move a pitching prospect or 2 to get a real 3b, let Bartlett sink or swim at ss, and get Cuddyer into a platoon role, at best, on an OF corner.  He's that bad in the infield.  Mauer, Morneau (hopefully learning something) Castillo, Bartlett, 3b to be acquired, Hunter, yuck in the corner OF slots, White DHing.  It's not a worldbeating lineup, but if they can find enough runs to support the pitching, this is a dangerous team.
Chicago has improved over last year's team except that I think each starter figures to regress from their performance in 2005.  Garland was a major fluke, perhaps Contreras as well.  Garcia is probably doing what he usually does, but even Buehrle stepped up and pitched better than he usually has.  THe pen was awesome, with Politte, Cotts, Hermanson, etc. all throwing career best stuff up.  Expect some backsliding, but adding Thome, if healthy, makes up for alot of mistakes on the pitching side.  
The Tribe should be up and coming, but their starters just aren't strong enough to win this year.  They need a monster ace to complement CC and Lee (Westbrook, Byrd and Johnson are just barely above average inning eaters), and they need another great year from their pen to win.  Cabrera looks good, Riske, Betancourt and Rhodes are very solid, and Wickman sucks.  STill, the pen is strong enough to win games rather than lose them, and the O will score runs in bunches, like last year.  Sizemore was over his head, as was Peralta, but both are very promising young hitters who figure to get better down the line.  3b is awful with Boone, and they need a bopper in an OF corner to upgrade from Blake.  Another 1b would help as well.  They are 2 bats and an ace from being AL pennant contenders.
JAS

Even if Baker and Liriano pitch well, they can't compete with the Sox rotation.  
Twins   vs.  Sox
Starters

Santana > Buerhle
Radke   < Garland
Silva   < Contreras
Baker   < Garcia
Liriano < Vazquez
or Lohse

Bullpen

Nathan  > Jenks
Rincon  < Cotts + no steroids
Crain   < Politte
Guerrier< Hermanson
Reyes   > McCarthy

Sox overall are better

Garland was the 11th pick in the draft for a reason.  Contreras was the best international pitcher before he came to America.  How are they flukes?   Garland wasn't like Loaiza who at 32 finds it.  Garland was 25 years old last year and finally showed why he was a number one pick and prospect.  

I wouldn't say Garland and Contreras were flukes, but they had the best year of their careers last year. By some measures, so did Buehrle. I wouldn't necessarily expect them all to repeat that.

Both the Twins and White Sox have solid rotations. Which will be better next year is an open question. The Twins have an open spot in the rotation and reason to expect the same or better performance from their other four starters based on their histories. The White Sox don't have any openings, but they really should have questions about the ability of every starter to repeat last year based on their performznce before that. It doesn't mean they won't all do as well or better, but it isn't something you would expect to happen.

They were very lucky early in the season last year, winning a lot of games in their last AB or breaking 2-2 ties in the 8th with clutch hitting.  You can't count on that again, so they could very well have a better team this year and lose 6-7 more games.  The key is really Anderson and Thome.  I think the rotation is very good and the bullpen will hold up enough (although it could also implode).  

Tribe have a lot of holes in the rotation (Westbrook, Johnson, Byrd).  They are a solid team, but the SP is not the same as the White Sox or Twins.  They were battle the Twins for second.

Minnesota could be good, but they have an owner who refuses to spend the extra $12-15 million to really make the team a contender and an GM who is clueless in many areas.  They could use a 3B to platoon with Batista (Branyan???) and another arm in the pen.  Then they have to hope that Mauer, Bartlett, and Morneau take significant leaps this year and Kubel can hit .300 15-70.  Oh, and they have to stay healthy.  First is not out of the question, but they are most likely a third place team.

Detroit can contend for third if Verlander and Zumaya can start, Maggs and I-Rod can prove that they can hit without steroids, and the bullpen arms can hold up.

Kansas City is a mess.

