10 Player's Who'd Look Good in Pinstripes

[Keeper]

UZR isn't what it's cracked up to be, IMHO.

[Dipre]

RF is a garbage stat' date=' it's putouts + assists. It has nothing to do with how much ground the player had to cover to make a play. To suggest it's a better judge of range than UZR is kind of silly.[/quote']

 

Do you actually know how UZR works?

 

It has absolutely no bearing on a player's actual range, but his ability to make outs, and they're not necessarily related.

 

Juan Pierre had much better range in CF than Torii Hunter, but who has the better UZR?

 

It's as much range as it is positioning and jump. To try to accentuate your point without an actual understanding of what "range" entails is also kind of silly.

[Imperial59]

UZR isn't what it's cracked up to be' date=' IMHO.[/quote']

 

It's not what it's cracked up to be when judging 1B and CF. It certainly has it's flaws, but it's the most accurate defensive statistic available to the public when judging the defensive abilities and/or range of a second baseman.

[Dipre]

It's not what it's cracked up to be when judging 1B and CF. It certainly has it's flaws' date=' but it's the most accurate defensive statistic available to the public when judging the defensive abilities and/or range of a second baseman.[/quote']

 

Defensive ability, not range.

 

It's also good for judging CF, not so much SS and 1B.

[Imperial59]

Do you actually know how UZR works?

 

It has absolutely no bearing on a player's actual range, but his ability to make outs, and they're not necessarily related.

 

Juan Pierre had much better range in CF than Torii Hunter, but who has the better UZR?

 

It's as much range as it is positioning and jump. To try to accentuate your point without an actual understanding of what "range" entails is also kind of silly.

 

I know exactly how UZR is calculated and I've known for YEARS. I was talking about it long before fangraphs had it available or was even around. I was tracking it before they altered it because of O-Dog (go ahead and look that up if you can even find information about it anymore). It certainly does measure range, though it's not the only thing it measures.

 

Don't try to act like I only have my opinion because I don't understand the stats. You're the one who just tried to claim that put outs plus assists/innings played is a better indication of range

[Dipre]

I know exactly how UZR is calculated and I've known for YEARS. I was talking about it long before fangraphs had it available or was even around. I was tracking it before they altered it because of O-Dog (go ahead and look that up). It certainly does measure range, though it's not the only thing it measures.

 

Don't try to act like I only have my opinion because I don't understand the stats. You're the one who just tried to claim that put outs plus assists/innings played is a better indication of range

 

Not what i meant.

 

What i meant was that "Range" is a subjective term when it comes to UZR. The fact that a player converts more batted balls hit into their zone into outs doesn't mean they have more actual "range".

 

Range is a player's ability to cover terrain in their assigned spot, but when turning "range" into the ability to convert outs, good positioning, as well as an accurate arm (in an IF's case) matter as much as the actual mobility of the player, which is what "Range" by definition, is.

 

Anyways, i'm done here. You know more than everyone else.

[Imperial59]

Anyways' date=' i'm done here. You know more than everyone else.[/quote']

 

I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. It's not my fault if you tried to claim you knew more about the stats than me and I called you on it...

 

To try to accentuate your point without an actual understanding of what "range" entails is also kind of silly.

 

You're criticizing me for using UZR as a range stat because it has to do more with positioning and arm accuracy, yet you're the one who tried to pass off a player's put outs plus assists as a more "accurate" range stat that depends on positioning and arm accuracy less.

 

No hard feelings, but don't try to claim that the stats I'm using are flawed, then use a stat that's twice as flawed for all the same reasons and try to claim that I'm the one who misunderstands the stats.

[Dipre]

I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. It's not my fault if you tried to claim you knew more about the stats than me and I called you on it...

 

IsoP. All i have to say about that.

[Imperial59]

IsoP. All i have to say about that.

 

I looked at the wrong stat and I admitted it right away. I didn't use a far inferior stat to the one you were using, try to claim it was more accurate and then claim that you were the one who misunderstood the stats. If I had to guess, I'd say that you had no idea that RF was simply put outs plus assists until I just told you. If you did know that already, then I have no idea why you'd think it was more accurate than UZR.

