A Realistic View at 2022: Part I

[notin]

I was responding to the "Ugh factor."

 

Yeah the Ugh Factor is what sabermetrics dispelled…

[notin]

Yes, because back then, I valued RF/9.

 

RF/9 favored B…

[moonslav59]

RF/9 favored B…

 

That was my point.

[notin]

That was my point.

 

 

Of course this was a rare situation where RF/9 would have actually been useful. 100 identical groundballs just doesn’t happen often enough. Anyone using errors and old fashioned fielding percentage would have been able to make a really good argument for A…

[moonslav59]

Of course this was a rare situation where RF/9 would have actually been useful. 100 identical groundballs just doesn’t happen often enough. Anyone using errors and old fashioned fielding percentage would have been able to make a really good argument for A…

 

Many knew fldg% was highly flawed long ago.

[notin]

Many knew fldg% was highly flawed long ago.

 

But in, say, 1990, what else was there for defensive stats? There was errors and fielding percentage. That’s pretty much it

[moonslav59]

But in, say, 1990, what else was there for defensive stats? There was errors and fielding percentage. That’s pretty much it

 

Fans still knew some players had greater range and made more plays.

 

They could and did look at POs and Assists.

 

I'm not sure exactly when RF/9 became a tool.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Yeah the Ugh Factor is what sabermetrics dispelled…

 

I prefer offered a quantifiable perspective. I always try to consider qualitative data, as well, whenever possible... however, there are effects beyond what can be measured and/or observed: a bad E extends the inning, and costs a pitcher X more throws, and we may see the guy grimace, stomp around the mound, swear into his glove, and maybe bounce or heave one into the backstop. But what about the pitcher who keeps a straight face...

 

... how is he really feeling inside? Is he determined to bail out or blame his teammate? Same with the other players on the field or in the dugout; yes, they're professionals, but they're also young men with egos...

 

Baseball is a unique team sport: the sum deeds of isolated individuals.

[Bellhorn04]

Baseball is a unique team sport: the sum deeds of isolated individuals.

 

For the sake of argument, how are baseball players more isolated than football players?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

For the sake of argument, how are baseball players more isolated than football players?

 

If I'm running with the football trying to score, I might have 10 teammates blocking opponents trying to stop me...

 

... and hopefully, trying to stop them from maiming me (that is, if my teammates like me).

 

In baseball, if I'm running around the bases trying to score, all my team can do is cheer for me (or swear at me or laugh at me).

[Bellhorn04]

If I'm running with the football trying to score, I might have 10 teammates blocking opponents trying to stop me...

 

... and hopefully, trying to stop them from maiming me (that is, if my teammates like me).

 

In baseball, if I'm running around the bases trying to score, all my team can do is cheer for me (or swear at me or laugh at me).

 

That's true, but in football you can also be all alone plenty of times, like a defensive back trying to cover Gronk or tackle him, for example.

 

As Belichick said "Do your job". If a football player isn't doing his individual job, it might not get noticed as much by the fans, but it sure as heck gets noticed by the coaches and other players.

[Old Red]

Fans still knew some players had greater range and made more plays.

 

They could and did look at POs and Assists.

 

I'm not sure exactly when RF/9 became a tool.

 

Like I have said so many times, but with way to many stats out there today the best test is still the eye test.

[notin]

Like I have said so many times, but with way to many stats out there today the best test is still the eye test.

 

 

Too often with defense the eye test turns into “I saw that guy make a couple errors.”

 

What holds me back from thinking my eye test has much validity is the camera angles and TV practices. I can’t see if an outfielder gets a good jump or how much ground he can cover if no one shifts the active camera to him until the batted ball is still on its way…

[mvp 78]

Too often with defense the eye test turns into “I saw that guy make a couple errors.”

 

What holds me back from thinking my eye test has much validity is the camera angles and TV practices. I can’t see if an outfielder gets a good jump or how much ground he can cover if no one shifts the active camera to him until the batted ball is still on its way…

 

Yes, unless you are at every game and have good seats, the eye test is just a way to backup your personal opinion without providing evidence.

[Nick]

Quick question.

Tanner Houck has 100 days of service. Under the old CBA, Sox would still have 6 years of team control correct? Maybe 4 arbitrations?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Too often with defense the eye test turns into “I saw that guy make a couple errors.”

 

What holds me back from thinking my eye test has much validity is the camera angles and TV practices. I can’t see if an outfielder gets a good jump or how much ground he can cover if no one shifts the active camera to him until the batted ball is still on its way…

 

Good point, and it may help explain how Cal Ripken played every game of the Orioles' 1990 season at shortstop and only made 3 errors. Pre-pitch positioning -- not from analytics depts, but knowing the batter and what pitch the battery is planning -- were a big part of his game. Gold Glove voters, however, weren't impressed with Cal's acumen... awarding the GG to Ozzie Guillen and his 17 Es. There are your A and B guys...

 

There are visual cues that we can learn if we watch enough. For example, sometime in 2022 when there's an actual Red Sox game, if an opponent smashes a high drive and you see Jackie Bradley jogging in the gap, you can make an 8 on your scorecard and circle it. It also means he got a great jump...

[moonslav59]

For the sake of argument, how are baseball players more isolated than football players?

 

They stand farther apart. Many plays do not involve any help from other players.

 

The batter stands apart from his teammates, and they have little influence on what he does.

 

It's pitcher vs batter.

 

Batter vs fielder.

 

Runner vs fielder.

 

Lot's of one-on-ones.

[moonslav59]

Like I have said so many times, but with way to many stats out there today the best test is still the eye test.

 

The problem is nobody watched every play of every game, so how can anyone's eyes tell them A is better than B without proper sample sizes and a keen sense of focus?

[jad]

Or the "eye test" is simply erroneous. I have often heard announcers talk about how bad an outfielder is because he didn't take a 'direct path' to the ball. However, the reason outfielders do not do this, (as some prof. fielders have noted) is because it is easier to track the ball if you take an indirect ('curved'?) path to it.

[Bellhorn04]

They stand farther apart. Many plays do not involve any help from other players.

 

The batter stands apart from his teammates, and they have little influence on what he does.

 

It's pitcher vs batter.

 

Batter vs fielder.

 

Runner vs fielder.

 

Lot's of one-on-ones.

 

Football involves a ton of one-on-one battles.

[moonslav59]

Football involves a ton of one-on-one battles.

 

Yes, but every play involves the O and D lines setting up the one on ones.

 

Baseball has double plays and assists, but most assists involve very little effort from one of the two fielders involved.

 

They also have the pitcher-catcher relationship that is highly dependent of both players working as one, but to me, football is much more a non-individual sport.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, but every play involves the O and D lines setting up the one on ones.

 

Baseball has double plays and assists, but most assists involve very little effort from one of the two fielders involved.

 

They also have the pitcher-catcher relationship that is highly dependent of both players working as one, but to me, football is much more a non-individual sport.

 

Well, just remember this the next time someone talks about Red Sox pitchers being let down by their defense this year, BAbip against and all that.

[Old Red]

The problem is nobody watched every play of every game, so how can anyone's eyes tell them A is better than B without proper sample sizes and a keen sense of focus?

 

I watch enough to tell me that Bogey does not have lots of range. I don’t need anything else to tell me any different. You like all the analytics, and I do not, so everyone has a different view, or a different need to tell them something that happens, or is going on.

[Bellhorn04]

I watch enough to tell me that Bogey does not have lots of range. I don’t need anything else to tell me any different. You like all the analytics, and I do not, so everyone has a different view, or a different need to tell them something that happens, or is going on.

 

OK, so you're a more observant than average fan.

 

For years people assumed Jeter was an elite shortstop because he made the plays that he got to, but the advanced stats showed his range was poor. That didn't prevent him from winning a lot of Gold Gloves.

[moonslav59]

Well, just remember this the next time someone talks about Red Sox pitchers being let down by their defense this year, BAbip against and all that.

 

That's the batter vs fielder aspect of one on one.

[moonslav59]

I watch enough to tell me that Bogey does not have lots of range. I don’t need anything else to tell me any different. You like all the analytics, and I do not, so everyone has a different view, or a different need to tell them something that happens, or is going on.

 

It's all relative, though, isn't it?

 

If every other SS in MLB had the same or worse range than Bogey, it would not be a negative aspect of his total value. We need to know how good evry SS is to really get a full sense of Bogey's defensive values.

 

We watch the Sox opposing SSs and get a feel for what "others" do, but not really a large enough sample size, through just observations, to know Bogey has better or worse range than many SSs we see.

 

That being said, I do agree that it is noticeable that Bogey has limited range, and the stats and metrics support that observation, but what happens when our observed factors differ from the metrics and data?

 

No one person watched every play made by every SS in MLB, everyday. It's impossible for one person to fully grasp what the exact average range is for MLB SSs, so it's hard to know with any certainty just how far Bogey is from the norm without data complied by multiple sources.

 

None are perfect, but in the relative sense of assigning comparative value, they are better than anyone person's "eye test."

[Old Red]

It's all relative, though, isn't it?

 

If every other SS in MLB had the same or worse range than Bogey, it would not be a negative aspect of his total value. We need to know how good evry SS is to really get a full sense of Bogey's defensive values.

 

We watch the Sox opposing SSs and get a feel for what "others" do, but not really a large enough sample size, through just observations, to know Bogey has better or worse range than many SSs we see.

 

That being said, I do agree that it is noticeable that Bogey has limited range, and the stats and metrics support that observation, but what happens when our observed factors differ from the metrics and data?

 

No one person watched every play made by every SS in MLB, everyday. It's impossible for one person to fully grasp what the exact average range is for MLB SSs, so it's hard to know with any certainty just how far Bogey is from the norm without data complied by multiple sources.

 

None are perfect, but in the relative sense of assigning comparative value, they are better than anyone person's "eye test."

 

What led to your belief that Kike was the best CF the Red Sox ever had? Eye test, or analytics?

[moonslav59]

What led to your belief that Kike was the best CF the Red Sox ever had? Eye test, or analytics?

 

Eye test, and then the data did show he was having a great season- maybe not the best, on paper, in my 50 years of watching the Sox, but certainly close enough to not be a freaking opinion. (BTW, my comment was meant in the context of a single season- not career., although some career numbers make Kike look great.)

 

Red Sox CF'er since 1972 (50 years) 700+ innings

UZR/150

12.1 Kike

9.1 Crisp

6.3 JBJ

4.6 Ellsbury

3.0 Betts

-7.7 Damon

DRS

51 JBJ in 6754 innings

17 Betts in 1662 innings

14 Kike in just 716 innings

12 Ellsbury in 5218 innings

 

Best seasons by the numbers (700+ innings):

UZR/150

25.3 Crisp 2007

17.1 JBJ 2014

16.1 Ellsbury 2011

14.3 Ellsbury 2008

12.1 Kike 2021

(3 straight by JBJ follows)

DRS

16 JBJ 2014 (949 innings)

15 Crisp 2007 (1216)

14 Kike 2021 (716)

14 JBJ 2017 (1204)

14 JBJ 2016 (1376)

 

No doubt, Kike had a tremendous defensive season for the Sox in CF in 2021. TREMENDOUS!

 

Eye test

UZR/150

DRS per game

 

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by moonslav59

[Old Red]

Eye test, and then the data did show he was having a great season- maybe not the best in my 50 years of watching the Sox, but certainly close enough to not be a freaking opinion. (BTW, my comment was meant in the context of a single season- not career.)

 

Nothing wrong with that. All I’m saying is for me I could care less about analytics,, and I don’t need it, or care about it to watch anything to do with sports. I didn’t need it 60 years ago, and I don’t need it now. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with people who like it.

[moonslav59]

Nothing wrong with that. All I’m saying is for me I could care less about analytics,, and I don’t need it, or care about it to watch anything to do with sports. I didn’t need it 60 years ago, and I don’t need it now. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with people who like it.

 

The difference between saying Kike was the best Sox defensive CF'er I have seen is that I was comparing him to other CF'ers I have seen play almost every game of their careers. That's a whole lot different from saying a Sox player was the best in all of MLB. I don't watch nearly every game of every player on other teams, like I do with the Sox.

 

I do watch 162 games of other players who are facing just the Sox, but that is very far from knowing just how good other players are on other teams.

 

That is where data and metrics help me know. The eye test is still part of my determination of about where a Sox player fits in the rankings, but data plays a big role.

 

Anyone who watched Yaz in '67 "knew" he was the MVP, but would we have known that, if we saw the stat sheet show another player his .360 50 150 while winning a GG?

 

Of course, we have to look at the numbers others put up, because we don't watch them play everyday.