Posted by bad_luck on 8/28/2013 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/28/2013 2:19:00 PM (view original):
For crying out loud, use some critical thinking skills.  That is, if you're even capable of it.

Your beloved FRAA stat makes "adjustments made based on plays made, the expected numbers of plays per position", etc.

As has been pointed out, the 1985 Yankees had an extreme fly ball pitching staff in relation to the rest of the league.

This means that Henderson, in CF, would have more fly balls hit to him than would an average CF, thus artificially inflating his opportunities in the field.  This would artifically distort and inflate his FRAA.

Likewise, Mattingly at 1B would be handling fewer ground balls than league average for 1B would expect, thus artifically deflating his opportunities in the field.  As with Henderson, this would artifically distort and deflate his FRAA.

Get your head out of your *** and try to understand how to apply your beloved stats correctly. 

YOU NEED TO PUT THEM IN CONTEXT!!!

Hey Dumbshit,

You forgot to read to read the whole thing, once again. Are you doing it on purpose, or are you really that ******* stupid?

"The pitcher's groundball tendencies, batter handedness, park, and base-out state all go into figuring out how many plays an average player at a position would make."

so you're just going to pretend this didn't happen?

Who had their head in their ***????

I reject any advanced stat that comes to a conclusion that is clearly wrong.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/28/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/28/2013 2:48:00 PM (view original):
You can't show me any stat, of any kind, that tells me that Henderson was an above average CF.     He simply was not.

I can't show you or you won't believe?

I know what I saw and I know what the consensus was of what others saw. 

Oh yeah, I forgot Tec's theory on stats:

They're only valid if they help his argument.

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?

How is that relevant?

Henderson and Mattingly put up quite different offensive stats.

Well, Henderson was better but it's probably close enough to call even.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/28/2013 3:17:00 PM (view original):
How is that relevant?

Henderson and Mattingly put up quite different offensive stats.

Different, but comparable in regards to value. As in, the guy who bats .200 and hits 40 homer has value, and the guy who hits .300 with 5 homers could have similar value.

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.

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?

offensive stats vary dependent upon the batting order. period. defensive stats or related equations play no bearing in hall votes. the priority that extends willie mays career (as a hypothetical choice) with the new york mets, is where will he bat? not where he will play in the field.
 
(hit enter key)

building a lineup that will produce runs is how mlb works. this is because (again) the real batting averages truly reveal pitcher success as very weighted. put fielders behind any pitcher and his success rate can still be compared to a landslide presidential election. raise the mound above the field of play, and the pitchers have added firepower to ensure their continued success. give a batter a stick and call it what, even? no way. building a team will require u to always ask this question. the choice is yours, after you choose to decide one other thing, below

(hit enter key)

the one thing missing from all the numbers in the baseball universe is who decided if a homerun was given up by the pitcher, or if the homerun was a result of a sluggers swing. bad pitch or good pitch from which point-of-view. thats your choice and nobody can make it for u. not even a number tells u. so, taking mr. october vs. bob welch at the end of the 70's. did welch serve the gopher ball, or did mr. october live up to his namesake? it is only one event. the numbers do not declare it to be 2 different events. so, in classic style of how to build a team, baseball once again creates the same scenario, and the question of did bob welch fool mr. october with overpowering odds of success, or did mr. october swing wildly with a 3-2 count? no numbers determine which of those two descriptions is the gospel of the lone event that had an entirely different result the next time it played out.

(hit enter key)

are you building a defensive team to enhance the pitcher success rate?  the only other option here is to consider that batters have the greatest effect on minimizing a pitchers success rate. defense is a small nudge of armor, even here. the bat is the stuff of the hall of fame. the bat is the only odds that begin to shrink a pitchers edge. steve carlton won an mvp by constantly pitching balls away from batters bats. he pitched. did not throw. did not hurl. all teams were at a disadvantage that year when he pitched. didn't matter who played where behind him. seriously. get a bat at every position first. my best answer.

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.

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.

put it this way. if the game is on turf then the odds of rickey being worse at defense will increase. those numbers show that. if home base is in the bronx, then rickey gets the green, green grass of home. if rickey travels and plays ten percent of his road games on turf, then u have some numbers to try to equate as to how much worse his defense is. consider what u have if fifteen percent of rickeys worst turf road defensive skills mean something to your team, and as the season progresses and rickey accumulates twenty percent of his road games on turf then u tell me how accurately u seem to measure such realities? again, let's please find a measuring device that actually fits this thread.

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.

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.

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.

Just about every defensive metric available rates Henderson as an above average center fielder  in 1985.

On the other hand, just about every defensive metric available rates Mattingly as no better than average in 1985.