[Dipre]

I looked at the wrong stat and I admitted it right away. I didn't use a far inferior stat to the one you were using' date=' try to claim it was more accurate and then claim that you were the one who misunderstood the stats. If I had to guess, I'd say that you had no idea that RF was simply put outs plus assists until I just told you. If you did know that already, then I have no idea why you'd think it was more accurate than UZR.[/quote']

 

Again, not the point.

 

The point is that you're too involved in trying to bash the Yankees and their players. Chill out, we're on the same side.

 

When evaluating "Talent" which is of purely subjective nature, the fact that Cano might be the better player never surfaced, just that he had better tools, and he does.

[Imperial59]

Again, not the point.

 

The point is that you're too involved in trying to bash the Yankees and their players. Chill out, we're on the same side.

 

When evaluating "Talent" which is of purely subjective nature, the fact that Cano might be the better player never surfaced, just that he had better tools, and he does.

 

 

Please. Where did I bash a member of the Yankees anywhere in this thread? Everything I've said has had objective analysis to back it up.

 

To disagree with me because I'm using objective analysis and you're using subjective analysis is one thing. But to use inferior stats to mine, then claim I'm the one who doesn't understand the stats and that I'm just bashing Yankees players is another.

 

Can't you just agree to disagree without bashing the other poster?

[26 to 6]

Cano's more talented.

 

Pedroia has more heart.

 

That's not even a discussion.

Fair enough, I would agree with that 100%

 

Article was an interesting read though..

 

That's the issue I have. It's easy to objectively prove that Pedroia is the better player but there's not a shred of objective evidence that Cano is more talented or has more natural ability.

There are two big pieces of evidence...they're called your eyes. There are no statistics to evaluate natural talent, but just watch Cano play and his talent is undeniable. The most talented players aren't always the best, and there are tons of examples of that. Look at Derek Jeter for instance, there are plenty of players in the game, and at his position, who are more talented than Jeter. But there are few players in the game better than him. Nobody who's saying that Cano is more talented is arguing against the point that Pedroia is the better player.

 

I guess we agree to disagree then. The vast majority of objective evidence shows that Pedroia is superior to Cano, that's why I'm on his side. I could care less about credibility, I'm just calling the shots as I see them.

That's because he is, as a player, superior to Cano. That's undeniable. But somebody's worth as a player isn't just defined by their physical ability, because if it was Cano would be better. Remember, 90% of baseball is half-mental

 

But she wouldn't be wearing it for long ...

touche lol

 

UZR isn't what it's cracked up to be, IMHO.

I absolutely hate it. It's not as supportive as people make it to be sometimes. It's alright for reference sometimes, but it's legs aren't strong enough to be so supportive when making a case for something. It's unfortunate that there isn't a more reliable defensive stat though.

[Dipre]

 

Please. Where did I bash a member of the Yankees anywhere in this thread? Everything I've said has had objective analysis to back it up.

 

First off, you've been trying to sneak in Cano's 2008 into the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest, because it was a fluke when looking at Cano's career sample size, his BABIP (.286) is an indication of this. Why not use his whole career as a benchmark?

 

Second off, you've been trying to establish the term "Range" as part of UZR in a manner not pertaining to the discussion to try and minimize Cano's ability.

 

Not only that, it's quite simple.

 

Statistically, Cano is the more dangerous hitter. By "range" (or ability to cover range in itself) he's also better than Pedroia.

 

There's a reason why even the Sox' FO still relies in scouting and not just stats, you need a combination of both to have a thorough understanding of a player's abilities, and trying to establish intellectual superiority because you can go to Fangraphs (just like i can) is an exercise in futility.

 

Besides that, WMP had no talent. Really?

[Dipre]

Easy on UZR there, partners.

[Imperial59]

First off, you've been trying to sneak in Cano's 2008 into the discussion, which is intellectually dishonest, because it was a fluke when looking at Cano's career sample size, his BABIP (.286) is an indication of this. Why not use his whole career as a benchmark?

 

Second off, you've been trying to establish the term "Range" as part of UZR in a manner not pertaining to the discussion to try and minimize Cano's ability.

 

Not only that, it's quite simple.

 

Statistically, Cano is the more dangerous hitter. By "range" (or ability to cover range in itself) he's also better than Pedroia.