They could use a 3B to platoon with Batista

Batista is right handed and hits right-handers at least as well as lefties. Why would you waste a roster spot on Branyon to platoon with him? The Twins could use a left handed bat off the bench, but not because of Batista.

they have an owner who refuses to spend the extra $12-15 million to really make the team a contender

Its not at all clear that an extra $12-15 million would make that much difference.

The White Sox were very lucky last year.  Most of their pitchers and many position players exceeded what was projected from them.  Even with all that, their third order wins (see Baseball Prospectus) were only 87, which means they were extremely lucky last year IN ADDITION to having exceeded their projections.  Though many will laugh this off, they were essentially the 2002 Angels, a mediocre team that had good fortune and vastly exceeded projections, and rode it all the way to the top.  So even though they've improved themselves with Thome (if he stays healthy), their true level is that of an 85-90 win team, if you assume average luck and some regression to the mean for the players who exceeded projections.

The Indians, however, really were a 95 win team last year, and though they have gone slightly backwards so far this offseason, I expect them to be in the 90-95 win range again.

The Twins won 83 games last year with the worst offense in baseball by a fair margin.  They've improved their offense (though Batista needs to be replaced with a real baseball player - Cuddyer was a lot better) by getting Castillo and White, and teams that do that poorly on offense usually come back towards the mean.  I expect the Twins to be around the 90 win mark - maybe higher if they get a real third baseman.

Overall, I'd say it's pretty up in the air, but if you pin me down, I'd say:

1. Indians - 94 wins
   
2. Twins - 91 wins
   
3. White Sox - 87 wins
   
4. Tigers - 77 wins
   
5. Royals - 65 wins

Should be a good race this year.

IMHO, the White Sox are the frontrunners considering the additions of Thome and Vazquez, but their key is Jenks. If he can keep it going, they will most likely win 95+ games and win the division.

Cleveland is a very good young team and will battle for both the WC & the division. I'm a little concerned about the rotation considering how much Millwood gave them last year, but I really like the bullpen and their offense should be in the top 4 in the AL.

Minnesota is very difficult to gauge. They have excellent pitching, especially if Liriano is as good as advertised. Their offense is the key, especially Mauer and Morneau. I think Mauer will take a step forward this year in the power department, but I have concerns about Morneau. He had a lot of physical problems last year, so I will give him a slight pass for last year, but he needs to get back to being the guy he was in 2004. If not, they are in trouble.

Detroit will continue to build their pitching staff with Verlander and possibly Zumaya adding to Bonderman to form a formidable rotation. Again, their problem is offense, and I doubt that Mags can ever be the guy he was a few years ago.

Kansas City is a mess and they really need to get some pitching. They should be outstanding in the future at 1b, 3b, and dh with Gordon, Huber, and Butler on the way, but the key is Greinke. I am very interested to see how he bounces back from last year. Maybe they can flip Grudz and Minky for decent prospects at the deadline, but who would do that? :)

With the naked eye they were very lucky last year early on.  They almost lost the division late in the season, but then peaked and played great baseball the last month of the season on into the playoffs.  They deserved to win it all in 2005, but that doesn't mean it will carry over to 2006.  Bullpen seems a bit weaker to me.  I don't expect Politte and Hermanson to be as good, Marte is gone, and Jenks certainly is no sure thing.  Thome might be done.  Brian Anderson is unproven.  I like the rotation, and that makes them the favorites right now.

lenred:
------------------------------------------
Mauer hasn't proven he can stay healthy and produce.
-------------------------------------------------

Not except for the entire 2005 campaign:

G-131  AB-489   runs-61  hits-144  2b-26  3b-2   hr-9   rbi-55  sb-13  cs-1  bb-61  so-64  Avg-.294  Ob%.372  Slg%.411 OBP+108

magsmags said:
-----------------------
Santana > Buerhle
---------------------

Absolutely, by an order of Magnitude (which is saying nothing bad about Buerhle).

-------------------
Radke   < Garland
-------------------

Radke had ERA+s of 103 136 and 109 the past three seasons. Garland had 99 100 127. Both had one season significantly better than normal in that timeframe, but Radke's done that twice before while Garland's only 25 and has been a below average pitcher up until 2005.  Calling Garland superior can only be based on an expected decline from Radke and supposing 2005 is Garland maturing to a better than average pitcher. Both suppositions could be correct, but rely on speculation.  For me, Radke = Garland.

