Sox sign Scutaro .

[Dipre]

Agreed do you think he signs on for two years and 2M?

 

I think he'll get around a 2.5 mill salary to start somewhere. 2 yr/5 doesn't sound so bad.

[kreinbihl34]

I think he'll get around a 2.5 mill salary to start somewhere. 2 yr/5 doesn't sound so bad.

 

You think he'll get a starting job somewhere with his injury history?

[Dipre]

You think he'll get a starting job somewhere with his injury history?

 

Someone might take the gamble.

 

The Astros come to mind.

[example1]

There is another difference with me too.

 

I actually SEE a lot of games live. About 50 a year. It's tough to get a read on TV. At the stadium, it's different. You instantly see the jump players get, and can determine range better. Conversely, at the stadium, you can't see the pitches as well as you can on TV.

 

So is it fair to say that your knowledge of current MLB players is based largely on this? If so I'd say it gives you a lot of clout with regard to Yankee players and the things you can extrapolate from that observation. Your opinion on most players from other teams, however, is largely based on a small sample size of observation from the stands.

 

I commend you for your observation, seriously. I think you have a pretty keen eye and obviously care a lot about the game. However, you've acknowledged that you don't pay as much attention to numbers and you obviously don't have time to devote 50 games to most other teams. As you know, stats and metrics are very helpful for that task.

[riverside sluggers]

Someone might take the gamble.

 

The Astros come to mind.

 

Maybe the Padres

[Dipre]

Maybe the Padres

 

Hahahaha, you and i have certainly been synchronized lately, my good sir.

[Gom]

So is it fair to say that your knowledge of current MLB players is based largely on this? If so I'd say it gives you a lot of clout with regard to Yankee players and the things you can extrapolate from that observation. Your opinion on most players from other teams, however, is largely based on a small sample size of observation from the stands.

 

I commend you for your observation, seriously. I think you have a pretty keen eye and obviously care a lot about the game. However, you've acknowledged that you don't pay as much attention to numbers and you obviously don't have time to devote 50 games to most other teams. As you know, stats and metrics are very helpful for that task.

 

Thank you for the compliment, first of all.

 

I believe in stats, more than most of you know. I had fun with Dipre, but I really wanted to get to the bottom of the Holliday thing, so we actually worked together and found out we were both actually right and wrong. I like Dipre, because, he actually THINKS. Ditto you, Kilo, Jacko, etc.

 

What I can't stand though is when people take some statistic and quote it without thought.

 

Also, there are differences in statistical types. Offensive and pitching statistics are highly developed. In a few short years, we've gone from batting average and RBI's to OPS and WAR, from ERA and wins to WHIP and FIP.

 

Defensive metrics aren't there yet. They haven't been studied enough, or developed enough, to warrant a true interpretation of value. Maybe they never will be. I don't know. I kind of hope they won't, to be honest. There is beauty in mystery and subtlety.

 

Baseball isn't just numbers. You really have to watch Derek Jeter every day to appreciate him. Every pitch, he's ready, on the balls of his feet, ready. I've never seen a player run out EVERY at bat. It doesn't matter if he's up 5 runs, or down five runs, whether it's a game in April or October. You can't see that in a box score. I may hate Pedroia, but he plays the same way. I'd f***ing love the guy if he was on my team.

 

I digress. What I'm saying is that when a metric comes out that is, in my opinion, so flawed, it's useless, in my opinion. I'd trust my eyes and scouting reports more. That's where we are with defensive stats. There is nothing I've seen yet that is good enough for me to depend on. I'll wait until someone figures out a good way to judge a player's defense.

 

I go back to my whole debate with Dipre. Looking at the numbers, Holliday looks like a fantastic hitter. He was killed in the NLDS. However, upon further review, and with Dipre's help, we realized that he did have a hole in his swing that was extreme, and it was exploited. I also realized that the hole was smaller than I originally thought.

 

The scouts were right, after all.

