Play this record as frequently as possible.

by kjfinkes on Apr 11, 2007 12:00 PM EDT

Then, as it becomes easier for you, play the record once a day or as needed.

Everybody now it Feels Good. Toni Tony Tone, our newly beloved Jalepena has in only 8 games effectively doubled his career line in RBI, total bases, and is slugging a grab-the-doggy-bag, I'm going to puke, no Royals SS has ever .552 with four triples. Holy DeJesus! (Or maybe-- Holy Smokes & Gee Whiz) No one can expect him to continue along this lines (especially against lefties) but due to the early season effect mentioned by NHZ; his begining of the year production will keep many off of his back as he spirals back down to a more pedestrian Royal output.

It was also nice of Alex Gordon to drop by. Congrats again to Royals Retro and lordbyronk our closest prognosticators by virtue of picking their inning. Leo, marbotty, and Gordon Rocks also chimed in with last night's game as "the one".

Tweet Comment 37 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Jalepena

I love it

by LeoBloom on Apr 11, 2007 12:14 PM EDT reply actions

Nice

His next triple will match his professional season high.

Tony Pena Jr. has matched his father's single season career high. Tony Sr. hit four triples in a season twice. He hit 27 in his career.

The single season franchise record for the Royals is 21 by Willie Wilson in 1985.

Four more triples, and TPJ will be tied for 47th All-time in Royals franchise history for triples, tied with Wally Joyner, Jon Nunally, Pat Sheridan, Terry Shumpert and Don Slaught.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 11, 2007 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions

how in the hell

did his dad manage 27 triples

wow

by LeoBloom on Apr 11, 2007 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions

He did play against

A Philly OF featuring Greg Luzinski

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 11, 2007 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions

.276/.300/.552

It's a fun line, of course, but utterly unsustainable.

by NHZ on Apr 11, 2007 12:20 PM EDT reply actions

I'd suggest

the only unsustainable part is the slugging line. With discipline the average and obp could be pretty close.

If it weren't for baseball I'd be working.

by pd on Apr 11, 2007 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions

long term

a .300 OBP is going to be a problem

by LeoBloom on Apr 11, 2007 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions

I'd agree with that

Another reason that I think apart from the slugging annomaly we have a very average SS in Pena, but average is better than the Devil was

If it weren't for baseball I'd be working.

by pd on Apr 11, 2007 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions

We don't know how Pena will develop

Young players can get better. Minor league performance doesn't exactly equate with major league performance. Players do improve with age, up to a certain point. If Pena can continue to improve, we can expect some improved numbers. I don't know that a .300 OBP is his ceiling or even his most likely destination. None of us have seen enough of him to really know at this point.

And, what is average? Let's take a look. In 2006, for major league SS's who had at least 400 AB's, the median OPS was a little under .750. I can easily see Pena managing .315/.445/.760. That would make him above average with the bat. And I've seen some impressive glove and leg work in the field.

Maybe he is average this year. Maybe better. Maybe he develops into something above average. Still hard to say. But the signs so far this season are really good for him.

by Scott McKinney on Apr 11, 2007 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions

I thought you were insane for a second

until I realized you were using OBP/SLG/OPS instead of BA/OBP/SLG

by Moose Tacos on Apr 11, 2007 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions

I ignore batting average

It is a worthless, meaningless stat when you have OBP and SLG handy.

by Scott McKinney on Apr 11, 2007 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions

I find it useful...

it does have some uses.

It is a somewhat repeatable skill which suggests that it has some utility in predicting SOMETHING...although, I do agree that what it measures is up for debate.
It has utility in that non-SABR people understand it.
It is an imporant component for Isolated Power.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Apr 11, 2007 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Hmmm

It isn't very descriptive of how well someone is hitting at all. Therefore, to quote the stat is to quote something with little meaning, when better stats are readily available.

It does have utility for people who don't understand OBP, SLG and OPS. But those stats aren't strictly limited to SABR people. Those not familiar with those stats who are baseball fans, should really look into them. It's not rocket science.

And yes, it is necessary for computing Iso Power, but lots of not very meaningful stats are part of meaningful metrics.

by Scott McKinney on Apr 11, 2007 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions

I would contend

that OPS is even more useless when you have OBP and SLG handy.

Also, I think IsoP is interesting, though I'm not exactly clear on it's usefulness.

I haven't seen research on this, but my intuition (evaluating at the limits) is that a hitter who hit 400/400/400 would be slightly more productive than a hitter who hit 100/400/400 (with all hits being homeruns), because of decreased double plays and maybe some other factors. Not sure if there are any data to back me up on this.

Also, I agree that Batting Average is useful so that people know what you're talking about.

by Moose Tacos on Apr 11, 2007 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions

IMSO (im my stathead opinion)...

