HR/OFFB% Park Factors

The following comes from my latest post on The Hardball Times. Because of the width of our site, to get 4-year home run per FLYBALL park factors, you'll have to go to my above link to THT.

A couple of years ago, former THT writer Dan Turkenkopf tabulated an index of single-season (2009) and four-year home run per fly ball (HR/FB) park factors. I have griped plenty about using HR/FB rates over home run per outfield fly ball (HR/OFFB) rates in tabulating xFIP many times in the past, most recently last week, because HR/FB rates include pop-ups (IFFB), which can never be home runs. The data, over large samples, may be insignificant in difference overall, but why use bad data and skew the margins? It's like Fangraphs' incomprehensible decision to use strikeouts per at-bat (K/AB) instead of strikeouts per plate appearance (K/PA) to calculate strikeout percentage*. (Dave Cameron has indicated that recalibrating Fangraphs' database would likely be a cumbersome process.)

*Here are two examples why Fangraphs' K% calculations, done as K/AB, make no sense. First, assume player X has a particular K/PA in year N. In year N+1, he maintains the same K/PA rate, but increases his walk rate. Though his K/PA remains stable, Fangraphs would report his K% as having "increased," imparting negative stigma and poor analysis by persons who are not aware that K%, not on the same scale as BB% (calculated as BB/PA), does not per se indicate actual strikeout skill. Likewise, players with higher walk rates exhibit disproportionately high strikeout rates.

Ryan Howard, for example, has a career K% of 31.9 percent on Fangraphs, but has only struck out in 27.5 percent of his total plate appearances. For Howard, who strikes out a lot, this may not matter or make much of a difference if you analyze him, but for a player like Prince Fielder (career 22.1 percent K%), it does. Fielder has struck out in only 18.6 percent of his total plate appearances. On the surface, it would seem as though Brennan Boesch (20.4 percent K%) and Ryan Braun (20.5 percent K%) are "noticeably" better at avoiding strike three, but are in reality substantially the same, owning respective K/PA rates of 18.1 and 18.4 percent for their careers.

Other high walk "strikeout" sluggers, such as Geovany Soto, have K/PA rates that are lower than low-walk players with lower K% rates. Some say "well you can't strike out in a walk, so why use plate appearances in the denominator," but you also can't strike out in a hit or walk in a strikeout, and yet we accept plate appearances as the denominator for walk rate (BB%). Plus, just logically, shouldn't K% represent how likely a player is to strike out when he comes to the plate? Why make Shin-Shoo Choo's year-to-year K% like comparing apples to oranges because of a fluctuating walk rate?

Particularly where your data has an abnormal pop-up rate, HR/FB-tabulated xFIP loses a lot of its value. In fields like Oakland where there is a lot of foul territory, and in parks like Wrigley, where there is practically none, the differences in HR/FB and HR/OFFB rates might make a difference. The difference may be a couple of home runs at most (park factors only apply, in theory, in a half-step, as a player's expected number of home games is just 50 percent), but in a game of inches, such could affect Z-Scores, data distribution, etc. If memory served, HR/OFFB has also shown to be less volatile year-to-year than HR/FB.

Because I have such a penchant for HR/OFFB-based calculations, including them as a data point in my xWHIP Calculator, I asked a favor of Dan, who has in turn tabulated an index of HR/OFFB rates by ballpark using data from 2006-2009. We did not have the necessary 2010 data offhand to tabulate 2007-2010 rates, but hopefully this offseason we will be able to plug in 2008-2011 data for a fresher version of these numbers.

As with Dan's 2009 post on HR/FB park factors, certain parks have less data, are weighted similarly (but without the same old data to affect the weights), and may not be as reliable. The data below regards old Twins Stadium (the Metrodome), while the Mets' and the Yankees' Park Factors are from one season only. The Nationals' Park Factor also only uses two seasons worth of data, and is weighted at 5 and 3. All other parks feature four-year weighed factors of 5,3,2,1.

