The Alex Cora Managerial Decision Thread

[notin]

I can't, except to say that I haven't seen every other RF'er this year either so maybe Mookie isn't as good out there as we think he is.

 

That's where the eye test comes in. If we're going to say that JBJ isn't as good as I think he is because I haven't seen every other CF it also has to be said that Mookie may not be as good as I think he is because I haven't seen every other RF'er either. Nor have I did I see every other 2B during Pedey's prime nor did I see Roberto Clemente play a lot of games in his prime but I still believe these two were outstanding players.

 

Many of us have seen enough players to recognize excellence when we see it. It's like what Potter Stewart said about pornography. I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

 

 

But WAR numbers are compared to a league average. It's not about "good" defense. His dWAR is compared to the other center fielders. So citing other examples of players you haven't seen to support the argument doesn't really change this case as much as enhance it.

 

A dWAR of 0.0 doesn't mean Bradley is bad. It does mean that, out of the 30 players playing regular CF today, his performance has been average. You can't just watch him play alone and decide that to be incorrect, and Potter Stewart quotes don't change this. An average performance isn't always a bad performance. If you took a test in school and got 95%, and the class average was 95%, you performed at class average. Did you perform badly? Did you not understand the material?

 

Since you brought up Clemente as a player you have not seen play a lot (and I have never seen), how do you really know how good of a defender he was?

[notin]

If the only criteria we can use to rate players is statistics we may as well shut this forum down because most of what we talk about is opinion-related.

 

Baseball has governed by statistics since before you were born. I really doubt you would want to have an argument with other people about baseball based solely upon opinions.

[S5Dewey]

Baseball has governed by statistics since before you were born. I really doubt you would want to have an argument with other people about baseball based solely upon opinions.

 

I wouldn't. And I wouldn't want to have an argument based solely on statistics either. Which has been my point all along.

[notin]

I wouldn't. And I wouldn't want to have an argument based solely on statistics either. Which has been my point all along.

 

Well, this argument has been statitic-based because you challenged the validity of a statistic on page 68 of this thread ("and his bdWAR is 0.0, saying that JBJ is an exactly average CF. That should give us some idea of exactly how accurate dWar is"). I have countered by saying you don't really get what that stat is measuring. and you even agreed that you don't have the ability to watch every game and compare Jackie Bradley to other center fielders.

 

You can call his defense excellent, and I would agree. But that doesn't mean there aren't 15 other center fielders who are better, which is what that number is saying. The people who complie it don't just plug numbers into formulae; they start with raw data by actually WATCHING EVERY CENTER FIELDER PLAY and rating their plays accordingly. The very stuff neither of us can do.

 

Just because their conclusion is not one you would not agree with doesn't invalidate the stat. Especially given that you don't have the opportunities to watch everyone.

 

And like most stats, 40 games worth of data doesn't lead to a final conclusion. Odubel Herrera leads all of MLB in batting average. Is he really the most talented hitter in MLB? (Hint: No.)

Edited May 16, 2018 by notin

[S5Dewey]

Well, this argument has been statitic-based because you challenged the validity of a statistic. I have countered by saying you don't really get what that stat is measuring. and you even agreed that you don't have the ability to watch every game and compare Jackie Bradley to other center fielders.

 

You can call his defense excellent, and I would agree. But that doesn't mean there aren't 15 other center fielders who are better, which is what that number is saying. The people who complie it don't just plug numbers into formulae; they start with raw data by actually WATCHING EVERY CENTER FIELDER PLAY and rating their plays accordingly. The very stuff neither of us can do.

 

Just because their conclusion is not one you would not agree with doesn't invalidate the stat. Especially given that you don't have the opportunities to watch everyone.

 

And like most stats, 40 games worth of data doesn't lead to a final conclusion. Odubel Herrera leads all of MLB in batting average. Is he really the most talented hitter in MLB? (Hint: No.)

And your argument comes down to completely statistics and I happen to be one to believe that there's more to baseball than statistics. Even Fangraphs has a statistic for "clutch", something that's been discussed ad nauseum here, and I believe that some players perform better in clutch situations than others do - but according to some it's not statistically provable. But that doesn't stop me from believing it or Fangraphs from calculating it.

 

I DO completely get what WAR is attempting to measure and I believe that on the whole it's fine. It's just that like any other "hard number" there are exceptions to it - extenuating circumstances, if you will - that contribute to the statistic that are unquantifiable. I've been saying for years that I wish there were some quick and easy (and understandable) way to compare one player's total worth to another, but I still don't see it happening. There are too many variables and unquantifiable things that go into human beings playing baseball.

 

IMHO WAR is great for historical data and for predicting what a player might do over an entire season but it's essentially worthless (that may be a bit of hyperbole ) when it comes to predicting what a player will do in any AB or in any ball hit to him. Those things are the result of the makeup of the player.

(Example: Jose Iglesias has all the skills in the world as a SS but I've read that his problem is focus. And in a totally unrelated thing, have you noticed how many players when interviewed seem to have some of the ADHD thing going on?

[mvp 78]

If the only criteria we can use to rate players is statistics we may as well shut this forum down because most of what we talk about is opinion-related.

 

Ok, well then my eyes tell me that JBJ’s d is overrated. He has a cannon for an arm that is about as accurate as the 80 year old drivers here in FL. He has a minir league approach at the plate. He took issue when Eck rightfully called him out on his play and whined online. He is very replaceable.

[Slasher9]

That's not how WAR works. A 0.0 means replacement level (AAAA fodder) not an average regular. Again, don't quote the stat if you don't have a basic understanding of it. Also, sample sizes and all that jazz.

 

Actually not what his dWAR is saying...

 

confused. UN is telling me he is AAAA defensively. you are saying he is MLB league average defensively.

seems UN (or you) "don't have a basic understanding" so probably "shouldn't quote the stat".

 

-above two quotes thanks to UN.

[Slasher9]

The people who complie it don't just plug numbers into formulae; they start with raw data by actually WATCHING EVERY CENTER FIELDER PLAY and rating their plays accordingly.

 

perhaps this "every play watcher" is a Yankees fan and has bias when grading JBj's plays.

[notin]

confused. UN is telling me he is AAAA defensively. you are saying he is MLB league average defensively.

seems UN (or you) "don't have a basic understanding" so probably "shouldn't quote the stat".

 

-above two quotes thanks to UN.

 

UN confused bWAR with fWAR. On B-R.com, if you hover over dWAR, they explain it as being compared to league average...

[Bellhorn04]

back to the thread topic for a moment....during our hot month long start the forum was buzzing that Cora was the 2nd coming of Stengel and was being put on a pedestal because he pushed all the right buttons and the players had fire & desire. now that we have seen a few weeks of...not so great baseball....bad D, bad situational hitting, the same baserunning blunders over and over and over again....are we still all sucking at the teet of Cora?

me? I think he manages like a rookie manager that has zero head coach experience.

we have seen some head scratching decisions, some desperate moves, and many a wrong button pushed.

perhaps his players are no longer "playing hard for him"?

 

The Red Sox under Francona also had stretches of mediocre to bad baseball.

 

As moon has pointed out, the 2004 Sox played .500 ball for 3 months running!

 

If that doesn't convince you not to overreact to a few weeks of it, I don't know what will.

[notin]

And your argument comes down to completely statistics and I happen to be one to believe that there's more to baseball than statistics. Even Fangraphs has a statistic for "clutch", something that's been discussed ad nauseum here, and I believe that some players perform better in clutch situations than others do - but according to some it's not statistically provable. But that doesn't stop me from believing it or Fangraphs from calculating it.

 

I DO completely get what WAR is attempting to measure and I believe that on the whole it's fine. It's just that like any other "hard number" there are exceptions to it - extenuating circumstances, if you will - that contribute to the statistic that are unquantifiable. I've been saying for years that I wish there were some quick and easy (and understandable) way to compare one player's total worth to another, but I still don't see it happening. There are too many variables and unquantifiable things that go into human beings playing baseball.

 

IMHO WAR is great for historical data and for predicting what a player might do over an entire season but it's essentially worthless (that may be a bit of hyperbole ) when it comes to predicting what a player will do in any AB or in any ball hit to him. Those things are the result of the makeup of the player.

(Example: Jose Iglesias has all the skills in the world as a SS but I've read that his problem is focus. And in a totally unrelated thing, have you noticed how many players when interviewed seem to have some of the ADHD thing going on?

 

Baseball Reference also has statistics for clutch, and, like Fangraphs and unlike everyone on this forum, they have a definition for clutch. Around here it always boiled down to "clutch exists but I don't know what it is."

 

And my argument ABSOUTELY DOES NOT completely come down to statistics. You proposed that dWAR was useless because you did not agree with one conclusion. And no proponent of WAR, bWAR or FWAR, has ever said the number is definitive.

 

And WAR is solely used for historical data. No one has ever used to to predict the outcome of a single play. And why would you? It doesn't look at a single aspect of the game, so using it to predict one would be silly.

 

OPS is a stat that is completely unquantifiable, too. If I asked you what the difference was between an .850 OPS hitter and a .900 OPS hitter, beyond saying the latter hitter is better, you couldn't do it. But when you break down the components of OPS - OBP and SLG - you can get an idea of which hitter is better. The normalizing OPS+ is an even more confusing stat, since none of us can even calculate it, and certainly useless for a single play. Does that make it unquantifiable? Does it give no relevant information?

 

But these stats are all usefull for comparing players we don't get to watch to the ones we do. And just because one stat says a player you think is doing well is doing average doesn't change how good he is or invalidate the stat. This isn't about "eye test" vs raw data, especially since most of these stats do incorporate eye test data along with defined standards (that casual fans do not use).

 

These numbers are best used in comparing players. Look at Mookie Betts. In his rookie year, he posted an OPS of .812 and an OPS+ of 126. In his second year, he posted an OPS of .820 and an OPS+ of 117. His OPS improved but his OPS+ decreased. What does that tell you? Did Mookie get better or worse from year one to year two?

 

The answer of course id that while Mookie did improve a little, but the league around him improved more.

[Bellhorn04]

That may be the Crown Jewel of the whole discussion.

 

Who you gonna believe, those statistics or your own lyin' eyes?

 

IMO the problem with advanced fielding metrics for the average fan is that they lack transparency-in fact they're pretty much invisible.

 

If you want to find exactly why JBJ's UZR is what it is this season, good luck with that.

 

With hitting and pitching stats the event logs are right at your fingertips.

 

Or am I wrong about this?

[Maxbialystock]

I didn't mean for you too retype the entire thing. A link or a mention of a thread would have worked for me

 

 

But more important, it's really a hypothesis built on other hypothesis and extrapolated. I can't rip it since I don't have a counter-theory, but that also doesn't make it fact...

 

It absolutely is not a fact. More of an hypothesis. I do think pitching is crucial to the defense as evidence by the expenditure of huge amounts of money for that one position and the 12 guys who fill it. Our highest paid player is a pitcher. Our closer makes more than Betts or Beni or JBJ or Devers or Bogie or Nunez or Vaz or Moreland. And they have all played many, many more innings than Kimbrel has.

 

So 80% could be wrong, but I don't think by much.

 

Plus I have a big caveat in there when I point out that in fact JBJ has played in a lot of games this year despite the execrable OPS. Clearly Cora values his defense. But he has also "rested" JBJ because his weak bat exacerbates the weak hitting in the bottom of the order.

[Bellhorn04]

Many of us have seen enough players to recognize excellence when we see it. It's like what Potter Stewart said about pornography. I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

 

I've never quite understood why this quote is used so often. Pornography is really not that difficult to define.

[Maxbialystock]

Defense does start with pitching. You could have the best defense in baseball, but if your pitchers are walking the park or allowing balls to be hit out, it isn't useful. That being said, pitching relies on the defense and a bad defense will ruin good pitching. I wouldn't say it's an 80/20 split. If it was, then you'd expect a pitcher to control the outcome 80% of the time. I don't know of a pitcher that controls 80% of their at bats (ie strikeouts or pop outs).

 

Of course the pitcher doesn't control 80% of the at bats because none of them get 80% of their outs via K's. But good pitchers only have to ensure that the hitter does not hit a round ball with a round bat squarely. Good sinker ball pitchers can induce grounders which are good for the defense more often than not. And there are no pitchers anywhere that don't love to see popups. Most grounders and most popups are routine plays and not a challenge for the defense.

[mvp 78]

I've never quite understood why this quote is used so often. Pornography is really not that difficult to define.

 

Yeah, it’s a dumb quote.

[Slasher9]

UN confused bWAR with fWAR. On B-R.com, if you hover over dWAR, they explain it as being compared to league average...

oh I believe you. I just find it f***ing comical that UN tried to berate S5 for not understanding a stat and the dude didn't even know what the f*** he was talking about. you cant make this s*** up.....

[Slasher9]

The Red Sox under Francona also had stretches of mediocre to bad baseball.

 

As moon has pointed out, the 2004 Sox played .500 ball for 3 months running!

 

If that doesn't convince you not to overreact to a few weeks of it, I don't know what will.

I don't need convincing. it was more about noting the over reaction some posters had to Cora and his managing skills.

he is a rookie manager that will make rookie mistakes. and he seems smart enough to learn from them. although his baserunners still make more mistakes than my 12U players.....

[illinoisredsox]

Yeah, it’s a dumb quote.

 

Actually, it's not. The dictionary definition is easy; saying x or y is this or that isn't. What you perceive as porn or art or whatever may not match what I think those are.

 

I have little use for modern art; I just don't get it. I would not even define it as art. But others don't see it that way. And that's fine.

[Slasher9]

And my argument ABSOUTELY DOES NOT completely come down to statistics. You proposed that dWAR was useless because you did not agree with one conclusion.

 

if I may. that claim was made under false information. Dwar was deemed useless when it was stated as fact (by UN) that JBj's Dwar of 0.0 was AAAA replacement level. no one is arguing that his D may be MLB 50% level.

[mvp 78]

Actually, it's not. The dictionary definition is easy; saying x or y is this or that isn't. What you perceive as porn or art or whatever may not match what I think those are.

 

I have little use for modern art; I just don't get it. I would not even define it as art. But others don't see it that way. And that's fine.

 

Nah. It’s dumb.

[notin]

I've never quite understood why this quote is used so often. Pornography is really not that difficult to define.

 

It could be looked at as Stewart saying his opinion supersedes any definition of the word. Frankly, I think it was very arrogant of him to think he alone had the ability to determine what was and what was not pornography...

[Slasher9]

pornography is just a word. like love or clutch....

[mvp 78]

if I may. that claim was made under false information. Dwar was deemed useless when it was stated as fact (by UN) that JBj's Dwar of 0.0 was AAAA replacement level. no one is arguing that his D may be MLB 50% level.

 

He’s a top 10 defensive CFer. I think Hicks, Pillar and Keirmaeir are as good if not better. Much better than Adam Jones tho.

[mvp 78]

pornography is just a word. like love or clutch....

 

Then everything is just a word. Baseball is just a word. Water is just a word.

[Slasher9]

Then everything is just a word. Baseball is just a word. Water is just a word.

 

sorry. random Matrix Reloaded reference.

[notin]

if I may. that claim was made under false information. Dwar was deemed useless when it was stated as fact (by UN) that JBj's Dwar of 0.0 was AAAA replacement level. no one is arguing that his D may be MLB 50% level.

 

Actually S5 said it was "Possbile. not probably but possible."

 

The claim that it was inaccurate also came before UN's statement. Go back to page 68 of this thread and see...

Edited May 16, 2018 by notin

[moonslav59]

He’s a top 10 defensive CFer. I think Hicks, Pillar and Keirmaeir are as good if not better. Much better than Adam Jones tho.

 

It's hard to know for sure, based on personal observations, since we only see other CF'ers a few times a year.

 

I'd put Cain equal to JBJ, at least.

 

Michael Taylor, Byron Buxton and Juan Lagares are surely equal, at worst.

 

Add the three you mention and we're up to 7 who are equal or better.

 

I'd have no problem with anyone calling JBJ the 8th best in MLB, and to me, that doesn't mean he's not great anymore.

 

Here are the CF'er fangraphs has better than JBJ in UZR/150 or DRS from 2017-2018:

 

UZR/150 CF'er DRS

11.2 Zimmer 4

10.8 J Dyson 12

10.3 Hamilton 12

7.2 Almora 3

5.6 Herrera 7

5.6 Springer 7

5.5 Margot 12

5.5 Pollock 12

4.3 JBJ 8

3.7 L Cain 10

 

There's 5 on this list with a better UZR/150 AND DRS. I wouldn't argue thery're any worse than JBJ.

 

That might place JBJ tied with 8 or 14th. If one argued he was 14th, that would put him around the "mean number", but that doesn't mean he's "average" or not a great defender.

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by moonslav59

[Slasher9]

Go back to page 68 of this thread and see...

 

fair enough. is it also possible that the "watcher" is biased?

[notin]

fair enough. is it also possible that the "watcher" is biased?

 

Well, if dWAR is calculated like UZR for Fangraphs defensive component, outs are compared against defined zones, giving the basis of a standard. And allowing for players to make "out of zone" plays that help their UZR and defensive rating.

 

I am not sure how many people do the observations, but certainly multiple observers would counter any bias. However what none of these ratings can account for with outfielders is the height of the flyball. Not all flyballs that land 390 feet from home plate follow the same trajectory.

 

Of course, I have no idea how anyone watching at home would account for this, either...