 

So when I hear the comments from ignorant individuals about "watch the gamezz" and other nonsense, I really laugh. There is a happy medium, one in which combining scouting and raw data gives the best overall picture. To shun one over the other is pure folly and stupidity, really. I use both, to varying measures. I primarily use my eyes and scouting reports on defense, and stats and scouting reports for hitting and pitching. I watch the games to see holes in a swing, what pitchers throw in what spots, how catchers set up. At the game, I look for the catcher's movement on the pitch [in general, the less the catcher's glove moves, the more likely it's a strike], the jump on the ball a fielder gets, the route a player takes to the ball, etc.

 

Every time I see someone quote "watch the gamezz" I immediately categorize that person as someone who doesn't understand the game and believes everything he or she reads. Incapable of forming any independent thought. I've had some classic battles with Jacko and Dipre..but you know what? I respect their baseball acumen. Jacko is one of my biggest sources for minor league players, even if he is, shall we say, slightly over-optimistic on our team's minor league players, and Dipre is probably just as good as I am, if not better, as picking up flaws in mechanics in players. You don't get that from stats. You get it from watching the game.

 

You can learn a lot from baseball if you take in all aspects of it. People who take just one avenue honestly don't understand the game and are not as qualified as someone who looks at the whole picture.

[example1]

Defensive metrics aren't there yet. They haven't been studied enough, or developed enough, to warrant a true interpretation of value. Maybe they never will be. I don't know. I kind of hope they won't, to be honest. There is beauty in mystery and subtlety.

 

Have you actually spent time looking at what these different metrics are though? UZR--as ORS has pointed out--is literally people observing each and every play and comparing them to what average players would be able to do, and applying numbers to explain those differences. In theory it shoudl be very accurate; If it's wrong it isn't wrong in an entirely fundamental way. Chances are that the "perfect" system would categorize and count things more accurately, but that's not too far from existance.

 

Baseball isn't just numbers. You really have to watch Derek Jeter every day to appreciate him. Every pitch, he's ready, on the balls of his feet, ready. I've never seen a player run out EVERY at bat. It doesn't matter if he's up 5 runs, or down five runs, whether it's a game in April or October. You can't see that in a box score. I may hate Pedroia, but he plays the same way. I'd f***ing love the guy if he was on my team.

 

Everyone appreciates Jeter. I think you could say that without watching him every day you can't fully appreciate him, but the same could be said for any player that you don't watch. How can you say Pedroia is no Jeter when we know that you watch Jeter like a hawk and see Pedroia in random games, highlights and when he plays the Yankees? How about Buchholz or any of the other prospects?

 

I digress. What I'm saying is that when a metric comes out that is, in my opinion, so flawed, it's useless, in my opinion. I'd trust my eyes and scouting reports more. That's where we are with defensive stats. There is nothing I've seen yet that is good enough for me to depend on. I'll wait until someone figures out a good way to judge a player's defense.

 

The same people who create offensive matrics have put their brains on defensive metrics and I'd bet that a number of them think they have developed a pretty good system. How will you know when that correct system is found? Bill James is pretty good at answering baseball questions and he's wrapped his brain around these problems; same with the rest of the great sabermatricians. I think there's pretty good stuff out there, even if it looks wrong sometiems.

 

You can learn a lot from baseball if you take in all aspects of it. People who take just one avenue honestly don't understand the game and are not as qualified as someone who looks at the whole picture.

 

But the hardest part of enjoying the game of baseball is looking at the stuff behind the scenes. Generally the casual fan does nothing other than watching the game. While your generalizations may be accurate based on LOTS of observation, it comes across as similar to reactions of people who only watch a few games and generalize based on that. The numbers, in general, are the ultimate judge IMO.

 

If a player had a "great" season it will be reflected in the numbers moreso than any random observation throughout the season.

[Gom]

Have you actually spent time looking at what these different metrics are though? UZR--as ORS has pointed out--is literally people observing each and every play and comparing them to what average players would be able to do' date=' and applying numbers to explain those differences. In theory it should be very accurate; If it's wrong it isn't wrong in an entirely fundamental way. Chances are that the "perfect" system would categorize and count things more accurately, but that's not too far from existance. [/quote']

Teixeira. Jeter. Cano. On the Yankees alone, these players are in my opinion plus defenders, they are minus. Cabrera isn't as good as Swisher? The system is more wrong than right. It's useless. I don't care what it is supposed to do. The fact is, it doesn't. It's not working.

