<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Review: 2005 Offseason Plan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/</link>
	<description>Seattle Mariners blog and general baseball discussion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:19:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: darrylzero</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/comment-page-3/#comment-145178</link>
		<dc:creator>darrylzero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/#comment-145178</guid>
		<description>LB, seriously, that&#039;s what you come up with after reading my post?  For the record, I explicitly state in my own post that a single + SB does not equal a double.  That&#039;s why I continue to knock off additional bases in my admittedly ridiculous approximation.  If you think the numbers are off, go ahead and say that, but don&#039;t pretend I&#039;m calling a single plus a stolen base a double.  Really, what about the following quote makes you think I don&#039;t understand your point?

&lt;i&gt;Iâ€™m also going to make a very contestable sort of approximation here, but it seems half-way reasonable to me, that the amount of times heâ€™s gone first to third when other players couldnâ€™t, or even first to home, makes up for a good chunk of the fact that his steals donâ€™t move other runners along the same way hitting a double instead of a single would.  But, weâ€™ll still penalize him for it, another 6 bases. If you think thatâ€™s too little, go ahead and come up with some other number (11 maybe to keep us at nice round numbers); this is just an exercise in thought anyway.&lt;/i&gt;

Enough of your straw men, already.  I know my example is kind of silly.  But contesting an obviously incorrect point that was never put forward doesn&#039;t help your case any.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LB, seriously, that&#8217;s what you come up with after reading my post?  For the record, I explicitly state in my own post that a single + SB does not equal a double.  That&#8217;s why I continue to knock off additional bases in my admittedly ridiculous approximation.  If you think the numbers are off, go ahead and say that, but don&#8217;t pretend I&#8217;m calling a single plus a stolen base a double.  Really, what about the following quote makes you think I don&#8217;t understand your point?</p>
<p><i>Iâ€™m also going to make a very contestable sort of approximation here, but it seems half-way reasonable to me, that the amount of times heâ€™s gone first to third when other players couldnâ€™t, or even first to home, makes up for a good chunk of the fact that his steals donâ€™t move other runners along the same way hitting a double instead of a single would.  But, weâ€™ll still penalize him for it, another 6 bases. If you think thatâ€™s too little, go ahead and come up with some other number (11 maybe to keep us at nice round numbers); this is just an exercise in thought anyway.</i></p>
<p>Enough of your straw men, already.  I know my example is kind of silly.  But contesting an obviously incorrect point that was never put forward doesn&#8217;t help your case any.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LB</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/comment-page-3/#comment-145171</link>
		<dc:creator>LB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/#comment-145171</guid>
		<description>#115: A single plus a SB is not as good as a double. Suppose thereâ€™s a runner on first. A double is very likely to score him. A single plus a SB is not.

Itâ€™s no accident that Bill Jamesâ€™s classic â€œRuns Createdâ€ formula ignores stolen bases.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#115: A single plus a SB is not as good as a double. Suppose thereâ€™s a runner on first. A double is very likely to score him. A single plus a SB is not.</p>
<p>Itâ€™s no accident that Bill Jamesâ€™s classic â€œRuns Createdâ€ formula ignores stolen bases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: darrylzero</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/comment-page-3/#comment-145135</link>
		<dc:creator>darrylzero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:02:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/#comment-145135</guid>
		<description>113, point is, we don&#039;t know.  Here&#039;s what we do know:

1)  Ichiro does not appear to be any slower than he was.  Evidence SB%, and also that no one in baseball is indicating he&#039;s lost a step.  It always seems like a possibility as he ages, but there&#039;s no evidence of it yet.

2)  Singles are the most random hitting result in baseball.  It&#039;s why Ichiro&#039;s batting average is all over the map from month to month.  Since there&#039;s so much random variation in the way Ichiro hits, adding 40 points to his batting average (while not particularly likely), is not as unlikely as it would be for other players who show less variation in their results.  Not because it&#039;s not hard, but because so many random things go into batting average and especially Ichiro&#039;s batting average.

3)  Adding 40 points to his batting average is not actually what anyone is talking about.  They&#039;re talking about adding .40 points to his supposed &quot;true .300 plus or minus&quot; ability (which is crazy to say for a career .330 hitter, but we&#039;ve been over that).  It&#039;s only .10 points to his career average, and only .23 points this year.  So...

If Ichiro is about to suffer some major decline, it would be smart to move him before anyone else notices.  However, it would be the height of paranoia to do so just because we&#039;re afraid it might happen.  

Also, for what it&#039;s worth, the way he&#039;s stealing bases this year, I think it&#039;s foolish to focus too much on Ichiro&#039;s lack of power.  If we assume getting caught is 2-3 times more costly than a steal is an advantage (I&#039;ve heard both, so let&#039;s say 2.5), then Ichiro has added a total of 36 bases through stealing.  I&#039;m also going to make a very contestable sort of approximation here, but it seems half-way reasonable to me, that the amount of times he&#039;s gone first to third when other players couldn&#039;t, or even first to home, makes up for a good chunk of the fact that his steals don&#039;t move other runners along the same way hitting a double instead of a single would.  

But, we&#039;ll still penalize him for it, another 6 bases.  If you think that&#039;s too little, go ahead and come up with some other number (11 maybe to keep us at nice round numbers); this is just an exercise in thought anyway.  If 25-30 of Ichiro&#039;s singles were actually doubles, would anyone be complaining about his lack of power this season?  Of course, they&#039;d be complaining about the fact that he hasn&#039;t stolen any bases (having transformed them all into doubles)...so I&#039;m not exactly sure what this says, but I think you all get the basic idea.  Valuable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>113, point is, we don&#8217;t know.  Here&#8217;s what we do know:</p>
<p>1)  Ichiro does not appear to be any slower than he was.  Evidence SB%, and also that no one in baseball is indicating he&#8217;s lost a step.  It always seems like a possibility as he ages, but there&#8217;s no evidence of it yet.</p>
<p>2)  Singles are the most random hitting result in baseball.  It&#8217;s why Ichiro&#8217;s batting average is all over the map from month to month.  Since there&#8217;s so much random variation in the way Ichiro hits, adding 40 points to his batting average (while not particularly likely), is not as unlikely as it would be for other players who show less variation in their results.  Not because it&#8217;s not hard, but because so many random things go into batting average and especially Ichiro&#8217;s batting average.</p>
<p>3)  Adding 40 points to his batting average is not actually what anyone is talking about.  They&#8217;re talking about adding .40 points to his supposed &#8220;true .300 plus or minus&#8221; ability (which is crazy to say for a career .330 hitter, but we&#8217;ve been over that).  It&#8217;s only .10 points to his career average, and only .23 points this year.  So&#8230;</p>
<p>If Ichiro is about to suffer some major decline, it would be smart to move him before anyone else notices.  However, it would be the height of paranoia to do so just because we&#8217;re afraid it might happen.  </p>
<p>Also, for what it&#8217;s worth, the way he&#8217;s stealing bases this year, I think it&#8217;s foolish to focus too much on Ichiro&#8217;s lack of power.  If we assume getting caught is 2-3 times more costly than a steal is an advantage (I&#8217;ve heard both, so let&#8217;s say 2.5), then Ichiro has added a total of 36 bases through stealing.  I&#8217;m also going to make a very contestable sort of approximation here, but it seems half-way reasonable to me, that the amount of times he&#8217;s gone first to third when other players couldn&#8217;t, or even first to home, makes up for a good chunk of the fact that his steals don&#8217;t move other runners along the same way hitting a double instead of a single would.  </p>
<p>But, we&#8217;ll still penalize him for it, another 6 bases.  If you think that&#8217;s too little, go ahead and come up with some other number (11 maybe to keep us at nice round numbers); this is just an exercise in thought anyway.  If 25-30 of Ichiro&#8217;s singles were actually doubles, would anyone be complaining about his lack of power this season?  Of course, they&#8217;d be complaining about the fact that he hasn&#8217;t stolen any bases (having transformed them all into doubles)&#8230;so I&#8217;m not exactly sure what this says, but I think you all get the basic idea.  Valuable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Typical Idiot Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/comment-page-3/#comment-145120</link>
		<dc:creator>Typical Idiot Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:36:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/#comment-145120</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;So, what would Willie Bloomquistâ€™s BA be if he could get one extra hit a week? Richie Sexsonâ€™s? Rene Riveraâ€™s? You make it sound like itâ€™s not a big deal to add 40 (!) points to your batting average, but from what I hear, hitting is pretty hard. If it werenâ€™t, weâ€™d all be playing major league baseball instead of reading a blog about major league players.&lt;/em&gt;

Willie Bloomquist, Richie Sexson, and Rene Rivera != Ichiro Suzuki.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>So, what would Willie Bloomquistâ€™s BA be if he could get one extra hit a week? Richie Sexsonâ€™s? Rene Riveraâ€™s? You make it sound like itâ€™s not a big deal to add 40 (!) points to your batting average, but from what I hear, hitting is pretty hard. If it werenâ€™t, weâ€™d all be playing major league baseball instead of reading a blog about major league players.</em></p>
<p>Willie Bloomquist, Richie Sexson, and Rene Rivera != Ichiro Suzuki.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LB</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/comment-page-3/#comment-145117</link>
		<dc:creator>LB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:17:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/#comment-145117</guid>
		<description>#110: That sounds just like the Crash Davis soliloquy in the pool hall in &lt;i&gt;Bull Durham.&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;CRASH&lt;/b&gt;: (drunken, mad)

You know what the difference is between hitting .250 and hitting .300? I got it figured out.

Twenty-five hits a year in 500 at bats is 50 points. Okay? There&#039;s 6 months in a season, that&#039;s about 25 weeks -- you get one extra flare a week -- just one -- a gork, a ground ball with eyes, a dying quail -- just one more dying quail a week and you&#039;re in Yankee Stadium!
&lt;/i&gt;

So, what would Willie Bloomquistâ€™s BA be if he could get one extra hit a week? Richie Sexsonâ€™s? Rene Rivera&#039;s? You make it sound like itâ€™s not a big deal to add 40 (!) points to your batting average, but from what I hear, hitting is pretty hard. If it werenâ€™t, weâ€™d all be playing major league baseball instead of reading a blog about major league players.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#110: That sounds just like the Crash Davis soliloquy in the pool hall in <i>Bull Durham.</i></p>
<p><i><b>CRASH</b>: (drunken, mad)</p>
<p>You know what the difference is between hitting .250 and hitting .300? I got it figured out.</p>
<p>Twenty-five hits a year in 500 at bats is 50 points. Okay? There&#8217;s 6 months in a season, that&#8217;s about 25 weeks &#8212; you get one extra flare a week &#8212; just one &#8212; a gork, a ground ball with eyes, a dying quail &#8212; just one more dying quail a week and you&#8217;re in Yankee Stadium!<br />
</i></p>
<p>So, what would Willie Bloomquistâ€™s BA be if he could get one extra hit a week? Richie Sexsonâ€™s? Rene Rivera&#8217;s? You make it sound like itâ€™s not a big deal to add 40 (!) points to your batting average, but from what I hear, hitting is pretty hard. If it werenâ€™t, weâ€™d all be playing major league baseball instead of reading a blog about major league players.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: darrylzero</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/comment-page-3/#comment-145115</link>
		<dc:creator>darrylzero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:31:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/#comment-145115</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s a little late for this, and let me be clear that this is no criticism of Gammons and any way, but doesn&#039;t his statement just state the obvious?  Grrr...Yankees rich...uh...Matsuzaka play for team pay posting...argh.  

I mean, does that say anything at all?  Couldn&#039;t it just as easily read, &quot;Matsuzaka (considered a Royal if they pay the posting fee)?&quot;  Obviously, we know the Royals won&#039;t pay the posting fee and that the Yankees (along with the Mariners) are on the short list of teams that are prepared to seriously pony up for the guy.