-----------------------
Silva   < Contreras
----------------------

I'm not certain on what basis you claim this. By ERA+ and WHIP, Silva was better the last two years.  Both pitchers have had only about two years experience as starters. Contreras is a stuff pitcher who has had problems with being erratic, while Silva's a groundball inducer who's just a weird freakazoid with control. Polar opposites. Contreras is entering his age 34 season, Silva his 27th, though statistical decline is a real possibility for either for different reasons.  Now even going on limited history, Silva's been better and I'd give him better odds of continuing to be better.

I think Silva > Contreras.

------------------
Baker   < Garcia
------------------

Certainly. Garcia has been a better than average pitcher looking the last three seasons by posting ERA+s of 99, 121, and 115. Baker is entering his first full season at age 24 while Garcia is comfortably in a pitcher's prime, not withstanding his projectable skills, Garcia is indeed likely to produce a better 2006.

--------------------
Liriano < Vazquez
or Lohse
--------------------

That's hard to say.  If we're talking about vintage Vazquez, yes.  If he doesn't somehow recover from a two year trend, then he's no better than Lohse and probably no better to a little worse than Liriano.  I don't think moving to Chicago helps his HR rate all that much, so...

Vazquez = Lohse/Liriano
------------------
Bullpen

Nathan  > Jenks
-------------------

Agreed.

------------------------
Rincon  < Cotts + no steroids
------------------------

Rincon was not significantly different post-suspension.  He's just a year older than Cotts and has a solid history as a dominating righty setup guy.  Cotts has had just one great year.

-------------------
Crain   < Politte
-------------------

Politte, like a lot of WS pitchers, just had a very good year last year.  Clearly, he's better than league average and has been around awhile to establish that.  Crain has been just about as good the last two seasons for no apparent reason.  I agree with your asessment.

--------------------------
Guerrier< Hermanson
--------------------------

THis can only be said because Hermanson is a bit more of a known quantity but he's yet another Whitesox pitcher blessed by an inordinantly good season.  His career has been erratic from one year to the next, wheras Guerrier is a ? due to limited exposure.  I don't think this one is even a valid comp as Guerrier is long relief and Hermanson closed last year.  It's better to compare Jenks to Guerrier based on time of service, in which case Hermanson is bettered by Nathan and Guerrier and Jenks is likely a wash.  I'm not certain all these are valid comps.

--------------------
Reyes   > McCarthy
--------------------

This one is not even worth analysing.  McCarthy must be pretty bad to deserve this, especially since Reyes is only passable as a LOOGY, and Twin's Manager Ron Gardenhire has been reluctant to use Loogys as loogys, meaning he may see more RH batters than is good and he may end up with horrible #s if he heads north (which is not a given)

To me, the top of Minnesota's rotation is better overall with 4-5 starter upside where Chicago's can reasonably only maintain or go down.  Plus, The difference between Santana and anyone else discussed here is huge.

I think Minnesota's bullpen is better in the 7th-9th innings for certain.

Offensively, Minnesota is counting on a lot of improvement wheras Chicago only has to (and is at least likely to) maintain with additional possible upside in a healthy slugging Thome.

Still, I think Chicago is a better team on paper.

As I said in another thread, the White Sox are returning most of their strengths - power hitting and good starting pitching being the big thing.

Their bullpen has lost a little, and I think it lost enough that, after extremely good years from returning guys like Jenks and Cotts, the 'pen won't repeat its extraordinarily good 2005.  

The other aspect of their game that I pointed out was the number of times they strike out and their low OBP.  Adding Thome might not help the K's, but if he's healthy, he will contribute to the OBP part of the equation.  That said, there are a lot of 100 K guys on this team.

While I'm not confident that the White Sox are that much better, I'm also not sure that other teams have improved as much - I don't like the Tiger's chances with Pudge and Magglio, I don't like the Indians' starting rotation (although I do really like Travis Hafner), and I don't really like the Twins' offense.  We don't really have to discuss the Royals.