The two hypothetical playes you're talking about, in the unlikely event that both could hit that way over a season, would be about even in value.

Batting Average is a useful contributing stat, but it should never used to evaluate a hitter by itself.

IsoP is useful, I think, because it helps show the difference between a hitter who has a good SLG percentage because of good power, and the players who have a good SLG percentage just because of a high average. This can help tell you whether or not someone will continue to produce power-wise.

by NHZ on Apr 11, 2007 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Perhaps, not very meaningful

Also, I agree that Batting Average is useful so that people know what you're talking about.

I guess. I suppose what I mean is that it isn't very meaningful.

To say that you think someone is going to hit .275 isn't saying much at all. You can hit .275 with very few walks and no power and have a crappy season. Or you can hit .275 with a lot of walks and a lot of power and have a great season.

Similarly, .275/20/90 doesn't mean much. You put a strikeout machine who doesn't walk much but gets his share of home runs in the middle of a batting order and you can get that line and his OPS could be like .750. Or, with the important variables changed, he could be someone having a really good season.

by Scott McKinney on Apr 11, 2007 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions

okay

I think we're all basically on the same page sabermetrically, and I might have been sloppy in my writing since the two of you responded the way you did.

So, I'll start over:

What I remember reading uses BA/OBP/SLG
I can add, so I don't see a reason to use OBP/SLG/OPS
I think IsoP is interesting

Those are my reasons for supporting the use of BA/OPS/SLG.

Responding to NHZ, I constructed those hypothetical players (evaluating at the limits, as I said) because it's a case where I think my intuition differs from the published results. I'm familiar with the result that offensive production is best measured by OBP and SLG - what I'm saying is that these studies (like any social science data) may not be able to account for second order effects that would show up to two extremely divergent cases, like the hypothetical players. I haven't read all the research on this, but I don't think anyone is in a position to say they know for sure.

by Moose Tacos on Apr 11, 2007 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, but...

I know it is common to do BA/OBP/SLG. Of course BA adds nothing to the analysis, IMO. But that is the common shorthand. OBP/SLG/OPS is sometimes used and obviously the OPS part isn't necessary, but I think it is handy to have it there.

Perhaps in the most radically extreme case, like the one you hypothesized, the same OBP and SLG with a different BA would make a difference. But only in the most wildly extreme and beyond unlikely cases. Therefore, I can't think of a real world case where there is a demonstrable, meaningful difference between two players with the same OBP and SLG, but different BA.

by Scott McKinney on Apr 11, 2007 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions

To my way of thinking, your "limits"

...players are basically of the same value, but I don't have any research on hand to prove that. All I can say is that Player A singles every single time he gets on-base, right? So if he hits .400 he's extremely valuable. Player B's only hits are home runs, and he only has a hit every 10 at-bats. However, he walks enough to get on-base at the same clip. Not to mention, his hits, though less frequent, are more often.

If I keep talking about this, my speculation would get ridiculous, but my point is that they both contribute the same thing. The perceptions of them could be vastly different, however, based on who on base.

Yeah, I know, this is totally hypothetical, but it's fun to think about.

by NHZ on Apr 11, 2007 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm glad

you think this is fun to think about, because I do too.

My point in all of this is that it's very easy for sabermetricians to be lazy. It's easy for an individual player to get lost in a statistical average. I'm saying that as a statistical statement, not as a scout's-honor objection. Social science data and methods are extremely useful in helping us understand the game (especially offense) but it is important to define under what conditions statistical statements are true, and with what certainty.

With these players, for example, it's clear that they could not be more different. One homers once every ten at bats, and walks a bunch. One hits a single four out of ten times and never walks. They would certainly be used in different ways and get pitched to in different ways. Can we really say that they have the same productivity? I don't know. What if it's two players who hit 260/350/400 and 280/350/400. They're the same, almost certainly. What about 220/320/360 and 290/320/360? Tougher to tell. My intuition would say that there are some second-order effects, like moving base runners, double plays, etc. that come into play in situations like this, but they are within the margin of error when talking about players who only differ in BA by a little.

by Moose Tacos on Apr 11, 2007 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions

You can't spell triple without

T and P

by royaldaddy on Apr 11, 2007 1:19 PM EDT reply actions

Right On!

lordbyronk

by lordbyronk on Apr 11, 2007 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Pena long term

While I agree with LeoBloom that ultimately, one would prefer not to have any players with a 300 OBP, for now KC fans are satisfied with it. After all, it's a hell of an improvement from what we had, and that doesn't even begin to account for the improved defense.

Being as objective as I can, I counted at least 3 plays Pena made during the first home stand that I know the shortstop who shall not be named wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of making. That's a pretty damn impressive total, considering it was only 6 games!

to reiterate - yes, eventually the team will require better plate discipline from their shortstop, but for now I believe they are willing to live with what they are getting.

by loyal2s dad on Apr 11, 2007 1:41 PM EDT reply actions

By the way,

The Shortstop Who Shall Not Be Named has already racked up 3 errors in Omaha.