 

There's a reason why even the Sox' FO still relies in scouting and not just stats, you need a combination of both to have a thorough understanding of a player's abilities, and trying to establish intellectual superiority because you can go to Fangraphs (just like i can) is an exercise in futility.

 

Besides that, WMP had no talent. Really?

 

Like I said, I guess we agree to disagree. You prefer to say things like Cano's more "dangerous" or he has "more range on a purely subjective basis. I prefer to go with the guy who has the superior ability to perform at the major league level.

[Dipre]

Like I said' date=' I guess we agree to disagree. You prefer to say things like Cano's more "dangerous" or he has "more range on a purely subjective basis. I prefer to go with the guy who has the superior ability to perform at the major league level.[/quote']

 

No. We agree to agree. Pedroia's the better player. You're just hung on semantics, and a pure disregard for talent evaluation.

[Imperial59]

There are two big pieces of evidence...they're called your eyes. There are no statistics to evaluate natural talent' date=' but just watch Cano play and his talent is undeniable. The most talented players aren't always the best, and there are tons of examples of that. Look at Derek Jeter for instance, there are plenty of players in the game, and at his position, who are more talented than Jeter. But there are few players in the game better than him. Nobody who's saying that Cano is more talented is arguing against the point that Pedroia is the better player.[/quote']

 

When you watch either player play, their talent is undeniable. Pedroia is very good at making contact (he makes contact 93% of the time that he swings, that ridiculous_. He's very patient, he makes a lot of tough plays, he turns the double play well. You can see all of those with your eyes too.

 

The eyes are incredibly biased. And what does "more talented" even mean? Can you give a set definition so that we can debate the issue?

[Imperial59]

No. We agree to agree. Pedroia's the better player. You're just hung on semantics' date=' and a pure disregard for talent evaluation.[/quote']

 

 

I'm not purely disregarding talent evaluation, I'm disagreeing with you on whether scouting reports or actual results matter more when evaluating talent. Can't you just agree to disagree without claiming that we agree but I'm just disregarding or misunderstanding the argument? It's not like you're Einstein trying to simplify your case to the village idiot, but they just can't wrap their head around it.

[Dipre]

 

I'm not purely disregarding talent evaluation, I'm disagreeing with you on whether scouting reports or actual results matter more when evaluating talent.

 

 

The stats can't tell you how strong a player's arm is, how much terrain he covers, how much power does he generate with his swing, or how accurate are his throws.

 

I'm going to ask you a question:

 

Subjectively, who do you think has better "tools", Mark Teixeira or Kevin Youkilis?

[Imperial59]

 

The stats can't tell you how strong a player's arm is, how much terrain he covers, how much power does he generate with his swing, or how accurate are his throws.

 

I'm going to ask you a question:

 

Subjectively, who do you think has better "tools", Mark Teixeira or Kevin Youkilis?

 

If you want to talk Pedroia and Cano, I'm game. If you want to change the subject, please make a new thread. No hard feelings, but I can't stand it when threads get off topic.

[26 to 6]

When you watch either player play, their talent is undeniable. Pedroia is very good at making contact (he makes contact 93% of the time that he swings, that ridiculous_. He's very patient, he makes a lot of tough plays, he turns the double play well. You can see all of those with your eyes too.

 

The eyes are incredibly biased. And what does "more talented" even mean? Can you give a set definition so that we can debate the issue?

He can hit and throw the ball further, and can cover more ground. Few were better at turning double plays this year than Cano as well. Is Cano a better player than Pedroia though? No. There is no underlying definitive way to define talent, but whatever it is, Cano has got more raw talent than Pedroia. I'lll agree to disagree though.

[Dipre]

If you want to talk Pedroia and Cano' date=' I'm game. If you want to change the subject, please make a new thread.[/quote']

 

Well it's the same topic. No need to backpedal.

 

The point of the question was this:

 

You need your own two eyes to measure the physical ability of a ballplayer. While Pedroia's hand-eye coordination is legendary, he doesn't have the physical tools of Robinson Cano, and stats can't tell you this.

 

He has more power, covers more terrain, has a stronger arm. All part of the package that comprises "Talent". But "talent" does not necessarily translate into on-field results. Cano is almost never well-positioned when fielding or making his throws, he has little plate discipline and f***s up his footwork regularly, but when compared on a tool-for-tool basis, Pedroia's skillset pales in comparison to Cano's, but since the results differ, no amount of statistical research will tell you this, which is why you need to either evaluate their attributes yourself, or rely on scouting.

 

Which brings me to Youk versus Teixeira.

 

Youk is every bit as productive on a game-to-game basis as Teixeira. But i think you could safely assume that Teixeira has more "Talent" than Youkilis.

[Imperial59]

He can hit and throw the ball further' date=' and can cover more ground. Few were better at turning double plays this year than Cano as well. Is Cano a better player than Pedroia though? No. There is no underlying definitive way to define talent, but whatever it is, Cano has got more raw talent than Pedroia. I'lll agree to disagree though.[/quote']

 

Cano can hit the ball further with more routine. Pedroia can get on base much more with more routine. Cano may be able to cover more ground laterally with more routine. But Pedroia is able to cover more ground laterally and actually come up with the ball with more routine.

 

As for you assertion than Cano can actually turn the DP well, I've heard that from a bunch of Yankees fans when confronted about his poor defense. The fact is, he had the 10th worse pivot % among 2B last year, so he was actually below average at turning the double play.

[Dipre]

Cano f***s up his footwork regularly. He's not good at turning DP's.

[Imperial59]

Well it's the same topic. No need to backpedal.

 

Alright, I've had enough. If you can't refrain from going off-topic and then claiming I'm backpedaling when I ask you to stay on topic, then I don't feel the need to continue the discussion.

 

If you want to discuss Pedroia and Cano again, let me know.

[Dipre]

Alright, I've had enough. If you can't refrain from going off-topic and then claiming I'm backpedaling when I ask you to stay on topic, then I don't feel the need to continue the discussion.

 

If you want to discuss Pedroia and Cano again, let me know.

 

Well it's the same topic. No need to backpedal.

 

The point of the question was this:

 

You need your own two eyes to measure the physical ability of a ballplayer. While Pedroia's hand-eye coordination is legendary, he doesn't have the physical tools of Robinson Cano, and stats can't tell you this.

 

He has more power, covers more terrain, has a stronger arm. All part of the package that comprises "Talent". But "talent" does not necessarily translate into on-field results. Cano is almost never well-positioned when fielding or making his throws, he has little plate discipline and f***s up his footwork regularly, but when compared on a tool-for-tool basis, Pedroia's skillset pales in comparison to Cano's, but since the results differ, no amount of statistical research will tell you this, which is why you need to either evaluate their attributes yourself, or rely on scouting.

 

Which brings me to Youk versus Teixeira.

 

Youk is every bit as productive on a game-to-game basis as Teixeira. But i think you could safely assume that Teixeira has more "Talent" than Youkilis.

 

You could have read the post, and also answered my question. Whatever either way.

[Imperial59]

Cano f***s up his footwork regularly. He's not good at turning DP's.

 

Hey, we agree on something. I think this is a prime example of the eyes deceiving observers. 95% of Yankees fans who know what it means to turn a double play well will say that Cano turns the double play well. But more objective eyes say otherwise and so do the statistics.

[Imperial59]

You could have read the post' date=' and also answered my question. Whatever either way.[/quote']

 

You could make some really great posts, but if you continuously act direspectively towards me because of a simple disagreement, then I'm not going to read them. We're both Red Sox fans, can't we post towards each other with some degree of civility?

[Dipre]

You could make the most mind-blowing post I've ever seen' date=' but if you continuously act direspectively towards me because of a simple disagreement, then I'm not going to read them. We're both Red Sox fans, can't we post towards each other with some degree of civility?[/quote']

 

Yeah because ":rolleyes:" is extremely civil.

 

Not to mention you went into a full-blown tirade without reading the post.

[Imperial59]

Yeah because ":rolleyes:" is extremely civil.

 

Not to mention you went into a full-blown tirade without reading the post.

 

Hey, if you want to discuss Cano and Pedroia without bashing me and claiming I don't understand baseball as well as you, I'd love to have a serious discussion. But I'm not going to engage in a pissing contest.