Everyone appreciates Jeter. I think you could say that without watching him every day you can't fully appreciate him, but the same could be said for any player that you don't watch. How can you say Pedroia is no Jeter when we know that you watch Jeter like a hawk and see Pedroia in random games, highlights and when he plays the Yankees? How about Buchholz or any of the other prospects?

Where did I say Pedroia is no Jeter? Skill-wise, I don't think so. How hard he plays the game, I have no doubt he's every bit as intense and dedicated as he is. As for other players, I rely on stats and what I read. Just like most people. I have an advantage over most since I do go to watch the games more often.

The same people who create offensive matrics have put their brains on defensive metrics and I'd bet that a number of them think they have developed a pretty good system. How will you know when that correct system is found? Bill James is pretty good at answering baseball questions and he's wrapped his brain around these problems; same with the rest of the great sabermatricians. I think there's pretty good stuff out there, even if it looks wrong sometimes.

Ok, but defense is not as evolved, not as easy to quantify, and they've been working at it for less. Right now, what they've come up with so far with UZR is useless.

But the hardest part of enjoying the game of baseball is looking at the stuff behind the scenes. Generally the casual fan does nothing other than watching the game. While your generalizations may be accurate based on LOTS of observation, it comes across as similar to reactions of people who only watch a few games and generalize based on that. The numbers, in general, are the ultimate judge IMO.

I don't think anything is an "ultimate judge". The ultimate judge so far on Clay, Hughes, and Joba is that they suck, or at best, they are average. The stats say so. The stats say that Tex is terrible at defense.

 

You limit yourself by saying one method is the ultimate judge. It's uneducated.

If a player had a "great" season it will be reflected in the numbers moreso than any random observation throughout the season.

There is nothing random about my observations. I don't see 1 or 2 games a year.

[a700hitter]

Thank you for the compliment, first of all.

 

I believe in stats, more than most of you know. I had fun with Dipre, but I really wanted to get to the bottom of the Holliday thing, so we actually worked together and found out we were both actually right and wrong. I like Dipre, because, he actually THINKS. Ditto you, Kilo, Jacko, etc.

 

What I can't stand though is when people take some statistic and quote it without thought.

 

Also, there are differences in statistical types. Offensive and pitching statistics are highly developed. In a few short years, we've gone from batting average and RBI's to OPS and WAR, from ERA and wins to WHIP and FIP.

 

Defensive metrics aren't there yet. They haven't been studied enough, or developed enough, to warrant a true interpretation of value. Maybe they never will be. I don't know. I kind of hope they won't, to be honest. There is beauty in mystery and subtlety.

 

Baseball isn't just numbers. You really have to watch Derek Jeter every day to appreciate him. Every pitch, he's ready, on the balls of his feet, ready. I've never seen a player run out EVERY at bat. It doesn't matter if he's up 5 runs, or down five runs, whether it's a game in April or October. You can't see that in a box score. I may hate Pedroia, but he plays the same way. I'd f***ing love the guy if he was on my team.

 

I digress. What I'm saying is that when a metric comes out that is, in my opinion, so flawed, it's useless, in my opinion. I'd trust my eyes and scouting reports more. That's where we are with defensive stats. There is nothing I've seen yet that is good enough for me to depend on. I'll wait until someone figures out a good way to judge a player's defense.

 

I go back to my whole debate with Dipre. Looking at the numbers, Holliday looks like a fantastic hitter. He was killed in the NLDS. However, upon further review, and with Dipre's help, we realized that he did have a hole in his swing that was extreme, and it was exploited. I also realized that the hole was smaller than I originally thought.

 

The scouts were right, after all.

 

So when I hear the comments from ignorant individuals about "watch the gamezz" and other nonsense, I really laugh. There is a happy medium, one in which combining scouting and raw data gives the best overall picture. To shun one over the other is pure folly and stupidity, really. I use both, to varying measures. I primarily use my eyes and scouting reports on defense, and stats and scouting reports for hitting and pitching. I watch the games to see holes in a swing, what pitchers throw in what spots, how catchers set up. At the game, I look for the catcher's movement on the pitch [in general, the less the catcher's glove moves, the more likely it's a strike], the jump on the ball a fielder gets, the route a player takes to the ball, etc.