But Gammons doesn&#039;t even claim to know if the Yankees will pay the posting fee.  So his credibility, flawless though it may be, is completely irrelevant.  Right?  Am I missing something?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a little late for this, and let me be clear that this is no criticism of Gammons and any way, but doesn&#8217;t his statement just state the obvious?  Grrr&#8230;Yankees rich&#8230;uh&#8230;Matsuzaka play for team pay posting&#8230;argh.  </p>
<p>I mean, does that say anything at all?  Couldn&#8217;t it just as easily read, &#8220;Matsuzaka (considered a Royal if they pay the posting fee)?&#8221;  Obviously, we know the Royals won&#8217;t pay the posting fee and that the Yankees (along with the Mariners) are on the short list of teams that are prepared to seriously pony up for the guy.</p>
<p>But Gammons doesn&#8217;t even claim to know if the Yankees will pay the posting fee.  So his credibility, flawless though it may be, is completely irrelevant.  Right?  Am I missing something?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hooligan</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/comment-page-3/#comment-145107</link>
		<dc:creator>Hooligan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:37:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/#comment-145107</guid>
		<description>As Peter Gammons&#039; role with ESPN diminishes each year, so diminishes ESPN&#039;s credibility.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As Peter Gammons&#8217; role with ESPN diminishes each year, so diminishes ESPN&#8217;s credibility.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Typical Idiot Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/comment-page-3/#comment-145068</link>
		<dc:creator>Typical Idiot Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:40:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/#comment-145068</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;Ichiro! might have another .340 season in him. I would be inclined to bet against it, as about .040 of his batting average is tied up in infield hits, and heâ€™s certainly not going to get any *faster*.&lt;/em&gt;

Math time.

Ichiro already has 38 infield hits this season, as Dave already pointed out above.  Assuming 700 at bats (not insane for him, he&#039;s already at 640 with 12 games left), Ichiro would need 210 hits to bat .300.  He would need 240 hits to bat .340.  In other words, he&#039;d need one more hit every 5.4 games (assuming 162 games played).

Why the hell would that have to automatically mean &quot;infield hit&quot;?  One more hit a week.  That&#039;s it.  A little dunker, fister, floater, seeing eye single, excuse me swinging bunt, line drive, worm burner, deep into the hole at short, squibber, tee shot, duck snort, belted deep to right field, tight-roping hit here and there and he gets to .340 instead of .300.  It doesn&#039;t have to be 30 more infield hits.  It can be anything.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Ichiro! might have another .340 season in him. I would be inclined to bet against it, as about .040 of his batting average is tied up in infield hits, and heâ€™s certainly not going to get any *faster*.</em></p>
<p>Math time.</p>
<p>Ichiro already has 38 infield hits this season, as Dave already pointed out above.  Assuming 700 at bats (not insane for him, he&#8217;s already at 640 with 12 games left), Ichiro would need 210 hits to bat .300.  He would need 240 hits to bat .340.  In other words, he&#8217;d need one more hit every 5.4 games (assuming 162 games played).</p>
<p>Why the hell would that have to automatically mean &#8220;infield hit&#8221;?  One more hit a week.  That&#8217;s it.  A little dunker, fister, floater, seeing eye single, excuse me swinging bunt, line drive, worm burner, deep into the hole at short, squibber, tee shot, duck snort, belted deep to right field, tight-roping hit here and there and he gets to .340 instead of .300.  It doesn&#8217;t have to be 30 more infield hits.  It can be anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mln</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/comment-page-3/#comment-144995</link>
		<dc:creator>mln</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:03:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/#comment-144995</guid>
		<description>So when is the write-up on Matsuzaka going to be posted here?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So when is the write-up on Matsuzaka going to be posted here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pdb</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/comment-page-3/#comment-144949</link>
		<dc:creator>pdb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:18:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2006/09/18/review-2005-offseason-plan/#comment-144949</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;So that will shorten any link for you? Just copy and paste it into tinyurl?&lt;/i&gt;

Ayup.  It even copies it to your clipboard, if you&#039;re using IE.  If not, it displays the short link so you can copy/paste it.  The shortened links (as far as I know) never expire.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>So that will shorten any link for you? Just copy and paste it into tinyurl?</i></p>
<p>Ayup.  It even copies it to your clipboard, if you&#8217;re using IE.  If not, it displays the short link so you can copy/paste it.  The shortened links (as far as I know) never expire.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