I feel sorry for the O-Royals fans getting stuck watching that every night.

by loyal2s dad on Apr 11, 2007 1:42 PM EDT reply actions

Nicknames

I greatly prefer "Trip" over "Jalapena". The former is more befitting the fact that he's playing great baseball right now. The former is more clownish and apropos of a player like Berroa. Also, I think "Jalapena" is borderline offensive. But that's just my opinion.

by Scott McKinney on Apr 11, 2007 2:04 PM EDT reply actions

Ok...

time for me to say Jesus F'n Johosafats...DUDE...were you on the crew that got Imus fired???...that politically correct B.S. has got to go..."borderline offensive"...man that statement scares me...Jalapena rox and thats the bottom line

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

by PhattStairs on Apr 13, 2007 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't think Jalapena is offensive, either.

Imus, however, deserved what he got.

by NHZ on Apr 13, 2007 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Well...

I'm really pissed off about the Imus thing...I hate Imus...he is a totally dinghead...but what he said was in no way racial...thats just the bottom line for me...can't believe a guy can compile a huge history, a huge body of work, and 45 seconds and he's gone

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

by PhattStairs on Apr 13, 2007 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions

I probably don't know enough about Imus's

body of work, but I don't really care that they fired him. He certainly made an ass of himself. That "45 seconds and gone" thing reminds me of Harold Reynolds being fired for an "inappropriate hug."

by NHZ on Apr 13, 2007 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions

I care because this is bad, bad, bad...

for what it says...the good side didn't win WWII for everyone to act like we're all still under Nazi regime...but its worse...its corporate Nazi regime...its once again all about the dollar...I mean if someone actually busts out a racial slur...like say when Jesse Jackson called New York hymie town...thats one thing...and I still don't give a hoot about that...but when someone makes a comment that can't even be proven to be racial you can't just kick 'em to the curve...I just feel that if this is the case then every comedian that uses racial anything should be fired...whats next Carlos Mencia and Chris Rock are gonna not have careers because they have racially fired material...this Imus thing is a step back in time...and that disturbs me...on the railroad we call the St. Louis guys "Chicken Eaters"...is that racial???...well some think it is...its because they always eat chicken and grease up the engine controls...even the black K.C. guys call them "Chicken Eaters"...maybe they should be fired too???

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

by PhattStairs on Apr 13, 2007 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Carlos Mencia is a hack.

I get your gripe. I dunno if I necessarily agree with all of it, but I understand it.

If Mencia gets fired, the comedy world will be better off.

by NHZ on Apr 13, 2007 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions

fershizzle

but only if they fired him for being a total hack...and not because he did a bit about the racial olympics...man your right...Mencia might actually be the worst comedic ever

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

by PhattStairs on Apr 13, 2007 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions

PhattStairs

I'm entitled to think something is offensive. Just my opinion. I wasn't trying to silence anyone. Don't take your Imus anger out on me.

by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2007 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Pena's progression

This is about as un-statistical as I get, but I think it's possible that the Junior Pena will have a very atypical career progression (he has so far in the minors) and won't fit the standard projection models. Based on what I've read, he basically didn't play organized baseball until he signed a professional contract - until then he had only practiced with his dad. Because of that, he didn't see live pitching until age 16. I don't know how true this is, but it would explain a lot.

Looking at his minor league numbers, his OPS keeps on improving despite his getting promoted - this is atypical. I'm not guaranteeing that he will continue to improve, but if I had to pick anyone to not follow their projection, it would be him.

Of course, I think the projection on him would be an OPS of 620, so he would still have a lot of work to do. I could see him getting up to 700 this year though.

by Moose Tacos on Apr 11, 2007 5:04 PM EDT reply actions

Stats

I agree with NYRoyal in that OBP and SLUG % are the two stats I would pick if I was allowed to only know two hitting stats to evaluate a player.

I would like to point out one important use for batting avg - I think it is useful in so far as calculating BABIP (Batting Avg on Balls in Play).

Given BABIP, and evaluating stats like Line Drive %, can sometimes give you an indication if a player was "hit lucky" in a given year.

by loyal2s dad on Apr 11, 2007 6:08 PM EDT reply actions

Mad props to you

I love hearing people talk about BABIP and LD% intelligently.

by NHZ on Apr 11, 2007 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Again

BA is important for the calculation of BABIP, but it isn't meaningful in and of itself. It's not like I think Elias and STATS, Inc. shouldn't even calculate it. I just think it shouldn't be used to describe, evaluate or predict the value or production of a player. And of course, 95% of baseball fans use it for at least some of those purposes.

by Scott McKinney on Apr 11, 2007 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions