And thats why i generally ignore defensive metrics. I know Mattingly was a great fielder.

Posted by lad_buck on 8/28/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by winner77 on 8/28/2013 5:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by winner77 on 8/28/2013 3:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 3:10:00 PM (view original):
Hypothetical: You're starting a team. You have a player who can play CF slightly below average, or 1st base very well. He will put up the same offensive stats regardless of where he plays. Where would you play him?

Henderson being 'slightly below average' in CF that year was debatable.  9 errors are high, but he led the league in range factor, so he was tracking down more fly balls than any other outfielder, on average.

As discussed, he also had a large outfield to work with and a fly ball heavy rotation.  I imagine Dave Winfield wasn't very rangy in RF, so he probably took some balls away from him as well.  But it's hard to completely ignore all of the balls he caught - in a normal situation, I'd guess (yes, guessing) he'd be average.  But let's say below-average for arguments sake.

"But it's hard to completely ignore all of the balls he caught - in a normal situation, I'd guess (yes, guessing) he'd be average.  But let's say below-average for arguments sake."

To me, the comment above is a good reason why defensive metrics should not be ignored or discounted when placing value on a player, especially an outfielder.  For certain metrics, they actually watch every single play a guy makes in a season, and that gets calculated into his ranking.  It's off topic, but that's one reason I put some value into it.

very well then. but, accept that mlb doesn't need the metric to place 140 years worth of ballplayers on the field. mike brito doesn't need the metric to contribute to those totals. an mlb manager does not need the metric to determine his lineup. to continue to demand an un-met need for a metric is exactly the argument here. those turf numbers are to the metric, in the same manner that batting average is to the slugging percentage. review the turf numbers first. then u can finally abandon your need for the metric. there's another web-site, from a baseball junkie who has also taken the time to break down the 1-9 batting order into mean averages for each and every slot, since 1944. that guy loves baseball, to be that dedicated. no metrics at all. went straight to effective winning baseball, from the existing record. pure genius.

Understood.  My reasoning is if we took two center fielders.  Let's say both of them made 3 errors (I am being random) and each caught 450 fly balls.  Let's also say they are the two guys up for winning the gold glove, and we have to figure out who to vote for.  If we can take into account how many 'catchable' fly balls each got had hit their way, and how many were caught vs. how many dropped in front or got by them for extra bases, we could probably figure out which guy TRULY had a better year defensively.

If every single ball hit to a guy was reviewed for the entire season, that could be figured out with some clarity.  I don't weigh the metrics as the be all end all....I think you have to use your eyes too.  I just mean they have to be used in some context when saying who is better than who.

I think without digging into defense we give certain guys credit they don't deserve.  Every Reds game I have watched they go on and on about Joey Votto being a super great first basemen.  But, he has 12 errors, which is way too many for a guy playing that position. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):
And thats why i generally ignore defensive metrics. I know Mattingly was a great fielder.

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

FRAA, for example, rates Mattingly as a great or above average fielder for most of his career. If we assume that  the down years were due to sample size noise and not variances in his actual defensive performance, then it looks like we get a confirmation of what you already knew.

I know I used one year data in the Henderson/Mattingly argument, but we really should be looking at multi-year trends when it comes to defensive metrics. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):
And thats why i generally ignore defensive metrics. I know Mattingly was a great fielder.

I also think the bar for "great fielder" at first base is fairly high. A lot of major league baseball players are capable of playing first base well. The easier the position, the harder it is to be great at it. The league average fielding percentage for a first baseman during Mattingly's career was .992. Mattingly was at .996.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/28/2013 6:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):
And thats why i generally ignore defensive metrics. I know Mattingly was a great fielder.

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

FRAA, for example, rates Mattingly as a great or above average fielder for most of his career. If we assume that  the down years were due to sample size noise and not variances in his actual defensive performance, then it looks like we get a confirmation of what you already knew.

I know I used one year data in the Henderson/Mattingly argument, but we really should be looking at multi-year trends when it comes to defensive metrics. 

FRAA for example, huh? rates, huh? think, will u? from wisdom comes the prove all things notion, as though worthy of endeavor. u instantly translate the number to place mattingly into how many different categories? great, great or above avg, avg, and on, and on until the worst rating mattingly could get, translating that number into i don't know, or i don't care. GETTING SIMPLE maybe provides 6 or 7 categories, no more, or maybe 5. Doesn't matter because u take the translation and then throw it onto the table not realizing that u now have taken the variance in the categories and clumped them into increments of 20% with 5 categories, 18.67% with 6 categories, 14.3% with seven categories translating the number for u, etcetera. the sad thing here is that these clumps get lost in the following numbers needed to complete your ultimate equation. with similar weight, your end product after all that math and conversion tables are processed, u no longer truly have the simplicity of E equals M C squared. the journey through your equations does not even appear to be understood by yourself. it has led u to believe that rickey is the true mvp who led his team to the playoff in true fashion. all along your numbers are letting u down, and u still believe u have discovered something. cannot be brief about this, as you cannot successfully defend the continued use of this, in this thread. your evaluation skills are screwed. period. like a curse. 

Posted by bad_luck on 8/28/2013 7:49:00 PM (view original):

You are blocking the author of this post, lad_buck.

