An Iconic Fantasy Baseball Community
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
West wrote:Thanks for getting back on subject...that guy was brutal. K's are meaningless...what an inane argument.
buffalobillsrul2002 wrote:1. I'm not sure that looking at BABIP with 2 strikes is what OBPLover is looking to define here. I'd be willing to bet that strikeout% doesn't coorelate that highly with 2-strike BABIP (i haven't pulled the data though). What I would be willing to say is that guys who strikeout more have more success when they do put the ball in play (success can also include HR and more extra base hits, which is being lost if you look solely at BABIP). And this could be for 2 reasons; either because swinging harder is likely to result in the ball traveling faster/harder off the bat, or because hitters who don't hit the ball hard/far and strike out a lot probably aren't seeing much success and therefore aren't in MLB. Another advantage that power hitters get is that pitchers usually fear them more (which is foolish but that's how it is), so they are able to draw more walks.
3. The reason guys like Willingham get overlooked in fantasy isn't that they aren't useful; it's that they have little upside. In Willingham, you know you are getting a 2-category contirbutor (runs/RBI) who will hurt you in SB and AVG. And the general feeling is that .270/30 HR can be replaced off the wire relatively easily, if you know how to ride the hot hand. What I do find interesting abotu this is that the high-upside power guys (like Bruce/Stanton) tend to be valued a ton higher. I think that's more Bruce/Stanton being overvalued though than it is Mr. Willingham being undervalued (though I agree willingham is undervalued as well; I ended up with him in the 15th round or later in almost all my drafts as a UTIL/bench hitter).
Here is another article to explain why striekouts are meaningless for hitters
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/artic ... cleid=2617
Let me clarify, because I think people are misunderstanding. I am not saying nor have I ever said that Eric Hosmer should have gone for less than Josh Willingham. What I am saying is that the gap between the two players was too high.
There were lots of players in the same boat as Willingham, offering success in just 2 categories and not much else but going for a lot more in the average league. E.g. Nick Swisher
Out of curiosity, where would you have Willingham ranked for next year? I feel as if he'll go a good bit lower than his 2012 numbers would indicate due to the cliques writing this off as a flukish year. Seeing as you've been on the bandwagon all year, I would imagine you don't believe this. Just curious.
OBPlover wrote:A lot is going to have to do with offseason moves the Twins make (e.g. will they trade Mauer?).
lastingsgriller wrote:OBPlover wrote:A lot is going to have to do with offseason moves the Twins make (e.g. will they trade Mauer?).
is this a joke?
OBPlover wrote:West wrote:Thanks for getting back on subject...that guy was brutal. K's are meaningless...what an inane argument.
You misread everything. I never said K's are meaningless. For pitchers they are crucial. What I said was that they are menaingless for hitters which was proven in the article I quoted. K's show little correlation to OPS.
The only debate is whether K's are meaningful to predict batting average.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests