A Realistic View at 2019: Part II

[S5Dewey]

 

Unless you really know how good every other CF'er is, you can't say JBJ's defense is above "replacement level value.

 

That's such a bogus argument. To carry that farther, unless someone has seen every Little Leaguer play they can't say that JBJ is better than all the Little Leaguers. Or the T-Ball players. Or the 4-year olds playing toss with their dads in their back yards. Unless you've seen them you can't say that JBJ is better than they are.

 

There's a certain assumption that goes along with a player's being good enough to play Major League Baseball.

 

You're better than that argument, Moon.

[Slasher9]

What is replacement level defense in CF, this year?

 

It could be great defense, if we have 30 excellent defensive CF'er. (Just a hypothetical- not a statement of fact.)

 

Unless you really know how good every other CF'er is, you can't say JBJ's defense is above "replacement level value."

 

Nobody...not 1 CFer is tracking the flight of these new baseballs off the bat very well. It is affecting someone like JBj who instinctively runs to a spot a bit more then ball trackers but to even insinuate JBj is no better then replacement level defense is (i’ll Let you fill in this blank)

[dgalehouse]

What I want to know is ; concerning these folks who are ( allegedly ) watching every pitch of every game to figure out the UZR ratings : Where are they ? And , are they being held against their will ?

[notin]

That could be part of their long range ( 18 year ) plan .

 

Wait until they hire their new “Special Assistant” Mike Trout...

[harmony]

Red Sox fans are ready for an exciting finish.

 

The Sox are going to shock the world.

 

Harmony, be prepared to be shocked!

FanGraphs gives the Red Sox a 53.3 percent chance of advancing to the postseason while FiveThirtyEight has the Sox chances at 38 percent:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-mlb-predictions/

 

An exciting finish indeed.

[Bellhorn04]

What I want to know is ; concerning these folks who are ( allegedly ) watching every pitch of every game to figure out the UZR ratings : Where are they ? And , are they being held against their will ?

 

LOL I'm sure they have lots of people.

[moonslav59]

That's such a bogus argument. To carry that farther, unless someone has seen every Little Leaguer play they can't say that JBJ is better than all the Little Leaguers. Or the T-Ball players. Or the 4-year olds playing toss with their dads in their back yards. Unless you've seen them you can't say that JBJ is better than they are.

 

There's a certain assumption that goes along with a player's being good enough to play Major League Baseball.

 

You're better than that argument, Moon.

 

I'm a huge JBJ fan.

 

I'm a huge defense fan, especially up the middle.

 

I love JBJ's defense, but I don't think he is the best CF'er in MLB. I'm not even sure if he's top 10 anymore. I would think, based on my own observations, which is severely limited on non Sox CF'er observations, he is top 20, but I'm not sure. I see a lot of very good to great CF'ers these days. Many are making great plays against us. Perhaps JBJ has slipped to the bottom 10, which may mean he is close to "replacement" level on defense. Many AAAA OF'ers' only skill is defense.

 

IMO, JBJ's defense is still better than "replacement," but I think it has slipped. The dWAR and UZR/150 numbers are flawed, but they are still better than my own opinion. That doesn't mean I think they are right on everything. I have always claimed they are not perfect.

 

I stick to my point, and I don't think little leaguers are as good as JBJ, but my guess is many AAA CF'ers can field very very well.

Edited July 15, 2019 by moonslav59

[Bellhorn04]

I'm a huge JBJ fan.

 

I'm a huge defense fan, especially up the middle.

 

I love JBJ's defense, but I don't think he is the best CF'er in MLB. I'm not even sure if he's top 10.

 

He did finish 4th, 5th and 6th in the Fielding Bible rankings the last 3 seasons.

[moonslav59]

I think I read somewhere that 3 year sample sizes should be used when looking at UZR/150.

 

Of the 22 CF'ers with 1500+ innings, JBJ ranks 8th at +4.5.

 

I see several OF'er below him that are very good fielders from what I know.

[moonslav59]

He did finish 4th, 5th and 6th in the Fielding Bible rankings the last 3 seasons.

 

That's a lot of knowledgeable people who think he has been top 6. It will be interesting to see where they rank him this year.

 

BTW, while I have respect for the fielding bible, none of them see every CF play every game and play.

 

notin pointed out some defects in the metric, most notably that Betts takes some tough plays away from JBJ, and the wall on the other side as well. I'm not trying to claim the UZR/150 numbers are completely accurate. My point is I trust their numbers more than my own eyes, because my eyes have seen just 162 games a year of other CF'ers, and that is a wildly small and unbalanced sample size.

 

How good a replacement level player is on defense is directly related to how good the 30 players are at this moment in time. The fact is, JBJ could probably be replaced by an excellent defensive AAA player who may hit .100 in MLB and not be missed on defense.

[moonslav59]

With Nunez gone, there is one less out-of-options player on the 25 man roster.

 

Future choices:

 

Eovaldi up- Weber down

 

Johnson up- Walden down

 

Moreland up- Travis down

 

These all look simple. If we trade for a pen arm, a tougher choice may need to be made, unless we include Johnson in the deal.

[S5Dewey]

 

How good a replacement level player is on defense is directly related to how good the 30 players are at this moment in time. The fact is, JBJ could probably be replaced by an excellent defensive AAA player who may hit .100 in MLB and not be missed on defense.[/b]

 

What? How do they determine what a replacement player's value is? Are you suggesting that the "quality" of a replacement player increases because the quality of the ML players does?

 

Doesn't a replacement player have to be worse than the worst player in MLB? How much worse?

[moonslav59]

What? How do they determine what a replacement player's value is? Are you suggesting that the "quality" of a replacement player increases because the quality of the ML players does?

 

Doesn't a replacement player have to be worse than the worst player in MLB? How much worse?

 

I'm assuming, yes. Plus, since most positions have negative WAR players among the bottom 5 or 6 players at each position, one could argue there are several MLB players playing below the level of replacement.

 

We were just talking about dWAR and defense, though, and I'm assuming there are a ton of minor league players that are excellent fielders but never make it to the bigs, because they can't hit. It's hard to know what a "replacement level defender" is, because it doesn't really make sense. Are we talking about the average defensive skill level of AAAA players?

 

The worst players are below replacement level, if their WAR is below zero, and there are many starting players below zero right now.

 

It takes 180 PAs to get to 270 "qualifying" players (30 teams x 9 starters), and out of the 270 players on the list, 64 have a negative WAR and 70 are at 0 or below.

 

According to fangraphs, 148 player have a negative dWAR, so maybe they set dWAR with zero as average not replacement level.

[S5Dewey]

I'm assuming, yes. Plus, since most positions have negative WAR players among the bottom 5 or 6 players at each position, one could argue there are several MLB players playing below the level of replacement.

 

We were just talking about dWAR and defense, though, and I'm assuming there are a ton of minor league players that are excellent fielders but never make it to the bigs, because they can't hit. It's hard to know what a "replacement level defender" is, because it doesn't really make sense. Are we talking about the average defensive skill level of AAAA players?

 

The worst players are below replacement level, if their WAR is below zero, and there are many starting players below zero right now.

 

It takes 180 PAs to get to 270 "qualifying" players (30 teams x 9 starters), and out of the 270 players on the list, 64 have a negative WAR and 70 are at 0 or below.

 

According to fangraphs, 148 player have a negative dWAR, so maybe they set dWAR with zero as average not replacement level.

 

This is what drives me nutso about WAR, and dWAR in particular. There has to be a formula for determining what a replacement player is and essentially nobody knows what it is. We don't even know the benchmark.

 

In addition the formula for calculating WAR is so long-winded that again essentially nobody knows how to calculate it. For all we know someone may be just throwing a bunch of numbers at us and we (or some of us) are buying into it.

 

And I don't care what anybody says, when someone is rating something the result is subjective.

[harmony]

This is what drives me nutso about WAR, and dWAR in particular. There has to be a formula for determining what a replacement player is and essentially nobody knows what it is. We don't even know the benchmark.

 

In addition the formula for calculating WAR is so long-winded that again essentially nobody knows how to calculate it. For all we know someone may be just throwing a bunch of numbers at us and we (or some of us) are buying into it.

 

And I don't care what anybody says, when someone is rating something the result is subjective.

https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/replacement-level/

[devildavid]

Red Sox fans are ready for an exciting finish.

 

The Sox are going to shock the world.

 

Harmony, be prepared to be shocked!

 

I'm afraid the real shock may be to optimistic fans like you. I'm starting to think that the Sox won't even make it into the postseason. They just don't have it this season. I didn't think they would struggle like this, but I don't see any signs that they are going to suddenly start hitting on all cylinders.

[moonslav59]

This is what drives me nutso about WAR, and dWAR in particular. There has to be a formula for determining what a replacement player is and essentially nobody knows what it is. We don't even know the benchmark.

 

In addition the formula for calculating WAR is so long-winded that again essentially nobody knows how to calculate it. For all we know someone may be just throwing a bunch of numbers at us and we (or some of us) are buying into it.

 

And I don't care what anybody says, when someone is rating something the result is subjective.

 

It is subjective to a large degree, but I trust a subjective analysis by a group of unbiased, trained and calibrated people who watch every play of every game vs myself, who only watches Sox games and the players we face on those particular game days.

 

I'm not saying I will always agree with their numbers 100%, but I'll believe them over any single person, including myself.

 

If they have JBJ ranked 24th on defense this year, I may scratch my head, but I can't say I am certain they are wrong, because I don't know how good the other 23 guys are. I know enough to think 10-12 might be better in any given year, but some of the others I don't know jack about and may never have seen them make one play- let alone enough plays to make a definitive judgement.

 

I'm satisfied with their 3 year ranking, which is what they recommend we use for comparative judgments.

[S5Dewey]

It is subjective to a large degree, but I trust a subjective analysis by a group of unbiased, trained and calibrated people who watch every play of every game vs myself, who only watches Sox games and the players we face on those particular game days.

 

I'm not saying I will always agree with their numbers 100%, but I'll believe them over any single person, including myself.

 

If they have JBJ ranked 24th on defense this year, I may scratch my head, but I can't say I am certain they are wrong, because I don't know how good the other 23 guys are. I know enough to think 10-12 might be better in any given year, but some of the others I don't know jack about and may never have seen them make one play- let alone enough plays to make a definitive judgement.

 

I'm satisfied with their 3 year ranking, which is what they recommend we use for comparative judgments.

 

The thing is, I don't really care if he's the best CF'er in the AL or in baseball. JBJ is what he is and I like having him in a Red Sox uniform. He's just the poster child for what's wrong with dWAR so I used him as an example and here's what's wrong with it: They're foisting off their opinion that JBJ is only marginally better than a "replacement player" without defining what a replacement player is.

 

Maybe Bryce Brentz is a "replacement player outfielder" ...or maybe it's Kevin Pillar. We don't know because "they" haven't defined 'replacement player'. I *think* we can dismiss the idea that a replacement player is an average player because if they'd meant average they'd have said "average". Therefore IMHO a replacement player is one who isn't as good as an average player. Their trying to convince me that JBJ isn't as good as - or only marginally better than - someone who's not even average is something I find to be insulting. You should too.

 

In addition it points out the problem with dWAR and stat geeks refuse to even acknowledge that the problem exists. That's because once they admit that there are serious problems with dWAR they're opening a whole can of worms they don't want opened because... where do those issues with dWAR stop? And they're so invested in WAR now that they need to save face. So it's easier to just accept WAR on blind faith.

 

Again...

WAR is the triumph of statistics over logic.

[harmony]

The thing is, I don't really care if he's the best CF'er in the AL or in baseball. JBJ is what he is and I like having him in a Red Sox uniform. He's just the poster child for what's wrong with dWAR so I used him as an example and here's what's wrong with it: They're foisting off their opinion that JBJ is only marginally better than a "replacement player" without defining what a replacement player is.

 

Maybe Bryce Brentz is a "replacement player outfielder" ...or maybe it's Kevin Pillar. We don't know because "they" haven't defined 'replacement player'. I *think* we can dismiss the idea that a replacement player is an average player because if they'd meant average they'd have said "average". Therefore IMHO a replacement player is one who isn't as good as an average player. Their trying to convince me that JBJ isn't as good as - or only marginally better than - someone who's not even average is something I find to be insulting. You should too.

 

In addition it points out the problem with dWAR and stat geeks refuse to even acknowledge that the problem exists. That's because once they admit that there are serious problems with dWAR they're opening a whole can of worms they don't want opened because... where do those issues with dWAR stop? And they're so invested in WAR now that they need to save face. So it's easier to just accept WAR on blind faith.

 

Again...

WAR is the triumph of statistics over logic.

https://library.fangraphs.com/the-beginners-guide-to-replacement-level/

[Bellhorn04]

In addition it points out the problem with dWAR and stat geeks refuse to even acknowledge that the problem exists. That's because once they admit that there are serious problems with dWAR they're opening a whole can of worms they don't want opened because... where do those issues with dWAR stop? And they're so invested in WAR now that they need to save face. So it's easier to just accept WAR on blind faith.

 

Again...

WAR is the triumph of statistics over logic.

 

For defensive ratings that mean anything you only have two choices - WAR analytical stuff or eyeball stuff.

 

As flawed as WAR stuff may be, the idea that eyeball stuff is better is kind of a joke IMHO

[notin]

The thing is, I don't really care if he's the best CF'er in the AL or in baseball. JBJ is what he is and I like having him in a Red Sox uniform. He's just the poster child for what's wrong with dWAR so I used him as an example and here's what's wrong with it: They're foisting off their opinion that JBJ is only marginally better than a "replacement player" without defining what a replacement player is.

 

Maybe Bryce Brentz is a "replacement player outfielder" ...or maybe it's Kevin Pillar. We don't know because "they" haven't defined 'replacement player'. I *think* we can dismiss the idea that a replacement player is an average player because if they'd meant average they'd have said "average". Therefore IMHO a replacement player is one who isn't as good as an average player. Their trying to convince me that JBJ isn't as good as - or only marginally better than - someone who's not even average is something I find to be insulting. You should too.

 

In addition it points out the problem with dWAR and stat geeks refuse to even acknowledge that the problem exists. That's because once they admit that there are serious problems with dWAR they're opening a whole can of worms they don't want opened because... where do those issues with dWAR stop? And they're so invested in WAR now that they need to save face. So it's easier to just accept WAR on blind faith.

 

Again...

WAR is the triumph of statistics over logic.

 

Jackie Bradley ranks 3rd in MLB in innings played in CF this season.

 

In that time, he ranks 8th in Balls in Zone and 8th in plays. So right away, his opportunities are limited compared to other center fielders.

 

Defensive metrics like UZR and dWAR also give significant credit to plays made out of zone. With 40 OOZ plays, Bradley ranks 14th out of 17 qualified center fielders. The man standing in RF ranks fourth in OOZ plays, taking a significant amount away from Bradley. As several other center fielders don’t have the “handicap” of an elite defender in RF taking their plays, they benefit. It’s not a flaw. It’s a measure of accomplishments, not ability.

 

What JBJ’s reduced defensive metric is saying is that he has not been as involved in CF as many others around the league. His innings are high, but his opportunities relative to those innings to make routine plays are below average, and his opportunities to make elite defensive plays are very low.

 

Again, these stats are measures of accomplishments, not ability. Basically Bradley isn’t getting any credit for standing in CF while other fielders make plays.

 

If you are a believer in lineup protection, and that certain hitters get pitched around and it negatively affects their offensive stats, it’s a similar concept - reduced opportunity. If a hitter struggles while getting pitched around, is he a worse hitter than one who repeatedly crushes meatballs?

 

Again, this is not a flaw...

Edited July 16, 2019 by notin

[moonslav59]

Jackie Bradley ranks 3rd in MLB in innings played in CF this season.

 

In that time, he ranks 8th in Balls in Zone and 8th in plays. So right away, his opportunities are limited compared to other center fielders.

 

Defensive metrics like UZR and dWAR also give significant credit to plays made out of zone. With 40 OOZ plays, Bradley ranks 14th out of 17 qualified center fielders. The man standing in RF ranks fourth in OOZ plays, taking a significant amount away from Bradley. As several other center fielders don’t have the “handicap” of an elite defender in RF taking their plays, they benefit. It’s not a flaw. It’s a measure of accomplishments, not ability.

 

What JBJ’s reduced defensive metric is saying is that he has not been as involved in CF as many others around the league. His innings are high, but his opportunities relative to those innings to make routine plays are below average, and his opportunities to make elite defensive plays are very low.

 

Again, these stats are measures of accomplishments, not ability. Basically Bradley isn’t getting any credit for standing in CF while other fielders make plays.

 

If you are a believer in lineup protection, and that certain hitters get pitched around and it negatively affects their offensive stats, it’s a similar concept - reduced opportunity. If a hitter struggles while getting pitched around, is he a worse hitter than one who repeatedly crushes meatballs?

 

Again, this is not a flaw...

 

It is kind of as flaw, since JBJ loses rating because of Betts, and UZR/150 is (I believe) supposed to somewhat take away the need for a fan to have to adjust the rankings due to park, nearby fielders or what sort of pitching staff you play behind (High K, high GB, high FB, etc...).

 

I'm fine with UZR/150 and dWAR, but the fan must still make certain adjustments to make them seem more accurate or "real".

 

It is a hell of a lot better than one person's view.

[notin]

It is kind of as flaw, since JBJ loses rating because of Betts, and UZR/150 is (I believe) supposed to somewhat take away the need for a fan to have to adjust the rankings due to park, nearby fielders or what sort of pitching staff you play behind (High K, high GB, high FB, etc...).

 

I'm fine with UZR/150 and dWAR, but the fan must still make certain adjustments to make them seem more accurate or "real".

 

It is a hell of a lot better than one person's view.

 

It’s not a flaw.

 

If Bradley is less involved defensively, why should he receive more credit?

 

It’s not his fault. It’s not necessarily a reflection of his ability. But how is it a flaw?

 

If a hitter is on the bench, does it mean he’s a bad hitter? Example - Victor Caratini can hit. He’s shown it at every level. But he sits behind Willson Contreras and rarely plays. Does his lack of opportunity make him a worse hitter?

[Slasher9]

It is subjective to a large degree, but I trust a subjective analysis by a group of unbiased, trained and calibrated people who watch every play of every game vs myself, who only watches Sox games and the players we face on those particular game days.

 

I'm not saying I will always agree with their numbers 100%, but I'll believe them over any single person, including myself.

 

If they have JBJ ranked 24th on defense this year, I may scratch my head, but I can't say I am certain they are wrong, because I don't know how good the other 23 guys are. I know enough to think 10-12 might be better in any given year, but some of the others I don't know jack about and may never have seen them make one play- let alone enough plays to make a definitive judgement.

 

I'm satisfied with their 3 year ranking, which is what they recommend we use for comparative judgments.

 

Lol. Who says they are unbiased?

Who says they are well trained?

A replacement player is worse then every major league player. If you think JBj’s defense is worse then that guy I don’t know what to say....

[Slasher9]

It’s not a flaw.

 

If Bradley is less involved defensively, why should he receive more credit?

 

It’s not his fault. It’s not necessarily a reflection of his ability. But how is it a flaw?

 

If a hitter is on the bench, does it mean he’s a bad hitter? Example - Victor Caratini can hit. He’s shown it at every level. But he sits behind Willson Contreras and rarely plays. Does his lack of opportunity make him a worse hitter?

 

 

Yes. Hitting is a skill that requires repetition.

[S5Dewey]

https://library.fangraphs.com/the-beginners-guide-to-replacement-level/

 

Aha. Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you!

 

According to Fangraphs, "Replacement level is simply the level of production you could get from a player that would cost you nothing but the league minimum salary to acquire. Minor league free agents, quad-A players, you get the idea."

 

Fangraphs now has JBJ's dWAR @ -0.4, IOW he's not as valuable as one of those guys described above. You can call up a AAAA outfielder and actually GAIN defensively. What could possibly be inaccurate about that, right?

 

The bigger picture is that this not only applies to JBJ but to every outfielder in baseball. I think we can all agree that there's a flaw there but since we don't know where that flaw is fangraph's dWAR calculation could very well be bogus regarding every outfielder in baseball. I mean, it's highly unlikely that whatever is "wrong" with JBJ's calculation only pertains to him, right?

 

In addition, there are at least 5 (that I know of) sources who calculate WAR and they can't even agree on it! Think of it this way. If you were looking for a car to give you the best gas mileage and every manufacturer calculated MPG differently which car would you buy based on mileage?

 

I'm not saying WAR is useless. It's very good at telling us what we already know. When we see a player with a WAR of 5.0 and another player of 0.0 it's pretty safe to assume that the 5.0 guy is a better player than the 0.0 guy. When we see a player with a WAR of 1.0 and another player with a WAR of 1.2 we can see that those two players are about equal - but we already knew that! But when they try to convince me that JBJ is worse defensively than a freakin' replacement player I'm going to challenge it... every time!

 

I may be old and my eyes failing a bit but my ability to recognize the obvious is still intact.

[notin]

Yes. Hitting is a skill that requires repetition.

 

Well, hitting is enhanced by repetition. Which is one reason why we dismiss a player who is 3 for 10 as less than a hitter who is 30 for 100 with the caveat of “small sample size.” Now certainly it could be the case - one lucky hit, etc. But we don’t know if the hitting abilities are different. And we then resort to using past accomplishments in the form of statistics to draw a conclusion...

[Kimmi]

I'm afraid the real shock may be to optimistic fans like you. I'm starting to think that the Sox won't even make it into the postseason. They just don't have it this season. I didn't think they would struggle like this, but I don't see any signs that they are going to suddenly start hitting on all cylinders.

 

Possibly, but the season isn't over yet. There's still plenty of baseball to be played. I believe the Sox are going to go on that great run that we've all been waiting for. I may be disappointed, but it wouldn't be the first time.

[S5Dewey]

It’s not a flaw.

 

If Bradley is less involved defensively, why should he receive more credit?

 

It’s not his fault. It’s not necessarily a reflection of his ability. But how is it a flaw?

 

 

This is the problem with the stat-driven "trained observers". If a ball is hit 50' to JBJ's left, he runs to the spot and waits for the ball, and another OF'er has a ball hit 50' to his left and he catches it on the run they both get credit for being able to catch up with a ball hit 50' to their left.

Statistically these two players are equal.

 

The problem isn't in the formula. It's in the stat driven "trained observers" who are more interested in accurately reporting the fact that the ball was caught than in the fact that JBJ is obviously the better player because he was waiting for the ball.

[notin]

Aha. Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you!

 

According to Fangraphs, "Replacement level is simply the level of production you could get from a player that would cost you nothing but the league minimum salary to acquire. Minor league free agents, quad-A players, you get the idea."

 

Fangraphs now has JBJ's dWAR @ -0.4, IOW he's not as valuable as one of those guys described above. You can call up a AAAA outfielder and actually GAIN defensively. What could possibly be inaccurate about that, right?

 

The bigger picture is that this not only applies to JBJ but to every outfielder in baseball. I think we can all agree that there's a flaw there but since we don't know where that flaw is fangraph's dWAR calculation could very well be bogus regarding every outfielder in baseball. I mean, it's highly unlikely that whatever is "wrong" with JBJ's calculation only pertains to him, right?

 

In addition, there are at least 5 (that I know of) sources who calculate WAR and they can't even agree on it! Think of it this way. If you were looking for a car to give you the best gas mileage and every manufacturer calculated MPG differently which car would you buy based on mileage?

 

I'm not saying WAR is useless. It's very good at telling us what we already know. When we see a player with a WAR of 5.0 and another player of 0.0 it's pretty safe to assume that the 5.0 guy is a better player than the 0.0 guy. When we see a player with a WAR of 1.0 and another player with a WAR of 1.2 we can see that those two players are about equal - but we already knew that! But when they try to convince me that JBJ is worse defensively than a freakin' replacement player I'm going to challenge it... every time!

 

I may be old and my eyes failing a bit but my ability to recognize the obvious is still intact.

 

Actually what his WAR is saying this year is that since not as many balls are hit to CF against Boston, and because Betts is taking command of many plays, Bradley might be defensive overkill for this year’s Sox team.

 

If the Sox had Kiermeier in CF, his defensive rating would suffer, too, due to the limited opportunities...