Show

the math, of all the words in the english language, times the amount of the total keys on your keyboard, times all the strokes used to re-create the alphabetical roster of every word possible. the simple equation, translated, adds up to your deliberate and vain argumentative nature. an impossible answer to that equation?

will contend again for further lack of idiotic dissection of a difference of .003 one thousandth of a point that seperates mattingly from above average and great. not needing a taco recipe to agree with u about your use of the word great, let me instead propose the simplicity of odds that do not benefit in minute, inky-dinky variances in numbers. thats like focusing on what an ear hair in nolan ryans left ear does when that nasty speedy curveball does not get hit by a right-hander for a month straight. u are looking in the wrong place. and your microscope doesnt work well either.

the notion of numbers and value in baseball, is when a right-handed batter prevails, 30 days later. that is big. not little. exploiting the big is exampled in odds, like the odds of 8 no-hitters. the odds of weekend home games swept by visiting teams. these contain big odds. whether for or against, picking winning ballplayers and picking winning teams increases odds, as if henderson is a choice in cf, then choosing 2 cf's doubles your risk of choosing wrong. but, in baseball, the odds also increase if your numbers go over the total runs, or under. thats big. thats value.

exploit it. arrive in vegas early sunday morning. notice 2 home teams on the board who could be swept. big odds say that wont happen. the bets get better looking, studying the essential numbers. great cy young contenders dueling ea. other in three other games. the odds of me hitting any state lottery wherein 5 numbers are involved is in the millions. in vegas, on that morning, u can walk up to a window and bet the under in those potential three pitching matchups, go with the home team twice, even as possible underdogs getting swept, u just hit 5 numbers. your one thousand dollar bet has a pay-out of $18.67 per $1 bet. exploit the big odds. your mess of numbers remains unexploitable. it produces nothing that mirrors value. in short, 350% investment return. and those wonderful buffets. 

elaboration on numbers ensures that i can risk 50% of my bet, on one of the two hometeams, who has not been swept at home in four and a half years. with the other $500.00, spread out in odds of pay-out, instead of small odds of redundant events. another 50% of that, my numbers translate to value, placing $250.00 on the turf game total runs scored, in one cy young battle, as going over. the turf numbers were the predominant numbers where the largest portion beats the bookie 61% of the time, and the number he uses setting the bet. still another $250 to wager on 3 potential weekend sunday home finale of a series games. 20% of what remains, a $50.00 bet is placed on the 2nd home team threatened with a sweep, against the odds. that bet could kill everything, as measured by the surety of my baseball numbers. it hit, as well, as did the 2 other $100.00 wagers on the pitching match-ups, also won by their respective hometown crowds. funny thing about baseball it that every game is a home game. betting all 5 events gave me more than three-fold return, instead of a 50/50 pay-out, betting them one at a time, at a 10% loss.

choosing ballplayers, look for what is big, and exploit it. batting avgs for both 1985 mvps at .350-ish. resembles a standard expected season from ichiro suzuki, year in, and year out. he has what it takes, and defense will never keep him out of the hall. comparing him with rickey will not get him to the hall. sportswriters will do that. get real. the hall has been controversial since inception. your foolish words here fails to portray anything related to the hall and ichiro

Posted by bad_luck on 8/28/2013 7:49:00 PM (view original):

You are blocking the author of this post, lad_buck.

Show

Took you long enough.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/28/2013 6:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):
And thats why i generally ignore defensive metrics. I know Mattingly was a great fielder.

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

FRAA, for example, rates Mattingly as a great or above average fielder for most of his career. If we assume that  the down years were due to sample size noise and not variances in his actual defensive performance, then it looks like we get a confirmation of what you already knew.

I know I used one year data in the Henderson/Mattingly argument, but we really should be looking at multi-year trends when it comes to defensive metrics. 

So if sample size is an issue with looking at how players perform in a year, then it's easy to toss out Rickey's CF numbers.  He's probably about an average fielder.

The other thing to consider with first basemen is how many errors they save from their infielders.  They're one of the few positions that actually effect fielding numbers of other position players.  That sort of thing doesn't show up in 1B defensive numbers, at least to my knowledge.

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 3:10:00 PM (view original):
Hypothetical: You're starting a team. You have a player who can play CF slightly below average, or 1st base very well. He will put up the same offensive stats regardless of where he plays. Where would you play him?

Are we not answering this question?

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 11:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/28/2013 6:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):
And thats why i generally ignore defensive metrics. I know Mattingly was a great fielder.

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

FRAA, for example, rates Mattingly as a great or above average fielder for most of his career. If we assume that  the down years were due to sample size noise and not variances in his actual defensive performance, then it looks like we get a confirmation of what you already knew.

I know I used one year data in the Henderson/Mattingly argument, but we really should be looking at multi-year trends when it comes to defensive metrics. 

So if sample size is an issue with looking at how players perform in a year, then it's easy to toss out Rickey's CF numbers.  He's probably about an average fielder.

It looks like, at least during his early 20s, Rickey was a very good outfielder. For several years in a row he put up FRAA above 8 or 9.

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 11:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 3:10:00 PM (view original):
Hypothetical: You're starting a team. You have a player who can play CF slightly below average, or 1st base very well. He will put up the same offensive stats regardless of where he plays. Where would you play him?

Are we not answering this question?

CF all the way.