 

Every time I see someone quote "watch the gamezz" I immediately categorize that person as someone who doesn't understand the game and believes everything he or she reads. Incapable of forming any independent thought. I've had some classic battles with Jacko and Dipre..but you know what? I respect their baseball acumen. Jacko is one of my biggest sources for minor league players, even if he is, shall we say, slightly over-optimistic on our team's minor league players, and Dipre is probably just as good as I am, if not better, as picking up flaws in mechanics in players. You don't get that from stats. You get it from watching the game.

 

You can learn a lot from baseball if you take in all aspects of it. People who take just one avenue honestly don't understand the game and are not as qualified as someone who looks at the whole picture.

Great post. Of course Example would conclude that "you don't pay much attention to stats", because you reject them in certain instances. He makes the same generalization about me. He also likes to generalize that I know nothing about prospects or don't care about them, when I express an opinion favoring an experienced established player. I am often the target of "watch the gamezz" idiot comments from posters. It's funny how two idiots like us who know nothing about stats, sabremetrics, etc usually do pretty well in stat based fantasy leagues, but they will ridicule us for mentioning that too. I get where you are coming from. As you know, I go to lots of gamezz. I just purchased my Spring Training tickets today. From watching those gamezz, I have picked up things that no readily available stats would reveal-- things like Coco Crisp getting very poor jumps on balls in day games vs. night games and generally having more trouble tracking balls in day games vs. night games. There's no replacement for watching the game, and that's why the best teams have the best scouts.

[example1]

From watching those gamezz' date=' I have picked up things that no readily available stats would reveal-- things like Coco Crisp getting very poor jumps on balls in day games vs. night games and generally having more trouble tracking balls in day games vs. night games. There's no replacement for watching the game, and that's why the best teams have the best scouts.[/quote']

 

While it's certainly an astute hypothesis, even if true this observation doesn't give anyone any idea of how much it impacts Crisp's value. Is it more valueable to track balls equally well during day/night, or to have 10 extra walks per-year at the plate?

 

Without looking at anything beyond the observation it is hard to know how much lacking that skill matters.

[a700hitter]

While it's certainly an astute hypothesis, even if true this observation doesn't give anyone any idea of how much it impacts Crisp's value. Is it more valueable to track balls equally well during day/night, or to have 10 extra walks per-year at the plate?

 

Without looking at anything beyond the observation it is hard to know how much lacking that skill matters.

Example, it was an "example" of things you pick up at games. I didn't say that would impact his value. It might impact the managers decision regarding the starting CF in a particular game. It might impact his value for the Cubs if they play more day games than most teams. Certainly, it would have affected his value for the Cubs before Wrigley installed lights. Again, it was an example. Let's not make it into the focal part of the argument.

[BSN07]

There is another difference with me too.

 

I actually SEE a lot of games live. About 50 a year. It's tough to get a read on TV. At the stadium, it's different. You instantly see the jump players get, and can determine range better. Conversely, at the stadium, you can't see the pitches as well as you can on TV.

 

Yes I'm sure your view from RF Bleachers is the best view of how good a defensive player someone is. And being there is much better then the high definition slow mo replays that I can watch over and over again...

[Gom]

Yes I'm sure your view from RF Bleachers is the best view of how good a defensive player someone is. And being there is much better then the high definition slow mo replays that I can watch over and over again...

 

Absolutely. You can see the jump a player gets on the ball.

[a700hitter]

Absolutely. You can see the jump a player gets on the ball.

When I have sat in the bleachers at Fenway or any other ballpark, I realized that you get a whole new appreciation for the OF'ers play, because you are seeing the pitch and the ball come off the bat like they do, and you can see the incredible jumps they get on balls and the routes they take on balls. You are looking right at their backs the entire time. The fielders are in your field of vision the entire time, unlike people sitting along the baselines who are focused on the batter and most of the fielders are not in their field of vision while looking at the batter. By the time you look up to see what the fielder is doing, the bleacher fan is already seeing it.

[Gom]

When I have sat in the bleachers at Fenway or any other ballpark' date=' I realized that you get a whole new appreciation for the OF'ers play, because you are seeing the pitch and the ball come off the bat like they do, and you can see the incredible jumps they get on balls and the routes they take on balls. You are looking right at their backs the entire time. The fielders are in your field of vision the entire time, unlike people sitting along the baselines who are focused on the batter and most of the fielders are not in their field of vision while looking at the batter. By the time you look up to see what the fielder is doing, the bleacher fan is already seeing it.[/quote']

 

Ssssh! He's too busy watching the replays.

[riverside sluggers]

Hahahaha' date=' you and i have certainly been synchronized lately, my good sir.[/quote']

 

Haha thanks buddy

[BSN07]

There is another difference with me too.

 

I actually SEE a lot of games live. About 50 a year. It's tough to get a read on TV. At the stadium, it's different. You instantly see the jump players get, and can determine range better. Conversely, at the stadium, you can't see the pitches as well as you can on TV.

 

Ssssh! He's too busy watching the replays.

 

I thought you were talking IF's(1B/2B ). OF I would totally agree you would have probably one of the better views.

[TheKilo]

Good stuff. nothing like giving up a first rounder for a fringe shortstop. I think the Sox would have been much better off moving Pedroia to short and signing Orlando Hudson. f*** it' date=' I'm not complaining.[/quote']

 

It'll be a third rounder in two weeks. Don't you worry.

[26 to 6]

Why who are you suggesting they sign between now and then? Holliday would push it to a 2nd rounder. If they re-sign Bay it remains a first rounder if I'm not mistaken. Who do you see the Sox signing?

[TheKilo]

Back to Scutaro.

 

Offensively, his average season comprises a .265/.337/.384 line for a .721 OPS., offensively, this would be solid for the 6 position, but my point is, since he's never been anything special defensively, is nobody else scared of age-related decline to his defense seeing as the sample size at SS is not big enough to establish a career curve or a specific estimation?

 

I have been openly ridiculed here for suggesting Tejada as a stopgap option at SS, however, even though his 2009 was awful defensively, he posted a 9.4 UZR/150 and 4.0 RF/G as soon as 2008, which might suggest, given an actual improvement on his RF/G (4.4) that this was nothing more than a fluke? Just as perhaps Scutaro's 2009 season was also a fluke?

 

This is not a Scutaro-bashing attempt, but an honest question. I would like to know what others think.

 

didn't you just answer your own question?

[TheKilo]

Pissing away a first rounder for a 34 year old mediocre infielder isn't terribly overpaying?

 

No, it isn't. Not for a team who thinks it can contend in 2010 for a title.

 

It will be a third rounder in two weeks.

[Dipre]

didn't you just answer your own question?

 

No i didn't. Maybe you didn't read the entire post?

 

If you didn't like the question and didn't want to come up with a thought-out response, why come back with a one-liner?

[TheKilo]

Hahahaha' date=' you and i have certainly been synchronized lately, my good sir.[/quote']

 

Not a good thing

[TheKilo]

Why who are you suggesting they sign between now and then? Holliday would push it to a 2nd rounder. If they re-sign Bay it remains a first rounder if I'm not mistaken. Who do you see the Sox signing?

 

Lackey

Soriano

Gonzalez

[26 to 6]

Fair enough, I wouldn't be shocked to see Theo sign one of them.

[Gom]

Lackey

Soriano

Gonzalez

 

Honestly, I don't think you get any of them.

[TheKilo]

Honestly' date=' I don't think you get any of them.[/quote']

 

Sweet. This pretty much guarantees they get at least one if not more.

[Gom]

Sweet. This pretty much guarantees they get at least one if not more.

 

I'll explain why.

 

Soriano and Gonzalez...what's the point? They could have kept Wagner, who is better in my opinion, for the same money. I guess it depends on how Theo values the three. If he values Wagner as the best, then it makes no sense.

 

Lackey, I highly doubt. I think this is a two-team race. He will go back to the Angels who can ill afford losing Lackey and Figgins. The only way he doesn't is if the Yankees decide that they want a four man rotation in the playoffs next year instead of a three man one. I can't see the Red Sox getting him at all.

 

I think you have me mistaken with someone else Kilo...you know I am usually more right than wrong with free agents.

[TheKilo]

I don't even care what your explanation is. Your track record speaks for itself.