A League of Her Own

Group Therapy Through Motivational Posters

 

It's been a long time since we've busted out the ol' motivational posters game. But what the hell. . . we're all depressed and we've got 8 hours until game time.

To make your own poster, go here.

Because we can't yet add photos to comments, email me your poster at:

leagueofherown (at) gmail (dot) com  

I'll post them here.

Motivate away!

Follow me below the jump for the entries. Winner gets posted on tonight's game thread. What an honor!

From Mick:

 

From Matt (thisyearcub):

 

(DeRosa over Fontenot/Miles would have been a HUGE help)

 

From Doc_Blume:

 

From the guys at Cubscast:

 

From Dina:

 

Another one from me:

 

From Jeff (baturkey):

 

From Umbra:

 

Another from Matt (thisyearcub):

 

Another from Doc Blume:

 

Another from Doc_Blume:

From flyball:

  From NearlyNextYear

And the contest is closed! Now it's time to vote for your favorite poster--winner will have the honor of gracing the LOHO game thread tonight.

Recommended

[?]

Recent Posts

Subscribe

Leave a comment

67 Comments

gravedigger said:

user-pic

That's awesome.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Oh God, I MUST have this photo Ed found of Aaron Miles:

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-sports-in-haiku/2009/08/aaron-miles-in-haiku-why-do-cubs-fan-hate-him.html

Anyone who can find this in grabbable form will have my love forever.

baturkey said:

user-pic

Don't you still owe me a Derrek Lee bobblehead?

http://jeffliu.com/img/miles.jpeg

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Indeed I do. And it's sitting in my home office still!
I blame you for never making it easy for me to get it to you.

baturkey said:

user-pic

I'm 99 44/100% sure I'll be able to make a LOHO day next season, if it's around the same time as it was this season.

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

Done! And as far as that poster goes, I think I've been misquoted!

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Um . . false. You're the closest thing Gregg has to a supporter around here. Don't make me pull quotes.

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

Basically, my argument was against the Wood supporters. I said Gregg has been serviceable compared to Wood, but as of late, he's just turned to shit. I guess his ceiling was a Joe Borowski-type, and that's what the Cubs were hoping for. Relievers are a funny bunch. Just look at Ryan Franklin, he was one of the worst closers last year and now he's an All-Star a year later.

Letting Wood walk was still the right move though. Cubs problem is that they got a mediocre reliever for a mediocre reliever. I don't think they were going to be really active in the major RP sweepstakes (Fuentes, K-Rod, etc.).

I guess the thought was this team was going to score 6-8 runs a night and a shutdown reliever wasn't needed, who knows. Bruce Levine has a good article here about the situation.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/columns/blog?post=4407068&name=levine_chicago

So you're basically now going to be able to let Gregg go after this year, rather than be stuck with a declining Wood for a lot of money.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Rawr Rawr Rawr. No one understand you, She-Bear.

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

Great response. Filled with insight.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

ITs been a while since you guys had a good fight. Keep it up!

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

I knew you would like it.

flyball said:

user-pic

Kevin Gregg is no Joe Borowski

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

Yeah, I guess they were thinking he would have a career year, as Borowski did that one year. That's still the thing about '03 that gets me...the Cubs were five outs away from making it to a WS with Joe freakin' Borowski as a closer.

flyball said:

user-pic

um, thats because Joe Borowski is awesome

I love it when the Cubs have a closer that confuses the rest of the league

Mick Swasko said:

user-pic

This is seriously a brilliant idea.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

I'm a seriously brillilant person.

Doc said:

user-pic

Don't feed her ego.

The next thing you know she'll be acting like Ryan Theriot.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

Post of the week

Doc said:

user-pic

I'm glad you broke this out again...it's been a while. And we have so much material to use from this season.

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

DeRosa currently = 1.4 WAR. Not much help there.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

I want to see the number of hits/RBIs produced by the Fontenot/Miles combo vs. the number of hits/RBIs produced by DeRosa.

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

I don't mind doing that to appease you, but that's not really the most complete way to measure players. But no one here cares about that stuff, so here you go.

Fontenot/Miles 97 hits, 41 RBIs

DeRosa 101 hits, 65 RBIs

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

Basically the Cubs got Jeff Baker too late. I wouldn't mind them re-signing Baker and call up Blanco and platoon those two. Some think the Cubs will go back after DeRosa, so that should please many. One thing's for sure ... Miles is likely gone and Fontenot is really going to have to step it up in ST, because his time is running out.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

AND DeRosa was injured for a while.

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

Yep. Cubs had injuries too. Lots.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Unfortunately, not at 2nd base.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

Where's progs? He usually surfaces when times are tough.

Doc said:

user-pic

I think that is what the problem is with this team.

No Progs.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

I have a constituent singing to me on the phone, with music and everything.

Oh. My. God.

Americans are crazy. Why do I insist on staying in public service?

Umbra said:

user-pic

Because we pay your salary so that you can insult us on the Internet?

gravedigger said:

user-pic

ah, yes -- that's right. i love it

Umbra said:

user-pic

What were they singing? Was it, "I'm in love with Obama"?

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

What is he singing?

gravedigger said:

user-pic

A song he wrote about a city from the state my boss represents (rather not go into which member of Congress I work for)

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

Ah, that timeless classic, "Meet Me in Cuyahoga Falls"

I was just singing that today!

Dmband said:

user-pic

at the risk of being called an idiot, can someone explain wins against replacement stat?

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

you're not an idiot. i've had it explained to me multiple times and I still don't get it.

I'd rather just look at the runs produced and compare that way. that's what Billy Beane did in Moneyball!

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

No way, not an idiot. Happy to share and enlighten. It's basically a calculation of how many wins any player adds to his team compared to what is called a replacement player. It's a great measure of the true value of a player, taking into account everything, not just runs/hits/RBI or for pitchers, wins/ERA etc.

This goes a little more into it (but it may make your head hurt some, it did mine the first time I read it).

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/how_to_calculate_war/

And this is baseball ref. explanation, helped me when I was learning all this.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Wins_Above_Replacement_Player

Umbra said:

user-pic

I wrote something on this but it got eaten. Here I go again.

First, you'll need to calculate a player's wOBA, or weighted on-base average. To calculate that, it's:

(0.72*BB+0.75*HBP+0.90*1B+0.92*RBOE+1.24*2B+1.56*3B+1.95*HR) / PA

(RBOE is 'reached base on error')

wOBA isn't really all that confusing. It's a lot like slugging percentage where home runs are valued differently than singles, but the weights are different than just having an HR be 4 times better than a single. Also, it includes walks, being hit by a pitch, and reaching on an error.

So the question becomes how these numbers are picked. Why do we multiply the number of HRs by 1.95 and the number of singles by .90? It's intuitive to just multiply the number of singles by 1, doubles by 2, triples by 3, etc. How do you pick these coefficients?

To do this, you have to look at the average effect of each outcome on the 'run environment'. Imagine that the Cubs had runners at the corners, no outs. How many runs do you think they would score? If you said, "about 2", you'd be right (the actual 'official' number is 1.904. I don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole into how run environments are made. If the next guy up drew a walk, it would change the run expectancy to 2.417. So that walk added .513 runs. More than that, making an out in that situation would be worth -.661 runs. So a walk would be credited with being 'worth' 1.174 runs in that instance. If we averaged that worth over all of the walks issued in the MLB for 5 years, the average walk would be worth about .62 runs more than an out. An HR would be about 1.7 runs better.

If we just left everything alone, what we'd have would be a player's average runs created per plate appearance. We adjust those numbers up by 15% because we want an average wOBA to be the same as an average on-base percentage. This makes it easier to read and compare player's wOBA's from year to year. And that's how you get those numbers as coefficents to find wOBA.

I'm sorry. I got off on a tangent about wOBA when I should be talking about WAR. According to the same article that Matt posted that I was about to, the first step in calculating WAR is:

(wOBA - .338) / 1.15 * 700 / 10.5

The .338 comes from the league-average wOBA (which should be exactly the average on-base percentage). The 1.15 comes from re-adjusting the wOBA back down to runs per plate appearance. I know that it's kinda silly to adjust wOBA up and down like this, but it's used for more things than just WAR.

So you now have the number of runs above the average that a player would help create per plate appearance. You multiply that number by 700 because that's a full season's worth of PA's (on average). This gives you the number of runs better than the average a given player will produce if he played an entire year. You finally divide this number by 10.5 because every 10.5 runs a team scores corresponds to another win. To prove this to yourself, you can make a simple plot of wins vs runs scored and find a linear regression.

So! All this hand-waving and we've finally nailed down how many wins a player had added due to his bat. The next steps are relatively simple:

2. Add in an adjustment for which league he plays in. The American League is better than the National League. Add in 2.5 wins if they play in the AL, 2.0 wins if they play in the NL.

3. Add an adjustment for which position they play. Shortstops are more valuable than DH's, which is why you put your best defenders there. The adjustments given in that link are:

+1.0 wins C
+0.5 SS/CF
+0.0 2B/3B
-0.5 LF/RF/PH
-1.0 1B
-1.5 DH

3.5 Adjust for defense. This is kind of an optional step. Some people do it, others don't. But you could be a really lousy SS or a really great defensive 1B. Just find the number of runs prevented over the average player at that position (somehow) and divide by 10.5 runs per win, like before. UZR (ultimate zone rating) is one popular system for doing this. You can find it at FanGraphs NOTE: this has to be the number of runs prevented if he played at the same level for the entire season.

4. Adjust for playing time. A guy with great numbers doesn't help you if he doesn't see any action. This means multiplying by about 85%.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

We need to start voting for our favorites!

Dmband said:

user-pic

Its almost like it became an overnight buzzword. I am a big fan of RISP in all of its forms....mostly because it makes Milton Bradley's OBP look meaningless....

Ps. I cant get to the site from work, but there is a pic on google images of Hendry and Bradley shaking hands the day he signed that is just BEGGING to be used in a motivational poster.

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

I vote for CubsCast's. That was the only one that truly made me laugh.

Max Power said:

user-pic

I concur. That was very clever.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

There's an imposter Max Power trolling around CN. How do we know this is really you?

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

I'm cutting the submissions off at 4:00 CT. Then we'll put up a poll and everyone can vote.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

I'm cutting off the submissions at 4:00 CT. Then I'll put up a poll and we'll choose the winner.

baturkey said:

user-pic

Awesome.

Dmband said:

user-pic

thanks for the info guys!!!

gravedigger said:

user-pic

Love flyball's

gravedigger said:

user-pic

OK, the "Faith" one is my new favorite...

gravedigger said:

user-pic

did you get mine julie? i sent them to the wrong address.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

i just got them now. now i have to figure out what to do with them.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

41'131 3$1;?

gravedigger said:

user-pic

Whoops, I have no idea what I'm doing on this new phone

Doc said:

user-pic

Oh. I thought you were drunk...again.

Doc said:

user-pic

Looking like the Cardinals are serious about signing John Smoltz.

secdelahc said:

user-pic

Can I be done with these stupid online classes yet? They take forever!!! Also, I'm ready for orientation to begin, so I won't have as much to do.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

So far we have a 3-way tie. Keep voting.

summerguy said:

user-pic

NEW FAVORITE COMMERCIAL EVER!!!

Courtesy of Dairy Queen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVjcuuczUXE

seriously, this is like funny Superbowl commercial shit

Umbra said:

user-pic

Sigh. ChicagoNow just ate my uncomfortably long statsy post about WAR twice. Juuuuuuuuuuuullllllllllllllllllliiiiiieeeee! Can you approve them or snatch them out of the aether?

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Lemme see. . .

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Wow--I think it's just too long. I tried posting half of it and that didn't even work.

How about if I post it in a diary for tomorrow afternoon?

flyball said:

user-pic

IUmbra, thats a lot of math, classes don't start for 3 weeks, and you want me to concentrate on that?

fine, but I'm going to use the information against you later in an argument

Umbra said:

user-pic

A lot of math? I haven't even brought in fractals or Fourier Transforms.

That's next week.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

part I of Umbra's comment on WAR:

I wrote something on this but it got eaten. Here I go again.

First, you'll need to calculate a player's wOBA, or weighted on-base average. To calculate that, it's: (0.72*BB+0.75*HBP+0.90*1B+0.92*RBOE+1.24*2B+1.56*3B+1.95*HR) / PA (RBOE is 'reached base on error') wOBA isn't really all that confusing. It's a lot like slugging percentage where home runs are valued differently than singles, but the weights are different than just having an HR be 4 times better than a single. Also, it includes walks, being hit by a pitch, and reaching on an error.

So the question becomes how these numbers are picked. Why do we multiply the number of HRs by 1.95 and the number of singles by .90? It's intuitive to just multiply the number of singles by 1, doubles by 2, triples by 3, etc. How do you pick these coefficients?

To do this, you have to look at the average effect of each outcome on the 'run environment'. Imagine that the Cubs had runners at the corners, no outs. How many runs do you think they would score? If you said, "about 2", you'd be right (the actual 'official' number is 1.904. I don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole into how run environments are made. If the next guy up drew a walk, it would change the run expectancy to 2.417. So that walk added .513 runs. More than that, making an out in that situation would be worth -.661 runs. So a walk would be credited with being 'worth' 1.174 runs in that instance.

Leave a Comment?

Some HTML is permitted: a, strong, em

What your comment will look like:

said:

what will you say?

Most Active Pages Right Now

ChicagoNow.com on Facebook

A League of Her Own on Facebook

A League of Her Own - A Chicago Cubs Blog on Facebook