Jace Peterson

chop2chip said:
You can find spots for him... At second base, CF, and SS. I don't want that player as my starting third baseman.
Click to expand...

I just want a good hitter at every spot of the order. One that doesn't give away AB's. I believe a lineup full of Jace Petersons would work a pitcher over and score runs. Obviously not the ideal lineup but that type of hitter to me is someone I want in my lineup regardless of the position he plays. Add to the fact that he will be a plus defender and I just see it as a no-brainer. Difference of opinion I suppose.
 
thethe said:
I just want a good hitter at every spot of the order. One that doesn't give away AB's. I believe a lineup full of Jace Petersons would work a pitcher over and score runs. Obviously not the ideal lineup but that type of hitter to me is someone I want in my lineup regardless of the position he plays. Add to the fact that he will be a plus defender and I just see it as a no-brainer. Difference of opinion I suppose.
Click to expand...

You do need power man. A lineup that gets on base at an above average clip with no power isn't much better than a lineup with bad obp skills and good power.
 
thewupk said:
You do need power man. A lineup that gets on base at an above average clip with no power isn't much better than a lineup with bad obp skills and good power.
Click to expand...

I believe the fact of working pitchers over is more condusive to a better offense.

I think relying on homers is too inconsistent of an approach and will lead to inconsistent results. Sure, you will get some 8 run out burst but more often than not against good pitching its not going to lead to positive results. While a lineup in the mold of Jace would rarely if ever score big numbers but I think will be more consistently effective.
 
thethe said:
I believe the fact of working pitchers over is more condusive to a better offense.

I think relying on homers is too inconsistent of an approach and will lead to inconsistent results. Sure, you will get some 8 run out burst but more often than not against good pitching its not going to lead to positive results. While a lineup in the mold of Jace would rarely if ever score big numbers but I think will be more consistently effective.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about relying on homeruns. I'm talking about having any amount of power at all which Jace does not. An ISO of .030 is not good and not going to help you score runs.
 
thethe said:
I believe the fact of working pitchers over is more condusive to a better offense.

I think relying on homers is too inconsistent of an approach and will lead to inconsistent results. Sure, you will get some 8 run out burst but more often than not against good pitching its not going to lead to positive results. While a lineup in the mold of Jace would rarely if ever score big numbers but I think will be more consistently effective.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. Doubles are people too.
 
chop2chip said:
There is a lot to like about Jace (defense, speed, on base skills), but hit the brakes a bit on him. What he is doing right now is largely BABIP fueled. It would be nice for him to start slashing some doubles. If he can do that, then I can see him as more than a super sub long term.

To be honest, I am mostly wishing for more power because I would love an infield of Jace-Simmons-Peraza-Freeman.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much. He has 1 extra base hit on the year. And while its nice to have a decent OBP, that's BA fueled so far. You don't have to be a power hitter to be a good hitter, but you have to occasionally run into some doubles at the very least. Hopefully we see some improvement in that soon.
 
thethe said:
I just want a good hitter at every spot of the order. One that doesn't give away AB's. I believe a lineup full of Jace Petersons would work a pitcher over and score runs. Obviously not the ideal lineup but that type of hitter to me is someone I want in my lineup regardless of the position he plays. Add to the fact that he will be a plus defender and I just see it as a no-brainer. Difference of opinion I suppose.
Click to expand...

A lineup full of Jace Peterson at the current level would not score many runs.
 
thethe said:
I believe the fact of working pitchers over is more condusive to a better offense.

I think relying on homers is too inconsistent of an approach and will lead to inconsistent results. Sure, you will get some 8 run out burst but more often than not against good pitching its not going to lead to positive results. While a lineup in the mold of Jace would rarely if ever score big numbers but I think will be more consistently effective.
Click to expand...

Is scoring 3 runs per game better than averaging 3.5, but having 8 run games and 0 run games mixed in?
 
gilesfan said:
why?
Click to expand...

Variation. The 3.5 would be more based on offensive outbursts but on a day to day basis you are scoring less runs than the 3 runs the consistent team scores.

If we go by the premise that we only care about winning by 1 run then the team with the higher variation is getting "wasted" runs.
 
thethe said:
Variation. The 3.5 would be more based on offensive outbursts but on a day to day basis you are scoring less runs than the 3 runs the consistent team scores.

If we go by the premise that we only care about winning by 1 run then the team with the higher variation is getting "wasted" runs.
Click to expand...

But the team scoring 8 runs are guaranteed victories. The team scoring 3 is going to lose more often than not
 
That's an interesting question. I do think there is something to be said for variation. Obviously there is a threshold, so maybe 3 runs vs. 3.5 is a bad example. But 4 runs vs 4.5 runs is an interesting case study.

The other question is what explains variation in runs scored? I don't know if there is much evidence that homerun teams (ie like last year's team) have a greater variation of runs scored over a large sample size.
 
thethe said:
Variation. The 3.5 would be more based on offensive outbursts but on a day to day basis you are scoring less runs than the 3 runs the consistent team scores.

If we go by the premise that we only care about winning by 1 run then the team with the higher variation is getting "wasted" runs.
Click to expand...

I would guarantee a team averaging 3.5 runs per game over the course of a 162 game season would win more than a team scoring 3 runs per game; assuming the same number of runs allowed.
 
chop2chip said:
That's an interesting question. I do think there is something to be said for variation. Obviously there is a threshold, so maybe 3 runs vs. 3.5 is a bad example. But 4 runs vs 4.5 runs is an interesting case study.

The other question is what explains variation in runs scored? I don't know if there is much evidence that homerun teams (ie like last year's team) have a greater variation of runs scored over a large sample size.
Click to expand...

Like you said, there are no case studies but I would wager that teams with higher SLG% are subject to higher levels of variation.
 
thethe said:
Like you said, there are no case studies but I would wager that teams with higher SLG% are subject to higher levels of variation.
Click to expand...

In all honesty, you make things up to fit your narrative to support whatever moves the Braves make.

When Gattis is a Braves, its Mancrush Monday on his power potential. When he's gone and Jace Peterson is in the lineup, it's on base percentage is king.

You rationalize this with A) more exciting baseball and B) more consistent results with neither of them being accurately measured by you.

Which is fine, if that helps you enjoy the Braves on a year-to-year basis, but it's really difficult to take you serious when the narrative just changes to whatever the Braves are doing is right.
 
gilesfan said:
I would guarantee a team averaging 3.5 runs per game over the course of a 162 game season would win more than a team scoring 3 runs per game; assuming the same number of runs allowed.
Click to expand...

Ok, lets just go crazy extreme case here:

Team scores 567 runs in 1 game (Lets just say they win that game) They then get shutout the remaining 161 games. That team is going to lose more than a team that averages 3 runs a game and gets 3 runs a game.

Of course this example is ridiculous but to not consider variation is not too bright IMO.
 
gilesfan said:
In all honesty, you make things up to fit your narrative to support whatever moves the Braves make.

When Gattis is a Braves, its Mancrush Monday on his power potential. When he's gone and Jace Peterson is in the lineup, it's on base percentage is king.

You rationalize this with A) more exciting baseball and B) more consistent results with neither of them being accurately measured by you.

Which is fine, if that helps you enjoy the Braves on a year-to-year basis, but it's really difficult to take you serious when the narrative just changes to whatever the Braves are doing is right.
Click to expand...

I guess you are the same person your whole life and can never learn. Ok.
 
thethe said:
Ok, lets just go crazy extreme case here:

Team scores 567 runs in 1 game (Lets just say they win that game) They then get shutout the remaining 161 games. That team is going to lose more than a team that averages 3 runs a game and gets 3 runs a game.

Of course this example is ridiculous but to not consider variation is not too bright IMO.
Click to expand...

I fully understand it. Which is why I almost didn't respond to your ridiculous example. What is the standard deviation of runs scored by mlb teams?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top