Without further ado, here is the goldmine of data you've probably always wanted, but never had (at least not that I was aware of) until now, ranked from most-to-least home run inflating per outfield fly:

Team              Park                         LG    4-Year HR/OFFB
Yankees           New Yankee Stadium           AL               120
Reds              Great American Ballpark      NL               116
Rays              Tropicana Field              AL               114
Orioles           Oriole Park at Camden Yards  AL               113
White Sox         US Cellular Field            AL               113
Rockies           Coors Field                  NL               111
Astros            Minute Maid Park             NL               110
Brewers           Miller Park                  NL               108
Marlins           Dolphins Stadium             NL               108
Blue Jays         Rogers Centre                AL               107
Cubs              Wrigley Field                NL               104
Mets              Citi Field                   NL               104
Angels            Angel Stadium                AL               102
Diamondbacks      Chase Field                  NL               100
Rangers           The Ballpark at Arlington    AL                98
Giants            Pacific Bell Park            NL                97
Red Sox           Fenway Park                  AL                97
Tigers            Comerica Park                AL                96
Phillies          Citizens Bank Park           NL                93
Pirates           PNC Park                     NL                93
Athletics         McAfee Colisuem              AL                92
Dodgers           Dodger Stadium               NL                92
Mariners          Safeco Park                  AL                92
Braves            Turner Field                 NL                91
Nationals         Nationals Stadium            NL                91
Twins             Metrodome                    AL                88
Indians           Jacobs Field                 AL                87
Royals            Kaufman Stadium              AL                86
Padres            PETCO Park                   NL                79
Cardinals         Busch Stadium                NL                76

Thanks again to Dan Turkenkopf for crunching the numbers for me. As always, leave the love/hate in the comments below.

Common Misconceptions, Part II

You can read my Part One above

Myth: Steve Bartman cost the Chicago Cubs the 2003 World Series title
Fact: Cubs errors, costly pitching, and the New York Yankees cost the Cubs the championship and pennant, not Bartman

Back Story: For all of you who think Bartman was a dick and cost the Cubs the World Series then you're a hypocrite. If you were at that game and you saw that fly ball comes towards you, you would have also reached out and would have tried to catch that ball coming towards you.

This saga has a whole lot of 1986 World Series Bill Buckner to it. All we remember is the one incident that we think was the sole reason for the team's downfall, but we forget what really happened that fateful night.

Like in the '86 World Series, the Bartman incident was Game Six. The outcome of the game was independent on who would win the series (sort of). The Cubs were winning the series 3-2 versus the Florida Marlins in the NLCS and they now had five more outs to win a trip to the World Series. Let's now go back and revisit that night. The Cubs are up 3-0 off of a brilliant performance by (the then extremely healthy) Mark Prior.

Juan Pierre is on second base and Luis Castillo hits the infamous fly ball which Steve Bartman catches. However, the Castillo at bat kept going. Because Steve Bartman caught the ball, all technically Castillo hit was a foul ball. But Cubs left fielder Moises Alou acts like a three year old and starts throwing a temper tantrum on the field. He becomes irate at Bartman because he thought he could have caught the ball that Bartman caught (Alou later admitted Castillo's fly ball out out of his reach). If Alou had just gone about his business and not brought attention to the situation then we would not be talking about this event today.

But Alou throws a hissy fit and everyone is now talking about this catch. But the score is still 3-0 and so far Prior has not given up any runs. Castillo eventually draws a walk and (due to a WP thrown in the Castillo at bat) there are runners on the corners. Pudge then hits a single making the score 3-1. Right now there are runners at second and third, one out still, and Miguel Cabrera comes to the plate.

Here is where the eighth innings stops becoming Bartman's fault and starts becoming Mark Prior's, manager Dusty Baker's, and Alex Gonzalez's fault. Because Dusty Baker is such a shit manager, he still leaves Prior in the game. A career of leaving Prior in the game too long has made Prior what he is today. Even if you believe the Bartman catch somehow rattled Prior then Baker should have pulled Prior from the game. But if you believe like I do and that Prior is a professional and was so dominant at this point in time then he should have gotten out of the inning another way.

No matter, Prior stays in the game to pitch to Cabrera. Prior did what the greats do and induced a ground ball to infielder Alex Gonzalez. What Gonzalez should have done (and easily could have done) was turned a double play so the Cubs would have gotten out of the inning up by two runs. What Gonzalez did do was bobble and misplay the ball causing Miggy to be safe at first and causing the bases to be loaded.

Then pre-wrist injury Derrek Lee comes to the plate and hits a double to tie the game. The game is not over and the Cubs still have a shot to win the game. However, the Marlins go on to score a whopping eight runs that inning and win the game 8-3.

The Marlins eventually defeated the Chicago Cubs in seven and then went on to face the New York Yankees in the World Series and became World Champs in 2003.

I was in high school in the northern suburbs of Illinois and all my friends were Cubs fans. To their credit, the vast majority of them blamed Gonzalez more than Bartman, but they were in the small minority. All you had to do was listen to five seconds of Chicago sports talk radio to hear how livid Cubs fan were at the nerdy, headphones-guy fan.

What Cubs fans and baseball fans alike seem to forgot, was that the Bartman incident was only Game Six. If the Cubs had gone out and won Game 7 then this incident would have barely been a blip on baseball history's radar. Cubs fans also forgot that Mark Prior could have gotten Luis Castillo out instead of walking him. (I mean, this is Luis Castillo we're talking about here!). Now let's say the Cubs did win in either Game Six or Game Seven, they still had to defeat the New York Yankees to become champions and there was no guarantee that would have happened.

So Cubs fans, you can blame Bartman all you want, but what you should be doing is blaming Alez Gonzalez or Dusty Baker or Mark Prior.

One last note before I move on: Let's say Bartman doesn't catch that ball. Let's say no fans reaches out to try and grab that Catillo fly ball. You wanna know what would have happened? The same thing that did happen. The ball would have been a foul ball, not been caught by Alou and Prior would still have to work to get Castillo out.

Myth: "Love Song" by Sara Bereilles was written about a former lover / significant other
Fact: The song was written to spite her record company who told her she had to write a love song to put on her record.

Back Story: "I'm not going to write you a love song / 'cause you asked for it / 'cause you need one, you see / I'm not going to write you a love song / cause you tell me it's / make or break in this"

This song makes a whole lot more sense now that you know the true meaning of it, doesn't it?

When you first listen to this song you don't really pay attention to the words. It's light, it's uplifting, it's catchy, it's bubbly, and it's got a chorus you can sing to. And then you start learning the exact words of the chorus without really paying attention to the rest of the song and you think to yourself, "Wow, this chick really must have been pissed at her old man to write this song." I mean, the only words you really know are "I'm not going to write you a love song" and you think she means she is not going to write a love song to her significant other. But you would be wrong.

According to wikipedia (the most credible source, right?):

Sara Bareilles was inspired to write "Love Song" after failing to produce successful hits, and one critic said that she needed to write "a marketable love song". Bareilles has stated that statement gave her the drive and anger necessary to write "Love Song", proving that she could indeed write a hit, and that she had no double standards.

I promise you, listen closely to the words again and you will see that wikipedia and myself are right.



Myth: Taking steroids means you will automatically hit 50+ home runs
Fact: All steroids does is help you increase muscle mass

Back Story: People who think that just because you stick a needle in your ass full of PED's that you will automatically hit home runs at record setting paces. Those people are retarded. I could start taking steroids or HGH right now and all that will make me do is become fatter than I already am. You still need to work out along with taking steroids if you want to actually increase your muscle mass.

Even if you do work out (like all baseball players do) and build muscle in places where no muscle should be, you still need to have talent in order to hit dingers. Carrot Top and Dr. Dre used steroids to help them become the buff fellas you see today, but you put them in the batter's box right now and all they will do is strike out faster than Adam Dunn.

People seem to forget that even if you are taking steroids you still need to work at your craft like every other baseball player. No steroids will make up for the fact that you have a giant hole in your swing or the fact you have a bad batter's eye.

I will admit that once you make contact with a ball with the extra muscle mass you have obtained from PED's then the magic elixir you have squirted into your veins makes that ball travel farther. However, you still need to have been really good at baseball beforehand in order to put up the numbers that Palmeiro, Bonds, Sosa, and McGwuire did.

Lastly, pitchers were also juicing during the steroids era. I would like to know the true effect of a 'roided pitcher facing a 'roided batter if there truly are effects favoring one side or another. If Clemons faced Bonds, does that extra few miles an hour on Clemons pitches have any effect on Bonds' faster bat swing? I truly don't know, but if you claim otherwise then you're just talking out of your ass.

Myth: Lance Armstrong did not take steroids
Fact: Lance Armstrong won all those Tour De France's because he was on steroids.

Back Story: Everyone bike racing in Armstrong's era was on steroids.

Myth: The Beatles are your favorite band
Fact: Nobody's favorite band is The Beatles

Back Story: "The Beatles are the greatest band ever but you're a liar if you say that they are your favorite" -Matt Kaplan-

Myth: Wins, ERA, and Batting Average are good metrics to determine how good a baseball player is.
Fact: They are awful, outdated, archaic metrics and should be used for fantasy purposes only

Back Story: I am not going to spend a whole lot of time on this because this is pretty obvious. Just go to fangraphs.com, thehardballtimes.com, or read anything baseball related on this site and you know how dumb these metrics truly are. I've seen a pitcher pitch go 7 IP, 0 ER and take the loss because the score was (and was when he left the game) 1-0 and the run was unearned instead of earned. Wins and loses are independent on your talent and more dependent on how good your team's offense and defense is. ERA and batting average are based largely on luck rather than how good a baseball player is. Either way, if you want to truly measure how good a baseball player is, then you can not do so by using the statistics on ESPN's MLB page.

I think old school baseball guys are finally coming around to see the light side of the force. In 2010, Felix Hernandez only won 13 games and lost 12. In 2009, Zach Grienke won 16 games and Tim Lincecum won 15. The one thing these three pitchers have in common: they all won and deserved to win their Cy Young and did so without winning the most number of games in their respected league. The notion used to be you have to win at least 20 games in order to win the Cy Young but I believe now that sabermetrics are becoming more prevalent (and the fact nobody wins 20 games anymore) and even the oldest of old school guys are coming off of their old way of thinking, sabermetrics will rule the world. That, and my eye.

At Least Educators Believe In Sabermetrics....

Even though Joe Morgan or Chris Rongey doesn't "believe" in numbers, there are those that do.

The importance of numbers is important in all aspects of life, not just baseball. I'm currently watching the entire series of The Wire. In the show stats are used outside Orioles games (the show takes place in Baltimore), mainly in the police department and the educational system. Under pressure to reduce the negative stats, both departments skew their stats to help their numbers. It's called "juking the stats".

It's well documented about the problems of the No Child Left Behind Act, most notably in the book Freakonomics (and in Season 4 of The Wire). The Act forces States to administer tests and how the students of the test perform is the basis of school funding. However, one man, like Bill James looking at Runs and RBI's, took at look at how the No Child Left Behind Act and how it's run and decided to speak out against it.

Here's an article about sabermetrics and the educational system:

A recent quote on Twitter from an article by education reporter Alan J. Borsuk caught the attention of Core Knowledge blogger Robert Pondiscio: "Schools can learn from baseball. [Milwaukee] Brewers wouldn't start [pitcher Trevor] Hoffman just because he's been pitching longer."

In his article, Borsuk argues that teachers should not be summarily judged based on the number of years they've been in the classroom. "It doesn't begin to tell the full story of their ability to teach."

In his blog post, Pondiscio takes that idea and runs with it. Thanks to the sophistication of baseball's number crunching, he explains, the sport is better equipped to predict the success of a player on the field than we are to determine the success of a teacher in the classroom.

Pondiscio explains that baseball has undergone a revolution in the past 25 years in which the statistical analysis of players or a team—better known by baseball fans as "sabermetrics"— is endlessly mined to determine the potential for winning.

The sabermetricians have developed individualized statistics for pitchers—known as fielding independent pitching or "FIP." These stats analyze how well a pitcher performed, regardless of his teammates' efforts. The field of education could benefit from individualized statistics like FIP, Pondiscio points out.

We are in the test scores, bromides and intangibles era of measuring teacher quality. If you're a principal, wouldn't you love to know the 'school effects' of teacher performance when it came time to make hiring decisions? Would it change your perception of merit pay if there was a classroom equivalent of FIP—the factors directly under a teacher's control? What if we could compensate teachers based on their replacement value compared to an average first year teacher?

And don't worry, I didn't give anything away about The Wire if you haven't seen it

source: http://blogs.edweek.org/

Matt Kemp Power

Once upon a time, DME coined the phrase "Matt Kemp Power" when referring to any player with an .180 ISO (that's isolated power for anyone who doesn't know *cough* Matthew Berry *cough*). ISO is a great judge of power because is measures total bases gained above those messily singles. Anyone can luck into a few bloop singles here and there, just look at Juan Pierre's whole career, but it takes a special talent to get a baseball to the wall, especially over it. It should be noted that Matt Kemp no longer has Matt Kemp power(.18o iso) as he has blossomed into a 30 home run hitter, but his name will forever be linked to his early year power numbers.

We at Game of Inches decided to expand the list of named isolated power numbers because it's so much more personable to say Tyler Colvin has Justin Morneau power as opposed to a .220 iso. It's not like we live in our mother's basement over the summers or anything. Without further adieu, I present the complete list of named isolated powers

Basketball Scoring Efficiency

I have been fascinated with the efficiency of scoring in the NBA for quite a while. Through my studies of box score on a nightly basis, it is actually very easy to assess why each team wins on a daily basis. It's not as easy as simply scoring more points than the opponents, but it's also not that much more complex.

There are only 3 ways to score points in the NBA

1) Make more shots than your opponents. This can be accomplished in several ways. Take more shots. Shoot a higher percentage. Get more rebounds. Force more turnovers

2) Make more 3-pt shots. Since a 3 pointer is worth 50% more points than a 2, you can add to your point total without increasing number of shots

3) BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT IS FREE THROW ATTEMPTS!!!!! How many times will I have to emphasize this stat on this blog. If I could chose a single category for the Bulls to lead the league in, it would be FTA. FREE POINTS PEOPLE. Here a real example from todays Bobcats/Heat game. The Heat took 12 more shots, made 1 more, 2 more 3-pointers, 5 more rebounds, and 2 more points off turnovers. Who do you think won the game? Obviously the Heat, right? Nope. Charlotte took 15 more free thrown and made 14 more to win the game easily by 10 points. Thats how important free throws are. So not to Loul Deng when you have the option of a 20 footer, which he shot 36% last year, or drive to the basket. Always drive the ball! Even if you miss the inside shot, odds are you will get fouled which will lead to FREE POINTS. This drives me crazy

So that is how you score in the NBA. Team scoring is simply an integration of each individual player on the team. So my question inquiry is who are the most efficiency scorers in NBA history. My sample consisted of the top 30 scorers in NBA history, all averaging over 22 points per game over their entire careers. Obviously, many team circumstances are involved in determining a players efficiency, but my hypothesis is that scoring efficiency is mainly an inherent property much like batting average and yards/att.

The differences between the players in terms of shots attempted, made, 3-pointers, and free throws are nicely condensed within points per game. Instead of analyzing every players ability in each scoring category, we can simply look at the overall scoring efficiency. I did this simply by subtracting field goal attempts per game from points per game.

Big men are expected to have high efficiency scoring, due to their increased shots from within 10 feet. Yet it still takes skill to get position and have the ability for make easy shots, hence it cannot be overlooked. Shockingly, Adrian Dantley has the highest efficiency of any player in NBA history. Scoring over 24 points per game while taking less than 16 shots is simply amazing and unmatched in NBA history. Most of the less efficient scorers on the list are high volume shooters which "artificially" inflates point totals. Not to say that they are not great players, just less efficient. Rick Barry, Pistol Pete, Vince Carter, and Allen Iverson all fall into this category.

Meet your "Media Person of the Year"

Some website called Chicago Baseball Museum announced it's yearly awards in Chicago baseball. You will not believe who won "media person of the year". I'm giddy with excitement to announce the winner. The greatest, most influential, revolutionary voice in the history of sports media: Christopher Rongey. Take that numbers.

You all remember Chris Rongey, right? The glorious day DME called into The Score 670 to teach Chris Rongey, the White Sox pre and post game host, that numbers can tell you much more about a player than blind faith. Just because someone is "established" and "was once an all-star" doesnt make up for a 3 year decline is power, K/BB, speed, and defense.

"But I dont care about your stupid numbers, because numbers are not reality!! Oh, and your blog sucks cause it's obviously infected with numbers. Did I mention I hate numbers." - Yep, Rongey is definitely the "voice of reason"...for people who can't add.

Listen to Rongey getting owned by DME

Bringing the debate out of the comments

From Sabernomics:

Here are the year-to-year correlations for pitchers throwing back-to-back 100+ innings seasons from 1980–2006.

Metric  Correlation
Strikeout Rate 0.79
Walk Rate 0.64
WHIP  0.42
ERA  0.37

All measures are correlated, but the correlation is lower for the metrics that include fielder contributions. The season-to-season correlation between individuals pitchers’ WHIP and ERA are quite similar. Also, both metrics vary similarly: the average coefficient of variation (mean/standard deviation) for the pitchers in the sample is 2.46 for WHIP and 1.99 for ERA.

Here is a graph of ERA and WHIP by age for Roger Clemens on that using connected scatter plots and quadratic fit curves.

The metrics tend to move in concert (correlation = 0.9), and the small difference in quadratic fit seems to be explained by a few more-extreme deviations in WHIP.

Thus, if WHIP has any advantage over ERA, it is slight...

Yup.

Zack Greinke knows sabermetrics

We all know that athletes are merely cold, metal machines with no heart of souls. Yet one of them has learned how to read and has learned the wonderous world of sabermetrics. After winning the AL Cy Young with a nearly unanimous 22-25 first place votes, Greinke admitted that he used advanced statistics to help him achieve the glorious Cy Young award.

“David DeJesus had our best zone rating,” Bannister said, referring to the Royals’ left fielder. “So a lot of times, Zack would pitch for a fly ball at our park instead of a ground ball, just because the zone rating was better in our outfield and it was a big park.”

Zone factor? UZR? Range Factor? Really, he actually took into account the defensive abilities of his fielders when pitching. This is unheard of. Baseball is a game of hunches, with horrible umpiring, and functionally retarded commissioners. Doesnt Greinke know that these numbers are for losers who live in their mother's basement. It's far too nerdy for baseball players

“That’s pretty much how I pitch, to try to keep my FIP as low as possible,” emphasize the factors for which pitchers are essentially responsible: walks, strikeouts, home runs and hit batters.

FIP? Matthew Berry doesnt even know what FIP is and he runs the fantasy department at ESPN. Despite only getting 16 wins this year, cause he plays for the Royals, Greinke put up one of the best single season performances. He may be no Jason Marquis, but a 2.33 FIP in the american league is definitely worth of praise.

David "MVP" Eckstein destroys Chris Rongey

*Audio of DME royally destroying WSCR The Score 670 weekend host Chris Rongey* (call starts 56 seconds into the audio)

Chris Rongey does not believe in numbers. See baseball players are judged and payed based on what people see with their eyes. Because everyone knows that numbers are "drastically misleading". They are so misleading that life would be better off without them. Who needs medicine, engineering, electricity, motors, electromagnetic telecommunication, science in general for that matter. The day people started keeping data and formulating statistics in sports, is the day athletic competition died. I dont need to see numbers to know David Eckstein is the MVP, in all our hearts!

Steve Phillips got fired from ESPN for making the exact same blind comments that his "eyes" don't always agree with the "numbers". In fact, I wrote an entire post about Phillips theory of judging players based on his eyes, oh and Phillips loves rhythm too. I know everyone thinks he got fired for tapping Miss Piggy, but I chose to believe it was for being a complete and utter moron.

Nothing would make me happier if this Chris Rongey character got fired and had to go work in Wyoming or somewhere that doesn't actually have sports. I know he probably has a family, but refuting the reliability of numbers in favor of your own cognitive perception is moronic. If he could find numbers to back up his own cognitive perception then we can talk, but just throwing out random outdated beliefs does not make you right in the least.

Some memorable quotes from the conversation in the mp3 file.

Before putting us all to bed...tell us what your point is

DME's first comment was that batting average is a bad way to evaluate the White Sox offense. I thought this point was fairly clear, so why does Rongey have to twice ask for the point when it was given in the first 10 seconds of the conversation. Oh, and demeaning the caller by calling him boring, stupid, and wrong is probably not the best way to make yourself seem smart. Try some facts besides what your "eyes" see

I dont care what your looking at. You saw him play and you're suggesting that Jayson Nix is as good a baseball player as Alex Rios.

Why so against numbers Chris Rongey? Twice he berated DME for trying to present numbers. It would have been a waste of time anyway. Considering Matthew Berry thinks FIP is fly balls in play, what are the odds Rongey knows what iso, babip, wOBA, or UZR are. I would say about zero cause those things involve numbers. If Rongey ever goes blind, the universe will cease to exist I suppose.

Rios was an all-star a couple of times. I'm pretty sure he's made his case as to how good he is...he has a track record. He has proven over his career he can do it. Jayson Nix has yet to do it.

You know, Ted Williams was an all-star once or twice in his career. Now his head is being frozen in a basement somewhere in case they start cloning people some day. Once being an all-star doesnt make you currently good, nor does it even mean you were once good at baseball(see lance carter, tom gorzalleny, et al.) Do you know guys who didnt have a track record just a few years ago? Ryan Braun, Evan Longoria, Tim Lincecum, and Matt Kemp. 2 years ago all of them were definitely worse than Alex Rios. Alex Rios is an all-star!

I really think numbers can dramatically lie to you. I really think that...I dont care what your looking at. You can dissect all the numbers you want, but Jayson Nix is not a better ball player than Alex Rios

Wow! Really? Really? Like you're being serious. Numbers lie. You are able to sorts through million of individual plays that occur in every baseball game throughout the entire history of baseball with your brain? If you can do that, then you picked the wrong profession my friend. That type of skill can make you some serious money out there. But maybe numbers do lie sometimes. Like you are soooooo entertaining that i think you make $300,000 dollars a year for being so awesomely entertaining, based on what my ear "hear", but in reality you only make $30,000 a year. Wow, way off on that one. Oops

You're really into sabermetrics aren't you? We don't care about your stupid blog.

Dude! You forgot to mention that we live in our mother's basements. No, actually we're fairly accomplished law and med students who discuss sports as a hobby not as our lives purpose. Oh, and dude went to Illinois State University. My old druggy roommate who got expelled for selling dope still got into Indiana. How dumb do you have to be. It was probably a tuition thing.

1) Jason Varitek was an "allstar" last year. Bad argument w/ regards to Rios
2) Carlos Quentin's 2007 on the D-backs: .214/.298/.349 in 263 PA
Jayson Nix 2009: .224/.308/.408 in 290 PA
3) "You're into sabermetrics, aren't you" isn't an argument as to why DME is wrong