My opinion is that the division will come down to the Indians and the White Sox again.  If Peralta and Hafner improve, which I think is distinctly possible, and if the Indians have anything resembling a solid rotation, which I'm not as convinced about, I'd give them the slight edge.  But who knows?  

I really like the NFL commercials that have been airing recently - the ones in which people say "You know what I would do?  Fire Mike Holmgren" and "Who's Chad Johnson?"  A lot happens in 6 months.  I mean, who knows?  Come September 06, we might be saying "Who knew Jeremy Bonderman was Cy Young material."

I will care what his OBP is ... he will still hurt the team almost as much as Juan Castro

Which demonstrates what I mean by fanatic. A player can't hit 25 HR's and drive in 80 runs while hurting his team. At least not on offense.

----------------------------------------------
Which demonstrates what I mean by fanatic. A player can't hit 25 HR's and drive in 80 runs while hurting his team. At least not on offense.
-----------------------------------------------

Yes they can. Especially given what little he gives you besides the occasional homerun, and it's not fanatical to see this sort of type of hitter as a problem, it's a matter of being a realist.

Look at the seasons he's put up 26hr at most since 2000:

2001 4.12 Runs created/27 outs
2003 3.48 Runs created/27 outs

that's not too great. And it's not a given that he can hit 25hr in a full season anymore, and it's not a given that he can drive in 80 on this team even if he can hit 25 longballs.  When he used to bat .260-.270 and manage a .300 on base clip, his power made him usefull. I'm afraid he would have to hit more than 30hr to be considered an average offensive threat.

Now, when management replaces a different guy (cuddyer) who produced 5.08 and 4.63 runs/27 outs the last few seasons with a guy like Batista, that hurts the team. (you see, it isn't just ob% that dsnt like Batista)

I don't think there is an accurate statistical model for baseball. And to the extent there is one, it would be far too complex for discussion here, or for me to be willing to take the time to understand muchless explain. So if you consider the absence of statistical evidence to mean you are right then go for it.

But I would point out that 25 HR would have lead the Twins last year. As would 80 RBI's. And we are talking about a player likely to be batting 8th in the order.

-------------------------------------
I don't think there is an accurate statistical model for baseball.
--------------------------------------

People who study accurate statistical models for baseball would disagree with you.

People who study accurate statistical models for baseball would disagree with you.

Yes, I am sure there are people who believe they have accurate statistical models. They are wrong.

Why would you want your #8 hitter to make so many outs?

Why would you want any player to make outs. That is pretty much irrelevant. Teams will make 27 outs. Players who hit 25 HR's and drive in 80 runs have contributed to a team's offense regardless of how many outs they make. While you might be able to invent a statistical player where that wouldn't be true, it is true for real players in real life.

...apparently, what matters is HR and self-creating Rbi's.

--------------------------------------
Why would you want any player to make outs. That is pretty much irrelevant. Teams will make 27 outs. Players who hit 25 HR's and drive in 80 runs have contributed to a team's offense regardless of how many outs they make. While you might be able to invent a statistical player where that wouldn't be true, it is true for real players in real life
---------------------------------------

So you are a guy who doesn't believe in established offensive statistical analysis who also likes to present strawmen arguments?

Good night.

20 fewer outs for your better hitters to make.

Why would you want your better hitters to make more outs? That is not intended to be facetious. The obvious answer is you wouldn't. But you are on to the obvious, you hope that they will do something instead of making outs.

Not making outs is not the value. Not making an out usually just means someone else will make the out. The value is what a player does instead of making an out. The batter who gets an at bat because a hitter doesn't make an out is the batter who makes the last out of the inning.

This is why we value people who hit home runs. And that is why walks are valuable. It even why some outs have more value than others. But none of those things gains any more value from not being an out - they are valuable for what they contribute to scoring runs. Of course there isn't any fixed value to what they are worth in that regard either. It depends on the situation and sometimes a walk is the same as a hit. But usually it isn't.

In the case of Batista if he hits 25 HR and contributes 80 RBI's over the course of the season  he accomplished a lot. The outs he made along the way doesn't change that.

So you are a guy who doesn't believe in established offensive statistical analysis

Its funny how the Brewers released Branyan, apparently no GM in either league picked up him up off waivers and yet we are hearing how established statistical analysis says he is a more productive player than Batista. And  Batista's contract calls for a higher salary than Branyan's.

This is what I mean by people believing they have the model, yet the people making the decisions don't seem to follow it. The reason isn't that GM's are stupid, its that the actual game is a lot more complex than the simple models popular on internet sites.

No Royals talk?

"FYI - sac hits don't get factored in OBP. So they aren't adversely affecting his OBP."

I didn't say they were. What I said was that there was "no real measure of situational hitting". I was pointing to parts of situational hitting we do have some measures for.

But your basic point that Batista's poor OBP isn't a direct result of situational hitting is probably correct. His poor OBP is probably not a result of his home runs either. I am not sure what difference that makes in evaluating him.  

I can't believe so much of this thread dedicated to discussing the better of 2 players that nobody wants and are barely in the league - and are likely to be replaced anyway. Talk about a waste of time.

First of all, a hit is NOT always better than a walk.  An extra base hit certainly is, but this probably accounts for only 25% or so of hits.  A single with no one on base is exactly as valuable as a walk.  A single which only advances runners one base (and that is a fair proportion of singles) is exactly as valuable as a walk vis a vis advancement of runners.

Now, in some cases, a walk can be more valuable than a hit, because it makes the pitcher throw more pitches on average.  This is a factor which people don't often consider.  A batter with good plate discipline can help tire out pitchers more quickly because they make the pitchers throw more pitches during their at-bat and by getting on base more often forces the pitcher to pitch to more batters, and that is a more consistent method of getting "productive outs" than a guy who manages to get 10 sac flies because he got almost 500 outs total.

So, in summary, yes, overall a HIT is more valuable.  But is a single more valuable than a walk?  That is pretty tough to say.

Overall, back to Branyan specifically...his failure to find employment is much more related to his fielding than his hitting.  He'd be best off as a DH vs. righties, and Batista is a better fielder.  Unfortunately, Batista is a nearly worthless hitter.

Now, in some cases, a walk can be more valuable than a hit, because it makes the pitcher throw more pitches on average.

Do you have some data that shows that to be true? It makes some sense since the pitcher has to throw at least four balls to get a walk. But the guy who gets a hit may very well foul offed pitches that would have been balls before getting a hit - causing the pitcher to throw more pitches than if he would have taken the pitches and walked.

a hit is NOT always better than a walk.

I can't find anyone who said it was.

But is a single more valuable than a walk?  That is pretty tough to say.

No. It really isn't tough to say the average single is more valuable than the average walk. But if you think so, I can understand why you value Branyan so much more than baseball's GM's do.

his failure to find employment is much more related to his fielding than his hitting.

I doubt it. Branyan is one of those guys that takes pitches until someone puts a pitch across the middle of the plate. If the pitcher hits the corners and gets the calls, he strikes out. If the pitcher doesn't get the calls, he walks. If the pitcher gives in and puts it over the middle of the plate he can hit it a long way.

Not surprisingly, about two thirds of Branyan's walks come with runners on base when pitchers aren't willing to give in. And he hits more home runs when the bases are empty and they are willing to take a chance on his power.

Unfortunately, Batista is a nearly worthless hitter.

Its hard for me to see a guy who has averaged close to 30 HR in his career as worthless.

though he had another flash of usefulness in 2002. Since then, it's been three straight years of varying levels of awfulness

Which doesn't address anything I said. Batista hit 31 HR in 2002, 26 in 2003 and 32 in 2004. How exactly is 32 HR (and 110 RBI's) in 2004, his last year in the major leagues, a level of "awfulness"?

The average single IN ISOLATION is slightly more valuable than the average walk, since a minority of singles advance runners more than one base

The minority of walks advance runners at all - the only time they do so is with a runner on first. Singles advance runners no matter what base they are on. Some singles go for extra bases. Its actually hard to conceive of a walk being better than a single under any circumstances. The only argument is that some walks take more pitches than some singles. And I will give you that one.

it's ridiculous to say that the guy with the vastly lower OBP is better because he hits more singles,

No it isn't. All you need to do is look at the results to see that those singles with runners on base are a lot more valuable than Branyan's walks with runners on base.

It ain't Branyan's fault that managers are too stupid to pull Batista out of the lineup.

There we are again. That belief that you have a statistical model that trumps the experience of professionals in the game.

It is probably true that Branyan's #'s would decline somewhat if he played every day vs. righties, but the gulf between the recent #'s of the two is so wide that they are not even comparable.

That gulf is as wide as the Mississippi, at its source.

with Batista, we're basically talking about a AAA quality hitter at this point.

If there are guys at AAA who can hit 32 HR and drive in 110 in the major leagues, some team has themselves a very hot prospect.

Now, are you really going to try to argue

No. I'm going to stop since we will just go in circles. Do you really think this comparison has any meaning?

"(for Branyan, vs. righties only)"

There are probably plenty of guys in AAA who could hit 32 HR and drive in 110 if they were determined never to walk and were guaranteed 650 PA in the heart of a major league lineup.

Since you believe that I can see why you don't think Batista is any good. But I think you ought to really look at whether you think that is even remotely true.

I think Gleeman did a column that showed that Batista generated more outs per RBI than any player EVER who had 99+ RBI...comfortably.  Ah...here it is:  

There it isn't. I can understand the confusion since Gleeman is just spinning a tale and facts to fit it.

The fact is in 2004 Batista made 4.182 outs per RBI and both Michael Young and Carlos Delgado had more outs per RBI at 4.788 and 4.221. The average player that year made 5.521 outs per RBI.

In 2003, Batista was the worst of the players with more than 99 RBI's, but it wasn't even close to an historic high and he still was above average for all players.

And in 2000, there were 8 players worse than Batista.

To the great TT on being the only person argues that Tony Batista is a viable major league talent.  1 out of 30 people here...oh, I guess that puts him right there with Terry Ryan on thinking that Batista is any good.  

You will be proven wrong when Batista is benched after 75 futile games.

You're treating RBI like it's something that's created in a vaccuum.  They aren't.

Nothing is in baseball. Not outs. Not RBI's. Not Hits. Not Walks. So what is your point? It certainly doesn't make the claim that Batista is somehow historically bad accurate. He isn't.

I guess that puts him right there with Terry Ryan on thinking that Batista is any good.  

I'm actually not convinced Batista is any good. He will have to prove himself in spring training. If he sticks out of spring training I think he will hold the job for the year. I also think if he hits 25 HR and drives in 80 the Twins ought to be very happy and that is something he may be able to do.

But the truth is Batista will never make the people here who are slavishly devoted to OBP happy. He could hit 40 HR and drive in 120 and they would still complain that he doesn't walk enough and makes too many outs. And people who believe that AAA is loaded with players who can hit 30 HR and drive in 100 aren't going to be convinced by anything Batista does either.

Batista would have lead the Twins in Runs, HR's and RBI's last year if he got the same numbers as he did in 2004. How anyone can suggest that having that kind of production wouldn't help the Twins is beyond me. Which was the original point of this discussion, not people's pet statistical theories on what makes a good player.

gotta love the twinkies who celebrate the pitch to contact approach that their pitching coach preaches. The approach that is designed to keep pitch counts low, minimize walks and use the defense to make outs. Obviously for their pitching staff they feel preventing walks has value.

Then on the flip side their GM signs a batter who doesn't walk and can't get on base. They then go 180 degrees the other direction and state that walks are overrated and state that are just part of some sabr-oriented flawed ideal.

But I'm done talking about this. Apparently they are estatic to have Tony Batista and Kyle Lohse. Well, they got 'em. Be careful what you wish for.

since the central theme of hitting is to not make an out,

Since that isn't the central theme of hitting we can stop right there. Its what people do, not what they don't do, that contributes to offense.

it's also important to note that they scored 4 more runs without him last year than they did with him in 2004.

And made about the same number of outs.

that shouldn't have happened.

I don't know why not. They made a lot of changes, so maybe adding Jose Guillen had some impact. It sure wasn't Vinny Castilla, Batista's replacement at third, who made up the difference. That was a bigger dropoff from 2004 than they had at shortstop with Guzman.  

You might as well ask why, if it was his teammates that gave Batista his RBI's, no one came close to his 2004 totals in 2005.

"There's still a rather simple concept in baseball-- three outs, no matter how productive they are, and its back to playing the field."

And I suppose the same is true for defense. Get three outs and it doesn't matter how many runs the other team scores, they are back to playing in the field.

The truth is teams make pretty much the same number of outs in a game - with the obvious difference created by home field wins. The difference in who wins is how many runs they score, not how many outs they make.

Yes, but the team scoring more runs generally does so by getting more baseruners (that is, making outs at a lower rate) than the opposition.

Power and situational hitting are important, too, but a team isn't going to win many games in the long haul by hitting solo HR's or advancing the few runners you get by an extra base.

Individual games, yes...there are some where situational hitting makes a big difference, but this generally shows up in the stats.

The only thing that wouldn't show up is when you advance the runners a base on a non-SF or SH, and I'm very skeptical that that happens often enough to be a significant factor in the evaluation of a player.

I wish you all had Insider so you could read Neyer's article today on ESPN - he pretty much wrote the same things that got me called a moron by some White Sox homers.

He explains 2nd order win projections, and why they are accurate.  From that he identifies the White Sox and Angels as the most likely to take a fall.

Here's the money paragraph:  "If you believe in second-order wins -- and I think that you do -- the White Sox were 11 games worse than the Indians last season, and only three games better than the Twins. No, the Indians probably won't play as well in 2006. Yes, the White Sox might be the best team in the Central Division (particularly if Jim Thome is healthy). But if given a choice between betting on the White Sox or the field, you have to take the field, because there's a pretty good chance that the Indians or the Twins -- both of whom strengthened their rosters this winter -- will knock off the Sox."

Well, at least I'm in good company as far as morons go.  I'm not real sure that the Indians strengthened their roster this offseason, but otherwise I'm right there.

Yes, but the team scoring more runs generally does so by getting more baseruners (that is, making outs at a lower rate) than the opposition

No, they don't. Which is why no one looks only at OBP.

Power and situational hitting are important, too, but a team isn't going to win many games in the long haul by hitting solo HR's or advancing the few runners you get by an extra base.

But in truth the number of times a team scores depends at least as much on its ability to get runners over as the ability to get people on base.

Who scored the fewest runs in baseball last year? The Nats. They also had the fewest home runs per plate appearance and the lowest SLG. Their OBP was better than several teams ahead of them.

The Phillies had a better OBP and better AVG than either the Rangers or the Reds but finished behind them in runs scored in part because they had a lower SLG.

The team with the fewest walks last year was Tampa, they finished 12th in runs scored. Arizona and San Diego both finished with almost 200 more walks than Tampa and still ended up scoring 50 to 60 fewer runs. The argument that how many times you get on base is the key to scoring runs just isn't true.

this generally shows up in the stats

No, it doesn't. Some aspects of situations show up in stats. But most don't. The pitchers, the base runners, how well other hitters on the team are doing, even the time of day and shadows on the field are all part of what approach a hitter might take. And those things don't even out over the course of a season or a career.

Statistics only give us a blurry vision of what happened. They are useful, but they become misleading when people start to believe that they can distinguish features in the statistics that just aren't there.

I'm done discussing this as it's clear TT will not stop reverting the discussion to rbi production as some sort of supreme example of why Batista isn't as bad as his more individual skill stats state, while plainly making stuff up about "would have the Twins in runs" and other such nonsense.

I didn't say that OBP is the ONLY stat that matters, but it is at least as important as SLG, probably a little more.  When you are basically the worst in the league in OBP or SLG, you have a major problem, especially if you play an offensive position and your fielding is nothing special.

There simply aren't that many "productive outs".  SF are one example, and that shows up in the stats.  There's a chart out there that shows the run expectation for each situation here:  http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2844.

If you have a runner on 2nd with nobody out, and you get him over to third while giving up an out, it actually lowers your run expectation for the inning.  It's certainly better than making an out without moving the runner over, but it's not HELPING either.  even advancing runners which were on 1st and 2nd to 2nd and 3rd while giving up the first out of an inning decreases run expectation ever so slightly.

"No, it doesn't. Some aspects of situations show up in stats. But most don't. The pitchers, the base runners, how well other hitters on the team are doing, even the time of day and shadows on the field are all part of what approach a hitter might take. And those things don't even out over the course of a season or a career."

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  Does this all explain how Batista is productive despite a 270 OBP the last few years?  What stuff doesn't even out over the course of a season or career?

"Statistics only give us a blurry vision of what happened."

They tell us exactly what happened, but the context is lost.  Other stats help in filling in various aspects of the context.  For example, if Batista is a great run producer, I'd expect that to show up in clutch hitting stats, SF's, or some stat.  It doesn't.  He hit a lot of SF's in 2004, but that was a one-year blip.

ven so, it's a little misleading to say it's "easier" to score with a runner on 3rd and 1 out than a runner on 2nd with no out

These are actually two different questions. The table you linked is the number of runs expected after that situation, not how likely it is to score just one run.

And it ought to be clear to anyone who watches games that the likelihood changes depending on the speed of the runner, the outfielder's arms, how deep they are playing, who is at the plate and how well the pitcher is pitching.

Which is a big part of the reason teams with Batista on them rarely finish in the first half of the division in runs scored.

So its Batista's fault that the Jays and Orioles didn't finish with more runs than the Red Sox and Yankees? That's hysterical.

The chess arguement was the best chance to beat him.

Beat who at what?

You start each game of chess with 16 pieces. You start each baseball game with 27 outs.

That has nothing to do with the analogy that cmathewson used. He was talking about the different value of different outcomes depending on the situation in a game.

With the exception of the King, the value of a piece in chess changes depending on the situation. So does the value of a walk, an out, a HR, etc. So does the value of a player for that matter.

Players new to the game of chess often get focused on taking the other player's pieces based on some fixed idea of their value instead of their strategic significance.  Like this, in fact:

"The less of them you have, the lower your chances of mounting an offensive."

What's the excuse from the year he was on the Toronto team that led the AL in homeruns,

Excuse for what?

it's pretty misleading to turn an arguement about getting on-base into an arguement about sacrafices.

I agree. But then I was under the impression this was a discussion of the American League Central division and it seems to have turned into an argument over the dogma of OBP.

Tony Batista has had a lousy OBP. He has done a lot of other things well. Overall he could be a pretty good addition to the Twins if he hits like he did the last few years in the majors.

Except for you Jewscott.  You have made me proud.

Its easy to tell when a group of people has lost an argument. They stop making their arguments and start attacking the people who disagree with them instead.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on Batista. Although if he has a good year, I am sure it will get repeated again and again and again ...  

Huh?  I was under the impression we won the argument... ;-)

Which probably explains why you aren't resorting to personal attacks.

the Twins should be elated if they get a performance like his 2004 performance.

I agree. With their pitching, if Batista hits 32 home runs and drives in 110 the Twins will likely win the division. That kind of production from the 8th spot in the order would be extraordinary. :)

I haven't seen the reports from Japan. But it is certainly plausible Batista is done. If that is the case, he probably won't make it out of spring training.

"I agree. With their pitching, if Batista hits 32 home runs and drives in 110 the Twins will likely win the division. That kind of production from the 8th spot in the order would be extraordinary."

Well, I was speaking more of his batting #'s.  I think it would be extremely hard to get 110 RBI's out of the #8 spot in the Twins lineup unless one was named Albert Pujols perhaps.  I meant hitting 32 HR with a 272 OBP and a 455 SLG.

Unfortunately, I believe he would be likely to slip under a 270 OBP and will be lucky to clear 400 in SLG.